Leopoldo Leon v. Nancy Berryhill
880 F.3d 1041
| 9th Cir. | 2017Background
- Leon, a former landscaper with a sixth-grade education, applied for Title II disability benefits for a period beginning February 6, 2010; ALJ denied benefits after a hearing.
- ALJ found severe impairments (knee degenerative joint disease, lumbar degenerative disc disease, diabetes with nephropathy, hypertension) and concluded Leon retained capacity for light work with limitations.
- Central contested symptom: Leon’s testimony that sleep loss and medication-induced fatigue (including naps and fainting) prevent sustained full‑time work; stepdaughter and some treating non‑physician providers corroborated fatigue.
- ALJ discounted Leon’s fatigue testimony and lay-witness statements without providing sufficiently specific, clear, and convincing reasons and gave insufficient weight to nurse practitioner observations under the pre‑2017 rules.
- District court remanded for further proceedings but applied the credit‑as‑true (Varney) analysis improperly by crediting testimony before determining whether the record required further development.
- Ninth Circuit affirmed remand but clarified Treichler requirements, ordered an open remand focused on Leon’s fatigue and allowed limited cross‑examination of the Commissioner’s medical consultants on that issue.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether ALJ gave legally sufficient reasons to reject Leon’s fatigue testimony and lay-witness evidence | ALJ failed to give specific, clear, and convincing reasons; nurse practitioner and stepdaughter corroboration required germane consideration | ALJ reasonably found fatigue not supported by medical evidence and therefore rejected testimony | Court: ALJ erred; reasons insufficient for rejecting fatigue testimony and lay witness statements |
| Whether the credit‑as‑true rule required immediate award of benefits | Leon argued district court should have reversed and awarded benefits under the Varney/Treichler framework | Commissioner argued further proceedings were appropriate because record had gaps and uncertainty about extent of disability | Court: District court properly remanded; immediate benefits not warranted because record needs further development and uncertainty remains |
| Proper scope and sequencing of Varney/Treichler credit‑as‑true analysis | Leon urged credit testimony and then determine outcome | Commissioner urged follow Varney/Treichler sequence: first error, then assess if record fully developed and whether remand useful | Court: Must follow Treichler sequence; court may still remand on open record when serious doubt exists |
| Proper remedial action on remand | Leon sought direct award; also contested insufficient VE testimony | Commissioner sought remand for further proceedings before any award | Court: Affirmed remand and instructed district court to remand to ALJ with open record limited to fatigue issue and permit cross‑examination of medical consultants on fatigue |
Key Cases Cited
- Treichler v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 775 F.3d 1090 (9th Cir. 2014) (clarifies limits and sequencing of credit‑as‑true rule and courts’ discretion to remand)
- Varney v. Secretary of Health & Human Servs., 859 F.2d 1396 (9th Cir. 1988) (articulates the three‑part credit‑as‑true framework)
- Garrison v. Colvin, 759 F.3d 995 (9th Cir. 2014) (discusses crediting testimony and when remand is appropriate)
- Brown‑Hunter v. Colvin, 806 F.3d 487 (9th Cir. 2015) (remand on open record where questions remain about symptom severity)
- Trevizo v. Berryhill, 871 F.3d 664 (9th Cir. 2017) (awarded benefits where record was extensive and unambiguous supporting disability)
- Dominguez v. Colvin, 808 F.3d 403 (9th Cir. 2015) (upholds remand where inconsistencies and gaps exist in record)
- Lingenfelter v. Astrue, 504 F.3d 1028 (9th Cir. 2007) (two‑step credibility inquiry requires objective impairment then clear and convincing reasons to reject testimony)
- Smolen v. Chater, 80 F.3d 1273 (9th Cir. 1996) (standard for rejecting subjective symptom testimony)
- Taylor v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 659 F.3d 1228 (9th Cir. 2011) (germane reasons required to discount lay witness testimony)
- Moisa v. Barnhart, 367 F.3d 882 (9th Cir. 2004) (whether outstanding issues must be resolved before disability determination)
- Forney v. Apfel, 524 U.S. 266 (1998) (party may appeal district court’s remand order when direct relief sought was not granted)