Tammy Jorgensen v. Nancy Berryhill
680 F. App'x 612
9th Cir.2017Background
- Tammy R. Jorgensen applied for Disability Insurance Benefits and Supplemental Security Income; an ALJ denied benefits and the district court affirmed. The Ninth Circuit reviewed de novo and for substantial evidence and affirmed.
- Key medical evidence included a treating physician report by Dr. Laura Keeter and a report from nurse Desiree White; the ALJ gave limited weight to aspects of those reports.
- The ALJ found Jorgensen’s asthma and dizziness symptoms not as disabling as alleged, concluding asthma was well controlled with medication and thus not a severe impairment.
- The ALJ discounted portions of Jorgensen’s subjective symptom testimony based on activities of daily living and her contemporaneous unemployment-benefits certification that she was seeking full-time work.
- At Step Four the ALJ found Jorgensen could perform past relevant work (questioned on appeal), but alternatively at Step Five concluded she could perform other work; the court held any Step Four error was harmless.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Assessment of medical evidence (Dr. Keeter and Nurse White) | ALJ improperly rejected or gave insufficient weight to treating/supporting opinions | ALJ reasonably discounted unsupported portions, correctly treated nurse as not an "acceptable medical source," and had no duty to further develop the record | Affirmed: ALJ gave germane/adequate reasons and RFC accounted for documented respiratory limits |
| Severity of asthma | Asthma is a severe impairment that should support disability | Medical record shows asthma well controlled with medication; not severe | Affirmed: substantial evidence supports finding asthma not severe |
| Credibility of symptom testimony (asthma, dizziness) | ALJ erred in discounting claimant's subjective reports | ALJ provided clear and convincing reasons (daily activities, benefit statements) supported by record | Affirmed: ALJ's credibility findings proper |
| RFC / Step Four and Five analysis | ALJ’s Step Four finding that claimant can do past work was inadequately explained; argues for remand for benefits | Even if Step Four explanation was lacking, substantial evidence supports Step Five finding she can do other work; credibility and medical findings justify RFC | Affirmed: any Step Four error was inconsequential because Step Five supported denial; no remand for benefits |
Key Cases Cited
- Rounds v. Comm’r Soc. Sec. Admin., 807 F.3d 996 (9th Cir. 2015) (standard of review for district court and ALJ decisions)
- Mayes v. Massanari, 276 F.3d 453 (9th Cir. 2001) (duty to develop the record and adequacy of evidence from non-acceptable sources)
- Molina v. Astrue, 674 F.3d 1104 (9th Cir. 2012) (standards for ALJ credibility findings and harmless error analysis)
- Brown-Hunter v. Colvin, 806 F.3d 487 (9th Cir. 2015) (requirement for clear and convincing reasons to reject claimant testimony)
- Carmickle v. Comm’r, Soc. Sec. Admin., 533 F.3d 1155 (9th Cir. 2008) (unemployment benefits can bear on alleged inability to work)
- Copeland v. Bowen, 861 F.2d 536 (9th Cir. 1988) (same principle regarding unemployment benefits)