Fernandez v. Saul
1:20-cv-07948
| N.D. Cal. | Mar 16, 2022Background
- Plaintiff applied for Title II disability benefits alleging onset August 19, 2013; date last insured September 30, 2013. Appeals Council denied review; case before magistrate judge on cross-motions for summary judgment.
- Longstanding, multi-system pain and neurologic conditions: chronic bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome with limited hand use; occipital neuralgia, trigeminal/facial neuropathy; Chiari I malformation with syringomyelia and post‑decompression neurologic deficits; multilevel cervical degenerative disc disease; gait/balance problems and chronic widespread pain.
- Treating providers (notably Dr. Dori Cage and pain specialists) imposed significant permanent hand and activity restrictions (e.g., minute‑by‑hour typing/writing limits; limited hand gripping; need for mobility/walking assistance at times).
- At the administrative level the ALJ: found severe impairments (neurocognitive disorder, spine disorder, carpal tunnel), assigned an RFC for light work with frequent handling/fingering and 6 hours sit/stand/walk, and concluded Plaintiff could perform past relevant work — denying benefits.
- Plaintiff challenged (1) omission/failure to discuss certain impairments at Step Two, (2) the ALJ’s adverse credibility finding, and (3) the rejection of treating medical opinions. The magistrate judge found the ALJ’s reasons non‑specific and unsupported by substantial evidence.
- Court credited Plaintiff’s testimony and treating-source evidence as true under the “credit-as-true” framework and reversed the ALJ’s denial, remanding for immediate calculation and award of benefits.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Credibility of Plaintiff’s symptom testimony | ALJ failed to give specific, clear and convincing reasons to discount testimony; testimony consistent with record. | ALJ permissibly found testimony inconsistent with medical record. | ALJ’s reasons were generalized and unsupported; testimony credited as true. |
| Evaluation of treating/examining medical opinions | Treating opinions imposing substantial hand and functional limits were improperly rejected. | Agency relied on non‑examining consultants and new regs; ALJ’s weighing is permissible. | ALJ failed to provide specific, legitimate reasons supported by substantial evidence; treating evidence credited. |
| RFC and Step Four (ability to perform past work) | RFC underestimated limitations; past‑work finding unsupported given credited evidence. | RFC supported by some exam/consultation notes and agency consultants. | RFC not supported by substantial evidence; Step Four finding reversed. |
| Remedy — remand for further proceedings vs. immediate benefits | Credit-as-true satisfied; further proceedings would be pointless; award benefits now. | Case should be remanded for further proceedings to clarify unresolved issues. | Credit‑as‑true test met; court ordered immediate calculation and award of benefits. |
Key Cases Cited
- Flaten v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 44 F.3d 1453 (9th Cir. 1995) (limited scope of district court review of ALJ findings)
- Biestek v. Berryhill, 139 S. Ct. 1148 (2019) (definition of substantial evidence)
- Reddick v. Chater, 157 F.3d 715 (9th Cir. 1998) (review must consider record as a whole)
- Lingenfelter v. Astrue, 504 F.3d 1028 (9th Cir. 2007) (two‑step credibility framework and need for specific reasons)
- Garrison v. Colvin, 759 F.3d 995 (9th Cir. 2014) (credit‑as‑true rule and when remand for benefits is appropriate)
- Lester v. Chater, 81 F.3d 821 (9th Cir. 1995) (crediting treating/examining opinions when ALJ fails to give legally sufficient reasons)
- Benecke v. Barnhart, 379 F.3d 587 (9th Cir. 2004) (crediting claimant testimony and treating opinions where ALJ erred)
- Bayliss v. Barnhart, 427 F.3d 1211 (9th Cir. 2005) (ALJ must give specific, legitimate reasons to reject contradicted treating opinions)
- Orn v. Astrue, 495 F.3d 625 (9th Cir. 2007) (consider entire record; cannot affirm by isolating supporting evidence)
- Harman v. Apfel, 211 F.3d 1172 (9th Cir. 2000) (three‑part test for crediting evidence and awarding benefits)
- Carmickle v. Comm’r of SSA, 533 F.3d 1155 (9th Cir. 2008) (nature of remand and utility of further proceedings)
- Smolen v. Chater, 80 F.3d 1273 (9th Cir. 1996) (when remand for benefits is appropriate)
- Revels v. Berryhill, 874 F.3d 648 (9th Cir. 2017) (rare instances where record as a whole raises serious doubt whether claimant disabled)
- Varney v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 859 F.2d 1396 (9th Cir. 1988) (protecting claimants from undue delay when benefits plainly warranted)