Stephen Turner v. Nancy Berryhill, 705 F. App'x 495

Background

Stephen Turner appealed the denial of disability insurance benefits and SSI under Titles II and XVI of the Social Security Act after the ALJ found him not disabled.
The ALJ found severe impairments of narcissistic personality disorder and antisocial personality disorder, and assigned an RFC: full range of exertional work but limited to simple repetitive tasks with occasional public contact.
The ALJ concluded Turner could not perform past relevant work but could perform jobs such as hand packager, janitor, and final inspector per vocational expert testimony.
Turner argued the ALJ erred by not evaluating whether his impairments equaled Listing 12.08 and by not accounting for exertional impairments in the RFC; he also challenged credibility findings and vocational hypotheticals.
The district court affirmed; the Ninth Circuit reviewed de novo and affirmed the denial of benefits, finding some errors harmless and others waived.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Turner preserved issues for appeal	Turner raised multiple errors on appeal	Commissioner argued some issues were waived for not being raised administratively or in district court	Court: Two issues waived (failure to evaluate Listing 12.08 equivalence; failure to account for exertional impairments); other issues considered because record fully developed
Whether ALJ evaluated equivalence to Listing 12.08	Turner contended impairments met/equal Listing 12.08	ALJ referenced Listing 12.07 (typographical error) and found Paragraph B criteria not met	Court: Harmless error; Paragraph B requirements identical and substantial evidence supports non-qualification
Whether RFC is supported by substantial evidence	Turner argued RFC failed to account for all impairments and medical opinions	Commissioner relied on state reviewing psychologist Dr. Barrons and absence of contradictory treating/examining opinions	Court: RFC supported; omission of explicit mention of Dr. Barrons harmless because RFC is consistent with her opinion and no contrary medical opinion exists
Whether ALJ erred in vocational hypotheticals and VE reliance	Turner argued hypotheticals omitted moderate limitations in concentration/pace and that Level 2 reasoning conflict exists	Commissioner argued limiting to "simple, repetitive tasks" captures moderate concentration/pace limits and Level 2 reasoning is compatible	Court: No error—"simple, repetitive tasks" consistent with medical evidence and Level 2 reasoning; Zavalin (conflict with Level 3) distinguished
Credibility of Turner’s testimony	Turner asserted ALJ improperly discounted his symptom testimony	Commissioner maintained ALJ gave reasons to doubt credibility	Court: ALJ failed to state clear and convincing reasons for discounting testimony, but error was harmless because fully crediting testimony would not change RFC

Key Cases Cited

Lingenfelter v. Astrue, 504 F.3d 1028 (9th Cir. 2007) (standard of review for ALJ findings)
Robbins v. Soc. Sec. Admin., 466 F.3d 880 (9th Cir. 2006) (substantial evidence and legal error standard)
Meanel v. Apfel, 172 F.3d 1111 (9th Cir. 1999) (preservation rule for represented claimants)
Sandgathe v. Chater, 108 F.3d 978 (9th Cir. 1997) (issues not raised below are waived)
Greger v. Barnhart, 464 F.3d 968 (9th Cir. 2006) (exceptions to waiver rule)
Bolker v. C.I.R., 760 F.2d 1039 (9th Cir. 1985) (articulating waiver exceptions)
Marsh v. Colvin, 792 F.3d 1170 (9th Cir. 2015) (error in failing to address a contrary treating opinion)
Reddick v. Chater, 157 F.3d 715 (9th Cir. 1998) (rejecting treating physician without adequate rationale)
Stubbs-Danielson v. Astrue, 539 F.3d 1169 (9th Cir. 2008) ("simple, repetitive tasks" may capture concentration/pace limits)
Zavalin v. Colvin, 778 F.3d 842 (9th Cir. 2015) (conflict between RFC for simple work and Level 3 reasoning)
Lewis v. Apfel, 236 F.3d 503 (9th Cir. 2001) (claimant must provide medical basis for equivalence to listings)