Margaret Martinez v. Nancy Berryhill
16-15757
| 9th Cir. | Dec 7, 2017Background
- Martinez applied for Social Security disability benefits alleging severe mental disorders (recurrent severe depression with psychotic features, PTSD) and chronic pain from degenerative disc disease. Treating psychiatrists (Drs. Tuason, Ensom) and primary care physicians (Drs. Villalvazo, Peters) concluded she could not work.
- An ALJ denied benefits, giving little or no weight to treating physicians’ opinions and discounting Martinez’s symptom testimony; the ALJ relied in part on an examining physician (Dr. Swanson) and past hearing findings.
- Martinez appealed the denial to the district court; the district court affirmed the ALJ. Martinez then appealed to the Ninth Circuit.
- The Ninth Circuit found the ALJ failed to give specific and legitimate reasons, supported by substantial evidence, for rejecting the treating physicians’ opinions and failed to give clear and convincing reasons to discount Martinez’s testimony.
- The court concluded the errors were not harmless because they affected the RFC and the vocational expert’s testimony; the record was sufficiently developed to apply the “credit-as-true” rule.
- The Ninth Circuit reversed and remanded for an award of benefits.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether ALJ properly rejected treating psychiatrists’ opinions | Treating psychiatrists’ records support extreme/ significant functional limits and should be credited | ALJ argued opinion forms lacked supporting findings and conflicted with examining doctor | Rejected ALJ rationale; ALJ failed to identify specific, legitimate inconsistencies supported by substantial evidence |
| Whether ALJ properly rejected treating physicians’ (physical) opinions | Treating PCPs found inability to work due to pain; objective imaging and limitations support those opinions | ALJ found reliance on subjective complaints and pointed to exam findings inconsistent with extreme limits | Rejected ALJ reasons; objective evidence did not clearly contradict treating opinions and ALJ improperly discounted claimant testimony used to dismiss them |
| Whether ALJ properly discounted Martinez’s symptom testimony | Martinez: severe symptoms, frequent lying down, limited daily activities; testimony consistent with records | ALJ cited inconsistencies, daily activities, prior ALJ findings, and lack of corroboration for some symptoms | ALJ did not give specific, clear, convincing reasons; many cited inconsistencies were irrelevant or unsupported |
| Whether remand should be for further proceedings or immediate benefits (credit-as-true) | Record is complete and treating opinions uniformly establish disability; award benefits | Commissioner implicitly urged further proceedings | Court applied credit-as-true: remanded for award of benefits |
Key Cases Cited
- Reddick v. Chater, 157 F.3d 715 (9th Cir.) (standard for discounting contradicted treating physician opinion)
- Smolen v. Chater, 80 F.3d 1273 (9th Cir.) (evaluation of claimant testimony and symptom evidence)
- Garrison v. Colvin, 759 F.3d 995 (9th Cir.) (credit-as-true rule and treating-opinion analysis)
- Holohan v. Massanari, 246 F.3d 1195 (9th Cir.) (need to consider treatment records as a whole)
- Burrell v. Colvin, 775 F.3d 1133 (9th Cir.) (limits on discounting treating opinions based on claimant’s subjective complaints)
- Lingenfelter v. Astrue, 504 F.3d 1028 (9th Cir.) (two-step process for evaluating symptom testimony)
- Brewes v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 682 F.3d 1157 (9th Cir.) (considering memory limitations when assessing testimony)
- Molina v. Astrue, 674 F.3d 1104 (9th Cir.) (harmless error standard in administrative proceedings)
- Embrey v. Bowen, 849 F.2d 418 (9th Cir.) (effect of improperly rejected medical testimony on RFC)
- Trevizo v. Berryhill, 871 F.3d 664 (9th Cir.) (limits on discrediting testimony absent clear reasons)
- Treichler v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 775 F.3d 1090 (9th Cir.) (when credit-as-true is inappropriate)
- Leon v. Berryhill, 874 F.3d 1130 (9th Cir.) (comparison point for credit-as-true refusals)
- Rodriguez v. Bowen, 876 F.2d 759 (9th Cir.) (few hours per day of work does not equal substantial gainful activity)