Wetzel v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration
3:17-cv-08117
D. Ariz.Jun 8, 2018Background
- Plaintiff Nicole Wetzel applied for DIB and SSI alleging disability from June 4, 2012 based on seizure disorder and mental impairments (bipolar, depression, anxiety); SSA denied benefits and ALJ found her not disabled. Appeals Council denied review; district court review followed.
- Medical record: neurologic workups with EEGs and video-EEG showing both epileptiform activity and at least one non-epileptic event; treating neurologists diagnosed probable partial complex seizures and later dissociative convulsions/fugue; ongoing medication adjustments and continued events.
- Two examining disability psychologists/consultants (Collin R. Joseph, Ph.D.) and treating RNP Susan Albright provided opinions describing substantial mental limitations, frequent absences, and need for repetition of instructions.
- ALJ assigned only partial weight to Dr. Joseph and discounted much of RNP Albright’s opinions; ALJ also discounted plaintiff’s symptom testimony and assessed an RFC for simple, routine, low-contact work. Vocational expert testified that crediting Dr. Joseph’s opinions would preclude work.
- District court found the ALJ erred: (1) failed to give specific and legitimate reasons to reject Dr. Joseph’s contradicted examining opinions; (2) provided insufficient germane reasons for partially discounting RNP Albright only in part; and (3) failed to give clear and convincing reasons to discredit plaintiff’s symptom testimony. Court reversed and remanded for an award of benefits under the credit-as-true rule.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether ALJ properly discounted examining psychologist Dr. Joseph’s opinions | Wetzel: ALJ lacked specific and legitimate reasons; Dr. Joseph found no malingering and supported opinions with observations | Commissioner: ALJ permissibly weighed opinions against medical record and MSE results | Court: ALJ erred — reasons given (general inconsistency and reliance on subjective complaints) were legally insufficient; Dr. Joseph’s opinions should have been credited |
| Whether ALJ properly discounted RNP Albright’s opinions (other source) | Wetzel: ALJ failed to give germane reasons; inconsistencies in Albright’s notes are explained by record | Commissioner: ALJ permissibly noted internal inconsistencies between 2012 and 2014 opinions and record inconsistencies | Court: ALJ permissibly discounted Albright for unexplained changes between her opinions (one germane reason); other inconsistency findings inadequately explained |
| Whether ALJ properly discounted plaintiff’s symptom testimony | Wetzel: ALJ did not provide clear and convincing reasons; activities and work history were mischaracterized | Commissioner: ALJ reasonably relied on daily activities, work history, and inconsistent statements | Court: ALJ erred — reasons (isolated daily activities, one-year earnings gap, alleged inconsistency re drug use) were not clear and convincing or supported by record |
| Remedy — whether remand for further proceedings or immediate benefits (credit-as-true) | Wetzel: Credit Dr. Joseph and testimony as true; VE said that yields disability — award benefits | Commissioner: Further proceedings appropriate to resolve evidentiary gaps | Held: Court applied credit-as-true framework, found record fully developed, ALJ’s errors were legally insufficient, VE testimony supports disability; reversed and remanded for determination of benefits |
Key Cases Cited
- Lester v. Chater, 81 F.3d 821 (9th Cir. 1996) (requirements for rejecting treating/examining opinions)
- Reddick v. Chater, 157 F.3d 715 (9th Cir. 1998) (specific and legitimate reasons required to reject contradicted medical opinions)
- Garrison v. Colvin, 759 F.3d 995 (9th Cir. 2014) (credit-as-true standard and remand for benefits analysis)
- Buck v. Berryhill, 869 F.3d 1040 (9th Cir. 2017) (psychiatric opinions cannot be rejected simply because they rely on patient self-report)
- Lingenfelter v. Astrue, 504 F.3d 1028 (9th Cir. 2007) (two-step analysis for evaluating symptom testimony)
- Orn v. Astrue, 495 F.3d 625 (9th Cir. 2007) (factors for weighing medical opinions)
- Molina v. Astrue, 674 F.3d 1104 (9th Cir. 2012) (ALJ must give germane reasons to discount "other source" opinions)
- Trevizo v. Berryhill, 871 F.3d 664 (9th Cir. 2017) (limits on using limited childcare/daily activities to discredit testimony)
- Matney ex rel. Matney v. Sullivan, 981 F.2d 1016 (9th Cir. 1992) (internal inconsistency among a provider’s opinions may justify discounting them)
- Lewis v. Apfel, 236 F.3d 503 (9th Cir. 2001) (standard for discounting lay/other-source testimony)