(SS) Hammonds v. Commissioner of Social Security, 1:19-cv-01139

Background

Plaintiff Michael Hammonds applied for Supplemental Security Income (filed 2015) claiming disabling effects of multiple 1994 gunshot wounds to his legs (hardware and retained fragments), chronic pain, breathing problems (emphysema/asthma), and psychiatric disorders (PTSD, depression). ALJ denied benefits; Appeals Council denied review; district court review followed.
Administrative record: intermittent reports of severe pain (up to 9/10) and use of a cane for four years, episodes requiring ER care and a July 2017 fall that led to temporary use of crutches and a brace; variable objective findings (some exams showing normal gait and ROM, others showing reduced lumbar ROM, tenderness).
Consultative and state agency opinions: psychological exam showed impaired cognition (MoCA 18/30) and social/attention limits; physical consultative exam noted ambulation both with and without a cane in different encounters; state reviewers found light or full exertional capacity with environmental limits.
ALJ’s findings: severe impairments = right femur status post injuries and anxiety disorder; breathing conditions and PTSD/depression deemed non-severe; RFC = medium work with only occasional exposure to respiratory irritants, simple routine tasks, no public contact. No past relevant work; VE testified jobs exist; ALJ found claimant not disabled.
District court holding: affirmed ALJ. The court concluded the ALJ gave clear and convincing reasons—supported by substantial evidence—for partially discounting Hammonds’s symptom testimony and permissibly weighed conflicting medical evidence, conservative-treatment observations, and daily activities.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
1) ALJ credibility determination for claimant's symptom testimony	Hammonds contends the ALJ rejected his testimony without clear and convincing reasons	ALJ properly compared claimant’s statements to objective findings, inconsistent reports, and medical record; no malingering found but some testimony was inconsistent with evidence	Court: ALJ provided clear and convincing reasons; decision supported by substantial evidence
2) Whether ALJ ignored probative medical evidence about mobility (cane, falls, ROM)	ALJ failed to address records showing cane prescription, ER treatment after fall, and reduced lumbar ROM	ALJ discussed substantially similar records, noted inconsistent exam findings across providers/dates, and reasonably resolved conflicts	Court: ALJ considered the evidence; conflicting records permitted ALJ’s conclusion
3) Reliance on characterization of treatment as "conservative" to discount symptoms	Hammonds argues lack of aggressive treatment or use of narcotics does not justify discounting pain testimony	ALJ’s brief remark that treatment was conservative was not a dispositive ground and was inconsequential given other cited reasons	Court: characterization was not reversible error and was harmless in context of other evidence
4) Use of claimant’s daily activities to discredit subjective claims	Hammonds argues activities cited do not contradict testimony or transfer to work skills (invokes Orn, Molina, Burch)	Commissioner contends activities (personal care, simple meal prep, shopping, attending church) are inconsistent with alleged disabling limitations and can support credibility finding when coupled with other evidence	Court: ALJ permissibly relied on daily activities along with medical record; comparisons to cited precedents addressed and ALJ’s inference was reasonable

Key Cases Cited

Tackett v. Apfel, 180 F.3d 1094 (9th Cir. 1999) (standard for substantial evidence review in disability cases)
Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389 (1971) (substantial evidence definition and administrative factfinding deference)
Brown-Hunter v. Colvin, 806 F.3d 487 (9th Cir. 2015) (limits on post-hoc rationalization and ALJ credibility determinations)
Garrison v. Colvin, 759 F.3d 995 (9th Cir. 2014) (two-step analysis for symptom testimony credibility)
Smolen v. Chater, 80 F.3d 1273 (9th Cir. 1996) (criteria for evaluating claimant symptom testimony)
Bunnell v. Sullivan, 947 F.2d 341 (9th Cir. 1991) (pain testimony must be considered when supported by medically determinable impairment)
Tonapetyan v. Halter, 242 F.3d 1144 (9th Cir. 2001) (medical evidence relevant but not sole basis for symptom rejection)
Orn v. Astrue, 495 F.3d 625 (9th Cir. 2007) (daily activities may not be substantial evidence when undemanding)
Molina v. Astrue, 674 F.3d 1104 (9th Cir. 2012) (daily activities can support adverse credibility finding if transferable to work)
Laborin v. Berryhill, 867 F.3d 1151 (9th Cir. 2017) (ALJ must provide clear and convincing reasons when no malingering is found)