Eric Richardson v. Nancy Berryhill, 708 F. App'x 453

Background

Eric Richardson applied for Supplemental Security Income (Title XVI); his claim was denied by the ALJ and the Commissioner. He appealed to district court, which affirmed; Richardson appealed to the Ninth Circuit.
The ALJ assessed Richardson’s residual functional capacity (RFC) with certain mental limitations and found him not disabled.
Dr. Khaleeq, an examining psychiatrist, opined Richardson might have difficulty maintaining attendance and completing a normal workday/workweek and assigned a GAF score indicating only mild symptoms/some difficulty.
The ALJ gave only partial weight to Dr. Khaleeq’s opinions, relying on inconsistencies with the GAF score, the examiner’s own mental status exam findings, and Richardson’s demonstrated ability to perform simple tasks.
The ALJ also discounted Richardson’s subjective symptom testimony as inconsistent with objective medical evidence, treatment reports, and admissions that employment difficulty was for reasons unrelated to impairments.
The Ninth Circuit reviewed the district court’s affirmance de novo and affirmed the Commissioner’s denial of benefits.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether ALJ properly rejected portions of Dr. Khaleeq’s opinion about attendance/ability to work full schedule	Richardson argued ALJ improperly discounted an examining doctor’s opinion about his ability to maintain attendance and complete a workday/week	ALJ argued the Dr.’s limiting findings conflicted with that doctor’s GAF score, mental-status findings, and claimant’s functional performance	Held: ALJ permissibly discounted those findings with specific, legitimate reasons supported by record evidence
Whether RFC mental limitations lacked substantial evidence because ALJ relied on non-examining opinions	Richardson argued RFC relied primarily on non-examining physicians and was unsupported	Commissioner argued RFC incorporated portions of Dr. Khaleeq’s findings, non-examining opinions, and claimant testimony — constituting substantial evidence	Held: Substantial evidence supports the RFC; ALJ relied on multiple record sources
Whether ALJ properly discounted Richardson’s subjective symptom testimony	Richardson argued ALJ did not give proper weight to his reported symptoms	Commissioner argued testimony conflicted with objective medical evidence, treatment reports, and claimant’s own statements about non-medical reasons for unemployment	Held: ALJ gave specific, clear, and convincing reasons to discredit claimant’s testimony
Whether any remaining ALJ errors were harmful	Richardson argued alternative reasons were invalid or insufficient	Commissioner argued any flawed reasons were harmless because valid reasons independently support the decision	Held: Any error in remaining reasons was harmless; overall adverse credibility and denial supported by substantial evidence

Key Cases Cited

Garrison v. Colvin, 759 F.3d 995 (9th Cir. 2014) (standard for substantial evidence review and resolving conflicts in medical testimony)
Ryan v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 528 F.3d 1194 (9th Cir. 2008) (ALJ may reject controverted medical opinion with specific and legitimate reasons)
Tommasetti v. Astrue, 533 F.3d 1035 (9th Cir. 2008) (inconsistency between a doctor’s opinion and her records can justify rejection)
Vasquez v. Astrue, 572 F.3d 586 (9th Cir. 2009) (ALJ must provide specific, clear, and convincing reasons to discredit claimant’s testimony)
Parra v. Astrue, 481 F.3d 742 (9th Cir. 2007) (inconsistencies between testimony and medical evidence support discounting testimony)
Tonapetyan v. Halter, 242 F.3d 1144 (9th Cir. 2001) (inconsistent statements may undermine claimant allegations)
Batson v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 359 F.3d 1190 (9th Cir. 2004) (harmless error doctrine in credibility findings)