Trina Towne v. Nancy Berryhill
15-35752
| 9th Cir. | Dec 15, 2017Background
- Plaintiff-appellant Trina Towne (substituted for deceased claimant Ginger Appler Swain) appeals denial of Social Security disability insurance benefits; the SSI claim is moot.
- Appler Swain alleged disabling hand and hip pain from psoriasis and arthritis; she had worked part-time as a caregiver, was fired from one job in 2010, and later began another caregiving job.
- At the administrative hearing, Appler Swain testified she could only do part-time work due to severe hand and hip pain and submitted medical records and lay coworker testimony describing limitations.
- A vocational expert (VE) testified the claimant could not perform past relevant work but could perform three jobs (cashier, electronics worker, storage facility clerk) consistent with an RFC of less than a full range of light work.
- The ALJ gave less weight to two treating/examining physician opinions and to coworker lay testimony, relied on the VE’s testimony at step five, and denied benefits; the district court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether ALJ improperly discounted treating/examining doctors’ opinions about manipulative capacity | Appler Swain: doctors’ opinions should be credited; limitations preclude jobs identified by VE | Commissioner: ALJ permissibly found opinions contradicted by claimant’s actual work activities and testimony | ALJ did not err; discounting supported by permissible inference from claimant’s job duties and testimony |
| Whether ALJ improperly discounted coworkers’ lay testimony | Appler Swain: coworkers’ observations corroborate limitations | Commissioner: ALJ may discount lay testimony for germane reasons such as inconsistency with medical evidence | ALJ did not err; inconsistency with medical record was a germane reason |
| Whether ALJ failed to resolve an alleged conflict between VE testimony and DOT | Appler Swain: VE’s job identifications conflict with DOT physical requirements | Commissioner: VE testimony aligned with RFC and explained ability to sit/stand as required | No obvious conflict; VE explained compatibility with RFC — ALJ satisfied Massachi/Gutierrez standards |
| Whether substantial-evidence standard supports denial of benefits | Appler Swain: record supports finding of disability | Commissioner: record permits ALJ’s inferences and alternative interpretations | Substantial evidence supports ALJ’s findings and denial of disability insurance benefits |
Key Cases Cited
- Buck v. Berryhill, 869 F.3d 1040 (9th Cir. 2017) (standard of review: substantial evidence)
- Magallanes v. Bowen, 881 F.2d 747 (9th Cir. 1989) (ALJ resolves conflicts and assesses credibility)
- Bayliss v. Barnhart, 427 F.3d 1211 (9th Cir. 2005) (contradicted medical opinions may be rejected for specific and legitimate reasons)
- Molina v. Astrue, 674 F.3d 1104 (9th Cir. 2012) (lay testimony is competent and must be considered; may be rejected for germane reasons)
- Massachi v. Astrue, 486 F.3d 1149 (9th Cir. 2007) (ALJ must reconcile apparent conflicts between VE testimony and DOT)
- Gutierrez v. Colvin, 844 F.3d 804 (9th Cir. 2016) (no duty to clarify VE testimony if no obvious conflict exists)
- Johnson v. Shalala, 60 F.3d 1428 (9th Cir. 1995) (expert testimony may show that particular jobs are consistent with a claimant’s limitations)