Teresa Berkebile v. Nancy Berryhill
714 F. App'x 649
| 9th Cir. | 2017Background
- Plaintiff Teresa Berkebile appealed the denial of Social Security disability benefits; the district court upheld the Commissioner and this appeal followed.
- ALJ found Berkebile had physical and mental impairments and adopted an RFC limiting her to simple instructions and limited public contact, but rejected more restrictive physical limitations opined by examining physician Dr. Johnson.
- ALJ gave Dr. Howsepian (treating psychiatrist) substantial weight for mental limitations but discounted portions of his October 2012 opinion as overstating limits based on treatment notes showing improvement and stability on medication.
- ALJ relied on conservative treatment (ibuprofen, neck pillow), Berkebile’s reported daily activities, conflicting medical opinions (including Dr. Billinghurst, a state-review physician, and later examining Dr. Stoltz), and inconsistent treatment notes to support RFC findings.
- New medical evidence submitted after the ALJ decision (Dr. Baylor and a later Dr. Howsepian opinion) was found not to warrant remand because it was cumulative or less persuasive and unlikely to change the outcome.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether ALJ improperly rejected examining physician Dr. Johnson’s opinion in favor of non‑treating Dr. Billinghurst | ALJ erred by rejecting Dr. Johnson’s opinion; RFC therefore inaccurate | ALJ provided specific, legitimate reasons supported by other evidence (clinical findings, conflicting opinions, activities) | Affirmed: ALJ permissibly discounted Dr. Johnson given other substantial record support |
| Whether ALJ properly weighed treating psychiatrist Dr. Howsepian’s opinions | Howsepian’s treating status means his limitations should be credited | ALJ largely credited him but permissibly discounted portions inconsistent with his notes and improvement | Affirmed: ALJ gave specific reasons for limiting some of Howsepian’s restrictions |
| Whether new evidence after ALJ requires remand | New opinions (Dr. Baylor, later Howsepian) would change outcome | New evidence was cumulative or less persuasive and would not likely change result | Affirmed: no reasonable possibility new evidence would alter decision |
| Whether ALJ’s credibility finding was supported | Berkebile’s symptom statements should be credited | ALJ cited lack of corroborating medical evidence, inconsistent daily activities, and receipt of unemployment benefits | Affirmed: ALJ gave clear and convincing reasons for discounting symptom testimony |
Key Cases Cited
- Lester v. Chater, 81 F.3d 821 (9th Cir. 1996) (examining/treating physician opinions cannot be rejected without specific, legitimate reasons supported by substantial evidence)
- Batson v. Comm’r Social Sec. Admin., 359 F.3d 1190 (9th Cir. 2004) (ALJ may consider clinical findings, conflicts in medical opinions, and claimant activities)
- Andrews v. Shalala, 53 F.3d 1035 (9th Cir. 1995) (non‑examining physician reports may be substantial evidence if consistent with record)
- Thomas v. Barnhart, 278 F.3d 947 (9th Cir. 2002) (where evidence permits more than one rational interpretation, ALJ’s conclusion must be upheld)
- Turner v. Comm’r Social Sec. Admin., 613 F.3d 1217 (9th Cir. 2010) (treating physician ordinarily entitled to deference)
- Gregory v. Bowen, 844 F.2d 664 (9th Cir. 1988) (longstanding condition that did not prevent past work is relevant to credibility of disabling limitation claims)
- Osenbrock v. Apfel, 240 F.3d 1157 (9th Cir. 2001) (ability to work in the past despite impairments is probative)
- Mayes v. Massanari, 276 F.3d 453 (9th Cir. 2001) (new evidence warrants remand only if there is a reasonable possibility it would change the outcome)
- Macri v. Chater, 93 F.3d 540 (9th Cir. 1996) (medical opinions issued after adverse ruling are less persuasive)
- Valentine v. Comm’r Social Sec. Admin., 574 F.3d 685 (9th Cir. 2009) (inconsistency between daily activities and claimed limitations can support adverse credibility finding)
- Carmickle v. Comm’r, 533 F.3d 1155 (9th Cir. 2008) (receipt of unemployment benefits and representing availability for work can undercut disability claims)