(SS) Anderson v. Commissioner of Social Security
1:16-cv-01009
E.D. Cal.Jul 28, 2017Background
- Plaintiff Patricia Joan Anderson applied for DIB on April 19, 2012, alleging disability from panic disorder with agoraphobia beginning September 28, 2011; ALJ denied benefits on December 30, 2014; Appeals Council denied review.
- Medical history: diagnosed anxiety disorder and panic disorder with agoraphobia; treated with medication and cognitive behavioral therapy; treating psychologist Dr. Muse provided opinions about marked functional limits but also opined plaintiff could return to work when symptoms remitted or were minimal.
- Functional picture: plaintiff performs household tasks, shops (usually with husband), drives short distances, travels on occasion, but reports frequent panic attacks (about 3/week), difficulty concentrating, and avoidance of crowds.
- ALJ RFC: full range of exertion but limited to simple, routine tasks, frequent public contact, and allowed 5% off-task time one to two times per week; ALJ rejected portions of Dr. Muse’s more restrictive limitations and gave reduced weight to husband’s lay statements.
- Procedural posture of this opinion: Magistrate Judge issued order granting plaintiff’s appeal and remanding for further administrative proceedings (July 28, 2017), finding ALJ erred in weighing Dr. Muse and in discounting lay witness evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether ALJ gave legally sufficient reasons to reject portions of treating psychologist Dr. Muse’s opinion | Dr. Muse’s restrictive findings (poor concentration/persistence, inability to sustain workday) should have been credited; ALJ failed to provide specific and legitimate reasons to reject them | ALJ permissibly adopted the parts of Dr. Muse supported by records and discounted the overly restrictive parts as inconsistent with treatment notes and improvement on medication | Court: ALJ erred — did not provide specific and legitimate reasons supported by substantial evidence to reject the more restrictive portions of Dr. Muse’s opinion; some record evidence of ongoing anxiety undermines ALJ’s stated rationale |
| Whether ALJ properly discounted husband’s lay testimony | Husband’s report corroborates plaintiff’s limitations; ALJ’s reasons for rejection were not germane and inconsistent with record | ALJ relied on supposed inconsistency with medical records and lack of medical training to discount lay testimony | Court: ALJ erred — failed to give germane reasons; husband’s report is consistent with mild-to-moderate clinical findings and should not have been rejected without proper explanation |
Key Cases Cited
- Batson v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration, 359 F.3d 1190 (9th Cir. 2004) (five-step sequential evaluation framework)
- Stout v. Commissioner, Social Sec. Admin., 454 F.3d 1050 (9th Cir. 2006) (lay witness testimony must be considered)
- Lester v. Chater, 81 F.3d 821 (9th Cir. 1996) (weight of treating vs. non-treating opinions)
- Andrews v. Shalala, 53 F.3d 1035 (9th Cir. 1995) (treating physician entitled to greater weight)
- Ryan v. Commissioner of Social Sec., 528 F.3d 1194 (9th Cir. 2008) (contradicted treating opinions require specific and legitimate reasons)
- Tonapetyan v. Halter, 242 F.3d 1144 (9th Cir. 2001) (non-examining opinion may be substantial evidence when consistent with record)
- Thomas v. Barnhart, 278 F.3d 947 (9th Cir. 2002) (ALJ need not accept unsupported conclusory opinions)
- Smolen v. Chater, 80 F.3d 1273 (9th Cir. 1996) (standards for remand for benefits vs. further proceedings)
- Hill v. Astrue, 698 F.3d 1153 (9th Cir. 2012) (substantial evidence standard and whole-record review)
- Bruce v. Astrue, 557 F.3d 1113 (9th Cir. 2009) (lay witness testimony cannot be disregarded without comment)
- Molina v. Astrue, 674 F.3d 1104 (9th Cir. 2012) (ALJ’s reasons for discounting claimant testimony may apply to lay witnesses)
- Treichler v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration, 775 F.3d 1090 (9th Cir. 2014) (conflicts in the record may require further factual development)
- Strauss v. Commissioner of the Social Security Administration, 635 F.3d 1135 (9th Cir. 2011) (claimant not entitled to benefits unless disabled as defined)