Megret v. Berryhill
2:17-cv-00385
| W.D. Wash. | Oct 19, 2017Background
- Plaintiff Leonardo Bandera Megret applied for Supplemental Security Income in 2010 and alleged disability beginning September 16, 2011; ALJ issued an unfavorable decision after remand and the court reviews that decision.
- ALJ found severe impairments including PTSD, major depressive disorder with psychotic features, antisocial personality history, cognitive disorder, and substance use disorder, but not disabling under the Listings.
- RFC: full range of work at all exertional levels limited to simple, routine tasks (predetermined), no contact with the general public, no tandem/team tasks, occasional superficial contact with coworkers/supervisors, predictable workplace.
- ALJ found plaintiff could perform past relevant work as a fish packer and, alternatively, other jobs existing in significant numbers nationally; therefore not disabled since the amended onset date.
- Key contested issues on appeal: whether the ALJ gave proper weight to multiple treating/examining/nonexamining medical opinions and whether the ALJ properly evaluated plaintiff’s subjective symptom testimony.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Weight given to treating physician James Prince, M.D. | ALJ improperly rejected Dr. Prince’s marked limitations without specific and legitimate reasons | ALJ reasonably discounted marked limitations as inconsistent with Dr. Prince’s contemporaneous treatment notes and other clinical findings | Court: ALJ provided specific, substantial-evidence-supported reasons; discounting upheld |
| Weight given to treatment provider Catherine Grupp and endorsement of Prince opinion | Grupp’s opinions accurately reflect severe memory/social impairments and should be credited | ALJ permissibly discounted Grupp because her conclusions relied on self-report and conflicted with treatment notes; her signature endorsing Prince added no new support | Court: ALJ’s reasons were specific and legitimate; discounting upheld |
| Weight given to examining psychologists (Czysz, Davis, Sanchez) | ALJ erred in rejecting or not fully crediting examining opinions that found greater limitations | ALJ discounted Czysz/Davis as inconsistent with contemporaneous treatment records and gave significant weight to Sanchez, whose moderate findings were incorporated | Court: ALJ’s treatment of examining opinions supported by substantial evidence; Sanchez credited appropriately |
| Weight given to nonexamining testifying expert Kenneth Asher, Ph.D. | ALJ improperly relied on nonexamining testimony that imposed fewer limitations | ALJ relied on Asher where consistent with record but declined Asher’s view on persistence due to conflict with Dr. Sanchez’s objective exam | Court: ALJ permissibly favored examining clinician’s objective findings over nonexamining testimony |
| Evaluation of plaintiff’s subjective symptom testimony | Plaintiff contends symptoms should be assessed by providers, not discounted | Defendant: ALJ discounted inconsistent and partially unreliable self-reports and used medical record to evaluate credibility | Court: Plaintiff waived specific challenge; ALJ offered sufficient reasons to discount symptom reports |
Key Cases Cited
- Bayliss v. Barnhart, 427 F.3d 1211 (9th Cir. 2005) (standard for substantial evidence review and weighing medical opinions)
- Reddick v. Chater, 157 F.3d 715 (9th Cir. 1998) (ALJ must give specific, cogent reasons when rejecting evidence)
- Lester v. Chater, 81 F.3d 821 (9th Cir. 1996) (standards for rejecting treating/examining physician opinions)
- Tommasetti v. Astrue, 533 F.3d 1035 (9th Cir. 2008) (physician opinions based largely on claimant’s self-report may be rejected if reports are discounted)
- Garrison v. Colvin, 759 F.3d 995 (9th Cir. 2014) (GAF scores are relevant but not dispositive to disability determinations)
- Magallanes v. Bowen, 881 F.2d 747 (9th Cir. 1989) (court may draw specific and legitimate inferences from ALJ opinion)