Henry Perez v. Andre M. Saul, 2:19-cv-05471

Plaintiff filed for Disability Insurance Benefits in April 2016, alleging disability beginning September 1, 2012, from knee injuries, gout, back pain, anxiety, and depression.
The ALJ found severe impairments (chronic left patella dislocation/osteoarthritis and obesity) and adopted a sedentary RFC with additional limits, including use of a cane, but concluded plaintiff was not disabled through the date last insured (March 31, 2016).
The ALJ discounted plaintiff’s subjective symptom testimony as not entirely consistent with the record, citing (1) alleged non‑compliance with recommended treatment and (2) objective medical records suggesting some postoperative improvement.
Plaintiff challenged only the ALJ’s adverse credibility finding; the Appeals Council denied review and plaintiff filed this action.
The district court held the ALJ erred by discounting testimony for alleged non‑compliance without first considering or eliciting a possible explanation (and where the record of non‑compliance was minimal and mixed with evidence of insurance barriers), and further held the ALJ relied impermissibly on objective findings alone.
The Commissioner’s decision was reversed and remanded for further administrative proceedings; benefits were not awarded.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the ALJ provided specific, clear, and convincing reasons to discredit plaintiff's subjective symptom testimony	ALJ erred by relying on alleged non‑compliance without asking plaintiff for an explanation and by relying on sparse objective improvement evidence	ALJ’s reasons were proper and sufficient; ALJ was not required to solicit an explanation for non‑compliance	Court: Reversed and remanded — ALJ erred by discounting testimony for non‑compliance without considering/explaining reasons and by over‑relying on limited objective findings

Molina v. Astrue, 674 F.3d 1104 (9th Cir. 2012) (defines disability standard and continuity requirement)
Trevizo v. Berryhill, 871 F.3d 664 (9th Cir. 2017) (standard of review and requirement that courts examine ALJ reasoning)
Brown-Hunter v. Colvin, 806 F.3d 487 (9th Cir. 2015) (ALJ must provide specific, clear, and convincing reasons to reject symptom testimony)
Ghanim v. Colvin, 763 F.3d 1154 (9th Cir. 2014) (ALJ may consider unexplained failure to follow prescribed treatment as one factor)
Warre v. Commissioner, 439 F.3d 1001 (9th Cir. 2006) (claimant may have good reasons, e.g., inability to afford, for not following treatment)
Robbins v. Social Security Administration, 466 F.3d 880 (9th Cir. 2006) (objective medical evidence cannot be the sole basis for rejecting subjective pain testimony)