Haroutyun Karabajakyan v. Nancy Berryhill
713 F. App'x 553
| 9th Cir. | 2017Background
- Haroutyun Karabajakyan appeals the district court’s denial of DIB and SSI under Titles II and XVI, affirming SSA’s denial.
- The ALJ found Karabajakyan not fully credible about cardiac symptoms based on two reasons: gaps in treatment and failure to follow medical advice.
- There was a seven-year gap between cardiology visits (2004 to 2011), supporting the credibility finding.
- The ALJ gave little weight to Dr. Mazmanyan’s RFC opinion due to sparse record support and lack of objective basis for severe limitations.
- Karabajakyan’s Listing 4.02 cardiac impairment claim was rejected due to failure to meet the listing’s introductory requirement of being on prescribed treatment.
- The court concluded the RFC and hypothetical questions to the VE were supported by substantial evidence and that Step 5 was proper.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Credibility of claimant’s symptoms | Karabajakyan asserts the ALJ erred in discounting his testimony. | ALJ supported discounting with treatment gaps and noncompliance. | AGREED: two clear and convincing reasons supported credibility ruling |
| Weight of treating physician | Dr. Mazmanyan’s RFC opinion should be given substantial weight. | Opinion is not supported by sparse record and lacks objective basis. | AGREED: ALJ properly gave little weight to Mazmanyan’s opinion |
| Listing 4.02 applicability | Deserves OTR on evidence of Listing 4.02 cardiac impairment. | Record gaps and noncompliance show failure to meet introductory treatment requirement. | AGREED: ALJ did not err in denying OTR prior to hearing |
| RFC/hypothetical scope | ALJ should include all limitations from the impairments. | Limitations not supported by credible evidence need not be in RFC/VE questions. | AGREED: substantial evidence supports RFC; no error in omissions |
| Bias and Appeals Council | ALJ biased; Appeals Council erred in denial of review. | Record does not support bias; no jurisdiction to review non-final denial. | AGREED: no reversible error; no jurisdiction over AC denial |
Key Cases Cited
- Fair v. Bowen, 885 F.2d 597 (9th Cir. 1989) (unexplained failure to seek treatment can support credibility discount)
- Orn v. Astrue, 495 F.3d 625 (9th Cir. 2007) (ability to obtain low-cost care bears on credibility)
- Connett v. Barnhart, 340 F.3d 871 (9th Cir. 2003) (ALJ may reject treating physician if not supported by clinical findings)
- Thomas v. Barnhart, 278 F.3d 947 (9th Cir. 2002) (reject conclusory, unsupported treating opinions)
- Bray v. Astrue, 554 F.3d 1219 (9th Cir. 2009) (affirming credibility despite other bases for discount)
- Tackett v. Apfel, 180 F.3d 1094 (9th Cir. 1999) (to meet a listed impairment, must meet all characteristics)
- Curry v. Sullivan, 925 F.2d 1127 (9th Cir. 1991) (harmless error doctrine in listing decisions)
- Flaten v. Sec’y of Health and Human Servs., 44 F.3d 1453 (9th Cir. 1995) (support for discounting noncompelling funding rationale)
- Bayliss v. Barnhart, 427 F.3d 1211 (9th Cir. 2005) (RFC/VE questions framework)
- Osenbrock v. Apfel, 240 F.3d 1157 (9th Cir. 2001) (standard for evaluating medical opinions in RFC context)
- Magallanes v. Bowen, 881 F.2d 747 (9th Cir. 1989) (support for credible evidence basis in RFC assessment)
- Rollins v. Massanari, 261 F.3d 853 (9th Cir. 2001) (impartiality presumption)
- Brewes v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 682 F.3d 1157 (9th Cir. 2012) (non-final agency actions not subject to judicial review)