Sally Rose-Eckert v. Nancy Berryhill
694 F. App'x 555
| 9th Cir. | 2017Background
- Sally Rose-Eckert appealed the district court’s affirmance of the Commissioner’s denial of disability insurance benefits under the Social Security Act.
- The Ninth Circuit reviews the district court’s decision de novo and ultimately affirmed the denial.
- The ALJ gave little weight to the opinion of Rose-Eckert’s treating physician, Dr. Merzenich, and relied instead on an examining physician (Dr. Jones) and non-examining physicians.
- The ALJ found Rose-Eckert’s subjective symptom testimony only partially credible and used a residual functional capacity (RFC) assessment to limit her alleged restrictions.
- The ALJ discounted a lay statement from Rose-Eckert’s husband as less persuasive for reasons germane to him and supported by the record.
- The ALJ posed a hypothetical to the vocational expert that excluded limitations the ALJ found unsupported; the court held that omission was proper.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether ALJ erred in rejecting treating physician Dr. Merzenich’s opinion | Merzenich’s opinion should control and support disability finding | ALJ reasonably rejected it for specific, legitimate, record-supported reasons | ALJ did not err; weight rejection upheld |
| Whether ALJ’s credibility finding was proper (use of boilerplate) | Boilerplate credibility language may be reversible error | ALJ supplemented boilerplate with proper two-step analysis and clear, convincing reasons | Credibility finding supported by substantial evidence; upheld |
| Whether ALJ properly evaluated lay witness (husband) statement | Husband’s observations corroborate claimant’s limitations | ALJ gave germane reasons to discount his statements (relationship, inconsistency with medical evidence) | ALJ’s evaluation was proper and supported by record |
| Whether hypothetical to vocational expert was sufficient | Hypothetical must include claimant’s and treating physician’s limitations | ALJ may omit limitations not found credible or supported by substantial evidence | Hypothetical was sufficient; VE testimony may be relied on |
Key Cases Cited
- Molina v. Astrue, 674 F.3d 1104 (9th Cir. 2012) (standard of review and ALJ credibility/assessment guidance)
- Valentine v. Comm’r, Soc. Sec. Admin., 574 F.3d 685 (9th Cir. 2009) (treating physician opinion weight rules)
- Treichler v. Comm’r, Soc. Sec. Admin., 775 F.3d 1090 (9th Cir. 2014) (warning against boilerplate credibility language)
- Tommasetti v. Astrue, 533 F.3d 1035 (9th Cir. 2008) (crediting credibility findings supported by clear and convincing reasons)
- Thomas v. Barnhart, 278 F.3d 947 (9th Cir. 2002) (deference to ALJ credibility findings supported by substantial evidence)
- Greger v. Barnhart, 464 F.3d 968 (9th Cir. 2006) (germane reasons to discount lay-witness testimony)
- Bayliss v. Barnhart, 427 F.3d 1211 (9th Cir. 2005) (inconsistency with medical evidence as reason to discredit lay testimony)
- Bray v. Comm’r, Soc. Sec. Admin., 554 F.3d 1219 (9th Cir. 2009) (ALJ may omit unsupported limitations from VE hypotheticals)
- Osenbrock v. Apfel, 240 F.3d 1157 (9th Cir. 2001) (limitations not supported by evidence need not be included in hypotheticals)