Kim Brown-Hunter v. Carolyn W. Colvin
806 F.3d 487
| 9th Cir. | 2015Background
- Kim Brown-Hunter applied for Social Security disability and SSI; denied by ALJ and Appeals Council, affirmed by district court; she appealed to the Ninth Circuit.
- At hearing, Brown-Hunter testified to severe back and leg pain, peripheral neuropathy, obesity, diabetes, and related limitations: limited sitting/standing, need to elevate feet twice weekly and lie down 3–4 times daily, and limited lifting (~10 lbs).
- Vocational expert (VE) testified that if a worker was off-task 15–20% of the day or needed unscheduled rests/lying down 2–3 times per day for 30 minutes, such a worker could not sustain competitive work; even feet-elevation twice weekly would preclude sustaining light work per the VE.
- The ALJ found Brown-Hunter had severe impairments and assigned an RFC for light work with occasional pushing/pulling, concluded her statements were not credible to the extent inconsistent with the RFC, summarized medical records, and denied benefits at step five based on VE testimony.
- The district court affirmed, reasoning the ALJ gave clear and convincing reasons; the Ninth Circuit granted de novo review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether ALJ provided specific, clear, and convincing reasons for rejecting claimant pain testimony | Brown-Hunter: ALJ failed to identify which testimony was not credible and why; general statement insufficient | Commissioner: ALJ’s RFC discussion and medical summary suffice to show reasons; clear-and-convincing standard not required | The ALJ erred — a general credibility finding and medical summary are insufficient; ALJ must identify specific testimony rejected and give clear, convincing, record-supported reasons |
| Whether the ALJ’s error was harmless | Brown-Hunter: Error requires remand for benefits because VE testimony would preclude work if testimony credited | Commissioner: District court’s linking of record inconsistencies makes error harmless | Error was not harmless; court cannot meaningfully review ALJ’s reasoning and cannot affirm on grounds not invoked by the ALJ |
| Whether record supports immediate award of benefits (credit-as-true) | Brown-Hunter: Testimony should be credited and benefits awarded | Commissioner: Further proceedings may resolve conflicts; record not fully developed | Remand for further proceedings (not immediate benefits): record contains unresolved, critical factual conflicts (e.g., medical notes showing adequate pain control) that require development |
| Standard of review for ALJ credibility findings | Brown-Hunter: ALJ must give specific, clear, and convincing reasons | Commissioner: Argued clear-and-convincing not required, relying on prior precedent | Ninth Circuit reaffirmed that where claimant is not malingering and has objective impairments, ALJ must provide specific, clear, and convincing reasons to reject symptom testimony |
Key Cases Cited
- Lingenfelter v. Astrue, 504 F.3d 1028 (9th Cir. 2007) (ALJ must give clear and convincing reasons to reject credible symptom testimony)
- Burrell v. Colvin, 775 F.3d 1133 (9th Cir. 2014) (reaffirming clear-and-convincing specificity requirement and rejecting inference-from-RFC defense)
- Treichler v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 775 F.3d 1090 (9th Cir. 2014) (ALJ must link specific testimony to record evidence; general credibility findings insufficient)
- Garrison v. Colvin, 759 F.3d 995 (9th Cir. 2014) (framework for credit-as-true remand and when to award benefits)
- Bunnell v. Sullivan, 947 F.2d 341 (9th Cir. 1991) (credibility review principles and requirement that ALJ’s reasons be sufficiently specific)