Michele Belanger v. Nancy Berryhill, 685 F. App'x 596

Background

Michele Belanger applied for Social Security disability benefits; denied at multiple levels; ALJ found her not disabled after remands; district court affirmed; Ninth Circuit reverses and remands.
Primary medical opinions at issue: treating physicians Dr. Hansen (2009–2010) and Dr. Doak (2012), and one-time examining rheumatologist Dr. Kemple (2005).
Dr. Hansen assessed very restrictive limitations (e.g., <10 lb lift, sitting/standing ≤2 hours each, breaks every 15–20 minutes, rest after ~15 minutes of activity).
Dr. Doak’s questionnaire reported similar lift/sit/stand limits and substantial absences/pace problems but declined to assess some upper-extremity/postural functions and endorsed claimant’s credibility.
Dr. Kemple attributed limitations to degenerative structural problems based on imaging; ALJ discounted his opinion as inconsistent with objective imaging showing only mild degenerative changes.
A vocational counselor (Hitt) provided objective test results (e.g., hand-eye coordination) and disability-related conclusions; ALJ discounted Hitt’s medical conclusions and questioned his impartiality, largely rejecting the test results.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether ALJ properly discounted treating Dr. Hansen’s opinion	Hansen’s opinion should be given controlling/some weight; ALJ failed to give specific, legitimate reasons	ALJ said Hansen’s opinion inconsistent with record and based on claimant’s subjective reports	Reversed: ALJ’s boilerplate inconsistency finding and reliance on fact physician relied on subjective reports were insufficient without specific reasons; unclear if ALJ relied on an adverse credibility finding properly tied to evidence
Whether ALJ properly discounted treating Dr. Doak’s opinion	Doak’s functional restrictions are supported and not internally inconsistent; attorney notation doesn’t negate opinion	ALJ found internal contradictions, possible bias from attorney instruction, and that Doak endorsed claimant’s credibility	Reversed: ALJ’s reasons were not legitimate—partial evaluations not a basis to reject, attorney notation alone isn’t proof of impropriety, and physician’s reliance on claimant’s reports is not a valid ground here
Whether ALJ properly discounted examining Dr. Kemple’s opinion	Kemple’s opinion supports significant limitations	ALJ discounted it because it relied on degenerative changes not supported by imaging	Affirmed as to Kemple: ALJ permissibly discounted Kemple’s opinion given inconsistency with objective imaging evidence
Whether ALJ properly rejected vocational tester Hitt’s objective test results	Hitt’s objective testing and testimony support limitations that would change VE conclusions	ALJ argued Hitt acted as claimant’s advocate and lacked medical expertise for medical conclusions	Reversed in part: ALJ erred in wholesale rejection of Hitt’s objective test results based on thin evidence of bias; Hitt’s non-medical medical conclusions were properly discounted but objective test data should not have been fully disregarded

Key Cases Cited

Reddick v. Chater, 157 F.3d 715 (9th Cir. 1998) (treating-physician rule requires specific, legitimate reasons supported by substantial evidence to reject treating opinion)
Lester v. Chater, 81 F.3d 821 (9th Cir. 1995) (examining physician’s contradicted opinion requires specific, legitimate reasons supported by substantial evidence to reject)
Garrison v. Colvin, 759 F.3d 995 (9th Cir. 2014) (boilerplate inconsistencies are insufficient to reject treating opinions)
Rollins v. Massanari, 261 F.3d 853 (9th Cir. 2001) (fibromyalgia symptoms are subjective and lack objective diagnostic tests)
Burrell v. Colvin, 775 F.3d 1133 (9th Cir. 2014) (ALJ may reject treating opinion if largely based on claimant statements that have been properly discounted)
Dale v. Colvin, 823 F.3d 941 (9th Cir. 2016) (ALJ errs when discounting an other-source’s entire testimony for inconsistency after splitting testimony into parts)
Embrey v. Bowen, 849 F.2d 418 (9th Cir. 1988) (vocational expert hypotheticals must include all claimant limitations)