Trevizo v. Berryhill
871 F.3d 664
| 9th Cir. | 2017Background
- Trevizo (born 1951) applied for Social Security disability benefits claiming onset August 15, 2008; ALJ denied benefits after hearing; district court affirmed; Ninth Circuit reversed and ordered benefits awarded.
- Medical record: uncontrolled Type II diabetes, severe psoriasis (up to ~90% BSA at times), psoriatic arthritis, chronic lumbago/degenerative disc disease, obesity, prior bilateral carpal tunnel surgery, and borderline intellectual functioning; extensive treatment history with primary care Dr. Ravi Galhotra and dermatologist Dr. Lindsay Ackerman.
- Treating physician Dr. Galhotra completed an RFC check-box form limiting Trevizo to <2 hours standing/walking, ≤3 hours sitting, alternating sit/stand frequently, limited hand use, and other environmental restrictions.
- Agency consultative and nonexamining reviewers differed: Dr. House (examining psychologist) noted possible borderline intellectual functioning; Dr. Quinones (reviewer) assessed greater capacity; Dr. Zuess (reconsideration) concluded disabled as of Sept. 16, 2010. Vocational expert testified that Galhotra’s limitations would preclude full-time work.
- ALJ rejected Dr. Galhotra’s opinion, discounted Trevizo’s symptom testimony, found RFC for medium work, and concluded she could perform past work. Ninth Circuit found legal error in discounting the treating opinion and most credibility rationales, credited the treating opinion, and remanded for immediate payment of benefits.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether ALJ permissibly rejected treating physician’s opinion | Trevizo: ALJ failed to apply §404.1527 factors, gave insufficient reasons to reject Dr. Galhotra | Commissioner: treating opinion contradicted by objective notes, consultative opinions, and daily activities | Court: ALJ erred—failed to apply proper factors and gave no specific, legitimate reasons; treating opinion should be credited as controlling |
| Whether ALJ permissibly discounted claimant’s symptom testimony | Trevizo: ALJ relied on inaccurate or legally insufficient reasons (sporadic normal exams, nonuse of narcotics, childcare activities, prior work) | Commissioner: symptom testimony inconsistent with medical records and activities | Court: Most reasons were legally or factually erroneous; only limited noncompliance evidence remained and did not suffice to discredit testimony |
| Whether RFC and VE findings support denial of benefits | Trevizo: Crediting treating limits renders her unable to perform full-time work per VE | Commissioner: RFC supported by other opinions and testimony showing capacity for work | Court: VE testified that Galhotra’s limits precluded full-time work; crediting that opinion requires finding of disability |
| Whether case should be remanded for further proceedings or for benefits | Trevizo: Record fully developed; improper rejection of evidence; credit-as-true satisfied so award benefits | Commissioner: errors could be cured on remand; further development appropriate | Court: Garrison credit-as-true factors met; exceptional delay and age justify remand for calculation and immediate award of benefits |
Key Cases Cited
- Brown-Hunter v. Colvin, 806 F.3d 487 (9th Cir. 2015) (standard of review for ALJ credibility findings and need to rely on ALJ’s stated reasons)
- Garrison v. Colvin, 759 F.3d 995 (9th Cir. 2014) (credit-as-true test and when to award benefits on review)
- Lingenfelter v. Astrue, 504 F.3d 1028 (9th Cir. 2007) (treating physician weight and crediting controlling opinions)
- Ryan v. Commissioner of Social Security, 528 F.3d 1194 (9th Cir. 2008) (clear and convincing or specific and legitimate reasons required to reject treating/examining opinions)
- Magallanes v. Bowen, 881 F.2d 747 (9th Cir. 1989) (ALJ's duty to set out detailed, thorough summary of facts and conflicting evidence when rejecting medical opinions)
- Sprague v. Bowen, 812 F.2d 1226 (9th Cir. 1987) (discretion in remanding for benefits where record strongly supports entitlement)
- Smolen v. Chater, 80 F.3d 1273 (9th Cir. 1996) (treating physician opinion and remand for benefits principles)
- Lester v. Chater, 81 F.3d 821 (9th Cir. 1995) (limitations of relying solely on intermittent normal exam findings to reject disability testimony)
- Gamble v. Chater, 68 F.3d 319 (9th Cir. 1995) (cannot deny benefits for failure to obtain treatment when claimant cannot afford it)