Sandra Pearson v. Kilolo Kijakazi
21-35339
| 9th Cir. | Apr 15, 2022Background
- Sandra D. Pearson appealed the denial of disability insurance benefits; the district court affirmed and the Ninth Circuit reviewed de novo.
- The ALJ gave little weight to an examining physician (Dr. Gary McGuffin) and two non‑examining physicians (Drs. Michael Brown and John Robinson) and discounted Pearson’s own testimony and lay testimony from her daughter.
- ALJ’s reasons included conflicts with other medical opinions, inconsistency with Pearson’s reported daily activities, equivocal or vague findings in opinions, conservative or limited treatment, and failure to seek treatment for sleep apnea.
- The ALJ found six alleged impairments nonsevere at step two but nonetheless considered their effects in the residual functional capacity assessment.
- The ALJ provided specific bases tied to the record for discounting medical and lay opinions and claimant testimony; the Ninth Circuit affirmed because the ALJ’s reasons were supported by substantial evidence and correct legal standards.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Weight to Dr. McGuffin (examining) | McGuffin’s opinion should be credited | ALJ: opinion contradicted by other doctors, daily activities, equivocal/vague findings | ALJ did not err; gave specific, legitimate reasons supported by substantial evidence |
| Weight to Drs. Brown & Robinson (non‑examining) | Their opinions should carry weight | ALJ: opinions inconsistent with medical record, daily activities, equivocal findings | ALJ permissibly discounted them with reference to specific record evidence |
| Step Two severity findings | ALJ should have found six additional impairments severe | ALJ: step two is a low threshold; impairments were considered in RFC | No reversible error; any step‑two error was harmless because impairments were considered in RFC |
| Credibility of claimant and lay testimony | Pearson and daughter’s testimony reflect disabling limitations | ALJ: claimant sought limited/conservative treatment, delayed treating sleep apnea, activities inconsistent with symptoms; daughter’s testimony duplicated claimant’s | ALJ provided clear, specific, germane reasons to discount their testimony; affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Smith v. Kijakazi, 14 F.4th 1108 (9th Cir. 2021) (standard of review; substantial evidence/de novo review)
- Ford v. Saul, 950 F.3d 1141 (9th Cir. 2020) (ALJ may discount examining opinion if specific, legitimate reasons exist)
- Lester v. Chater, 81 F.3d 821 (9th Cir. 1995) (standards for evaluating physician opinions)
- Tommasetti v. Astrue, 533 F.3d 1035 (9th Cir. 2008) (inconsistency and equivocation justify rejecting opinions)
- Rollins v. Massanari, 261 F.3d 853 (9th Cir. 2001) (daily activities may contradict claimed limitations)
- Meanel v. Apfel, 172 F.3d 1111 (9th Cir. 1999) (vague opinions may be properly discounted)
- Sousa v. Callahan, 143 F.3d 1240 (9th Cir. 1998) (discounting non‑examining opinions with specific record references)
- Buck v. Berryhill, 869 F.3d 1040 (9th Cir. 2017) (step two is a threshold screening inquiry)
- Lewis v. Astrue, 498 F.3d 909 (9th Cir. 2007) (harmless error when non‑severe impairments are considered in RFC)
- Trevizo v. Berryhill, 871 F.3d 664 (9th Cir. 2017) (clear and convincing reasons required to reject claimant testimony)
- Molina v. Astrue, 674 F.3d 1104 (9th Cir. 2012) (legal standard on harmless error and weighing evidence)
- Turner v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 613 F.3d 1217 (9th Cir. 2010) (ALJ must give germane reasons to discount lay witness testimony)