Russell Fritz v. Nancy Berryhill
685 F. App'x 585
| 9th Cir. | 2017Background
- Fritz applied for Social Security Disability Insurance (Title II) and Supplemental Security Income (Title XVI); an ALJ denied benefits and the district court affirmed. The Ninth Circuit reviewed the appeal de novo.
- The ALJ found Fritz not fully credible based on medical records, daily activities, a 21-year-old robbery conviction, consultative examiner Dr. Pfeiffer’s opinion, and improvement with treatment.
- The ALJ also rejected the treating neurologist Dr. Olson’s opinion as contradicted by the record.
- The Ninth Circuit found the ALJ failed to give specific, clear, and convincing reasons for discounting Fritz’s symptom testimony, except for one specific inconsistency about his headaches.
- The court concluded the ALJ gave inadequate reasons for rejecting Dr. Olson’s opinion because it was supported by clinical observations and the court had already found the claimant’s testimony was improperly discredited.
- The panel reversed and remanded for further administrative proceedings; the error was not harmless because the single valid reason did not constitute substantial evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the ALJ provided legally sufficient reasons to reject Fritz’s symptom testimony | Fritz argued the ALJ failed to identify which testimony was not credible and gave no clear and convincing reasons | The Commissioner argued the ALJ’s summary of medical evidence, daily activities, criminal history, consultative exam, and treatment response supported the credibility finding | Reversed: ALJ did not give specific, clear, and convincing reasons except for one inconsistent statement about headaches, which was not enough to uphold the denial |
| Whether Fritz’s daily activities undermined his disability claims | Activities did not contradict alleged limitations and are not transferable to work | ALJ claimed activities showed greater functioning than alleged | Reversed: Activities did not demonstrate ability to perform substantial work-related functions |
| Whether the ALJ properly relied on a 21‑year‑old robbery conviction to impugn credibility | Conviction is remote and unrelated; ALJ did not explain its relevance | ALJ relied on conviction to doubt credibility | Reversed: ALJ failed to explain how the ancient, unrelated conviction affected credibility |
| Whether the ALJ permissibly rejected treating neurologist Dr. Olson’s opinion | Fritz contended Olson’s opinion was supported by clinical findings and not solely by subjective reports | Commissioner contended Olson’s opinion was contradicted by record and claimant reports | Reversed: ALJ did not provide specific and legitimate reasons supported by substantial evidence to reject Olson’s contradicted treating opinion |
Key Cases Cited
- Ghanim v. Colvin, 763 F.3d 1154 (9th Cir. 2014) (standard of review and substantial-evidence framework in Social Security cases)
- Lingenfelter v. Astrue, 504 F.3d 1028 (9th Cir. 2007) (ALJ must provide specific, clear, and convincing reasons to reject claimant testimony)
- Brown-Hunter v. Colvin, 806 F.3d 487 (9th Cir. 2015) (ALJ must identify what testimony is not credible and explain evidentiary support)
- Orn v. Astrue, 495 F.3d 625 (9th Cir. 2007) (standards for weighing treating physician opinions)
- Vertigan v. Halter, 260 F.3d 1044 (9th Cir. 2001) (daily activities must show transferable work skills to discredit symptom testimony)
- Morgan v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 169 F.3d 595 (9th Cir. 1999) (improvement with treatment can support adverse credibility finding if it conflicts with claimant testimony)
- Carmickle v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 533 F.3d 1155 (9th Cir. 2008) (harmless error standard for ALJ credibility findings)
- Tommasetti v. Astrue, 533 F.3d 1035 (9th Cir. 2008) (ALJ may reject treating physician opinion if it is largely based on properly discounted subjective complaints)