Michael Cramer v. Nancy Berryhill
706 F. App'x 385
| 9th Cir. | 2017Background
- Michael Cramer appealed the district court’s affirmance of the Commissioner’s denial of Title II and XVI disability benefits; this Court reviews de novo and affirms.
- The ALJ found Cramer’s hepatitis C and degenerative disc disease produced no more than minimal work limitations and concluded fibromyalgia was not a medically determinable impairment.
- The ALJ assessed a residual functional capacity (RFC) that included all limitations supported by the record and posed a corresponding hypothetical to a vocational expert (VE).
- The ALJ gave clear and convincing reasons to reject treating/consulting opinions (notably Dr. Knapp and Dr. Harmon) based on inconsistencies with clinical findings, claimant’s activities, and work history.
- The ALJ also discredited Cramer’s subjective symptom testimony for multiple clear-and-convincing reasons (inconsistent employment statements, activities, mild mental-status exams, and failure to use medications).
- The Appeals Council considered new evidence but the court concluded substantial evidence still supports the ALJ’s decision rejecting disabling limitations in that new evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Step-two severity of various physical diagnoses (e.g., fibromyalgia, lumbar spondylosis) | ALJ erred by not finding these impairments severe or discussing them specifically | ALJ considered the evidence and any omission was harmless because RFC accounted for supported limitations | Harmless error; ALJ’s step-two findings supported by substantial evidence and RFC addressed limitations |
| Weight afforded to Dr. Knapp’s opinion | Dr. Knapp’s opinion reflecting disabling limitations should be credited | ALJ properly rejected it as inconsistent with Dr. Knapp’s own findings, claimant’s activities, and work history | Rejection upheld; clear and convincing reasons supported by record |
| Weight afforded to Dr. Harmon’s opinion (which relied on Dr. Knapp) | Harmon’s opinion should have been credited independently | Harmon’s opinion was based entirely on Knapp’s conclusions, which were properly rejected | Rejection upheld as properly based on inadequate support and reliance on Knapp |
| Credibility of claimant’s symptom testimony | Cramer’s testimony of debilitating limitations was credible and should inform RFC | ALJ discounted testimony due to inconsistent work history, activities, objective exams, and failure to medicate | ALJ gave several clear-and-convincing reasons to discredit testimony; RFC stands |
| Consideration of new evidence by Appeals Council | New evidence showing inability to handle social interactions should change outcome | Appeals Council considered new evidence; ALJ’s reasoning still applies because evidence is inconsistent with activities and work history | Substantial evidence supports the ALJ even with new evidence; decision affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Rounds v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 807 F.3d 996 (9th Cir. 2015) (standard of de novo review for district court decisions)
- Webb v. Barnhart, 433 F.3d 683 (9th Cir. 2005) (non-severe impairment standard)
- Lewis v. Astrue, 498 F.3d 909 (9th Cir. 2007) (harmlessness of step-two errors when RFC considers limitations)
- Ghanim v. Colvin, 763 F.3d 1154 (9th Cir. 2014) (activities can justify rejecting a medical opinion)
- Bayliss v. Barnhart, 427 F.3d 1211 (9th Cir. 2005) (rejecting opinions inconsistent with past work and clinical observations)
- Thomas v. Barnhart, 278 F.3d 947 (9th Cir. 2002) (ALJ need not accept inadequately supported medical opinions)
- Hiler v. Astrue, 687 F.3d 1208 (9th Cir. 2012) (ALJ need not discuss immaterial/insignificant treatment notes)
- Vasquez v. Astrue, 572 F.3d 586 (9th Cir. 2009) (standards for discrediting claimant testimony)
- Molina v. Astrue, 674 F.3d 1104 (9th Cir. 2012) (inconsistency between testimony and medical record supports discounting testimony)
- Stubbs-Danielson v. Astrue, 539 F.3d 1169 (9th Cir. 2008) (RFC and VE testimony adequacy)
- Gardner v. Berryhill, 856 F.3d 652 (9th Cir. 2017) (evaluating ALJ decisions in light of new evidence considered by Appeals Council)