Salant v. Commissioner Social Security Administration, 6:15-cv-01409

Background

Plaintiff (born 1962) applied for disability insurance benefits alleging onset October 4, 2011, based on cognitive disorders, depression, anxiety, and back/shoulder pain; initial and reconsideration denials followed by ALJ hearing and adverse decision.
ALJ found severe impairments: ADHD, generalized anxiety disorder, depression, and severe low back pain, but not meeting a listed impairment; assessed a reduced-range light-work RFC with limits (no production pace, simple spoken instructions, occasional hazards, limited climbing/stooping/kneeling/crouching/crawling).
Two examining psychologists (Drs. Northway and Mussack) found significant deficits: impaired attention/concentration/processing speed, memory impairments (visual and auditory), low-average to borderline intellectual functioning, and reduced fine motor dexterity; testing by Dr. Northway was extensive and multi-day.
ALJ gave greater weight to non-examining state psychologists over the examining psychologists and adopted some but not all of Dr. Northway’s findings; relied on vocational expert testimony to find plaintiff could perform some jobs (ticket seller and photocopy machine operator; small-parts assembler finding later conceded erroneous).
Court found the ALJ failed to provide legally sufficient reasons to discount examining psychologists’ opinions and inadequately considered Dr. Northway’s findings (motor skills, memory, auditory processing), and also erred in discrediting plaintiff’s testimony without proper basis.
Court reversed and remanded for further administrative proceedings for reassessment of RFC and reevaluation of plaintiff’s testimony in light of the full record and supplemental evidence submitted to the Appeals Council.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether ALJ properly rejected examining psychologists’ opinions	Drs. Northway and Mussack found marked cognitive/memory and motor deficits that should be credited; RFC must reflect those limits	Non-examining psychologists offer contrary opinions and are qualified Social Security consultants; ALJ relied on them	ALJ erred: non-examining opinions alone do not constitute substantial evidence to reject thorough, examining opinions; remand for reassessment
Whether ALJ properly evaluated plaintiff’s testimony/credibility	Plaintiff’s reported memory and functional limits are consistent with exam findings and should not be discounted	ALJ cited plaintiff’s remembered facts, past work, job-seeking, and possible secondary gain as reasons to discount testimony	ALJ’s adverse credibility findings are not supported: failed to account for clinical testing and improperly substituted lay judgment for medical opinion
Whether RFC and step-five findings were supported by substantial evidence	RFC should incorporate the significant limitations from examining psychologists; crediting those would preclude competitive employment	ALJ’s RFC (as supported by non-examining opinions and VE testimony) shows jobs exist plaintiff can perform	Remand required: RFC was inadequately supported given unaddressed examiner findings; further proceedings to reassess RFC and vocational conclusions
Whether case should be remanded for benefits or further proceedings	Plaintiff urges award of benefits if examining opinions are credited	Commissioner contends remand for further proceedings is appropriate due to record gaps and supplemental evidence	Court declined to award benefits and remanded for further administrative proceedings to develop the record

Key Cases Cited

Hammock v. Bowen, 879 F.2d 498 (9th Cir. 1989) (standard for reviewing Commissioner findings)
Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389 (U.S. 1971) (definition of substantial evidence)
Martinez v. Heckler, 807 F.2d 771 (9th Cir. 1986) (court must weigh evidence supporting and detracting from decision)
Burch v. Barnhart, 400 F.3d 676 (9th Cir. 2005) (defendant’s interpretation of evidence need only be rational)
Lester v. Chater, 81 F.3d 821 (9th Cir. 1996) (nonexamining physician opinion cannot by itself justify rejecting examining/treating physician)
Morgan v. Comm’r Soc. Sec. Admin., 169 F.3d 595 (9th Cir. 1999) (nonexamining opinions must be supported by other substantial evidence)
Tackett v. Apfel, 180 F.3d 1094 (9th Cir. 1999) (ALJ may not substitute lay judgment for medical opinion)
Burrell v. Colvin, 775 F.3d 1133 (9th Cir. 2014) (concern about secondary gain generally insufficient to discredit testimony)
Dominguez v. Colvin, 808 F.3d 403 (9th Cir. 2015) (credit-as-true rule and when remand for benefits is appropriate)