Gary Deluca v. Nancy Berryhill
15-35735
| 9th Cir. | Dec 29, 2017Background
- Gary Deluca appealed denial of disability insurance benefits under Titles II and XVI; district court affirmed Commissioner’s decision; Ninth Circuit reviews de novo and affirms.
- Deluca requested a supplemental hearing to have his employer explain post-onset earnings and to address alleged worsening health; ALJ declined after requesting additional medical records that were never submitted.
- ALJ found Step One (substantial gainful activity) in Deluca’s favor — his post-onset earnings did not rise to SGA — so employer testimony was unnecessary.
- ALJ evaluated medical opinions: discounted portions of Dr. Vanichkachorn’s one-time exam-based opinion and gave weight to nurse practitioner Ms. Frank’s evidence.
- ALJ discounted Deluca’s symptom testimony (two-step test) for specific, clear, and convincing reasons: inconsistent statements, lack of objective support, responsiveness to treatment, and nonadherence to treatment.
- ALJ also discounted lay witness (supervisor Peggy Martin) as inconsistent with objective medical evidence; declined to use a vocational expert or the Medical-Vocational Guidelines because ALJ found Deluca could perform past relevant work.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| ALJ’s refusal to hold supplemental hearing | Deluca: requested hearing to have employer clarify earnings and show worsening health; ALJ promised one if needed | Commissioner: ALJ asked for records and said he would set a conference only if records warranted; no records were submitted | No reversible error — ALJ reasonably declined after record showed Step One in claimant’s favor and no additional medical evidence was provided |
| Weight given to treating/examining physician opinions | Deluca: ALJ improperly discounted Dr. Ayres (treating) and Dr. Vanichkachorn (examining) | Commissioner: Ayres never opined claimant could not work; Vanichkachorn’s opinion contradicted objective findings and relied on claimant’s subjective reports | Affirmed — ALJ gave specific, legitimate reasons to discount exam opinion; plaintiff forfeited detailed challenge to treating opinion |
| Reliance on nurse practitioner evidence | Deluca: ALJ improperly credited non-acceptable source and agency supposedly ignores NPs | Commissioner: Nurse practitioners are "other" medical sources whose input may be considered; no showing agency routinely ignores them | No error — ALJ permissibly relied on NP evidence and provided appropriate reasoning when weighing it |
| Credibility of claimant and lay witness evidence | Deluca: ALJ erred in discounting his testimony and supervisor’s statements | Commissioner: ALJ cited inconsistent statements, lack of objective support, treatment response, noncompliance; lay evidence inconsistent with medical records | No reversible error — ALJ gave clear, convincing reasons for discounting claimant; provided germane reason for discounting lay witness |
| Need for vocational expert / application of Medical-Vocational Guidelines | Deluca: ALJ should have used a VE and applied Guidelines | Commissioner: VE not required if Step Four supported by other substantial evidence; Guidelines apply only if claimant cannot perform past relevant work | No error — substantial evidence supported Step Four; Guidelines not required because ALJ found ability to perform past work |
Key Cases Cited
- Attmore v. Colvin, 827 F.3d 872 (9th Cir. 2016) (standard of review for Appeals Council/district court review)
- Mayes v. Massanari, 276 F.3d 453 (9th Cir. 2001) (ALJ duty to develop record triggered by ambiguous or inadequate record)
- Ryan v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 528 F.3d 1194 (9th Cir. 2008) (requirements for rejecting physician opinions)
- Chaudry v. Astrue, 688 F.3d 661 (9th Cir. 2012) (physician opinions must be supported by clinical findings)
- Molina v. Astrue, 674 F.3d 1104 (9th Cir. 2012) (classification and consideration of "other" medical sources)
- Tommasetti v. Astrue, 533 F.3d 1035 (9th Cir. 2008) (ALJ may discount medical evidence based on reliance on claimant’s subjective complaints)
- Trevizo v. Berryhill, 871 F.3d 664 (9th Cir. 2017) (two-step framework and standard for discounting claimant testimony)
- Bray v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 554 F.3d 1219 (9th Cir. 2009) (harmless error doctrine in Social Security cases)
- Ghanim v. Colvin, 763 F.3d 1154 (9th Cir. 2014) (germane reasons required to discount lay witness testimony)
- Crane v. Shalala, 76 F.3d 251 (9th Cir. 1996) (vocational expert not always required; Guidelines apply only when claimant cannot perform past work)