Latrinda Wilfred-Pickett v. Nancy Berryhill
15-35199
| 9th Cir. | Dec 15, 2017Background
- Plaintiff Latrinda Wilfred-Pickett appealed the denial of disability benefits under Titles II and XVI; the district court affirmed and she appealed to the Ninth Circuit.
- ALJ found Plaintiff not disabled after evaluating medical records, treating-source opinions, lay testimony, and Plaintiff’s symptom statements.
- Treating physician Dr. Oswald gave mixed opinions (June 2010: could return to work; Jan/Mar 2012: could not work); ALJ gave varied weight to these opinions.
- Other medical evidence included a check-box disabled parking form from Dr. Victoria Allen, notes from ARNP Bridget Scott-Fletcher, and a psychotherapy opinion from Brandon Erickson, MA, MPH.
- ALJ discounted portions of Plaintiff’s testimony and lay witness statements based on inconsistencies with objective evidence and daily activities; ALJ relied in part on state agency physicians.
- The Appeals Council received new evidence which Plaintiff argued required reversal; the Ninth Circuit declined to consider that argument as insufficiently developed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether ALJ failed to consider medical evidence as a whole and misweighed evidence | Wilfred-Pickett: ALJ ignored or undervalued medical evidence supporting her symptom testimony | Commissioner: ALJ considered record, gave reasoned weight to evidence; disagreement is impermissible reweighing | ALJ did not err; appellant effectively asks court to reweigh evidence and failed to preserve some arguments |
| Weight given to treating physician Dr. Oswald’s opinions | Wilfred-Pickett: ALJ should have given more weight to 2012 opinions finding she could not work and less to 2010 opinion | Commissioner: ALJ provided specific reasons (lack of objective support, short-duration limits, inconsistency with activities) for discounting 2012 opinions | Court upheld ALJ’s reasoning and discounting of unsupported 2012 opinions |
| Weight given to other medical and non-physician sources (Dr. Allen, ARNP, psychotherapist) | Wilfred-Pickett: ALJ erred in rejecting these sources | Commissioner: Forms were check-box or lacked explanation; ARNP and psychotherapist opinions lacked objective support or conflicted with activities | ALJ permissibly discounted unsupported check-box reports and gave germane reasons for rejecting other-source testimony |
| Credibility of Plaintiff and lay witness testimony; RFC and Step Five findings | Wilfred-Pickett: ALJ improperly discounted testimony and erred in RFC/Step Five | Commissioner: ALJ gave specific, clear, convincing reasons (exaggeration, inconsistent activities, objective record) and RFC/Step Five findings were supported | Court affirmed discounting of testimony and found no reversible error in RFC/Step Five; some arguments waived for lack of specificity |
Key Cases Cited
- Attmore v. Colvin, 827 F.3d 872 (9th Cir. 2016) (standard of review; de novo review of district court’s judgment affirming ALJ)
- Independent Towers of Washington v. Washington, 350 F.3d 925 (9th Cir. 2003) (issues must be raised specifically and distinctly to preserve them on appeal)
- Carmickle v. Comm’r Soc. Sec. Admin., 533 F.3d 1155 (9th Cir. 2008) (preservation requirements for appellate review)
- Tommasetti v. Astrue, 533 F.3d 1035 (9th Cir. 2008) (ALJ’s role in resolving conflicting medical evidence)
- Ryan v. Comm’r Soc. Sec. Admin., 528 F.3d 1194 (9th Cir. 2008) (cases susceptible to more than one rational interpretation should be upheld)
- Chaudry v. Astrue, 688 F.3d 661 (9th Cir. 2012) (ALJ may reject opinions inadequately supported by clinical findings)
- Molina v. Astrue, 674 F.3d 1104 (9th Cir. 2012) (check-box forms and conclusory opinions may be discounted)
- Sandgathe v. Chater, 108 F.3d 978 (9th Cir. 1997) (forfeiture/waiver principles on appeal)
- Treichler v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 775 F.3d 1090 (9th Cir. 2014) (two-step credibility analysis and standards for clear and convincing reasons)
- Tonapetyan v. Halter, 242 F.3d 1144 (9th Cir. 2001) (standards for evaluating claimant testimony)
- Bray v. Comm’r Soc. Sec. Admin., 554 F.3d 1219 (9th Cir. 2009) (harmless error doctrine where adequate reasons exist)
- Valentine v. Comm’r Soc. Sec. Admin., 574 F.3d 685 (9th Cir. 2009) (treatment of lay witness testimony similar to claimant’s statements)