Jettie Hawkins v. Nancy Berryhill
15-16070
| 9th Cir. | Jan 9, 2018Background
- Jettie May Hawkins appealed the district court’s affirmation of the Commissioner’s denial of Title II disability insurance benefits.
- ALJ found Hawkins not disabled, discounting her subjective pain testimony and assigning limited weight to treating physician Jack Hawks, D.O.
- ALJ gave reasons for discounting credibility: Hawkins’ daily activities (caring for family), inconsistencies between testimony and objective evidence, and conservative treatment record.
- ALJ rejected Dr. Hawks’s opinion because it lacked supporting objective findings, was conclusory without contemporaneous notes, and conflicted with other medical opinions.
- The Ninth Circuit majority affirmed, finding the ALJ provided specific, clear and convincing reasons for discounting Hawkins’s testimony and specific, legitimate reasons for rejecting the treating opinion; any other errors were harmless.
- Chief Judge Thomas dissented, arguing the ALJ erred in rejecting the treating opinion and credibility because MRIs and treatment records supported Hawkins, and daily activities did not undermine disability claims given need for assistance and medication effects.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Credibility of claimant’s pain testimony | Hawkins: pain and limitations supported by records and treatment; testimony should be credited | Commissioner: testimony inconsistent with activities, objective findings, and conservative treatment | Affirmed — ALJ gave specific, clear and convincing reasons to discount credibility |
| Weight due treating physician’s opinion | Hawkins: treating physician opined inability to perform sedentary work; ALJ must give substantial/controlling weight if supported | Commissioner: Dr. Hawks’s opinion unsupported by objective findings, conclusory, contradicted by other evidence | Affirmed — ALJ gave specific, legitimate reasons to reject treating opinion |
| Sufficiency of objective medical evidence (MRIs, exams) | Hawkins: MRIs and diagnoses (neuropathic pain, radiculopathy) support severity and treating opinion | Commissioner: objective evidence did not support disabling limitations claimed | Majority: substantial evidence supports ALJ’s interpretation; Dissent: record included MRIs and significant notes contradicting ALJ rationale |
| Harmless error standard | Hawkins: ALJ’s errors require remand | Commissioner: any errors are inconsequential to nondisability determination | Affirmed — court held any other error was harmless given substantial evidence supporting denial |
Key Cases Cited
- Molina v. Astrue, 674 F.3d 1104 (9th Cir. 2012) (standard of review and framework for evaluating ALJ findings)
- Smolen v. Chater, 80 F.3d 1273 (9th Cir. 1996) (factors for evaluating credibility of subjective complaints)
- Garrison v. Colvin, 759 F.3d 995 (9th Cir. 2014) (limitations in daily activities do not necessarily undermine disability claims)
- Tommasetti v. Astrue, 533 F.3d 1035 (9th Cir. 2008) (standards for rejecting medical opinions, including reliance on properly discounted claimant credibility)
- Brown-Hunter v. Colvin, 806 F.3d 487 (9th Cir. 2015) (harmless error doctrine in social security cases)
- Batson v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 359 F.3d 1190 (9th Cir. 2004) (upholding ALJ credibility conclusions even if some reasons are invalid)
- Lester v. Chater, 81 F.3d 821 (9th Cir. 1995) (weight to be afforded treating physician opinions)
- Orn v. Astrue, 495 F.3d 625 (9th Cir. 2007) (controlling weight for treating source when well-supported and not inconsistent)
- Ghanim v. Colvin, 763 F.3d 1154 (9th Cir. 2014) (ALJ may reject treating opinion only for specific, legitimate reasons supported by substantial evidence)
- Orteza v. Shalala, 50 F.3d 748 (9th Cir. 1995) (objective evidence requirement cannot be sole basis to reject claimant’s pain testimony)