Robyn Fennell v. Nancy Berryhill
16-35051
| 9th Cir. | Jan 9, 2018Background
- Plaintiff Robyn M. Fennell appealed the denial of disability insurance benefits and SSI by the Social Security Commissioner; district court affirmed and Ninth Circuit reviews de novo.
- ALJ found Fennell not disabled, concluding somatoform disorder and social phobia were not severe and that Listings (§ 11.09C) were not met or equaled.
- ALJ discounted a treating physician (Dr. Dempster) whose opinion suggested greater limitations, and relied in part on a state non‑examining consultant (Dr. Thuline).
- ALJ also discounted Fennell’s symptom testimony and limited lay witness testimony (Leonard Fennell) as inconsistent with medical records and daily activities; noted unemployment‑benefit statements implying availability for full‑time work.
- ALJ formulated a residual functional capacity (RFC) and posed a hypothetical to a vocational expert reflecting only limitations supported by credible evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Severity of somatoform disorder and social phobia | ALJ’s finding that these impairments are nonsevere is not supported by substantial evidence | ALJ relied on medical record showing mild exams and permissibly interpreted evidence | Affirmed — plaintiff failed to identify why ALJ’s cited evidence is not substantial; issue waived |
| Step 3 — Listing § 11.09C | Impairments meet or equal Listing 11.09C based on Dr. Dempster’s opinion | Dr. Dempster’s opinion properly discounted, so it cannot support meeting a Listing | Affirmed — no credible evidence shows listing met or equaled |
| Weight given to Dr. Dempster’s opinion | ALJ erred in discounting treating physician’s opinion | ALJ gave specific, legitimate, substantial‑evidence reasons: inconsistency with longitudinal record, lack of explanation, and claimant’s statements of work availability | Affirmed — ALJ permissibly discounted the opinion |
| Credibility, lay testimony, and RFC formulation | ALJ improperly discredited testimony and omitted limitations from RFC/hypothetical | ALJ offered clear, specific, convincing (for credibility) and germane (for lay witness) reasons; RFC included only supported limitations | Affirmed — reasons supported and any error harmless; RFC and VE hypothetical proper |
Key Cases Cited
- Garrison v. Colvin, 759 F.3d 995 (9th Cir. 2014) (standard of review and credibility framework)
- Carmickle v. Comm’r, Soc. Sec. Admin., 533 F.3d 1155 (9th Cir. 2008) (inconsistencies with claimant statements can undermine opinions)
- Bayliss v. Barnhart, 427 F.3d 1211 (9th Cir. 2005) (vocational expert hypothetical must include only supported limitations)
- Burch v. Barnhart, 400 F.3d 676 (9th Cir. 2005) (claimant bears burden to show a Listing is met or equaled)
- Ryan v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 528 F.3d 1194 (9th Cir. 2008) (ALJ may discount medical opinions that are inconsistent or unsupported)
- Molina v. Astrue, 674 F.3d 1104 (9th Cir. 2012) (failure to follow prescribed treatment and inconsistent statements affect credibility)
- Bruce v. Astrue, 557 F.3d 1113 (9th Cir. 2009) (ALJ must give germane reasons to discount lay witness testimony)
- Batson v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 359 F.3d 1190 (9th Cir. 2004) (harmless error standard in social security cases)