979 F.3d 751
9th Cir.2020Background:
- Coleman alleged disability from November 5, 2013 due to spine/neck pain; treated by multiple providers and underwent C5–C6 anterior discectomy in May 2015.
- Treating providers (e.g., Dr. Foster, NP Schwarzkopf, Dr. Jackson) gave opinions of severe limitations; some clinicians (Dr. Atteberry, Dr. Stoilova) found normal strength/gait and MRIs that did not explain his pain.
- Psychological evaluator Dr. Schneider diagnosed "pain disorder associated with psychological and physical factors" but noted diagnostic uncertainty and relied on Coleman’s self-reports.
- Multiple emergency‑room visits generated an information‑exchange alert showing numerous opioid prescriptions from multiple providers; ER staff refused additional opioids and observed pain‑inconsistent behavior on some exams.
- ALJ found severe impairments of lumbar degenerative disc disease and post‑cervical fusion, assessed RFC (sedentary through May 2016, light thereafter), and concluded Coleman could perform his past work (alternatively other work); district court affirmed and Ninth Circuit affirmed.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether ALJ properly discounted Coleman's subjective pain testimony | ALJ erred; testimony of severe, persistent pain should be credited | ALJ gave clear and convincing reasons (drug‑seeking behavior, observed pain‑inconsistent conduct) | Affirmed: ALJ permissibly discounted testimony for clear and convincing reasons |
| Whether ALJ erred in rejecting/discounting treating and other medical opinions | ALJ improperly rejected treating physicians, psychologist, and NPs who found severe limits | ALJ gave specific and legitimate reasons: contradictions in the record, normal exams, imaging not supporting severe limits, reliance on discredited self‑reports | Affirmed: ALJ provided legally sufficient reasons to discount those opinions |
| Whether ALJ erred by not listing pain disorder as a severe impairment at Step Two | Pain disorder diagnosed by Dr. Schneider should be a severe impairment | Dr. Schneider’s diagnosis relied on Coleman’s self‑reports and was equivocal; objective evidence did not support the claimed severity | Affirmed: Substantial evidence supported exclusion of pain disorder as a severe impairment |
| Whether RFC and step‑4/5 findings were unsupported by the record | RFC (sedentary then light) and step‑4 finding (can perform past work) were inconsistent with records of severe limitation | ALJ’s RFC based on supported medical evidence and vocational testimony; alternative jobs identified | Affirmed: ALJ’s RFC and resulting disability conclusions supported by substantial evidence |
Key Cases Cited
- Molina v. Astrue, 674 F.3d 1104 (9th Cir. 2012) (standard of review and framework for evaluating ALJ findings)
- Andrews v. Shalala, 53 F.3d 1035 (9th Cir. 1995) (definition of substantial evidence)
- Fair v. Bowen, 885 F.2d 597 (9th Cir. 1989) (importance of credibility assessment in excess‑pain cases)
- Reddick v. Chater, 157 F.3d 715 (9th Cir. 1998) (objective evidence cannot be sole basis to discredit pain testimony)
- Garrison v. Colvin, 759 F.3d 995 (9th Cir. 2014) (ALJ must give clear and convincing reasons to reject subjective pain testimony)
- Bayliss v. Barnhart, 427 F.3d 1211 (9th Cir. 2005) (treating‑physician rule requiring clear and convincing reasons to reject uncontradicted opinions)
- Edlund v. Massanari, 253 F.3d 1152 (9th Cir. 2001) (ALJ may reject treating opinion contradicted by other exam findings with specific and legitimate reasons)
- Tommasetti v. Astrue, 533 F.3d 1035 (9th Cir. 2008) (ALJ may reject physician opinion based largely on properly discounted self‑reports)
- Batson v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 359 F.3d 1190 (9th Cir. 2004) (ALJ may discredit treating opinions that are conclusory or unsupported)
- Burch v. Barnhart, 400 F.3d 676 (9th Cir. 2005) (review is deferential where evidence admits multiple rational interpretations)
- Britton v. Colvin, 787 F.3d 1011 (9th Cir. 2015) (nurse practitioners were not "acceptable medical sources" for claims filed during the period at issue)
