Patrick Horsfall v. Nancy Berryhill
706 F. App'x 386
| 9th Cir. | 2017Background
- Horsfall applied for Social Security disability insurance benefits under Title II and was denied by the Commissioner; the district court affirmed and Horsfall appealed to the Ninth Circuit.
- The ALJ found Horsfall not disabled, evaluated medical opinions about his mental and physical impairments, and assessed his residual functional capacity (RFC).
- Key treating/examining opinions: Dr. Kristine Harrison (mental no-disability), Dr. Dan Neims (major depressive disorder; disabled by pain/anxiety/depression), Dr. Mark Heilbrunn (postural and motion physical limitations), and Dr. Packer (non-disabling back problems).
- The ALJ discounted Neims’s and Heilbrunn’s opinions for specific reasons tied to internal inconsistencies, lack of supporting contemporaneous medical evidence (including normal lumbar x-rays), reliance on Horsfall’s subjective reports, and inconsistency with Horsfall’s activities.
- The ALJ found Horsfall’s symptom statements not fully credible based on inconsistent daily activities and lack of medical support, and evaluated lay-witness reports (wife, mother, pastor), discounting some as inconsistent with medical evidence.
- The Ninth Circuit reviewed de novo for legal error and for substantial-evidence support and affirmed the denial of benefits.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether ALJ properly weighed treating/examining medical opinions | ALJ erred in discounting opinions of Drs. Neims and Heilbrunn; their opinions supported disability | ALJ gave specific and legitimate reasons to discount those opinions (contradictions, lack of supporting contemporaneous evidence, reliance on claimant reports, inconsistency with activities, greater weight to other doctors) | Affirmed: ALJ gave specific and legitimate reasons; substantial evidence supports weight given |
| Whether ALJ properly assessed Horsfall’s credibility about symptoms | Horsfall contends ALJ improperly discredited his symptom statements and used inconsistent statements not challenged below | ALJ relied on clear-and-convincing reasons (daily activities inconsistent, medical record does not support allegations); issues about unraised inconsistencies not preserved | Affirmed: ALJ provided clear-and-convincing reasons; objection to unraised inconsistencies not considered |
| Whether ALJ properly considered lay-witness testimony | Horsfall argues lay reports were improperly discounted or mischaracterized (e.g., pastor’s report omitted) | ALJ gave germane reasons for discounting (inconsistency with objective medical evidence); did not discount mother’s report; pastor’s observations were considered but discounted as inconsistent with record | Affirmed: ALJ’s treatment of lay testimony was proper |
| Whether RFC omitted supported limitations | Horsfall argues RFC failed to capture all limitations supported by record | ALJ included only limitations supported by record and credited appropriate medical opinions | Affirmed: RFC assessment permissible; ALJ need only include supported limitations |
Key Cases Cited
- Molina v. Astrue, 674 F.3d 1104 (9th Cir. 2012) (standard for reviewing ALJ disability determinations/substantial evidence)
- Batson v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 359 F.3d 1190 (9th Cir. 2004) (inconsistency between doctor’s opinion and clinical findings is a specific and legitimate reason to reject opinion)
- Tommasetti v. Astrue, 533 F.3d 1035 (9th Cir. 2008) (physician opinion may be rejected if inconsistent with contemporaneous medical records)
- Tonapetyan v. Halter, 242 F.3d 1144 (9th Cir. 2001) (ALJ may infer a physician relied on claimant’s subjective reports)
- Rollins v. Massanari, 261 F.3d 853 (9th Cir. 2001) (inconsistency between claimed limitations and daily activities supports discounting testimony)
- Chaudhry v. Astrue, 688 F.3d 661 (9th Cir. 2012) (ALJ may consider daily activities in credibility determinations)
- Burch v. Barnhart, 400 F.3d 676 (9th Cir. 2005) (ALJ may reject symptom allegations unsupported by medical evidence)
- Gregor v. Barnhart, 464 F.3d 968 (9th Cir. 2006) (objections not raised in prior proceedings may be forfeited)
- Bayliss v. Barnhart, 427 F.3d 1211 (9th Cir. 2005) (ALJ must give germane reasons for discounting lay testimony)
- Valentine v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 574 F.3d 685 (9th Cir. 2009) (ALJ may discount lay observations inconsistent with medical evidence)