Evleen Notali v. Nancy Berryhill
694 F. App'x 624
9th Cir.2017Background
- Evleen Notali applied for Social Security disability benefits and was denied by the ALJ; the district court affirmed and Notali appealed to the Ninth Circuit.
- Treating physician Dr. Atul Syal provided opinion(s) indicating greater limitations; the ALJ gave those opinions "little weight."
- The ALJ found Notali’s testimony about symptom severity not credible and relied on medical records, a consultative exam by Dr. Brian Briggs, imaging (mild–moderate degenerative changes), and reports of symptom improvement with therapy.
- The Ninth Circuit majority affirmed the ALJ’s treatment-opinion analysis but concluded the ALJ erred on the credibility finding because he failed to identify which testimony he rejected and give specific, clear-and-convincing reasons.
- Because the credibility error was not harmless and this is not a rare case warranting immediate benefits, the majority vacated and remanded for further administrative proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether ALJ permissibly discounted treating physician Dr. Syal | Dr. Syal’s opinion should be given controlling or greater weight | ALJ contends opinion unsupported and contradicted by other evidence and consultative opinion | ALJ did not err; specific, legitimate reasons supported by substantial evidence |
| Whether ALJ properly rejected Notali’s symptom testimony | Notali argues ALJ failed to give specific, clear-and-convincing reasons to reject testimony | ALJ relied on objective medical evidence, consultative exam, treatment response, and daily activities to deny credibility | ALJ erred: failed to identify which testimony was rejected and to give specific, clear-and-convincing reasons |
| Remedy after administrative error | Notali seeks remand for benefits or further proceedings | Commissioner seeks affirmation or remand for further proceedings | Vacated and remanded for further administrative proceedings (no immediate award of benefits) |
| Standard for rejecting contradicted treating opinions | Treating opinion requires controlling weight unless unsupported/inconsistent | ALJ may reject if opinion unsupported or contradicted, with specific and legitimate reasons | Court affirms ALJ’s rejection where supported by lack of objective support and contrary medical opinions |
Key Cases Cited
- Bayliss v. Barnhart, 427 F.3d 1211 (9th Cir.) (standard for rejecting uncontradicted treating/examining opinions)
- Orn v. Astrue, 495 F.3d 625 (9th Cir.) (treating opinion control when supported and consistent; otherwise not controlling)
- Garrison v. Colvin, 759 F.3d 995 (9th Cir.) (requirements for rejecting contradicted treating opinions)
- Lingenfelter v. Astrue, 504 F.3d 1028 (9th Cir.) (clear-and-convincing standard for rejecting symptom testimony absent malingering)
- Smolen v. Chater, 80 F.3d 1273 (9th Cir.) (factors for credibility evaluation)
- Brown-Hunter v. Colvin, 806 F.3d 487 (9th Cir.) (ALJ must identify the testimony rejected and reasons; remand standards)
- Treichler v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 775 F.3d 1090 (9th Cir.) (remand for further proceedings is usual course; benefits rare)
- Holohan v. Massanari, 246 F.3d 1195 (9th Cir.) (ALJ must explain what evidence undermines claimant’s testimony)
- Lester v. Chater, 81 F.3d 821 (9th Cir.) (treating source opinion standards)
- Moore v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 278 F.3d 920 (9th Cir.) (difficulty of rejecting claimant testimony; context for credibility standard)