APPLEGATE v. SAUL (2021)

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.2021-04-19No. No. 20-15474

Summary · law.co

Holding. The court affirmed the district court's judgment upholding the Commissioner's denial of disability benefits, finding that substantial evidence supported the ALJ's evaluation of medical opinions, credibility findings, and vocational conclusions.

Jon-Jon Applegate challenged the Social Security Administration's denial of his application for Disability Insurance Benefits. The Administrative Law Judge rejected or discounted portions of his treating physician's medical opinion and his own testimony about symptom severity, finding instead that objective medical evidence—including imaging studies and examination findings—showed only mild impairments. The court upheld this evaluation because an examining physician's independent clinical findings contradicted the treating physician's opinion, and the ALJ provided specific, well-supported reasons for finding Applegate's symptom claims less credible than the objective record indicated.

The court also rejected Applegate's argument that his psychological condition amplified his physical symptoms beyond what would normally be expected. The mental health providers who treated him reported favorable observations about his cognitive functioning and cooperation. The vocational expert testified that Applegate could perform work as a bottling line attendant, among other positions, given his remaining functional capacity—a conclusion supported by substantial evidence in the record.

Summary generated by law.co from the public-domain opinion. The opinion text itself is public domain.

Key issues

Standard for evaluating conflicting medical opinions from treating versus examining physicians
Credibility assessment of claimant testimony when contradicted by objective medical evidence
Whether psychological impairment amplifies physical symptom severity
Harmless error analysis in vocational expert testimony

Procedural posture

Applegate appealed the district court's affirmance of the Administrative Law Judge's denial of his Social Security Disability Insurance Benefits application.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion · public domain

MEMORANDUM **

Jon-Jon Applegate appeals the district courts decision affirming the Commissioner of Social Securitys denial of his application for Disability Insurance Benefits under Title II of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 423. We have jurisdiction under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) and 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review the district courts order affirming the denial of Social Security benefits de novo and reverse only if the Administrative Law Judges (ALJ) decision was not supported by substantial evidence or was based on legal error. Ghanim v. Colvin, 763 F.3d 1154, 1159 (9th Cir. 2014). We affirm.

1. Applegate did not waive his right to challenge the district courts decision that substantial evidence supported the Commissioners decision by failing to object to the magistrate judges finding and recommendation. A party who does not object to the magistrate judges report waives his right to challenge factual findings but retains his right to appeal legal conclusions. Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991). “[W]hether the ALJs findings are supported by substantial evidence is a question of law.” Id. at 1394–95.

2. The ALJ did not err in evaluating the medical opinion evidence. An ALJ may reject the contradicted opinion of a treating or examining physician by giving specific and legitimate reasons for doing so that are supported by substantial evidence. Revels v. Berryhill, 874 F.3d 648, 654 (9th Cir. 2017); Lester v. Chater, 81 F.3d 821, 830–31 (9th Cir. 1995). “[W]hen an examining physician provides ‘independent clinical findings that differ from the findings of the treating physician,’ such findings are ‘substantial evidence.’ ” Orn v. Astrue, 495 F.3d 625, 632 (9th Cir. 2007) (internal quotation omitted). Contrary to Applegates assertion, his treating physician Jane Wang, M.D. was contradicted by an examining physician who offered independent clinical findings that differed from Dr. Wangs, which renders the clear-and-convincing-reasons standard that he advances inapplicable. See Lester, 81 F.3d at 830. And the ALJ gave specific and legitimate reasons for partially rejecting Dr. Wangs opinion that are supported by an abundance of evidence. Specifically, the ALJ correctly noted that Applegates imaging studies reflect mostly mild objective findings and that Dr. Wang and examining physician William Ramsey, M.D.’s reports documented his improving condition. Id. at 831. The ALJ also noted that the opinions of nonexamining consultants, to which he gave great weight, were consistent with the mild objective findings on imaging studies and the improved findings on physical examinations. But see id.

3. The ALJ gave “specific, clear and convincing reasons” for partially discounting Applegates subjective symptom testimony. See Molina v. Astrue, 674 F.3d 1104, 1112 (9th Cir. 2012), superseded by regulation on other grounds (quotations omitted). The ALJ cited conflicts between Applegates allegations of disabling physical symptoms and the objective medical evidence, including imaging studies and examinations showing largely unremarkable findings and observations. Carmickle v. Commr, SSA, 533 F.3d 1155, 1161 (9th Cir. 2008). The ALJ also noted, for example, that Applegates testimony indicated that he could walk only short distances, yet medical reports note that he occasionally would walk for hours. See Rollins v. Massanari, 261 F.3d 853, 858 (9th Cir. 2001).

No evidence supports Applegates assertion that his mental impairments caused him to experience more extreme symptoms than would normally be expected. The sole provider who diagnosed Applegate with a psychological pain disorder noted only that it would delay recovery, not that it would cause a greater level of symptoms. Further, the ALJ found Applegates allegations related to his psychological impairment only partially credible due to his limited treatment history, the treatment records that do exist, and “the observations by the claimants treatment providers.” Specifically, it is worth noting that Applegates mental health providers routinely reported that he was cooperative and had logical thinking and good attention and concentration.

4. Finally, substantial evidence supports the ALJs vocational findings, Roberts v. Shalala, 66 F.3d 179, 184 (9th Cir. 1995), and any error that may have occurred was harmless. See Shaibi v. Berryhill, 883 F.3d 1102, 1110 n.7 (9th Cir. 2018). The vocational expert (VE) testimony established that a person with Applegates residual functional capacity (RFC) could perform three jobs that exist in the national economy. As discussed above, substantial evidence supports the limitations the ALJ found, and the hypothetical questions to the VE included these limitations. Valentine v. Commr, SSA., 574 F.3d 685, 690 (9th Cir. 2009). But even if the first two jobs the VE identified (electrical equipment inspector and xray inspector) are inconsistent with the reasoning level noted in Applegates RFC, this error is harmless because one of the jobs the VE identified (bottling line attendant) indisputably meets the RFC presented by the ALJ and exists in sufficient numbers in the national economy. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1566(b); see Shaibi, 883 F.3d at 1110 n.7.

AFFIRMED.