Randy Harris v. Kilolo Kijakazi
20-35842
| 9th Cir. | Sep 3, 2021Background
- Randy Harris appealed the denial of his applications for Disability Insurance Benefits and Supplemental Security Income; the district court affirmed the Commissioner and Harris appealed to the Ninth Circuit.
- The ALJ reopened Harris’s prior final determinations; Harris argued the hearing transcript omitted evidence from earlier applications but did not identify any excluded items or prejudice.
- Two key medical opinions: examining physician Dr. Leinenbach (noted gait irregularities but assigned standing/walking capacity of 4–6 hours and no limitation on standing) and Dr. Hale (opined Harris could stand/walk six hours and reviewed claimant-supplied information).
- The ALJ adopted an RFC of modified light work (incorporating six hours total of standing/walking), relied on a vocational expert who identified three jobs that do not require right-hand feeling, and found Harris not disabled at step five.
- The ALJ discounted Harris’s symptom testimony for specific, clear, convincing reasons: daily activities including part-time work, conservative and sporadic treatment, inconsistent statements about illicit drug use, and medical opinions.
- The Ninth Circuit reviewed the ALJ’s decision for substantial evidence and affirmed the district court’s judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Reopening/prior-evidence in transcript | ALJ failed to include evidence from prior applications in the hearing transcript | Parties agreed ALJ reopened prior determinations; Harris identified no excluded evidence or prejudice | No reversible error; Harris showed neither error nor prejudice |
| Evaluation of Dr. Leinenbach’s opinion (walking/feeling/gait) | ALJ failed to account for Leinenbach’s 4–6 hour walking limit, right-hand sensory loss, and gait findings | RFC incorporated equivalent standing/walking limitation via Dr. Hale; omission of right-hand feeling harmless because identified jobs do not require feeling; Leinenbach’s overall findings consistent with his conclusions | ALJ adequately accounted for Leinenbach; any omissions were not prejudicial |
| Evaluation of Dr. Hale’s opinion | Hale failed to consider claimant testimony or conflicts with Leinenbach | No pointed inconsistency between Hale and Leinenbach; Hale reviewed claimant-supplied information | ALJ permissibly relied on Hale; no error in weighing opinions |
| Credibility, RFC, and step five determination | ALJ improperly discounted symptom testimony, producing an erroneous RFC and step-five finding | ALJ gave specific, clear, convincing reasons supported by substantial evidence (activities, conservative treatment, inconsistent drug statements, medical opinions) | ALJ’s credibility finding, RFC, and step-five decision are supported by substantial evidence |
Key Cases Cited
- Smolen v. Chater, 80 F.3d 1273 (9th Cir. 1996) (standard for reviewing ALJ credibility and substantial-evidence review)
- Burch v. Barnhart, 400 F.3d 676 (9th Cir. 2005) (harmless error standard for ALJ decisions)
- Stubbs-Danielson v. Astrue, 539 F.3d 1169 (9th Cir. 2008) (harmless omission of postural limits when jobs do not require them)
- Shaibi v. Berryhill, 883 F.3d 1102 (9th Cir. 2017) (ALJ conclusions must be upheld when evidence permits more than one rational interpretation)
- Ghanim v. Colvin, 763 F.3d 1154 (9th Cir. 2014) (weighting of examining versus reviewing physician opinions)
- Lingenfelter v. Astrue, 504 F.3d 1028 (9th Cir. 2007) (specific, clear, and convincing reasons required to reject claimant testimony)