Kari Kauffman v. Nancy Berryhill
686 F. App'x 517
| 9th Cir. | 2017Background
- Kari Kauffman appealed the denial of Title II disability insurance benefits for cerebral palsy and rheumatoid arthritis; the district court affirmed the SSA denial and Kauffman appealed to the Ninth Circuit.
- Treating rheumatologist Dr. Basin opined that Kauffman’s joint damage, swelling, and deformities in shoulders, hands, and feet prevented work and that pain impaired attention and concentration; these opinions were supported by exams and x‑rays.
- Examining physician Dr. Nolan documented advanced rheumatoid arthritis, limited finger flexion, soft‑tissue wrist swelling, knuckle thickening, weak grip, inability to make fists, and difficulty with repetitive/fine finger activities.
- The ALJ found Kauffman could frequently handle items (about 5+ hours/day) and rejected or discounted medical and lay opinions as well as Kauffman’s testimony about deterioration between 2008–2010.
- The ALJ also discounted lay testimony from Kauffman’s father, speculating he might project his own experience with rheumatoid arthritis onto his daughter.
- The Ninth Circuit reviewed de novo and found the ALJ’s reasons for rejecting medical opinions, claimant testimony, and lay testimony were legally insufficient and not supported by substantial evidence; the case was reversed and remanded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether ALJ properly rejected treating physician Dr. Basin’s opinion | Dr. Basin’s opinion is supported by objective findings (exams, x‑rays) and consistent with other medical evidence | ALJ found the treating opinion brief, conclusory, and unsupported by clinical findings | Rejected ALJ—treating opinion was supported by objective evidence and consistent with examining physician; ALJ failed to give specific and legitimate reasons to reject it |
| Whether ALJ properly credited examining physician Dr. Nolan regarding manipulative limits | Nolan’s exam shows limited grip and difficulty with repetitive/fine finger work, inconsistent with frequent handling finding | ALJ credited ability to frequently handle items (1/3–2/3 of day) | Rejected ALJ—record as a whole does not support frequent handling; ALJ implicitly rejected Nolan without clear and convincing reasons |
| Whether ALJ permissibly discounted claimant’s testimony about deterioration | Kauffman testified condition worsened 2008–2010; medical record supports worsening | ALJ discounted testimony largely for lack of medical evidence | Rejected ALJ—lack of medical evidence alone cannot be sole basis to discredit pain/deterioration testimony |
| Whether ALJ properly discredited lay testimony from claimant’s father | Father’s observations aligned with medical evidence and he could not quantify pain frequency | ALJ speculated father may project his own RA experience onto daughter | Rejected ALJ—speculation unsupported by record; lay testimony improperly discounted |
Key Cases Cited
- Molina v. Astrue, 674 F.3d 1104 (9th Cir. 2012) (standard for reviewing ALJ credibility and legal error)
- Thomas v. Barnhart, 278 F.3d 947 (9th Cir. 2002) (ALJ may reject treating physician only with specific, legitimate reasons)
- Rodriguez v. Bowen, 876 F.2d 759 (9th Cir. 1989) (ALJ must cite conflicting clinical evidence to reject treating physician for lack of objective findings)
- Widmark v. Barnhart, 454 F.3d 1063 (9th Cir. 2006) (ALJ’s RFC findings must be consistent with examining physician’s report when viewed in entirety)
- Burch v. Barnhart, 400 F.3d 676 (9th Cir. 2005) (lack of medical evidence cannot be sole basis to discount claimant’s pain testimony)