Michael Hall v. Nancy Berryhill
14-35797
| 9th Cir. | Dec 15, 2017Background
- Michael Hall applied for Social Security disability insurance and SSI; ALJ denied benefits and the district court affirmed. Hall appealed to the Ninth Circuit.
- Treating therapist Mr. Arnold issued a July 2011 opinion (given significant weight by the ALJ) and a November 2011 addendum (submitted to and considered by the Appeals Council) stating Hall’s bipolar disorder caused cycles of severe depression every 2–3 months that would make him miss multiple workdays.
- The ALJ relied on a vocational expert who testified employers tolerate about one absence per month and that more frequent absences could lead to termination.
- The ALJ discounted (with germane or specific reasons) other opinions: Mr. Arnold’s September 2010 note, Dr. Edwards’s opinion, and lay testimony from Hall’s mother; the ALJ credited Drs. Fisher and Fligstein.
- The ALJ gave several clear-and-convincing reasons for partially rejecting Hall’s subjective symptom testimony (medication noncompliance, symptom stability when compliant, inconsistent activities, normal testing, lack of ongoing treatment for panic attacks, low work motivation), though one credibility reason (inconsistent sobriety statements) was erroneous but harmless.
- The RFC did not account for Mr. Arnold’s November 2011 addendum (the absenteeism limitation); the Ninth Circuit remanded because that addendum undermines the substantial-evidence support for the RFC and the hypothetical to the vocational expert.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Weight of Mr. Arnold’s Nov. 2011 addendum (treating therapist) | Arnold’s addendum shows cyclical severe depression causing multiple missed workdays; it must be credited and incorporated into RFC. | ALJ already gave significant weight to Arnold’s July 2011 opinion; November addendum was considered by Appeals Council but ALJ did not rely on its absenteeism finding. | Remanded: November addendum, considered part of the record, undermines RFC and VE reliance; further proceedings required. |
| Rejection of Mr. Arnold’s Sept. 2010 opinion (non-acceptable source) | Sept. 2010 opinion supports greater limitations. | ALJ gave germane reasons: inconsistency with treatment notes, Hall’s activities, and reliance on subjective reports. | Affirmed: harmless error to discount because Arnold was not an acceptable medical source for the treating-physician rule. |
| Credibility of Hall’s symptom testimony | Hall contends ALJ improperly discounted his testimony. | ALJ cited clear-and-convincing reasons (noncompliance, improvement with treatment, activity inconsistencies, normal testing, etc.). | Affirmed: most credibility reasons supported; one erroneous sobriety finding harmless given other valid reasons. |
| RFC formulation and reliance on vocational expert | RFC omitted Arnold’s absenteeism limitation; VE testimony thus insufficient to support nondisability. | ALJ relied on VE testimony based on RFC that employers tolerate ~1 absence/month. | Remanded: because absenteeism finding could make Hall unemployable and record lacks resolved factual issues, further proceedings required. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ghanim v. Colvin, 736 F.3d 1154 (9th Cir. 2014) (standard of review and citation for de novo review of certain issues)
- Brewes v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 682 F.3d 1157 (9th Cir. 2012) (additional evidence considered by Appeals Council becomes part of the record on review)
- Molina v. Astrue, 674 F.3d 1104 (9th Cir. 2012) (factors for evaluating claimant credibility and effects of noncompliance with treatment)
- Lester v. Chater, 81 F.3d 821 (9th Cir. 1996) (standards for rejecting a contradicted examining physician’s opinion)
- Valentine v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 574 F.3d 685 (9th Cir. 2009) (RFC and hypothetical to vocational expert must be supported by substantial evidence)
- Treichler v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 775 F.3d 1090 (9th Cir. 2014) (remand for benefits inappropriate when factual issues remain unresolved)
- Bayliss v. Barnhart, 427 F.3d 1211 (9th Cir. 2005) (lay witness testimony must be given germane reasons when discounted)
- Batson v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 359 F.3d 1190 (9th Cir. 2004) (medical records inconsistent with claims is permissible reason to find claimant not credible)
- Tommasetti v. Astrue, 533 F.3d 1035 (9th Cir. 2008) (credibility undermined when claimant’s condition is controlled by medication)