Tina Leeper v. Nancy Berryhill
706 F. App'x 367
| 9th Cir. | 2017Background
- Tina Leeper appealed the district court’s affirmation of the Commissioner’s denial of her application for Supplemental Security Income under Title XVI.
- The ALJ evaluated medical opinions (examining psychologist Dr. Bartol and ARNP Ms. Cates) and assessed an RFC that limited Leeper’s abilities for work.
- The ALJ found Leeper’s symptom testimony (pain, fibromyalgia, anxiety) not fully credible and gave reasons for discounting it.
- The ALJ rejected parts of Dr. Bartol’s opinion about Leeper’s social functioning as inconsistent with the record and Dr. Bartol’s own findings.
- The ALJ found Ms. Cates’s medical opinion was interpreted reasonably and that the RFC captured relevant limitations.
- The Ninth Circuit panel reviewed de novo and affirmed the Commissioner’s denial, finding the ALJ’s reasons supported by substantial evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whether ALJ properly rejected examining psychologist’s opinion on social functioning | Dr. Bartol’s opinion should control; Leeper has marked social limits | ALJ argued opinion inconsistent with Leeper’s activities and Dr. Bartol’s own notes | ALJ properly rejected opinion for specific, legitimate, supported reasons | |
| Whether ALJ properly credited ARN P’s medical opinion in RFC | Leeper contended ALJ misread/undervalued Ms. Cates’s limitations | ALJ reasonably interpreted Ms. Cates and included relevant limits in RFC | Substantial evidence supports ALJ’s interpretation and RFC inclusion | |
| Whether ALJ properly discounted Leeper’s symptom testimony | Leeper argued symptoms (pain, anxiety) limited work and were credible | ALJ cited inconsistency with activities, objective evidence, treatment history, and improvement with treatment | ALJ gave clear and convincing reasons for discounting testimony; upheld | |
| Whether the RFC captured all relevant limitations | Leeper argued RFC omitted limitations tied to GAF/pain findings | Commissioner argued RFC reflected limitations evidenced, including pain syndrome | Court found RFC reasonably included relevant limitations and complied with precedent | Affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Ghanim v. Colvin, 763 F.3d 1154 (9th Cir. 2014) (standard of review and de novo review reminder)
- Morgan v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 169 F.3d 595 (9th Cir. 1999) (inconsistency with daily activities is a legitimate reason to reject a physician opinion)
- Bayliss v. Barnhart, 427 F.3d 1211 (9th Cir. 2005) (ALJ may reject physician opinion inconsistent with the physician’s own clinical notes)
- Stubbs-Danielson v. Astrue, 539 F.3d 1169 (9th Cir. 2008) (RFC adequately captures restrictions consistent with medical testimony)
- Brown-Hunter v. Colvin, 806 F.3d 487 (9th Cir. 2015) (ALJ must link credibility findings to specific testimony)
- Rollins v. Massanari, 261 F.3d 853 (9th Cir. 2001) (inconsistency with activities supports discounting testimony)
- Molina v. Astrue, 674 F.3d 1104 (9th Cir. 2012) (ALJ may consider objective medical evidence and treatment history when assessing credibility)
- Garrison v. Colvin, 759 F.3d 995 (9th Cir. 2014) (improvement with treatment may justify discounting symptom testimony)