Kanika Revels v. Nancy Berryhill
2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 21267
| 9th Cir. | 2017Background
- Revels (born 1984) applied for SSI and DIB asserting disability from fibromyalgia with onset Jan 20, 2011; ALJ denied benefits and district court affirmed; Ninth Circuit reviewed de novo.
- ALJ found severe impairments of arthritis, obesity, and fibromyalgia, assessed an RFC for light work with some postural and environmental limits, and concluded Revels could perform her past work.
- Treating rheumatologist Dr. Joseph Nolan, nurse practitioner Jacqueline Mager, and physical therapist Richard Randall each produced functional assessments showing marked limitations (e.g., limited sitting/standing, need to recline, frequent breaks); state nonexamining doctors found much milder restrictions.
- ALJ gave no weight to Dr. Nolan and Randall and little weight to Mager; discounted Revels’ symptom testimony citing normal objective tests, conservative treatment, and activities of daily living.
- Appeals Council added Mager’s records but denied review; Ninth Circuit majority reversed and remanded with instructions to award benefits, concluding the ALJ misapplied SSR 12-2P and Ninth Circuit precedent on fibromyalgia and treating-source deference.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether ALJ properly rejected treating rheumatologist’s opinion | Revels: Dr. Nolan’s opinion is supported by longitudinal records, tender-point findings, specialty, and patient reports; ALJ failed to give specific and legitimate reasons | Commissioner: Nolan’s opinions are conclusory, inconsistent with his notes and objective tests, and contradicted by state reviewers | Court: ALJ erred — failed to give specific and legitimate reasons; treating rheumatologist’s opinion should have been credited and establishes disability |
| Whether ALJ properly discounted other medical and non‑acceptable-source opinions (Mager, Randall) | Revels: Mager and Randall treated/examined extensively; their opinions are germane and consistent with treating specialist | Commissioner: Mager (non‑acceptable source) and Randall (PT) are less persuasive and contradicted by objective findings | Court: ALJ erred — failed to give germane reasons for discounting these opinions; they support the treating physician’s conclusions |
| Whether ALJ permissibly rejected Revels’ symptom testimony and third‑party reports | Revels: Testimony consistent with fibromyalgia’s waxing/waning and longitudinal record; ALJ used improper reasons and reversed burden | Commissioner: Inconsistencies with objective tests, activities, and treatment support partial noncredibility finding | Court: ALJ failed to provide clear and convincing reasons; discounted testimony improperly without applying SSR 12‑2P guidance |
| Remedy: remand for further proceedings vs. award of benefits | Revels: Credit-as-true the improperly rejected evidence leads to disability; award benefits | Commissioner: Substantial evidence supports ALJ; if not, remand for further proceedings | Court: Credit-as-true criteria met; remand for calculation and award of benefits |
Key Cases Cited
- Benecke v. Barnhart, 379 F.3d 587 (9th Cir.) (treating specialist opinions and fibromyalgia diagnosis require careful, sympathetic evaluation)
- Garrison v. Colvin, 759 F.3d 995 (9th Cir. 2014) (credit‑as‑true framework and weighing whole record)
- Lingenfelter v. Astrue, 504 F.3d 1028 (9th Cir. 2007) (treating‑physician evidence can require award of benefits when credited)
- Lester v. Chater, 81 F.3d 821 (9th Cir. 1995) (nonexamining physician opinions cannot alone justify rejecting treating/examining opinions)
- Molina v. Astrue, 674 F.3d 1104 (9th Cir. 2012) (ALJ must give germane reasons to discount opinions from ‘‘other sources’')
- Rollins v. Massanari, 261 F.3d 853 (9th Cir. 2001) (earlier treatment of fibromyalgia evidence and activity‑testimony interplay)
- Brewes v. Comm’r, 682 F.3d 1157 (9th Cir. 2012) (consideration of evidence submitted to Appeals Council on review)
- Brown‑Hunter v. Colvin, 806 F.3d 487 (9th Cir. 2015) (de novo review of district court affirmation and review limited to ALJ’s stated reasons)