Treichler v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration, 775 F.3d 1090

Background

Treichler suffered severe injuries from a fall in 2004, including fractures and cauda equina syndrome, with residual pain and urinary and bowel incontinence.
Medical evidence through 2005–2009 showed various doctors’ opinions that Treichler could perform limited work, with conditions affecting sitting, standing, and weight-bearing.
An ALJ determined Treichler could perform light work with restrictions and denied disability benefits in 2010, relying on an RFC finding and vocational expert testimony that jobs like document sorter existed.
The district court affirmed the ALJ’s credibility finding regarding Treichler’s symptom testimony but remanded for reasons related to undiscounted testimony from Treichler’s wife.
On appeal, Treichler challenges the ALJ’s lack of specific reasons identifying which testimony was not credible and the district court’s remand approach; the Ninth Circuit reverses the credibility finding and remands for further proceedings rather than benefits.
The court applies the Varney/credit-as-true framework but concludes that the record requires remand for additional development due to unresolved conflicts and ambiguities.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Did the ALJ provide legally sufficient reasons for discounting Treichler’s testimony?	Treichler argues the ALJ relied on boilerplate and failed to identify specific testimony and evidence undermining it.	The Commissioner contends that substantial evidence supports the RFC and credibility findings, despite common boilerplate language.	ALJ erred by not specifying which testimony was not credible and why.
Should the case be remanded for benefits or for further proceedings?	Because the credibility error is unresolved, Treichler seeks immediate benefits; the record supports disability if credited.	Remand for further proceedings is appropriate when the record remains ambiguous and conflicts persist.	Remand for further proceedings, not an award of benefits, due to unresolved conflicts in the record.
Whether the court should credit Treichler's testimony as true under Varney/Garrison framework?	With three-part credit-as-true criteria met, Treichler should be credited as disabled and benefits awarded.	Credit-as-true does not automatically mandate benefits; there may be outstanding issues and ambiguity justifying remand.	Although the three criteria are, in this view, met, the court remands for further proceedings because conflicts remain and the record is not fully developed.
Is the Varney framework correctly applied to decide remand for benefits vs. further proceedings?	The majority’s use of remand-for- proceedings undermines the credit-as-true rule and user’s protections.	The framework appropriately balances harmless error and the ordinary remand rule given record ambiguities.	Remand for further proceedings is required; the rare-remand-for-benefits path is not warranted here.

Key Cases Cited

Garrison v. Colvin, 759 F.3d 995 (9th Cir. 2014) (credit-as-true framework; assessing remand vs. benefits based on record development)
Harman v. Apfel, 211 F.3d 1172 (9th Cir. 2000) (remand flexibility; discretionary approach to remand for benefits)
Varney v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs. (Varney II), 859 F.2d 1396 (9th Cir. 1988) (three-step Varney credit-as-true framework for credibility and remand)
Benecke v. Barnhart, 379 F.3d 587 (9th Cir. 2004) (credit-as-true where record shows disability; limits on weight of conflicting evidence)
Nguyen v. Chater, 100 F.3d 1462 (9th Cir. 1996) (context on remand when additional evidence or corrections are needed)