John Clarke v. Nancy Berryhill
694 F. App'x 577
| 9th Cir. | 2017Background
- John Clarke appealed the denial of disability insurance benefits based on bipolar disorder and peripheral neuropathy from diabetes.
- The ALJ discounted Clarke’s testimony, gave partial weight to treating psychiatrist Dr. Hicks, and relied on examining psychologist Dr. Finch while not discussing non-examining psychologist Dr. Penner’s opinion.
- The ALJ also rejected or ignored lay-witness testimony from Clarke’s ex-wife, mother, and sister.
- The Commissioner conceded error as to rejecting/ignoring the lay witnesses’ testimony.
- The Ninth Circuit reviewed whether the ALJ provided legally sufficient reasons for credibility determinations and for accepting/rejecting medical opinions and lay testimony.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether ALJ gave adequate reasons for adverse credibility finding | Clarke: ALJ failed to specify which testimony was not credible or why | ALJ implied inconsistencies justified disbelief | Reversed — ALJ erred by not identifying specific testimony and linking evidence to allegations (Brown-Hunter/Treichler) |
| Weight given to treating psychiatrist Dr. Hicks | Clarke: Dr. Hicks’s opinion should be controlling | Commissioner: Treatment notes inconsistent; opinion lacked explanation | Affirmed in part — ALJ permissibly gave only partial weight due to inconsistency and lack of explanation |
| Failure to discuss non-examining psychologist Dr. Penner | Clarke: ALJ ignored a required source opinion | Commissioner: (no convincing response) | Reversed — ALJ erred by not addressing Dr. Penner’s opinion as regulations require |
| Treatment of Dr. Finch’s opinions and lay-witness statements | Clarke: ALJ selectively adopted parts of Finch without explanation; erred in rejecting/ignoring lay testimony | Commissioner: ALJ’s RFC adoption was reasonable | Reversed — ALJ failed to explain adopting some of Finch’s opinions and improperly rejected/ignored lay testimony; errors not harmless |
Key Cases Cited
- Brown-Hunter v. Colvin, 806 F.3d 487 (9th Cir. 2015) (ALJ must identify what testimony is not credible and link reasons to record)
- Treichler v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 775 F.3d 1090 (9th Cir. 2014) (same principle on credibility findings)
- Molina v. Astrue, 674 F.3d 1104 (9th Cir. 2012) (harmless error standard in Social Security cases)
- Carmickle v. Comm’r, Soc. Sec. Admin., 533 F.3d 1155 (9th Cir. 2008) (erroneous reasons that are consequential are not harmless)
Outcome: Court reversed and remanded for further proceedings; declined to award benefits because the record could support multiple RFCs and job availability was not shown.