Timothy Henricus v. Nancy Berryhill
16-15347
| 9th Cir. | Sep 18, 2017Background
- Plaintiff Timothy Henricus applied for Social Security disability benefits; an ALJ awarded a period shorter than Henricus sought.
- Treating physician Dr. Hembd and physician assistant Ms. Zichella provided a functional capacity opinion that, if credited, would preclude all work.
- The ALJ did not mention or explain rejection of Dr. Hembd’s and Ms. Zichella’s opinions in the decision.
- Consulting psychiatrist Dr. Monks issued a functional opinion; the ALJ limited Henricus to simple, repetitive tasks based on that opinion.
- The vocational expert testified that fully crediting Dr. Hembd’s and Ms. Zichella’s opinion would eliminate all jobs available to Henricus.
- The Ninth Circuit reversed and remanded for further proceedings to allow the Commissioner to properly evaluate the treating opinions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether ALJ improperly rejected treating physician and PA opinions | ALJ ignored and failed to give reasons for rejecting Dr. Hembd’s and Ms. Zichella’s opinions | Commissioner implicitly suggests ALJ’s RFC findings control and no error in procedure | Reversed: ALJ erred by not addressing or giving reasons for rejecting those opinions; remand required |
| Whether ALJ properly handled Dr. Monks’s opinion | Henricus argued parts were rejected improperly | Commissioner argued ALJ’s RFC adopted Dr. Monks’s limitations (simple, repetitive tasks) | Affirmed as to Dr. Monks: ALJ reasonably interpreted and adopted limitations; no error in treating that opinion |
| Whether error was harmless or required remand for benefits | Henricus contended harm because treating opinions would preclude all work | Commissioner likely argued harmlessness due to other evidence supporting RFC | Error not harmless: VE testimony showed crediting treating opinions would preclude work; remand for further proceedings warranted |
| Appropriate remedy (remand vs. benefits) | Henricus sought benefits for the contested period | Commissioner sought further administrative consideration | Remanded for further proceedings to allow proper evaluation of treating opinions; not an immediate award of benefits |
Key Cases Cited
- Batson v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 359 F.3d 1190 (9th Cir. 2004) (ALJ must give specific and legitimate reasons to reject a treating physician’s opinion)
- Molina v. Astrue, 674 F.3d 1104 (9th Cir. 2012) (ALJ must give germane reasons to reject opinions from other sources like physician assistants)
- Garrison v. Colvin, 759 F.3d 995 (9th Cir. 2014) (ALJ errs by rejecting a medical opinion by ignoring it)
- Orteza v. Shalala, 50 F.3d 748 (9th Cir. 1995) (distinguishes between discrediting and interpreting a medical opinion)
- Stubbs-Danielson v. Astrue, 539 F.3d 1169 (9th Cir. 2008) (ALJ translates functional limitations into an RFC)
- Burch v. Barnhart, 400 F.3d 676 (9th Cir. 2005) (court upholds ALJ’s RFC interpretation if rational)
- Dominguez v. Colvin, 808 F.3d 403 (9th Cir. 2015) (remand for further proceedings when administrative record needs proper initial evaluation)