Jasim Ghanim v. Carolyn W. Colvin, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 15867

Jasim Abo Abi Shalash Abo Ghanim alleged disability from mental impairments (depression, PTSD, nightmares) beginning April 5, 2009; SSA initially denied benefits and an ALJ denied at hearing in 2010.
Treating providers at Harborview (psychiatrist, ARNP, LICSWs) diagnosed major depressive disorder and PTSD, documented ongoing severe symptoms (nightmares, insomnia, hallucinations, memory problems) and opined he likely could not work.
Two examining psychologists (Drs. McDuffee and Dees) found severe depression/anxiety and PTSD; Dees noted poor cognitive test performance and suspected malingering but did not conclusively diagnose it.
State reviewing psychologists (Drs. Peterson and Fitterer) concluded more limited functional restrictions and affirmed ability to perform simple and some complex tasks.
The ALJ discounted treating opinions and Ghanim’s testimony as not credible, found residual functional capacity (RFC) for simple work and reliance on vocational expert led to finding he could perform past work; Appeals Council and district court affirmed.
While the appeal was pending, SSA later determined Ghanim disabled as of March 29, 2012; the Ninth Circuit limited review to whether he was entitled to benefits for April 5, 2009–March 28, 2012.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether ALJ properly weighed treating providers’ opinions	ALJ improperly rejected treating providers; their opinions were supported by treatment notes and clinical observations	ALJ argued treating opinions conflicted with treatment notes, daily activities, and were based on claimant’s self-report	Reversed — ALJ’s reasons for discounting treating opinions were not supported by substantial evidence
Whether ALJ’s adverse credibility finding for claimant was supported	Ghanim’s testimony about severity and limitations was credible and consistent with record	ALJ relied on inconsistencies with records, examining opinions, prior statements, daily activities, and unemployment benefits	Reversed — ALJ failed to give specific, clear, and convincing reasons; record does not support adverse credibility finding
Whether ALJ permissibly discounted lay witness statement (caretaker)	Lay statement corroborated severe limitations	ALJ rejected it as inconsistent with claimant’s statements	Issue waived on appeal (not raised below); not addressed on merits
Whether RFC and reliance on vocational expert were supported	RFC omitted limitations supported by treating opinions and claimant testimony; thus VE testimony lacked evidentiary value	ALJ relied on RFC he found supported and used VE to identify past work	Reversed — RFC was infected by errors in evaluating medical and testimonial evidence, so VE reliance was improper

Molina v. Astrue, 674 F.3d 1104 (9th Cir. 2012) (standard of review and ALJ credibility framework)
Orn v. Astrue, 495 F.3d 625 (9th Cir. 2007) (weight to be given treating-source opinions)
Holohan v. Massanari, 246 F.3d 1195 (9th Cir. 2001) (treating physician rule and treating notes context)
Bayliss v. Barnhart, 427 F.3d 1211 (9th Cir. 2005) (standard for rejecting uncontradicted treating opinions)
Carmickle v. Comm’r Soc. Sec., 533 F.3d 1155 (9th Cir. 2008) (vocational expert reliance requires hypothetical capturing all credible limitations)
Vasquez v. Astrue, 572 F.3d 586 (9th Cir. 2009) (two-step credibility analysis and required findings)
Ryan v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 528 F.3d 1194 (9th Cir. 2008) (when ALJ may discount opinion based on self-reports)
Lester v. Chater, 81 F.3d 821 (9th Cir. 1995) (rejecting subjective testimony requires identification of what is not credible)