Hofman v. Commissioner Social Security Administration, 6:18-cv-01979

Background

Plaintiff Kyra H. (50) applied for DIB and SSI for a June 5, 2013 work injury and related physical and mental impairments; applications were denied and ALJ decision became final after Appeals Council denied review.
ALJ found severe impairments (multilevel degenerative disc disease, obesity, depressive and anxiety disorders, PTSD, somatic symptom disorder, functional neurological symptom disorder) but concluded claimant retained an RFC for light work with multiple nonexertional limits.
Plaintiff and lay witnesses (friend Phyllis Vanes and father Lee H.) testified to marked limitations: intermittent leg weakness/numbness, balance problems, need to rest/lie down frequently, limited walking/standing, and cognitive difficulties.
Medical record was mixed: imaging showed mild degenerative changes and occasional radiculopathy; many treating/exam notes documented normal strength, gait, coordination, or inconsistent findings; some clinicians (Drs. Frederick, Lotman, Toal, Purdom, Duke) expressed concerns about inconsistent or possibly exaggerated symptoms.
Treating physician Dr. Gerber provided a December 2016 opinion limiting activity severely (e.g., sitting 1 hour, standing/walking 1 hour/day, >4 absences/month); ALJ afforded that opinion little weight as inconsistent with the record and based largely on claimant’s self-report.
ALJ discounted claimant’s testimony, much lay testimony, and Dr. Gerber’s opinion as supported by substantial evidence (including indicators of exaggeration/malingering and daily activities); the district court affirmed the Commissioner.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether ALJ properly discounted claimant's symptom testimony	H. contends ALJ erred by rejecting her pain/fatigue testimony and limiting analysis of somatic/functional disorders	Commissioner argues ALJ gave permissible reasons (malingering indicators, inconsistent medical findings, daily activities) so discounting was proper	Court: ALJ permissibly discounted testimony; evidence of possible malingering + inconsistencies and daily activities constitute substantial evidence supporting discounting
Whether ALJ improperly rejected lay witness evidence	H. argues ALJ erred in giving little weight to friend/father testimony describing same limitations	Commissioner: ALJ gave germane reasons (inconsistency with medical record and overlap with claimant’s own testimony)	Court: ALJ gave germane reasons and did not err in discounting lay testimony
Whether ALJ erred in declining to credit treating physician Dr. Gerber	H. argues ALJ should have given controlling or greater weight to treating source opinion of severe limits	Commissioner: Dr. Gerber's opinion conflicted with other medical evidence and relied on claimant’s reports	Court: ALJ provided specific, legitimate reasons to afford little weight to Dr. Gerber (inconsistency with record; reliance on claimant reports)
Whether ALJ's failure to expressly analyze somatic symptom / functional neurological disorders was reversible error	H. contends ALJ failed to account for psychological origin of symptoms and thus wrongly discounted symptom reports	Commissioner: ALJ recognized the diagnoses and relied on the entire record; any omission was harmless given that ALJ accounted for symptoms through other findings	Court: Any omission was harmless—ALJ had considered evidence of symptom disorders and still permissibly discounted testimony based on other valid reasons

Key Cases Cited

Trevizo v. Berryhill, 871 F.3d 664 (9th Cir. 2017) (two-step framework for evaluating claimant symptom testimony)
Molina v. Astrue, 674 F.3d 1104 (9th Cir. 2012) (objective evidence must show an impairment that could produce alleged symptoms)
Carmickle v. Commissioner, 533 F.3d 1155 (9th Cir. 2008) (ALJ must provide clear and convincing reasons absent malingering)
Brown-Hunter v. Colvin, 806 F.3d 487 (9th Cir. 2015) (ALJ must make specific findings to support credibility determinations)
Burch v. Barnhart, 400 F.3d 676 (9th Cir. 2005) (daily activities may support adverse credibility finding when inconsistent)
Benton v. Barnhart, 331 F.3d 1030 (9th Cir. 2003) (evidence of malingering permits ALJ to reject testimony without clear and convincing reasons)
Thomas v. Barnhart, 278 F.3d 947 (9th Cir. 2002) (standards for rejecting treating physician opinions)
Dodrill v. Shalala, 12 F.3d 915 (9th Cir. 1993) (lay witnesses competent to testify; ALJ must give reasons germane to each)
Smolen v. Chater, 80 F.3d 1273 (9th Cir. 1996) (ALJ may consider inconsistencies between testimony and objective medical evidence)