Simic v. Berryhill, 3:18-cv-07672

Plaintiff filed for DIB and SSI in 2015 alleging onset in Sept. 2012 from depression, anxiety, PTSD and related symptoms; applications were denied and he requested an ALJ hearing.
ALJ hearing held Nov. 6, 2017; non‑examining medical expert Dr. Nathan Strahl reviewed the record and testified Plaintiff had mild–moderate mental limitations but could perform simple repetitive (unskilled) work with limited coworker/public interaction.
Treating psychiatrist Dr. Adam Jarczewski completed a June 2017 MRFC questionnaire diagnosing major depressive disorder/PTSD and opining severe limitations (including >4 absences/month and multiple unscheduled breaks).
ALJ Teresa L. Hoskins Hart found severe mental impairments but adopted an RFC for work at all exertional levels with non‑exertional limits: simple repetitive tasks, no team tasks, frequent coworker interactions only, and occasional public contact; she gave partial weight to Dr. Jarczewski and substantial weight to Dr. Strahl.
Appeals Council denied review; plaintiff sued in district court raising three issues: (1) improper weighing of medical opinions, (2) failure to include an adaptation limitation in the RFC, and (3) an Appointments Clause challenge to the ALJ’s appointment.
The court denied plaintiff’s summary judgment motion, granted the Commissioner’s, holding the ALJ’s decision was supported by substantial evidence and the Appointments Clause claim was forfeited.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Did the ALJ err in weighing medical-opinion evidence?	Zoran: ALJ improperly discounted treating Dr. Jarczewski and misread Dr. Strahl’s testimony.	Berryhill: ALJ gave specific, legitimate reasons (inconsistency with record, daily activities, gaps in treatment) and relied on Strahl who reviewed the full record.	ALJ’s weighing was supported by substantial evidence; no legal error.
Did the RFC err by omitting an adaptation limitation?	Zoran: RFC should have included workplace adaptation limits.	Berryhill: RFC follows Strahl’s opinion and the record; omission is supported by evidence.	RFC supported by substantial evidence; no error.
Was the ALJ’s appointment invalid under the Appointments Clause?	Zoran: Lucia requires remand because ALJ was not properly appointed.	Berryhill: Claim was forfeited—Zoran failed to raise the challenge administratively.	Appointments Clause challenge forfeited because not raised before the agency; no relief.

Lester v. Chater, 81 F.3d 821 (9th Cir. 1995) (standards for weighing treating/examining opinions)
Orn v. Astrue, 495 F.3d 625 (9th Cir. 2007) (examining vs. nonexamining opinion weight)
Burch v. Barnhart, 400 F.3d 676 (9th Cir. 2005) (substantial evidence and deference where record permits multiple interpretations)
Molina v. Astrue, 674 F.3d 1104 (9th Cir. 2012) (five‑step sequential evaluation overview)
Batson v. Comm’r, 359 F.3d 1190 (9th Cir. 2004) (resolving conflicting medical opinions)
Magallanes v. Bowen, 881 F.2d 747 (9th Cir. 1989) (ALJ need not adopt every part of an expert’s testimony)
Meanel v. Apfel, 172 F.3d 1111 (9th Cir. 1999) (issues must be raised at administrative hearing to preserve review)
Lucia v. SEC, 138 S. Ct. 2044 (2018) (ALJs can be officers under the Appointments Clause)
Freytag v. Comm’r, 501 U.S. 868 (1991) (Appointments Clause challenges are nonjurisdictional and can be forfeited)