Virginia Granado v. Nancy Berryhill
692 F. App'x 454
| 9th Cir. | 2017Background
- Granado appealed denial of Social Security disability benefits after an ALJ found she could perform three past light-work jobs.
- The ALJ gave "great weight" to the only examining physician, Dr. Elizabeth Ottney, but omitted two of her explicit restrictions when assessing residual functional capacity: (a) stand/walk limited to 4 hours per 8-hour day, and (b) occasional reaching/handling.
- If limited below light work, disability would follow unless the Commissioner shows other work exists in significant numbers; a vocational expert testified that sedentary work plus occasional handling/reaching would preclude all work.
- The parties agreed the ALJ erred by ignoring portions of Dr. Ottney’s opinion; dispute arose over whether the opinion should be credited as true or whether remand for further proceedings is required.
- The Commissioner argued conflicts/ambiguities justified further proceedings (inconsistency with exam findings, unclear basis for nerve-testing, and differing non‑examining opinions); the court rejected these contentions after reviewing the record.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the ALJ improperly ignored limitations in the only examining physician’s opinion | Granado: ALJ erred by omitting Dr. Ottney’s standing/walking and reaching/handling limits; those restrictions mandate disability if accepted | Commissioner: Record contains conflicts/ambiguities (exam findings, testing basis, non‑examining opinions) requiring further administrative development | Court: ALJ erred; Dr. Ottney’s limitations are supported by record and were improperly ignored |
| Whether the credit‑as‑true rule requires immediate payment of benefits | Granado: Dr. Ottney’s opinion should be credited as true and benefits awarded | Commissioner: Further proceedings necessary because of alleged conflicts and need to resolve ambiguities | Court: Credit‑as‑true standard met; no useful purpose in further proceedings; benefits must be awarded |
| Whether alleged inconsistencies between Dr. Ottney’s opinion and her exam findings create ambiguity | Granado: N/A (argues opinion stands) | Commissioner: Ottney’s stated limitations conflict with normal exam findings | Court: Rejected—Ottney relied on history, records, and nerve testing (not solely on brief exam), so no fatal inconsistency |
| Whether differing state non‑examining opinions justify remand | Granado: Non‑examining opinions cannot override an examining physician without other substantial evidence | Commissioner: Non‑examining doctors’ opinions and treatment notes warrant re‑weighing and further fact‑finding | Court: Rejected—non‑examining opinions do not automatically displace an examining opinion; record as whole supports Ottney and disability finding |
Key Cases Cited
- Garrison v. Colvin, 759 F.3d 995 (9th Cir. 2014) (sets out three‑part "credit‑as‑true" standard and when district courts may remand for benefits)
- Treichler v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 775 F.3d 1090 (9th Cir. 2014) (remand may be required to resolve conflicts and ambiguities in the record)
- Morgan v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 169 F.3d 595 (9th Cir. 1999) (non‑examining physician’s opinion cannot alone justify rejecting examining physician’s opinion; may be persuasive when combined with other evidence)