Tyler Delanoy v. Nancy Berryhill
697 F. App'x 917
| 9th Cir. | 2017Background
- Tyler Delanoy appealed the district court’s affirmation of the Commissioner’s denial of his applications for Social Security Disability Insurance and Supplemental Security Income under Titles II and XVI.
- The appeal challenges the Administrative Law Judge’s (ALJ) findings at Steps Two and in weighing medical opinions and claimant testimony.
- The ALJ found Delanoy’s migraine disorder did not cause more than minimal limitation in basic work activities (Step Two), based on lack of supporting medical evidence.
- The ALJ gave “little weight” to treating physician Dr. Lush’s April 2012 opinion, citing inadequate explanation, reliance on Delanoy’s subjective complaints, and contradiction by other medical opinions.
- The ALJ discounted Delanoy’s credibility with specific, clear, and convincing reasons: lack of objective support, inconsistencies with activities of daily living, and inconsistent statements about abilities (e.g., sitting/standing limits vs. long periods on computer; limited driving vs. documented long trip).
- The ALJ gave only “some weight” to testimony from Delanoy’s mother because it was inconsistent with the record and Delanoy’s own statements.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether migraines meet Step Two severity | Delanoy contended migraines caused more than minimal work limitations | Commissioner argued record lacks medical evidence showing more-than-minimal limitation | Affirmed: substantial evidence supports Step Two finding of only minimal limitation |
| Whether ALJ properly rejected Dr. Lush’s opinion | Dr. Lush’s treating opinion should be credited | ALJ argued opinion was unexplained, relied on subjective reports, contradicted by other doctors | Affirmed: ALJ gave specific and legitimate reasons to assign little weight |
| Whether ALJ properly rejected claimant’s subjective symptom testimony | Delanoy argued his testimony of debilitating symptoms was credible | Commissioner argued testimony conflicted with objective findings and activities | Affirmed: ALJ provided clear and convincing reasons supported by substantial evidence |
| Whether ALJ properly weighed lay witness testimony (mother) | Mother’s statements support disabling limitations | Commissioner argued mother’s testimony was inconsistent with record and claimant’s statements | Affirmed: ALJ gave germane reasons for assigning only some weight |
Key Cases Cited
- Ghanim v. Colvin, 736 F.3d 1154 (9th Cir. 2014) (standard of review and credibility assessment principles)
- Webb v. Barnhart, 433 F.3d 683 (9th Cir. 2005) (substantial evidence standard for Step Two findings)
- Burrell v. Colvin, 775 F.3d 1133 (9th Cir. 2014) (requirements for rejecting a treating physician’s contradicted opinion)
- Brown-Hunter v. Colvin, 806 F.3d 487 (9th Cir. 2015) (ALJ must provide sufficiently specific reasons to reject subjective testimony)
- Molina v. Astrue, 674 F.3d 1104 (9th Cir. 2012) (ALJ’s treatment of lay witness testimony must be germane)