Lyle Hayes v. Nancy Berryhill
16-35011
| 9th Cir. | Jan 9, 2018Background
- Plaintiff Lyle Wesley Hayes applied for Supplemental Security Income and was denied by the ALJ; the district court affirmed and Hayes appealed to the Ninth Circuit.
- Hayes claimed disabling congestive heart failure (CHF), obstructive sleep apnea, and mental impairments (headaches/depression) and testified to severe symptoms including fatigue.
- Medical record: treatment notes and Hayes’s testimony indicated his CHF medications produced no side effects; consultative examiner Dr. Walter observed no signs or symptoms of CHF and his exam findings conflicted with treating physician Dr. Paddock’s opinions.
- Hayes had minimal treatment for mental symptoms; Dr. Forney-Gorman’s records contained only a single, year-old note of mild depression and no consistent treatment for mental impairment during the relevant period.
- A vocational counselor (Mr. Fowler) provided a lay opinion on functional limitations; the ALJ discounted it and the treating physician’s controverted opinion for specified reasons, and discredited Hayes’s subjective symptom testimony as inconsistent with activities and objective evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Severity of CHF at step two (and alleged med side effects) | Hayes: CHF is severe and medication causes side effects; ALJ failed to develop record on side effects | Commissioner: Treatment notes and Hayes’s testimony show no side effects; record adequate | ALJ did not err; CHF non-severe and no duty to further develop record on alleged side effects |
| Reliance on Dr. Walter’s exam regarding CHF | Hayes: ALJ improperly relied on Dr. Walter’s opinion to find CHF non-severe | Commissioner: ALJ only cited Dr. Walter’s observation of no CHF signs, not an RFC opinion | Inapposite; ALJ did not rely on Dr. Walter’s opinion beyond his exam findings |
| Sleep apnea and Listing 3.10 evaluation | Hayes: ALJ erred by not evaluating sleep apnea under Listing 3.10 | Commissioner: Listing 3.10 applies at step three, not step two; Hayes fails to show listing-level criteria | No error at step two; any step-three claim fails because Hayes did not show how criteria are met or equaled |
| Mental impairment evaluation / psychiatric review | Hayes: ALJ should have completed psychiatric review and obtained mental consult | Commissioner: Hayes did not present a colorable mental impairment claim or evidence of functional limitations | No error; no colorable claim or medical evidence requiring psychiatric review |
| Weight given to treating physician Dr. Paddock | Hayes: ALJ improperly discounted treating opinion | Commissioner: ALJ gave specific, legitimate, supported reasons (lack of contemporaneous support; inconsistency with Dr. Walter and exams) | Properly discounted for valid reasons supported by substantial evidence |
| Lay opinion of vocational counselor Fowler | Hayes: ALJ wrongly discounted Fowler as not an acceptable medical source | Commissioner: ALJ erred in classification but gave other germane reasons (inconsistency with medical evidence and lack of treatment) | Error harmless; ALJ permissibly rejected Fowler’s opinion for other germane reasons |
| Credibility of Hayes’s symptom testimony | Hayes: ALJ improperly discredited his symptom reports | Commissioner: Testimony inconsistent with activities, objective evidence, and lack of treatment | ALJ gave clear, convincing reasons to discredit testimony; RFC and VE hypothetical limited to credible limitations |
Key Cases Cited
- Garrison v. Colvin, 759 F.3d 995 (9th Cir. 2014) (standard of review and principles for evaluating symptom testimony)
- Burch v. Barnhart, 400 F.3d 676 (9th Cir. 2005) (ALJ may discount subjective complaints unsupported by objective medical evidence)
- Keyser v. Comm’r Soc. Sec. Admin., 648 F.3d 721 (9th Cir. 2011) (requirement of a colorable mental impairment claim for psychiatric review)
- Ryan v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 528 F.3d 1194 (9th Cir. 2008) (standards for rejecting treating physician opinions)
- Bayliss v. Barnhart, 427 F.3d 1211 (9th Cir. 2005) (ALJ may reject medical opinions inconsistent with exam findings and other evidence)
- Molina v. Astrue, 674 F.3d 1104 (9th Cir. 2012) (harmless error framework for social security decisions)
- Vasquez v. Astrue, 572 F.3d 586 (9th Cir. 2009) (requirements for clear and convincing reasons to reject claimant testimony)
- Howard ex rel. Wolff v. Barnhart, 341 F.3d 1006 (9th Cir. 2003) (claimant bears burden to show evidence is significant and probative)