Tuni Hernandez v. Nancy Berryhill
707 F. App'x 456
| 9th Cir. | 2017Background
- Plaintiff Tuni Dee Hernandez appealed denial of Title II and XVI disability benefits after an ALJ found her not disabled; the district court affirmed and Hernandez appealed to the Ninth Circuit.
- Hernandez claimed severe back and right ankle pain preventing her from sitting or standing more than 15 minutes and limiting work capacity.
- Two treating physicians (Drs. Kathleen King and Dennis Hart) provided opinions asserting greater functional limitations than the ALJ adopted.
- The ALJ found treating physicians’ notes and an MRI did not support the extreme limitations they endorsed and rejected those opinions.
- The ALJ discounted Hernandez’s symptom testimony as inconsistent with objective medical evidence and her reported daily activities (laundry, driving short distances, household chores, supervising a child).
- At step five the ALJ concluded Hernandez could perform certain jobs (e.g., envelope addresser); the ALJ limited her to simple, repetitive tasks and relied on vocational expert testimony. Any apparent conflict with DOT reasoning levels was deemed harmless.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether ALJ properly rejected treating physicians’ opinions | Treating doctors’ opinions reflect severe, work-preclusive limitations supported by treatment relationship | ALJ: treatment notes and objective findings do not support the extreme limitations; misidentification of notes was harmless | Affirmed — ALJ gave specific, legitimate, and supported reasons to reject the opinions; misidentification was harmless error |
| Whether ALJ properly discounted Hernandez’s symptom testimony | Hernandez: pain prevents sitting/standing >15 minutes and limits function | ALJ: testimony inconsistent with objective evidence (MRI, treatment notes) and daily activities | Affirmed — inconsistencies were clear and convincing reasons to reject testimony |
| Whether ALJ’s RFC conflicted with vocational expert/DOT reasoning levels at step five | Hernandez: RFC limiting to simple, repetitive tasks conflicts with VE testimony that she can do some Level 3 reasoning jobs | Commissioner: VE testimony that she can do certain Level 2 reasoning jobs is consistent with RFC; any conflict with Level 3 jobs was harmless | Affirmed — no apparent conflict with the jobs the ALJ relied on (Level 2); any failure to resolve conflict about Level 3 jobs was harmless error |
Key Cases Cited
- Valentine v. Comm’r Soc. Sec. Admin., 574 F.3d 685 (9th Cir. 2009) (ALJ must provide specific and legitimate reasons supported by substantial evidence to reject a treating physician’s opinion)
- Morgan v. Comm’r Soc. Sec. Admin., 169 F.3d 595 (9th Cir. 1999) (inconsistencies between testimony and objective evidence can be clear and convincing reasons to discount symptom testimony)
- Molina v. Astrue, 674 F.3d 1104 (9th Cir. 2012) (harmless error doctrine in administrative proceedings)
- Moore v. Astrue, 623 F.3d 599 (8th Cir. 2010) (no apparent conflict between RFC for simple, routine, repetitive work and jobs requiring Level 2 reasoning)
- Zavalin v. Colvin, 778 F.3d 842 (9th Cir. 2015) (apparent conflict exists where RFC limits to simple, repetitive tasks but VE cites jobs requiring Level 3 reasoning)
- Rounds v. Comm’r Soc. Sec. Admin., 807 F.3d 996 (9th Cir. 2015) (discusses conflict between RFC limited to one- and two-step tasks and DOT Level 2 reasoning)