(SS) Grom v. Commissioner of Social Security, 1:18-cv-01361

Plaintiff David Grom applied for DIB and SSI alleging disability from December 31, 2012 (depression) and later developed cervical/neurologic problems after a 2016 hospitalization and surgery.
Medical record includes: a July 2014 FNP mental-capacity assessment (marked/ moderate limitations); a 2014 psychologist exam (moderate–marked limits); state agency physicians finding non-severe physical impairments and moderate mental limits; and a January 2017 internal medicine exam (Dr. Sharma) limiting lifting, pushing/pulling, and presence of right-arm numbness and restrictions (no driving/heavy machinery).
ALJ found severe impairments (cervical degenerative disc disease/myelopathy, thoracic DDD, seizures, syncope, West Nile positivity, depression, anxiety) but not disabling; assessed RFC for light work with physical restrictions and limits to simple, repetitive tasks and only occasional interaction with others.
ALJ discounted Plaintiff’s subjective symptom statements as inconsistent with objective and opinion evidence and concluded jobs exist in significant numbers that Plaintiff could perform; Appeals Council denied review.
District court reviewed for substantial evidence and legal error and focused on whether the ALJ gave specific, clear, and convincing reasons to reject Plaintiff’s physical symptom testimony.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the ALJ properly evaluated Grom's physical symptom testimony (credibility)	ALJ failed to identify which testimony was not credible and which specific evidence contradicted it; reasons given (inconsistency with objective/medical opinions) were vague.	ALJ properly discounted testimony because it conflicted with objective findings and medical opinions.	Court: ALJ erred. Reasons were not specific, clear, and convincing; the ALJ did not link particular testimony to contradictory evidence. Remand required.
Whether the ALJ’s error was harmless	Error was material because crediting Grom’s reported limits (e.g., restricted standing/walking/sitting) could alter the RFC and disability outcome.	Commissioner did not argue harmlessness.	Court: Error was not harmless; outcome could change.
Remedy: Remand for further proceedings vs. immediate benefits	Remand for further administrative development is needed to re-evaluate credibility, RFC, and steps 4–5.	Commissioner and Plaintiff both requested remand for further proceedings (not immediate benefits).	Court: Remanded for further proceedings; "credit-as-true" exception inapplicable because record not fully developed.

Tackett v. Apfel, 180 F.3d 1094 (9th Cir. 1999) (describes five-step disability evaluation)
Vasquez v. Astrue, 572 F.3d 586 (9th Cir. 2009) (two-step test for evaluating subjective symptom testimony)
Brown-Hunter v. Colvin, 806 F.3d 487 (9th Cir. 2015) (ALJ must identify which testimony is not credible and explain which evidence contradicts it)
Lingenfelter v. Astrue, 504 F.3d 1028 (9th Cir. 2007) (claimant need only show impairment could reasonably cause some degree of the symptom)
Molina v. Astrue, 674 F.3d 1104 (9th Cir. 2012) (harmless-error standard in Social Security cases)
Tommasetti v. Astrue, 533 F.3d 1035 (9th Cir. 2008) (ALJ findings upheld if supported by reasonable inferences)
Lester v. Chater, 81 F.3d 821 (9th Cir. 1996) (ALJ must provide clear and convincing reasons to reject claimant testimony)
Burrell v. Colvin, 775 F.3d 1133 (9th Cir. 2014) (general findings insufficient to reject subjective testimony)
Treichler v. Comm’r, 775 F.3d 1090 (9th Cir. 2014) (discusses remand for further proceedings versus credit-as-true)
Regennitter v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 166 F.3d 1294 (9th Cir. 1999) (ALJ must specify what complaints are contradicted by which clinical observations)
Robbins v. Social Sec. Admin., 466 F.3d 880 (9th Cir. 2006) (RFC must consider all relevant evidence including effects of symptoms)
Shinseki v. Sanders, 556 U.S. 396 (2009) (burden of showing an error is harmful falls on the party attacking the agency determination)