Tina Popa v. Nancy Berryhill
872 F.3d 901
| 9th Cir. | 2017Background
- Tina Marie Popa applied for SSI on May 9, 2011 alleging bipolar disorder, depression, anxiety, and chronic pain with onset December 21, 2010; benefits were denied administratively and on review.
- At an ALJ hearing (April 18, 2013) Popa testified to severe depression, medication-related oversleeping, poor concentration and memory, and physical pain; she reported limited daily activities (lives with mother, some cooking/cleaning, shopping; stopped attending church in 2012).
- Examining psychologist Dr. Ashley Hart diagnosed chronic mood disorder and found Popa could perform basic workplace tasks but opined she was "not likely to maintain regular attendance" due to mental health.
- Treating nurse practitioner Dr. Tanya Sorrell (Ph.D. in nursing) treated Popa for Bipolar II from 2011–2012 and completed a residual functional capacity form indicating multiple "moderate" mental limitations (defined as ~10% off-task).
- State reviewer Dr. Hubert Estes concluded no severe mental impairment. The ALJ gave substantial weight to Dr. Hart (but rejected the attendance limitation), reduced weight to Dr. Sorrell, and significant weight to Dr. Estes, and found Popa able to perform unskilled light work.
- The vocational expert testified that inclusion of Dr. Sorrell’s moderate/off‑task (about 10%) limitation would render Popa unemployable. The district court affirmed the denial; the Ninth Circuit reversed and remanded for benefits.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether ALJ gave legally sufficient reasons to reject examining psychologist Dr. Hart’s opinion that Popa could not maintain regular attendance | Popa: ALJ failed to provide clear and convincing reasons; cited daily activities do not contradict attendance limitation | Commissioner: ALJ permissibly discounted that portion of Dr. Hart’s opinion based on claimant’s activities and other evidence | Court: Rejected ALJ — no clear and convincing reasons; activities cited do not undermine the attendance finding and testimony shows she stopped church attendance |
| Whether ALJ properly discounted treating NP Dr. Sorrell’s RFC opinion (an "other source") | Popa: ALJ failed to give germane reasons; NP was primary, treated claimant for >18 months, and check-box form is not a proper ground to reject | Commissioner: ALJ permissibly discounted Sorrell’s checked-form, inconsistency with other evidence, and claimant’s activities | Court: Rejected ALJ — reasons were not germane; check-box form and unsupported speculation of sympathy are insufficient |
| Whether ALJ’s hypothetical to the vocational expert was adequate given improperly rejected opinions | Popa: Hypothetical omitted Drs. Hart/Sorrell's limitations (particularly off-task 10%) which VE said precludes competitive employment | Commissioner: Hypothetical reflected the ALJ’s RFC and was supported by ALJ’s weighing of opinions | Court: Rejected ALJ — VE testimony shows inclusion of moderate/off-task limitation would preclude work, so ALJ’s hypothetical was legally inadequate |
| Remedy: remand for further proceedings vs. immediate award of benefits | Popa: Given uncontradicted VE testimony that 10% off-task precludes employment, award benefits | Commissioner: Errors may warrant remand for further proceedings to resolve conflicts | Court: Remanded for award of benefits (no further proceedings needed) |
Key Cases Cited
- Lester v. Chater, 81 F.3d 821 (9th Cir. 1995) (clear and convincing reasons required to reject uncontradicted examining psychologist opinion)
- Molina v. Astrue, 674 F.3d 1104 (9th Cir. 2012) (ALJ must give germane reasons to discount "other source" opinions and cannot reject check-box forms solely for being filled out that way)
- Batson v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 359 F.3d 1190 (9th Cir. 2004) (five-step sequential evaluation for disability claims)
- Keyser v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 648 F.3d 721 (9th Cir. 2011) (framework for assessing RFC and past work)
- Tonapetyan v. Halter, 242 F.3d 1144 (9th Cir. 2001) (inconsistent statements may be considered in credibility determinations)
- Robbins v. Social Security Admin., 466 F.3d 880 (9th Cir. 2006) (single discrepancy insufficient to reject claimant testimony)