Micahel Strom v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration, 8:19-cv-01259-GJS

Background

Plaintiff Michael S. applied for Disability Insurance Benefits on June 11, 2016, alleging disability beginning January 1, 2014; ALJ denied benefits on February 11, 2019 after finding an RFC for a limited range of light work (including limitation to simple, repetitive tasks for migraine-related concentration problems) and Step 5 nondisability.
Treating neurologist Dr. Wenqiang Tian treated Plaintiff since 2011 and saw him about every 2–3 months after June 2016; Dr. Tian completed a Headaches RFC Questionnaire on November 28, 2018.
Dr. Tian diagnosed chronic, medically intractable migraine with headaches 3–4 times per month lasting hours to days, noted failed medications and medication drowsiness, and opined Plaintiff would need unscheduled breaks (6–48 hours) and would be absent about four days per month, impairing sustained work.
The ALJ gave Dr. Tian’s opinion “little weight,” stating it was inconsistent with the medical evidence and Plaintiff’s reported daily activities (including part‑time Reserve work in 2015) and relied on other treatment notes (e.g., Dr. Kao) without identifying a contradictory medical opinion on work capacity.
The district court held the ALJ erred: the ALJ failed to identify Dr. Tian’s status as a long‑time treating neurologist, gave only conclusory reasons for discounting the opinion, and relied on daily‑activity findings that do not contradict the specific limitations; the matter was remanded for further proceedings (court did not reach symptom‑testimony issue).

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether ALJ properly considered treating neurologist Dr. Tian’s opinion	ALJ improperly rejected a treating neurologist’s detailed opinion without specific and legitimate (or clear and convincing) reasons	ALJ permissibly discounted the opinion as inconsistent with medical record and daily activities	Court: ALJ erred—failed to note treating/specialist status and gave only conclusory inconsistency reasons; remand warranted
Standard required to discredit a treating/examining opinion	Treating opinion requires clear and convincing reasons if uncontradicted, or specific and legitimate reasons if contradicted	ALJ applied appropriate weighing in context of record	Court: Regardless of standard, ALJ did not meet the burden—reasons were unsupported and non‑specific
Remedy: reversal for benefits vs. remand for further proceedings	Plaintiff sought reversal and benefits or, alternatively, remand	Commissioner urged affirmance	Court: Remand for further administrative proceedings because record not fully developed and outstanding issues remain

Key Cases Cited

Trevizo v. Berryhill, 871 F.3d 664 (9th Cir. 2017) (treating‑physician weight and factors to consider)
Lester v. Chater, 81 F.3d 821 (9th Cir. 1995) (standards for rejecting physician opinions)
Bayliss v. Barnhart, 427 F.3d 1211 (9th Cir. 2005) (clear and convincing vs. specific and legitimate reasons for discounting medical opinions)
Garrison v. Colvin, 759 F.3d 995 (9th Cir. 2014) (when to award benefits vs. remand and scope of remand)
Embrey v. Bowen, 849 F.2d 418 (9th Cir. 1988) (ALJ must give specific reasons, not conclusory statements, when rejecting physician opinions)
Reddick v. Chater, 157 F.3d 715 (9th Cir. 1998) (ALJ must set out detailed and thorough summary of facts and conflicting evidence)
Smolen v. Chater, 80 F.3d 1273 (9th Cir. 1996) (claimant need not be entirely incapacitated to be found disabled)
Molina v. Astrue, 674 F.3d 1104 (9th Cir. 2012) (decision should be upheld if supported by substantial evidence and reasonable interpretation)
Orn v. Astrue, 495 F.3d 625 (9th Cir. 2007) (court may review only the reasons the ALJ asserts)