Stella Weiskopf v. Nancy Berryhill
693 F. App'x 539
| 9th Cir. | 2017Background
- Appellant applied for Social Security Disability and SSI, alleging chronic migraines, chronic pain, depression, anxiety, and fibromyalgia impaired her ability to work.
- The ALJ found Appellant not disabled, gave one treating physician’s opinion "little weight" and another "limited weight," and assessed a limited sedentary RFC without expressly considering fibromyalgia.
- Appeals Council denied review; the district court affirmed the ALJ; Appellant appealed to the Ninth Circuit.
- The Ninth Circuit reviews ALJ decisions de novo for substantial-evidence and correct legal standards, considering only the ALJ’s stated reasons.
- The court found the ALJ failed to provide specific, legitimate reasons supported by substantial evidence for discounting the treating physicians’ opinions and failed to properly analyze fibromyalgia under SSR 12-2P.
- Because unresolved factual issues remained regarding the extent of impairment, the Ninth Circuit reversed and remanded for further proceedings rather than awarding benefits.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the ALJ properly rejected treating physicians’ RFC opinions | Treating neurologist and pain specialist opinions should have controlling or at least meaningful weight | ALJ argued treating opinions conflicted with treatment notes and supported a less restrictive RFC | Rejected ALJ; ALJ failed to give specific, legitimate reasons and did not apply the §404.1527 factors; treating opinions not adequately weighed |
| Whether ALJ properly considered fibromyalgia as an MDI and in RFC | Fibromyalgia was alleged and supported by repeated symptoms/co-occurring conditions per SSR 12-2P | ALJ denied fibromyalgia significance because she found no trigger point tenderness | Rejected ALJ; SSR 12-2P allows diagnosis without trigger point findings; ALJ failed to consider fibromyalgia when assessing RFC |
| Appropriate remedy when ALJ errs in weighing and impairment analysis | Credit testimony/opinions and award benefits when record requires | Remand for further proceedings if outstanding issues remain | Remanded for further proceedings because material issues remain to resolve |
Key Cases Cited
- Molina v. Astrue, 674 F.3d 1104 (9th Cir. 2012) (standard of review for ALJ disability determinations)
- Orn v. Astrue, 495 F.3d 625 (9th Cir. 2007) (ALJ must give specific reasons for rejecting treating opinions; consider entire record)
- Robbins v. Soc. Sec. Admin., 466 F.3d 880 (9th Cir. 2006) (entire record considered on review)
- Connett v. Barnhart, 340 F.3d 871 (9th Cir. 2003) (review limited to reasons the ALJ provided)
- Redding v. Chater, 157 F.3d 715 (9th Cir. 1998) (treating physician rule requires specific, legitimate reasons to reject)
- Embrey v. Bowen, 849 F.2d 418 (9th Cir. 1988) (ALJ must explain interpretations and why they beat doctors’ conclusions)
- Treichler v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 775 F.3d 1090 (9th Cir. 2014) (remand for further proceedings appropriate when outstanding issues remain)
- Vasquez v. Astrue, 572 F.3d 586 (9th Cir. 2009) (remand standards when additional factfinding required)