Vivian Trevizo v. Nancy Berryhill
2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 12263
| 9th Cir. | 2017Background
- Plaintiff Vivian Trevizo, 65, applied for Social Security disability benefits for an alleged onset in August 2008 based on severe psoriasis, uncontrolled Type II diabetes, psoriatic arthritis, chronic back pain, obesity, and related conditions.
- Trevizo’s long-term primary care physician, Dr. Ravi Galhotra, treated her frequently (≥22 visits 2008–2012) and completed a physical RFC indicating severe limitations (e.g., <2 hours standing/walking, ≤3 hours sitting, frequent sit/stand changes, limited hand use).
- Agency consultative and non‑examining reviewers offered mixed assessments; one non‑examining physician (Dr. Zuess) found disability as of the 9/16/2010 exam date, another (Dr. Quinones) assessed greater physical capacity.
- The ALJ rejected Dr. Galhotra’s treating opinion (giving it little weight), discounted much of Trevizo’s symptom testimony, found a medium‑work RFC, and concluded she could do past work as a security guard. The district court affirmed.
- The Ninth Circuit found legal error in the ALJ’s treatment‑opinion and credibility analyses, held the treating opinion was entitled to controlling weight, credited that opinion as true, and reversed with instructions to remand for calculation and award of benefits.
Issues
| Issue | Trevizo's Argument | Berryhill's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the ALJ properly rejected the treating physician’s RFC | ALJ wrongly discounted Dr. Galhotra without applying the §404.1527 factors and gave no specific, legitimate (or clear and convincing) reasons to reject an uncontradicted treating opinion | ALJ relied on inconsistencies with daily activities and treatment notes to justify discounting the opinion | Court held ALJ erred: failed to apply treating‑opinion factors, gave no adequate reasons, and should have credited the treating opinion as controlling |
| Whether the ALJ properly discounted Trevizo’s symptom testimony | ALJ’s reasons (normal foot exams, limited narcotic use, prior work, childcare) were legally and factually insufficient | ALJ argued objective findings and activities undermined credibility | Court held most credibility reasons were unsupported or legally improper; only limited noncompliance instances remained but were insufficient to discount testimony |
| Whether the RFC and VE findings justified denial of benefits | RFC should reflect treating physician’s severe limitations; VE testified those limits preclude full‑time work | ALJ’s RFC (medium work) and VE testimony supported ability to do past work | Court concluded crediting treating opinion and VE testimony establishes disability and precludes full‑time work |
| Remedy: remand for further proceedings vs. immediate benefits | Trevizo requested award of benefits if treating opinion credited | Commissioner urged remand for further proceedings | Court applied the credit‑as‑true framework, found record fully developed, rejected ALJ reasons, and remanded for immediate calculation and award of benefits |
Key Cases Cited
- Garrison v. Colvin, 759 F.3d 995 (9th Cir. 2014) (credit‑as‑true framework and weighing the record as a whole)
- Ryan v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 528 F.3d 1194 (9th Cir. 2008) (clear and convincing / specific and legitimate standards for rejecting treating/examining opinions)
- Lingenfelter v. Astrue, 504 F.3d 1028 (9th Cir. 2007) (ALJ must provide clear reasons for credibility findings and proper RFC formulation)
- Lester v. Chater, 81 F.3d 821 (9th Cir. 1995) (intermittent symptom-free periods do not preclude disability)
- Robbins v. Soc. Sec. Admin., 466 F.3d 880 (9th Cir. 2006) (objective medical evidence not required to corroborate severity of pain)
- Smolen v. Chater, 80 F.3d 1273 (9th Cir. 1996) (treatment noncompliance may be a valid credibility consideration but must be properly evaluated)
- Sprague v. Bowen, 812 F.2d 1226 (9th Cir. 1987) (remand for benefits discretion where no legitimate reasons to disregard treating opinion)