Naomi Marsh v. Carolyn Colvin
2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 11920
| 9th Cir. | 2015Background
- Naomi Marsh applied for SSDI in 2006, claiming disability from an October 2, 2001 work injury and a car wreck; the SSA denied benefits and an ALJ upheld the denial.
- The administrative record included treating-provider SOAP notes from Dr. David H. Betat (Sept 2003–Nov 2006) stating Marsh was "pretty much nonfunctional" from chronic trochanteric bursitis and appeared disabled.
- The ALJ’s written decision did not mention Dr. Betat or his medical opinions. The Appeals Council denied review; the district court affirmed and applied harmless-error analysis to the ALJ’s omission.
- Marsh appealed, arguing (1) the ALJ’s failure to discuss a treating source’s opinion was error and (2) the district court improperly applied harmless-error review and Chenery limitations.
- The Ninth Circuit agreed the ALJ erred by failing to address the treating-source opinion and vacated and remanded because it could not confidently conclude the omission was harmless. The Court left intact the ALJ’s credibility findings about Marsh’s symptom testimony.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether harmless-error doctrine applies when an ALJ ignores a treating source’s opinion | Marsh: harmless-error shouldn’t be used to excuse ignoring a treating-source opinion; such omission requires remand | SSA: harmless-error doctrine applies generally in Social Security cases | Held: Harmless-error applies, but must be applied fact-specifically; omission of a treating opinion can be reversible error when harmlessness is not clear |
| Whether Dr. Betat was a treating source and his SOAP notes were medical opinions | Marsh: Dr. Betat was a treating source and his notes expressed medical opinions about impairment and function | SSA: contended Betat was not a treating source and notes were not medical opinions | Held: Dr. Betat qualified as a treating source and his SOAP notes were medical opinions under SSA regulations |
| Whether ALJ erred by not addressing a treating source’s opinion | Marsh: ALJ must discuss and give specific, legitimate reasons to reject a treating opinion; silence is error | SSA: omission could be harmless or justified by other substantial evidence | Held: ALJ erred by failing to mention or reject the treating opinion; such silence is error requiring analysis of harmlessness |
| Whether the error was harmless such that no remand is required | Marsh: omission prejudiced decision; remand required | SSA/district court: omission was harmless because other record evidence supported denial | Held: Court could not confidently conclude omission was harmless given Betat’s strong statement that Marsh was "pretty much nonfunctional"; vacated and remanded for ALJ to address Betat’s opinion |
Key Cases Cited
- Berry v. Astrue, 622 F.3d 1228 (9th Cir. 2010) (standard of review for agency denials)
- McLeod v. Astrue, 640 F.3d 881 (9th Cir. 2011) (harmless-error framework in Social Security cases)
- Molina v. Astrue, 674 F.3d 1104 (9th Cir. 2012) (application of harmless-error analysis; no presumptions)
- Garrison v. Colvin, 759 F.3d 995 (9th Cir. 2014) (treating-source opinion rejection requires specific and legitimate reasons)
- Stout v. Comm’r, Soc. Sec. Admin., 454 F.3d 1050 (9th Cir. 2006) (silent disregard of testimony not harmless; standard for harmlessness)
- Lingenfelter v. Astrue, 504 F.3d 1028 (9th Cir. 2007) (clear and convincing reasons required to reject claimant symptom testimony)
- Meier v. Colvin, 727 F.3d 867 (9th Cir. 2013) (credibility findings must be supported by substantial evidence)
- Bowen v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 478 F.3d 742 (6th Cir. 2007) (remand appropriate when treating opinion omission creates reasonable doubt)
- Thomas v. Barnhart, 278 F.3d 947 (9th Cir. 2002) (factors for assessing claimant testimony credibility)
- Sec. & Exch. Comm’n v. Chenery Corp., 332 U.S. 194 (1947) (reviewing court may not affirm agency on grounds not invoked by agency)