Gerald Cassel, Jr. v. Nancy Berryhill
706 F. App'x 430
| 9th Cir. | 2017Background
- Gerald Cassel applied for Title II disability insurance benefits; the ALJ denied benefits and the district court affirmed; Cassel appealed to the Ninth Circuit.
- Cassel testified to severe, frequent symptoms from back and mental impairments and reported a 2008 VA-prescribed medication-caused car crash and lasting deformity.
- The VA had assigned a 2014 disability rating (including a 100% component) that Cassel relied on.
- The administrative record included VA exam findings showing good lumbar range of motion, mild-to-moderate lumbar degenerative changes on x-ray, normal thoracic spine, normal lower-extremity strength, and minimal treatment complaints for back pain.
- The ALJ found Cassel not fully credible, identified inconsistencies between his testimony, medical records, and activities, discounted Dr. Krueger’s opinion (psychological) and gave only partial weight to the VA disability rating.
- The Ninth Circuit reviewed de novo and affirmed the district court’s decision denying benefits.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Credibility of claimant’s symptom testimony | Cassel contends his testimony about severity/frequency is reliable and supported by VA rating | ALJ argues testimony inconsistent with objective medical record and claimant’s activities | Court: ALJ gave clear and convincing reasons to discredit testimony; affirmed |
| Reliance on SSR 16-3p in evaluating symptoms | Cassel implies ALJ should not apply SSR retroactively | Commissioner contends SSR 16-3p is consistent with Ninth Circuit precedent and may be applied | Court: Assuming SSR 16-3p applies, ALJ properly evaluated consistency with record |
| Weight given to Dr. Krueger’s opinion | Cassel argues ALJ erred in rejecting Dr. Krueger for relying on claimant self-report | ALJ said Dr. Krueger’s marked limitations conflict with claimant’s activities | Court: ALJ erred to the extent rejection rested on self-report issue but error harmless because ALJ validly rejected opinion as inconsistent with activities |
| Weight accorded VA disability rating | Cassel argues VA rating supports disability finding and deserves great weight | ALJ reduced weight due to inconsistency with other records, claimant activities, and reliance on rejected subjective reports | Court: ALJ gave specific, valid reasons to give less than great weight to VA rating; affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Brown-Hunter v. Colvin, 806 F.3d 487 (9th Cir. 2015) (standard of review for ALJ factual findings)
- Vasquez v. Astrue, 572 F.3d 586 (9th Cir. 2009) (ALJ must provide clear and convincing reasons to reject claimant testimony)
- Molina v. Astrue, 674 F.3d 1104 (9th Cir. 2012) (ALJ must consider the whole record and may reject testimony inconsistent with objective evidence or activities)
- Garrison v. Colvin, 759 F.3d 995 (9th Cir. 2014) (requirement to consider entire medical record, not isolated improvement)
- Trevizo v. Berryhill, 871 F.3d 664 (9th Cir. 2017) (SSR 16-3p consistent with Ninth Circuit precedent on evaluating claimant testimony)
- Batson v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 359 F.3d 1190 (9th Cir. 2004) (harmless error standard for ALJ reasons)
- Ghanim v. Colvin, 763 F.3d 1154 (9th Cir. 2014) (inconsistency with daily activities is a valid reason to reject medical opinion)
- Ryan v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 528 F.3d 1194 (9th Cir. 2008) (ALJ erred where examiner relied on clinical assessment rather than only claimant self-report)
- McCartey v. Massanari, 298 F.3d 1072 (9th Cir. 2002) (ALJ must give persuasive, specific, valid reasons to discount VA disability ratings)
- Berry v. Astrue, 622 F.3d 1228 (9th Cir. 2010) (ALJ may discount VA rating when inconsistent with other medical evidence)
- Valentine v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 574 F.3d 685 (9th Cir. 2009) (ALJ may discount VA rating to extent based on claimant’s unreliable statements)