Rodney Burky v. Nancy Berryhill
708 F. App'x 466
9th Cir.2018Background
- Rodney Burky appealed the denial of Social Security disability insurance benefits and SSI after an ALJ found him not disabled; the district court affirmed and Burky appealed to the Ninth Circuit.
- Burky has psychiatric treatment records from Dr. Lisa Parsons (treating psychiatrist) documenting panic attacks, agoraphobia, irritability, and social limitations over ~two years; Dr. Parsons completed a restrictive medical opinion.
- Other clinicians (including Dr. Tromp) noted improvement with medication and observed adequate memory, attention, concentration, and socially appropriate behavior at times.
- The ALJ discounted Dr. Parsons’ opinion, found Burky’s testimony only partially credible, and concluded Burky retained the RFC to perform past relevant work as a painter.
- The ALJ’s step‑four finding relied on Burky’s 2003–2005 work as a painter, earnings meeting SGA thresholds, and the DOT entry for painting.
- The Ninth Circuit majority affirmed; Judge Nguyen dissented, arguing the ALJ failed to give specific and legitimate reasons to reject the treating psychiatrist’s opinion about social limitations.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the ALJ properly discounted treating psychiatrist Dr. Parsons’ opinion | Burky: ALJ failed to give specific and legitimate reasons supported by substantial evidence to reject Dr. Parsons’ treating opinion about social limitations | ALJ/SS: Opinion conflicted with overall medical record, Dr. Parsons’ own notes, and evidence of improvement with medication; ALJ provided specific, legitimate reasons | Affirmed: ALJ gave specific and legitimate reasons supported by substantial evidence to discount Dr. Parsons’ opinion |
| Whether Burky’s prior work qualifies as past relevant work | Burky: Work as painter/stone polisher did not necessarily establish past relevant work or ability to perform it now | ALJ/SS: Earnings from 2003–2005 met SGA thresholds and the job’s DOT description supports that it is past relevant work | Affirmed: ALJ reasonably found Burky could perform past relevant work as a painter |
| Whether the ALJ properly assessed Burky’s credibility about symptom severity | Burky: ALJ improperly discounted subjective symptoms and did not adequately account for corroborating treatment notes | ALJ/SS: Testimony conflicted with objective treatment records and functional improvements with medication; inconsistencies with daily activities and clinical observations | Affirmed: ALJ offered clear, convincing, specific reasons to find Burky’s testimony less than fully credible |
| Whether ALJ’s treatment of evidence required remand for failure to address significant probative evidence | Burky: ALJ ignored significant treating‑source evidence of social impairment corroborated by other clinicians | ALJ/SS: ALJ addressed inconsistencies and improvement; reasons are adequate | Majority: No reversible error; Dissent: ALJ erred by failing to explain rejection of significant treating evidence (would remand) |
Key Cases Cited
- Garrison v. Colvin, 759 F.3d 995 (9th Cir. 2014) (standard of review: district court de novo, ALJ for substantial evidence)
- Lester v. Chater, 81 F.3d 821 (9th Cir. 1995) (examining physicians’ opinions generally entitled to greater weight)
- Andrews v. Shalala, 53 F.3d 1035 (9th Cir. 1995) (ALJ resolves conflicts in medical testimony)
- Thomas v. Barnhart, 278 F.3d 947 (9th Cir. 2002) (ALJ findings must be upheld if rationally supported by the record as a whole)
- Batson v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 359 F.3d 1190 (9th Cir. 2004) (inconsistency with record is a legitimate reason to discount a medical opinion)
- Vasquez v. Astrue, 572 F.3d 586 (9th Cir. 2009) (two‑step credibility evaluation for subjective symptom testimony)
- Bray v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 554 F.3d 1219 (9th Cir. 2009) (ALJ may consider inconsistencies with daily activities and work record)
- Vincent on Behalf of Vincent v. Heckler, 739 F.2d 1393 (9th Cir. 1984) (ALJ must explain why significant probative evidence is rejected)
- Trevizo v. Berryhill, 871 F.3d 664 (9th Cir. 2017) (failure to apply treating‑physician factors can constitute reversible legal error)