14 F.4th 1108
9th Cir.2021Background
- Kenneth E. Smith applied for DIB and SSI claiming disability beginning Dec. 1, 2012 after acute grief over several deaths; he reported severe depression, hallucinations, and concentration problems.
- The record shows substantial variation: severe symptoms from late 2012 through ~Oct 2015, then gradual improvement with intermittent volunteer work and job searches through 2018.
- Multiple examining psychologists (Drs. Wheeler and Krueger) documented severe early-period limitations; a non‑examining reviewer (Dr. Layton) reviewed the full record and testified to more limited restrictions.
- The ALJ (2019) found severe mental impairments but an RFC permitting routine, simple work with limited public contact and no teamwork; she credited Dr. Layton over the examining doctors and discounted Smith’s testimony.
- The district court affirmed; the Ninth Circuit reversed and remanded because the ALJ failed adequately to account for symptom progression and temporal differences across the multi‑year alleged disability period, affecting credibility and medical‑opinion analysis.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Credibility of claimant testimony over a multi‑year period | ALJ improperly rejected Smith’s early‑period testimony based on inconsistencies applicable only to later periods; must specify which portions are not credible and give clear, convincing reasons | ALJ permissibly found testimony inconsistent with medical record and improvement on medication supports discounting credibility | Reversed in part: ALJ erred by rejecting early‑period testimony wholesale; must identify and justify which portions are not credible with clear, convincing reasons and consider temporal variation |
| Weight given to medical opinions (examining vs non‑examining) | ALJ wrongly discounted examining psychologists (Wheeler, Krueger) whose early assessments reflect the disabling early period | ALJ permissibly favored Dr. Layton and other record‑reviewing consultants because they reviewed more records and noted improvement | Reversed: ALJ should have evaluated whether earlier examining opinions reliably describe the early disabling period rather than treating later improvement as negating their relevance for that period |
| Remedy / prejudicial error | Smith sought a finding of disability for an earlier qualifying period or further factfinding | Commissioner argued ALJ’s errors were harmless or supported by record | Court held errors were harmful to the RFC and disability determination and remanded for further proceedings to consider disability during an earlier portion of the claimed period |
Key Cases Cited
- Garrison v. Colvin, 759 F.3d 995 (9th Cir. 2014) (must consider waxing/waning of mental symptoms; error to rely on isolated improvement)
- Brown‑Hunter v. Colvin, 806 F.3d 487 (9th Cir. 2015) (ALJ must specify which testimony is not credible and give clear, convincing reasons)
- Molina v. Astrue, 674 F.3d 1104 (9th Cir. 2012) (standard for substantial evidence review)
- Lingenfelter v. Astrue, 504 F.3d 1028 (9th Cir. 2007) (objective evidence need only show impairment could produce alleged symptoms)
- Ryan v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 528 F.3d 1194 (9th Cir. 2008) (improvement does not necessarily undermine earlier diagnoses)
- Orn v. Astrue, 495 F.3d 625 (9th Cir. 2007) (limits on using daily activities to reject credibility)
- Bayliss v. Barnhart, 427 F.3d 1211 (9th Cir. 2005) (rejection of contradicted medical opinion requires specific, legitimate reasons)