Langenberg v. Commissioner of Social Security, 2:21-cv-00887

Background

Plaintiff filed Title II and XVI (SSI) applications on December 31, 2018, alleging onset of disability March 1, 2018; claims were denied and ALJ hearing occurred December 2, 2020.
ALJ Susan Smith issued a decision on December 21, 2020 finding plaintiff not disabled, concluding severe impairments included multiple sclerosis (MS), mood disorder, and neurocognitive disorder, and assessing an RFC for light work.
ALJ relied on state-agency opinions and vocational-expert testimony to find plaintiff could perform other work and therefore was not disabled at step five.
Key contested evidence: consultative psychologist Patricia Kraft, Ph.D., and treating neurologist Richard Mesher, M.D.; plaintiff also challenged the ALJ’s assessment of his subjective symptom testimony and omission of CPP (concentration, persistence, pace) limitations in the RFC.
District court upheld the ALJ’s discounting of Dr. Kraft but found the ALJ erred in discrediting Dr. Mesher’s opinion and plaintiff’s symptom testimony; errors were not harmless and could affect the RFC and VE hypotheticals.
Court reversed and remanded for further administrative proceedings, directing the ALJ to re-evaluate Dr. Mesher’s opinion and plaintiff’s symptom testimony and permit additional evidence/testimony as needed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
ALJ's evaluation of medical opinions (Dr. Kraft, Dr. Mesher)	Kraft: ALJ ignored parts of opinion about CPP interruptions and missed work; Mesher: treating neurologist's opinion improperly discounted	ALJ relied on objective records, daily activities, and treatment noncompliance; new regs alter review standards	ALJ permissibly discounted Dr. Kraft (supported by record); ALJ improperly discounted Dr. Mesher (reasons not supported by substantial evidence)
Evaluation of plaintiff's subjective symptom testimony	Plaintiff's MS symptoms (fatigue, headaches, vision, depression) were credible and supported by record	ALJ found testimony inconsistent with objective evidence, activities, and inconsistent statements	ALJ erred: relied on cherry-picked record and improper emphasis on lack of objective corroboration; one inconsistency (marijuana) insufficient to discredit testimony wholesale
RFC assessment and inclusion of moderate CPP limitations	ALJ should have explicitly incorporated step-three paragraph B moderate CPP limits into RFC	ALJ treated paragraph B as severity rating and performed an RFC for work-related functions	No reversible error on this ground: step-three findings are not RFCs; error (if any) harmless because ALJ must perform more detailed RFC analysis anyway
Remedy on remand (award benefits vs further proceedings)	Erroneous discounting of evidence requires benefits or further proceedings	Commissioner urges applying new regs and upholding ALJ decision	Court remanded for further proceedings — record ambiguous and further development may cure errors; did not award benefits

Key Cases Cited

Lester v. Chater, 81 F.3d 821 (9th Cir. 1995) (standard for rejecting examining physician opinions)
Tommasetti v. Astrue, 533 F.3d 1035 (9th Cir. 2008) (ALJ may discount an opinion inconsistent with the doctor’s own treatment notes)
Ghanim v. Colvin, 763 F.3d 1154 (9th Cir. 2014) (ALJ may not cherry-pick record in rejecting claim)
Regennitter v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 166 F.3d 1294 (9th Cir. 1998) (inconsistency with objective medical evidence can be a clear and convincing reason)
Robbins v. Social Sec. Admin., 466 F.3d 880 (9th Cir. 2006) (subjective testimony cannot be rejected solely for lack of objective corroboration)
Carmickle v. Commissioner, 533 F.3d 1155 (9th Cir. 2008) (harmless error framework for administrative decisions)
Trevizo v. Berryhill, 871 F.3d 664 (9th Cir. 2017) (standards for remand for award of benefits)
Garrison v. Colvin, 759 F.3d 995 (9th Cir. 2014) (three-part test for remand for benefits)
Biestek v. Berryhill, 139 S. Ct. 1148 (2019) (definition of substantial evidence)