Timothy Womeldorf v. Nancy Berryhill
685 F. App'x 620
| 9th Cir. | 2017Background
- Plaintiff Timothy Womeldorf applied for Social Security disability insurance benefits; the ALJ denied his claim and the district court affirmed.
- The ALJ credited the opinion of an examining licensed psychologist, Dr. Wayne General, giving it great weight based on examination, testing, and the medical record.
- The ALJ gave little weight to a nurse-practitioner Marion Letellier’s opinion because she is not an "acceptable medical source" and her opinion conflicted with her own treatment notes.
- The ALJ discounted Womeldorf’s subjective symptom testimony, citing the objective medical evidence, conservative/routine treatment, and his daily activities.
- Womeldorf challenged the ALJ’s weighting of medical opinions and the adverse credibility finding on appeal. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the denial of benefits.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Weight given to examining psychologist’s opinion | ALJ erred in relying heavily on Dr. General | Dr. General is an acceptable medical source; his exam/testing and record support weight | Affirmed: ALJ permissibly gave Dr. General great weight (substantial evidence) |
| Weight given to nurse-practitioner’s opinion | Letellier’s opinion should be treated as a treating source | Letellier is not an "acceptable medical source"; her opinion conflicted with her notes | Affirmed: ALJ permissibly gave Letellier little weight |
| Credibility of plaintiff’s symptom testimony | ALJ improperly discounted Womeldorf’s reported severity | ALJ pointed to objective evidence, conservative treatment, and daily activities as clear and convincing reasons | Affirmed: credibility properly discounted; any wording error harmless |
| Reliance on non-examining opinions | ALJ improperly relied on non-examining sources | ALJ gave some weight to non-examining acceptable medical-source opinions; this was permissible | Affirmed: no error in giving weight to non-examining opinions |
Key Cases Cited
- Lingenfelter v. Astrue, 504 F.3d 1028 (9th Cir. 2007) (standard for reviewing ALJ’s reliance on medical opinions and substantial-evidence review)
- Burch v. Barnhart, 400 F.3d 676 (9th Cir. 2005) (ALJ’s factual findings must be supported by substantial evidence)
- Smolen v. Chater, 80 F.3d 1273 (9th Cir. 1996) (requirements for clear and convincing reasons to discount claimant testimony)
- Molina v. Astrue, 674 F.3d 1104 (9th Cir. 2012) (harmless-error analysis in Social Security appeals)
- Brown-Hunter v. Colvin, 806 F.3d 487 (9th Cir. 2015) (procedural protections for credibility findings and RFC development)
- Treichler v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 775 F.3d 1090 (9th Cir. 2014) (limitations on post-hoc rationalizations and proper credibility analysis)
- Parra v. Astrue, 481 F.3d 742 (9th Cir. 2007) (using objective medical evidence to evaluate symptom testimony)
- Tommasetti v. Astrue, 533 F.3d 1035 (9th Cir. 2008) (conservative treatment as a basis to discount symptom severity)
- Bray v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 554 F.3d 1219 (9th Cir. 2009) (daily activities as a factor in credibility assessments)