Natalee Richards v. Nancy Berryhill
713 F. App'x 545
9th Cir.2017Background
- Natalee Richards applied for Social Security disability insurance benefits; the ALJ denied benefits and the district court affirmed. Richards appealed to the Ninth Circuit.
- The ALJ found Richards gave false or inconsistent testimony and was highly motivated to obtain benefits. Investigators observed activities inconsistent with her claimed limitations.
- Treating physicians (Drs. Landy and Sacks) and an examining psychologist (Dr. Griffin) offered opinions supporting limitations; nonexamining physicians and other evidence contradicted those opinions.
- The ALJ gave limited weight to the treating/examining opinions because they relied on Richards’ subjective reports and conflicted with treatment notes and objective findings.
- The ALJ found knee pain and mental impairments nonsevere at step two but still considered them in the RFC analysis. He also discounted Richards’ symptom testimony for specific, clear, and convincing reasons.
- The Ninth Circuit affirmed, concluding the ALJ’s credibility findings, discounting of medical opinions, use of CDIU evidence, step-two findings, symptom evaluation, and RFC assessment were supported by substantial evidence or were harmless error.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Credibility of claimant testimony | Richards argued her testimony was credible and should be credited | ALJ argued testimony contained false/inconsistent statements and contradicted investigator observations | ALJ permissibly rejected her testimony; credibility finding upheld |
| Weight given to treating/examining physicians | Richards argued treating and examining opinions should be given greater weight | ALJ relied on contradictions, physicians’ reliance on claimant report, and inconsistencies with records | ALJ gave specific, legitimate (and for examiner, clear and convincing) reasons to discount opinions; upheld |
| Use of CDIU investigative evidence | Richards contended CDIU errors undermined the ALJ’s reliance on their evidence | SSA/ALJ noted any CDIU errors were harmless given other consistent evidence | Any asserted CDIU errors were harmless; ALJ’s reliance did not taint the outcome |
| Step-two severity and RFC analysis | Richards argued knee, mental impairments, and fibromyalgia should have been treated as severe and reflected in RFC | ALJ found impairments nonsevere but evaluated them in RFC and rejected fibromyalgia-based limitations due to noncredibility | Step-two nonsevere findings supported by substantial evidence; RFC analysis adequate and affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Tonapetyan v. Halter, 242 F.3d 1144 (9th Cir. 2001) (ALJ may use ordinary credibility evaluation techniques)
- Valentine v. Comm’r Soc. Sec. Admin., 574 F.3d 685 (9th Cir. 2009) (contradicted treating/examining opinions require specific, legitimate reasons to reject)
- Lester v. Chater, 81 F.3d 821 (9th Cir. 1996) (uncontradicted examining opinion requires clear and convincing reasons to reject)
- Molina v. Astrue, 674 F.3d 1104 (9th Cir. 2012) (harmless error standard in Social Security proceedings)
- Webb v. Barnhart, 433 F.3d 683 (9th Cir. 2005) (substantial-evidence requirement for step-two findings)
- Lingenfelter v. Astrue, 504 F.3d 1028 (9th Cir. 2007) (clear and convincing reasons required to reject symptom testimony when no malingering shown)
- Bayliss v. Barnhart, 427 F.3d 1211 (9th Cir. 2005) (no requirement to perform function-by-function analysis when claimant’s symptom testimony is not credited)