Vernice Saavedra v. Nancy A. Berryhill, 2:17-cv-08688

Background

Plaintiff applied for DIB with alleged onset October 17, 2013; denied by ALJ on May 5, 2016; Appeals Council denied review and district court review followed.
ALJ found severe impairments: anxiety and mood disorder; RFC: all exertional levels but no high-stress work, only simple repetitive tasks, frequent supervisor contact, occasional coworkers/public contact.
ALJ relied on examining psychiatrist Dr. Kanof (Feb. 2016) and state agency psychologists to limit Plaintiff to simple work and occasional public/coworker contact.
Treating psychiatrist Dr. Simonds gave more restrictive opinions (including marked limits and inability to work); ALJ discounted those as inconsistent with his treatment records after Feb 1, 2015.
Administrative records show episodes of severe illness (psychiatric hospitalizations, 5150 hold, GAF scores as low as 30–45) in 2013–early 2015; later records (Feb–Sept 2015) show relative stability (GAFs ~60–90).
District court concluded the ALJ’s denial was not supported by substantial evidence as to whether there was a continuous disabling period of at least 12 months from Oct 17, 2013 through Jan 15, 2015, and remanded for reconsideration of that closed period.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether ALJ properly assessed RFC re: concentration, attendance, and safety limits	ALJ failed to adopt Dr. Kanof’s and Dr. Simonds’ moderate-to-marked limitations in concentration and compliance (safety/attendance)	ALJ translated moderate limits into workable restrictions (simple, repetitive tasks; limited social contact); state experts and Dr. Kanof support that RFC	Court found ALJ’s RFC largely supported for post-Feb 1, 2015 period but remanded for reconsideration of a closed disability period Oct 17, 2013–Jan 15, 2015
Whether ALJ properly discounted treating psychiatrist Dr. Simonds’ opinions	Simonds’ treatment notes support his disabling opinion for a continuous 12-month period beginning Oct 17, 2013	ALJ: Simonds’ opinions inconsistent with his own contemporaneous treatment records after Feb 1, 2015	Court: ALJ permissibly discounted Simonds for the period beginning Feb 1, 2015, but record supports that Simonds’ opinions are consistent with disabling findings during Oct 17, 2013–Jan 15, 2015; remand for that closed period
Whether ALJ’s credibility findings were supported	Plaintiff contends symptoms rendered her unable to work full time	ALJ relied on objective medical evidence, daily activities, and medication noncompliance to discount symptom severity	Court held credibility findings supported for post-Feb 1, 2015 period; noncompliance and activities are valid factors and any error was harmless, but remand still required on closed-period disability issue
Whether there was a continuous 12-month disabling period since alleged onset	Plaintiff argues records from late 2013–early 2015 show continuous disabling impairments (hospitalizations, low GAFs, suicidality)	Commissioner argues subsequent stability and non-supportive contemporaneous findings do not establish a 12-month continuous disabling period	Court concluded substantial evidence does not support ALJ’s finding that no continuous disabling 12-month period existed from Oct 17, 2013 through Jan 15, 2015 and remanded for reconsideration of that closed period

Key Cases Cited

Moncada v. Chater, 60 F.3d 521 (9th Cir. 1995) (substantial-evidence standard on review)
Drouin v. Sullivan, 966 F.2d 1255 (9th Cir. 1992) (record must be reviewed as a whole)
Barnhart v. Thomas, 540 U.S. 20 (Sup. Ct. 2003) (definition of disability under Social Security Act)
Orn v. Astrue, 495 F.3d 625 (9th Cir. 2007) (weight to treating, examining, and nonexamining opinions; specific and legitimate reasons required to reject contradicted treating opinions)
Treichler v. Comm’r, 775 F.3d 1090 (9th Cir. 2014) (RFC must be based on all relevant medical and other evidence)
Brown-Hunter v. Colvin, 806 F.3d 487 (9th Cir. 2015) (ALJ must give specific, clear, and convincing reasons to reject claimant testimony)
Lingenfelter v. Astrue, 504 F.3d 1028 (9th Cir. 2007) (two-step credibility analysis)
Molina v. Astrue, 674 F.3d 1104 (9th Cir. 2012) (ALJ may consider activities of daily living in credibility evaluation)
Burch v. Barnhart, 400 F.3d 676 (9th Cir. 2005) (objective medical evidence can be considered as one factor in assessing symptom testimony)
Stubb-Danielson v. Astrue, 539 F.3d 1169 (9th Cir. 2008) (limitation to simple tasks can account for moderate concentration/pace limitations)