Garvey v. Commissioner of Social Security, 2:22-cv-00036

Background

Plaintiff applied for DIB and SSI alleging disability from February 14, 2014; initial denials and an earlier ALJ decision found her not disabled; Appeals Council denied review; district court previously remanded to the agency in 2020.
On remand, ALJ M.J. Adams (Sept. 17, 2021) found severe impairments including fibromyalgia, migraines, degenerative spine disease, depression/bipolar disorder, anxiety, ADHD, and PTSD, and assessed a reduced-range light work RFC.
The ALJ credited vocational expert testimony that, despite inability to perform past work, plaintiff could perform other unskilled light jobs and therefore was not disabled at step five.
Plaintiff challenged the ALJ’s evaluation of (1) her subjective symptom testimony and (2) two medical opinions (treating physician Dr. Anshul Pandhi and examining psychologist Dr. Shawn Kenderline).
The district court reviewed the administrative record, found legal errors in the ALJ’s credibility and opinion-weighting analyses, concluded crediting the improperly discounted evidence would require a disability finding, and reversed and remanded for an award of benefits.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether ALJ properly evaluated subjective symptom testimony	ALJ improperly discounted plaintiff’s symptom testimony; reasons were not clear and convincing and relied on mischaracterized daily activities, cherry‑picked treatment notes, and improperly relied on lack of objective findings for fibromyalgia	ALJ permissibly found inconsistency between reported limitations and activities, noted evidence of symptom exaggeration, treatment/medication helped, and objective exams were not supportive of claimed severity	Court: ALJ erred. Reasons given were not supported by substantial evidence; many findings taken out of context; ALJ may not reject symptom testimony solely for lack of objective signs in fibromyalgia. Testimony must be reconsidered on remand.
Whether ALJ properly weighed medical opinions (Dr. Pandhi; Dr. Kenderline)	ALJ improperly rejected treating Dr. Pandhi’s May 2017 questionnaire and failed to account for examining Dr. Kenderline’s moderate limitations (attendance/schedule) when crediting his 2017–2018 opinions	ALJ gave little weight to Pandhi because the form was conclusory, lacked explanation, and was inconsistent with treatment notes; gave significant weight to Kenderline’s 2017–18 opinions but little weight to his unsupported 2020 decline	Court: ALJ erred. Rejection of Pandhi’s opinion was not supported given fibromyalgia’s diagnostic features and treatment history; ALJ also failed to explain how Kenderline’s credited 2017–18 moderate limitations were incorporated (or rejected) in the RFC. ALJ permissibly discounted the unexplained 2020 opinion.
Appropriate remedy (remand for further proceedings vs. award of benefits)	Plaintiff: credit the improperly discredited evidence as true and remand for award of benefits	Commissioner: errors should be remanded for further administrative proceedings	Court: Remanded for award of benefits. Applying the Ninth Circuit credit‑as‑true factors, the court found further proceedings would not serve a useful purpose and that credited evidence would compel a disability finding.

Key Cases Cited

Revels v. Berryhill, 874 F.3d 648 (9th Cir. 2017) (scope of review and treating fibromyalgia context)
Biestek v. Berryhill, 139 S. Ct. 1148 (2019) (definition of substantial evidence)
Garrison v. Colvin, 759 F.3d 995 (9th Cir. 2014) (consider the record as a whole; reasons the ALJ relied upon must be identified)
Trevizo v. Berryhill, 871 F.3d 664 (9th Cir. 2017) (two‑step symptom evaluation and credit‑as‑true framework)
Tonapetyan v. Halter, 242 F.3d 1144 (9th Cir. 2001) (permissible to consider tendency to exaggerate)
Orn v. Astrue, 495 F.3d 625 (9th Cir. 2007) (daily activities may undermine credibility if inconsistent)
Reddick v. Chater, 157 F.3d 715 (9th Cir. 1998) (activity inconsistency and credibility evaluation)
Carmickle v. Comm’r, Soc. Sec. Admin., 533 F.3d 1155 (9th Cir. 2008) (ALJ must support credibility findings with substantial evidence)
Lester v. Chater, 81 F.3d 821 (9th Cir. 1995) (standards for rejecting medical opinions)
Embrey v. Bowen, 849 F.2d 418 (9th Cir. 1988) (ALJ must give specific, legitimate reasons to reject opinions)
Leon v. Berryhill, 880 F.3d 1041 (9th Cir. 2017) (remand standards and discretion in awarding benefits)
Lingenfelter v. Astrue, 504 F.3d 1028 (9th Cir. 2007) (award of benefits when the record compels such a finding)