(SS) Schrepel v. Commissioner of Social Security, 2:20-cv-01996-AC

Plaintiff (born 1969) applied for Disability Insurance Benefits on July 24, 2018, alleging disability beginning July 13, 2018; ALJ denied benefits on March 6, 2020; Appeals Council denied review.
Medical findings: remote head injury with right hemiparesis, neurocognitive disorder, cervical disc disease, obesity, and mood disorder; RFC assessed as light work with multiple right-arm and interaction limitations and requirement for a ‘stable’ work environment.
At the administrative hearing a Vocational Expert (VE) testified that, given the RFC, jobs existed nationally (parking lot signaler; router; deli cutter/slicer).
ALJ discounted plaintiff’s subjective symptom testimony and did not expressly weigh lay-witness (mother’s) statements; relied on medical record and plaintiff’s activities to find testimony inconsistent.
District Court held the VE/step‑5 finding was supported by substantial evidence but found the ALJ mischaracterized and improperly rejected plaintiff’s testimony and failed to weigh lay‑witness evidence; court remanded for further proceedings and entered judgment for plaintiff.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of step‑5 finding/VE testimony	Vocational testimony conflicted with actual job requirements and O*NET data; ALJ’s step‑5 finding unsupported	VE considered DOT and job realities; ALJ properly relied on VE and DOT; substantial evidence supports step‑5	VE testimony and ALJ step‑5 finding upheld; no unresolved DOT conflict requiring reversal
ALJ’s adverse credibility finding	ALJ mischaracterized testimony (overstated 8‑hour caregiving), failed to give specific, clear, convincing reasons tied to record	ALJ cited inconsistencies with activities and medical record to discount credibility	Court found ALJ mischaracterized testimony and failed to identify specific medical inconsistencies; credibility error not harmless and requires remand
Lay‑witness evidence	ALJ failed to expressly weigh mother’s third‑party report and did not provide germane reasons for discounting	Defendant contends any error is harmless if ALJ validly discounted claimant testimony	Because claimant’s testimony was improperly discounted, ALJ’s failure to weigh lay witness testimony was error and not harmless; remand required
Remedy	Remand for benefits or further proceedings depending on credibility reassessment	Argues existing record supports denial; further proceedings unnecessary	Court remanded for further administrative proceedings to reassess claimant and lay testimony (no immediate award of benefits)

Biestek v. Berryhill, 139 S. Ct. 1148 (Supreme Court 2019) (defines substantial evidence standard and emphasizes deference to ALJ)
Brown‑Hunter v. Colvin, 806 F.3d 487 (9th Cir. 2015) (ALJ must identify which testimony is not credible and explain why)
Garrison v. Colvin, 759 F.3d 995 (9th Cir. 2014) (two‑step framework for evaluating claimant symptom testimony)
Osenbrock v. Apfel, 240 F.3d 1157 (9th Cir. 2001) (when a VE is used at step five, the VE must identify specific jobs meeting the claimant’s limitations)
Matthews v. Shalala, 10 F.3d 678 (9th Cir. 1993) (VE testimony must accurately reflect claimant’s limitations)
Gutierrez v. Colvin, 844 F.3d 804 (9th Cir. 2016) (ALJ may rely on a VE’s job‑placement experience to account for job requirements)
Reddick v. Chater, 157 F.3d 715 (9th Cir. 1998) (court may only affirm on grounds the ALJ relied upon; need for adequate explanation)
Treichler v. Social Security Administration, 775 F.3d 1090 (9th Cir. 2014) (standards on remand for benefits versus further proceedings)
Benecke v. Barnhart, 379 F.3d 587 (9th Cir. 2004) (when the record is fully developed courts may remand for an immediate award of benefits)
Molina v. Astrue, 674 F.3d 1104 (9th Cir. 2012) (definition and application of substantial evidence review)