Scott Bramble v. Nancy Berryhill, 692 F. App'x 862

Background

Scott Bramble applied for disability insurance benefits and SSI; the ALJ denied benefits and made findings at steps two and four of the sequential evaluation.
The Commissioner conceded the ALJ erred by failing to make adequate factual findings about Bramble’s ability to return to his past work (step four).
The ALJ did not address whether Bramble’s ADHD was a severe mental impairment at step two and did not explain consideration of mental limitations in the RFC.
The ALJ rejected treating physician Dr. Vanderburgh’s opinion based on internal inconsistencies, lack of supporting clinical findings, and inconsistency with Bramble’s testimony.
The ALJ discredited Bramble’s subjective testimony about headaches and pain for several clear-and-convincing reasons (work history, school success, improvement with treatment, lack of objective findings) and rejected lay witness testimony as not germane.
The district court remanded to the ALJ for further proceedings; Bramble appealed arguing additional ALJ errors and that the district court should have awarded benefits outright.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether ALJ erred at step two by not considering ADHD as a severe impairment	ALJ failed to consider ADHD despite record evidence of symptoms	ALJ implicitly addressed mental impairments elsewhere; error harmless or resolvable on remand	Error: ALJ did not discuss ADHD at step two; remand for further proceedings appropriate
Whether ALJ’s RFC and step-four findings were supported by adequate factual findings	RFC and step-four findings incomplete; ALJ failed to explain mental limitations and past-work analysis	Commissioner conceded step-four factual findings were inadequate; ALJ provided other supported reasons for credibility and opinion rejections	Error at step four conceded; record not fully developed so remand (not immediate benefits) proper
Whether ALJ properly rejected treating physician Dr. Vanderburgh’s opinion	Dr. Vanderburgh’s opinion should be credited	ALJ rejected it for internal inconsistencies, lack of clinical support, and conflict with claimant testimony	ALJ gave specific, legitimate, substantial-evidence-supported reasons to reject the opinion
Whether ALJ properly discredited Bramble’s and lay witness testimony	Testimony and lay statements reflect true limitations; credit-as-true should apply	ALJ provided clear-and-convincing (claimant) and germane (lay witness) reasons supported by evidence; outstanding issues remain	ALJ’s reasons for discrediting testimony and lay witness were supported; errors elsewhere required remand rather than immediate award

Key Cases Cited

Harman v. Apfel, 211 F.3d 1172 (9th Cir. 2000) (standard of review for district court remand for further proceedings)
Celaya v. Halter, 332 F.3d 1177 (9th Cir. 2003) (ALJ must consider impairment at step two when record contains related symptoms)
Treichler v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 775 F.3d 1090 (9th Cir. 2014) (ALJ must provide sufficiently clear reasoning for RFC review)
Bayliss v. Barnhart, 427 F.3d 1211 (9th Cir. 2005) (factors for evaluating medical and lay opinion consistency)
Magallanes v. Bowen, 881 F.2d 747 (9th Cir. 1989) (ALJ may rely on inconsistencies with claimant testimony to reject medical opinion)
Tommasetti v. Astrue, 533 F.3d 1035 (9th Cir. 2008) (ALJ may discount physician opinion based on inconsistency with other evidence)
Burch v. Barnhart, 400 F.3d 676 (9th Cir. 2005) (lack of objective medical evidence is a factor supporting discrediting claimant testimony)
Bruton v. Massanari, 268 F.3d 824 (9th Cir. 2001) (ALJ may reject claimant testimony when prior work history contradicts alleged limitations)
Batson v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 359 F.3d 1190 (9th Cir. 2004) (harmless error analysis when some reasons for discrediting testimony are valid)
Dominguez v. Colvin, 808 F.3d 403 (9th Cir. 2015) (credit-as-true threshold and remand for further proceedings when outstanding issues remain)

AFFIRMED.