Kimberly Tucker v. Kilolo Kijakazi, 20-36063

Kimberly Tucker applied for SSI in January 2013 alleging musculoskeletal impairments (bilateral shoulder impingement/osteoarthritis, cervical degenerative disc disease), obesity, and mental disorders (major depression, anxiety, PTSD, personality disorder).
Initial and reconsideration determinations denied benefits; ALJ Michele M. Kelley issued a second denial on February 15, 2019 after a prior decision had been remanded for further proceedings.
The district court (Magistrate Judge Cavan) affirmed the ALJ on October 14, 2020; Tucker appealed to the Ninth Circuit, which reviews the district court’s affirmance de novo.
Tucker argued the ALJ erred by (1) failing to give specific and legitimate reasons for discounting medical opinion evidence; (2) failing to identify and give clear and convincing reasons for discounting portions of her testimony; and (3) omitting limitations from the vocational expert hypothetical; she also sought remand for benefits.
The ALJ explained her evaluation by citing internal inconsistencies in medical opinions, conflicts between providers, and conflicts between medical evidence and Tucker’s reported activities/testimony; the Ninth Circuit concluded the ALJ’s reasons were supported by substantial evidence and affirmed.

Issue	Tucker's Argument	Commissioner/Social Security Argument	Held
Whether ALJ gave specific and legitimate reasons to reject medical opinions	ALJ improperly discounted treating/examining opinions without adequate reasons	ALJ explained inconsistencies between those opinions, other medical sources, and claimant’s statements/activities	Affirmed: ALJ provided specific, legitimate reasons supported by substantial evidence (Magallanes standard)
Whether ALJ gave specific, clear, and convincing reasons for discounting claimant testimony	ALJ failed to identify which portions were not credible and why	ALJ pointed to internal inconsistencies, daily activities, and conflicts with objective medical evidence	Affirmed: ALJ gave specific, clear, and convincing reasons for discounting testimony
Whether ALJ erred by omitting limitations from vocational expert (VE) hypothetical	VE hypothetical did not include all claimed limitations, violating Embrey	Hypothetical mirrored the RFC the ALJ adopted after evaluating testimony and medical evidence	Affirmed: No error—ALJ need only include limitations she found credible and supported by record
Whether the case should be remanded for benefits rather than further proceedings	Tucker sought immediate award of benefits	Commissioner opposed; factual findings supported denial	Affirmed denial; no basis for remand for benefits given record and credibility findings

Magallanes v. Bowen, 881 F.2d 747 (9th Cir. 1989) (ALJ must state specific, legitimate reasons based on substantial evidence to reject medical opinions)
Trevizo v. Berryhill, 871 F.3d 664 (9th Cir. 2017) (ALJ must provide clear and convincing reasons to discredit claimant testimony)
Molina v. Astrue, 674 F.3d 1104 (9th Cir. 2012) (ALJ may consider inconsistencies, daily activities, and objective evidence when assessing symptom testimony)
Embrey v. Bowen, 849 F.2d 418 (9th Cir. 1988) (ALJ must include claimant-credited limitations in VE hypothetical unless properly discredited)
Garrison v. Colvin, 759 F.3d 995 (9th Cir. 2014) (standards for evaluating symptom testimony and credibility)
Cotton v. Bowen, 799 F.2d 1403 (9th Cir. 1986) (ALJ must set out detailed summary of facts and conflicting evidence when rejecting opinions)
Bray v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 554 F.3d 1219 (9th Cir. 2009) (ALJ may discount testimony based on inconsistencies and daily activities)
Webb v. Barnhart, 433 F.3d 683 (9th Cir. 2005) (appellate standard of review for district court’s affirmance of ALJ decision)