Lana Hahn v. Nancy Berryhill
16-35797
| 9th Cir. | Dec 8, 2017Background
- Lana Hahn appealed the district court’s affirmation of the Social Security Commissioner’s denial of Title II (DIB) and Title XVI (SSI) benefits.
- ALJ concluded Hahn’s migraine headaches were not a severe impairment, discounted parts of claimant and medical evidence, and relied on a vocational expert (VE) to find work existed.
- Medical record: normal brain MRI, symptoms reported controlled with medication, treatment notes showing average overall functioning and ability to perform activities of daily living (ADLs).
- Hahn reported walking her dog daily, exercising, caring for grandchildren and sister at various times — facts the ALJ found inconsistent with claimed disabling limitations.
- The ALJ rejected or discounted lay-witness statements and two treating physicians’ opinions (Dr. Afridi and Dr. Voeller) as unsupported or inconsistent with the record.
- The district court affirmed; Ninth Circuit reviewed de novo and affirmed the denial of benefits.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether migraines are a severe impairment and whether ALJ posed a complete hypothetical to the VE | Hahn: migraines are severe and the ALJ omitted limitations, making VE testimony defective | Commissioner: MRI and treatment records show migraines controlled; VE hypothetical included all credible limits | Court: ALJ properly found migraines non-severe; hypothetical complete; VE reliance proper |
| Credibility of Hahn’s subjective symptom testimony | Hahn: symptoms are disabling and prevent self-care/ADLs | Commissioner: reported activities and medical evidence contradict severity claims | Court: ALJ gave clear, convincing, supported reasons to discount testimony |
| Credibility of lay-witness statements (third-party reports) | Lay witnesses: Hahn requires assistance and cannot perform ADLs | Commissioner: lay statements conflict with Hahn’s own reports and medical evidence | Court: ALJ gave reasons germane to witnesses; rejection proper |
| Weight given to treating/consulting physicians’ opinions (Drs. Afridi & Voeller) | Hahn: doctors’ opinions show greater functional limits | Commissioner: opinions were conclusory or contradicted by treatment notes and objective findings | Court: ALJ permissibly rejected those opinions as inadequately supported or inconsistent |
Key Cases Cited
- Tommasetti v. Astrue, 533 F.3d 1035 (9th Cir. 2008) (standard of review and substantial-evidence framework)
- Andrews v. Shalala, 53 F.3d 1035 (9th Cir. 1995) (definition of substantial evidence)
- Bayliss v. Barnhart, 427 F.3d 1211 (9th Cir. 2005) (ALJ’s hypothetical must include all credible limitations when relying on VE)
- Dodrill v. Shalala, 12 F.3d 915 (9th Cir. 1993) (standards for discounting claimant testimony)
- Smolen v. Chater, 80 F.3d 1273 (9th Cir. 1996) (inconsistencies between daily activities and reported limitations support credibility findings)
- Carmickle v. Comm’r Soc. Sec. Admin., 533 F.3d 1155 (9th Cir. 2008) (rejecting lay witness testimony when inconsistent with record)
- Thomas v. Barnhart, 278 F.3d 947 (9th Cir. 2002) (rejection of medical opinions that are brief, conclusory, and unsupported)
- Valentine v. Comm’r Soc. Sec. Admin., 574 F.3d 685 (9th Cir. 2009) (treatment notes that contradict a physician’s opinion are proper bases to discount that opinion)