Julie Loewen v. Nancy Berryhill
707 F. App'x 907
| 9th Cir. | 2017Background
- Julie Loewen applied for Social Security Disability Insurance (Title II) and was denied by the Commissioner; the district court affirmed and Loewen appeals to the Ninth Circuit.
- Loewen alleged disability from conditions including restless leg syndrome, migraines, and mental limitations; she challenged the ALJ’s residual functional capacity (RFC) and credibility findings.
- The ALJ found restless leg syndrome controlled by medication and migraines not significantly limiting work ability; the RFC included accommodations for possible concentration limits.
- The ALJ discounted Loewen’s testimony about debilitating symptoms based on inconsistencies with treatment records, daily activities, and mental-status exam performance.
- The ALJ rejected a third-party statement from Mr. Loewen as inconsistent with activities and mental-status exam results.
- Loewen submitted additional mental-health evidence to the Appeals Council; the Ninth Circuit concluded the Commissioner's decision remained supported by substantial evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether ALJ erred in RFC by omitting limitations from restless leg syndrome and migraines | Loewen contends symptoms warrant additional limitations | ALJ found RLS controlled by medication and migraines did not significantly limit work; RFC accounted for concentration issues | No error; substantial evidence supports ALJ’s RFC findings |
| Whether ALJ improperly evaluated medical evidence | Loewen summarized providers’ opinions and argued ALJ erred | Commissioner argues Loewen failed to assign specific errors and record supports ALJ | Failed — arguments undeveloped; Court declines to consider them |
| Whether ALJ gave legally sufficient reasons to discount claimant’s subjective symptom testimony | Loewen asserts testimony was credible about debilitating effects | ALJ cited inconsistencies with treatment, daily activities, and mental-status exams | Affirmed — ALJ provided specific, clear, convincing reasons supported by substantial evidence |
| Whether ALJ erred in rejecting lay witness statement (Mr. Loewen) | Lay statement should be credited as consistent with claimant’s limitations | ALJ found lay statement inconsistent with claimant’s activities and exam results | Affirmed — ALJ gave germane reason for rejection |
Key Cases Cited
- Ghanim v. Colvin, 736 F.3d 1154 (9th Cir. 2014) (standard of review: Ninth Circuit reviews disability determinations de novo)
- Carmickle v. Comm’r, Soc. Sec. Admin., 533 F.3d 1155 (9th Cir. 2008) (appellate court need not address arguments not specifically argued)
- Indep. Towers of Wash. v. Washington, 350 F.3d 925 (9th Cir. 2003) (court will not manufacture arguments for appellant)
- Burch v. Barnhart, 400 F.3d 676 (9th Cir. 2005) (ALJ may consider lack of supporting medical evidence in credibility assessment)
- Molina v. Astrue, 674 F.3d 1104 (9th Cir. 2012) (lists relevant credibility considerations including daily activities)
- Bayliss v. Barnhart, 427 F.3d 1211 (9th Cir. 2005) (ALJ may reject lay witness statements for germane reasons)