Marjorie Wheatley v. Nancy Berryhill, 706 F. App'x 424

Marjorie Wheatley appealed the district court’s affirmance of the Social Security Administration’s denial of her Title II disability insurance benefits.
The Ninth Circuit reviewed the matter de novo and reversed and remanded for further proceedings.
The ALJ gave little weight to an examining physician, Dr. Overman, and to a treating physician, Dr. Neiman, and discounted lay testimony from Wheatley’s husband.
The court found the ALJ failed to give specific and legitimate reasons for discounting Dr. Overman’s opinion, in part because Overman conducted an exam and ultrasound and did not rely solely on Wheatley’s subjective reports.
The ALJ permissibly discounted Dr. Neiman’s opinion as inconsistent with medical evidence and Wheatley’s reported activities, but improperly treated the husband’s (lay) observations as merely recounting Wheatley’s subjective complaints.
Because unresolved factual issues remain and the record contains conflicting evidence, the Ninth Circuit remanded for further administrative proceedings rather than awarding benefits.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether ALJ gave legally sufficient reasons to reject Dr. Overman’s opinion	ALJ improperly characterized Overman as relying solely on claimant’s reports and failed to provide specific and legitimate reasons to discount his opinion	ALJ relied on alleged dependence on claimant’s subjective complaints and inconsistencies with record	Reversed — ALJ erred; Overman examined and tested claimant, so ALJ’s reasons were inadequate
Whether ALJ permissibly discounted Dr. Neiman’s opinion	Neiman’s opinion should be credited as treating physician evidence	ALJ argued Neiman’s opinion conflicted with medical evidence and claimant’s activities	Affirmed as to reasonableness — ALJ gave specific and legitimate reasons to assign little/no weight
Whether ALJ properly rejected lay testimony from claimant’s husband	Husband’s observations supported claimant’s limitations and should be credited	ALJ found husband merely repeated claimant’s subjective complaints and thus gave it little weight	Reversed — ALJ misstated basis: husband offered independent observations, so ALJ’s reason was inadequate
Proper remedy when ALJ errs in evaluating evidence	Plaintiff sought remand for benefits	Commissioner sought remand for further proceedings	Remanded for further proceedings — conflicts and unresolved factual issues preclude immediate award of benefits

Ghanim v. Colvin, 763 F.3d 1154 (9th Cir. 2014) (standard of review and review framework)
Lester v. Chater, 81 F.3d 821 (9th Cir. 1996) (ALJ must give specific and legitimate reasons to reject contradicted treating/examining opinions)
Ryan v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 528 F.3d 1194 (9th Cir. 2008) (examining physician who performs tests does not rely solely on claimant’s subjective reports)
Thomas v. Barnhart, 278 F.3d 947 (9th Cir. 2002) (ALJ may consider inconsistency with daily activities when evaluating testimony)
Rollins v. Massanari, 261 F.3d 853 (9th Cir. 2001) (daily activities can undermine claims of disabling pain)
Bruce v. Astrue, 557 F.3d 1113 (9th Cir. 2009) (ALJ must give reasons when rejecting lay witness testimony based on independent observations)
Treichler v. Comm’r Soc. Sec. Admin., 775 F.3d 1090 (9th Cir. 2014) (where factual issues remain, remand for further proceedings is appropriate)