234 F. Supp. 3d 951
D. Ariz.2017Background
- Plaintiff Cynthia Lannon applied for SSDI and SSI in July 2012, alleging disability since May 25, 2010; ALJ denied benefits after a hearing and the Appeals Council denied review.
- ALJ found severe impairments (cervical degenerative disc disease with prior laminectomy/craniotomy, rheumatoid and osteoarthritis, obesity, hypertension) but concluded they did not meet a listing and fashioned a sedentary RFC allowing frequent reaching/handling and unlimited sitting/standing/walking.
- ALJ credited an examining physician (Dr. Cunningham) and state non‑examining reviewers, and gave no weight to long‑time treating physician Dr. Richard Kelly, who reported marked limitations including frequent/lengthy breaks and absenteeism.
- ALJ also discounted Plaintiff’s symptom testimony (pain, hand numbness, headaches, limited stamina), citing daily activities, past job search, caregiver status, and pool “swimming.”
- District court reviewed the administrative record, held the ALJ erred in rejecting the treating physician and in failing to give clear and convincing reasons for discrediting Plaintiff’s testimony, and found the record fully developed.
- Court reversed and remanded for an award of benefits, concluding that crediting Dr. Kelly’s limitations would render Plaintiff disabled under the vocational expert’s testimony.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| ALJ’s rejection of treating‑physician opinion | Dr. Kelly’s long‑term treating opinion should have controlling or at least substantial weight; ALJ gave no adequate reasons to reject it | ALJ permissibly resolved conflicts and relied on objective record and other medical opinions | Court: ALJ gave only conclusory reasons; failed to provide specific, legitimate, substantiated reasons to reject treating opinion — legal error |
| Reliance on examining and non‑examining opinions | ALJ improperly favored Dr. Cunningham and non‑examining reviewers over Dr. Kelly without detailed analysis | Those opinions are consistent with objective record and support RFC | Court: ALJ did not explain why those opinions outweighed treating opinion; non‑examining opinions were conclusory; error to adopt without analysis |
| Credibility of Plaintiff’s symptom testimony | Plaintiff’s pain and functional limits are supported by medical evidence and consistent testimony; ALJ failed to offer clear and convincing reasons to reject | ALJ cited activities, earlier job search, caregiver notes, and exercise as inconsistencies | Court: ALJ’s reasons were selective or mischaracterized (cherry‑picking, overstating activities, misreading “swimming”); no clear and convincing reasons shown — error |
| Remedy — remand for further proceedings vs. benefits | Plaintiff asked remand for benefits given VE testimony that Dr. Kelly’s limits preclude work | Defendant urged further proceedings to resolve conflicts | Court: All three Smolen factors met; record fully developed; crediting treating opinion requires finding disability — remand for benefits |
Key Cases Cited
- Murray v. Heckler, 722 F.2d 499 (9th Cir. 1983) (treating physician’s opinion may be rejected only for specific, legitimate reasons)
- Cotton v. Bowen, 799 F.2d 1403 (9th Cir. 1986) (ALJ must provide detailed summary and interpretation when rejecting medical opinion)
- Embrey v. Bowen, 849 F.2d 418 (9th Cir. 1988) (ALJ must explain why his interpretations, not doctors’, are correct)
- Orn v. Astrue, 495 F.3d 625 (9th Cir. 2007) (ALJ must consider the record as a whole and give treating opinions appropriate weight)
- Smolen v. Chater, 80 F.3d 1273 (9th Cir. 1996) (two‑step credibility test and credit‑as‑true framework)
- Benecke v. Barnhart, 379 F.3d 587 (9th Cir. 2004) (daily activities do not alone defeat credibility)
- Reddick v. Chater, 157 F.3d 715 (9th Cir. 1998) (ALJ must identify which testimony is not credible and why)
- Garrison v. Colvin, 759 F.3d 995 (9th Cir. 2014) (limits on remanding for a ‘mulligan’; credit‑as‑true doctrine considerations)
- Burrell v. Colvin, 775 F.3d 1133 (9th Cir. 2014) (error where ALJ rejects treating opinion without specific and legitimate reasons)
- Molina v. Astrue, 674 F.3d 1104 (9th Cir. 2012) (daily activities may undermine credibility where they conflict with claimed complete disability)