BEACH v. SAUL (2021)

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.2021-04-12No. No. 20-55762

Summary · law.co

Holding. The court affirmed the Commissioner's denial of Beach's applications for disability benefits.

Andrea Beach sought disability benefits based on claims of disabling pain, Lyme disease, fibromyalgia, and chronic fatigue syndrome. The Social Security Administration denied her applications, finding she retained the ability to perform light work. The court upheld this denial, finding that Beach's testimony about her pain was not credible given her substantial daily activities, including home remodeling, household management, and caring for her father and 26 dogs. Additionally, Beach failed to establish that she had any of the claimed medical conditions through objective medical evidence, which is required to prove a medically determinable impairment.

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

Key issues

Whether an ALJ properly discounted a claimant's pain testimony based on inconsistency with daily activities
Whether Lyme disease can be established as a medically determinable impairment without objective medical evidence
Whether fibromyalgia was properly evaluated under established diagnostic criteria
Whether chronic fatigue syndrome was diagnosed through acceptable medical sources

Procedural posture

Beach appealed a district court judgment that upheld the Social Security Commissioner's denial of her disability benefit applications.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion · public domain

MEMORANDUM *

Andrea Beach appeals a district court judgment upholding the Commissioner of Social Securitys denial of her applications for social security disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income. The administrative law judge (“ALJ”) denied Beachs applications because he found that she had the residual capacity to perform light work. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1545, 404.1546(c), 404.1567(b). Like the district court, we review the agencys decision de novo. Berry v. Astrue, 622 F.3d 1228, 1231 (9th Cir. 2010). We cannot upset that decision unless it “was not supported by substantial evidence in the record as a whole or if the ALJ applied the wrong legal standard.” Molina v. Astrue, 674 F.3d 1104, 1110 (9th Cir. 2012). We affirm.

1. Beach argues that the ALJ erred by not finding her pain disabling. However, the “ALJ cannot be required to believe every allegation of disabling pain.” Fair v. Bowen, 885 F.2d 597, 603 (9th Cir. 1989). Rather, an ALJ must determine whether a claimants testimony is consistent with the record and make findings that “contain specific reasons for the weight given to [Beachs] symptoms,” are “consistent with and supported by the evidence,” and are “clearly articulated so the individual and any subsequent reviewer can assess how the adjudicator evaluated the individuals symptoms.” See SSR 16-3p, 82 Fed. Reg. 49,462, 49,467 (Oct. 25, 2017).

Substantial record evidence supported the ALJs finding that “the claimant can sustain a greater capacity than she described at the hearing.” Daily activities are relevant to assessing a claimants allegations of symptoms, see 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3)(i), and the ALJ noted that Beach was remodeling her home, performing household chores, and caring for her sick father and 26 Great Dane puppies. The ALJ did not err in finding these “non-work activities ․ are inconsistent with the degree of impairment [she] alleges.” See Valentine v. Commissioner Social Sec. Admin., 574 F.3d 685, 693 (9th Cir. 2009) (cleaned up); see also Berry, 622 F.3d at 1235 (noting that “activities” supported finding “a higher degree of functionality” than that asserted by a claimant).

2. Beach argues that the ALJ erred by failing to find she was impaired as a result of Lyme Disease, fibromyalgia, or chronic fatigue syndrome. A medically determinable impairment (“MDI”) must be established “by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1521. “[O]bjective medical evidence from an acceptable medical source” is required; a claimants statement alone is insufficient. Id.

a. Beach provided no “objective medical evidence” or documentation that a medical source had diagnosed her with Lyme disease. Beachs own statements are insufficient to establish an MDI. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1521; Ukolov v. Barnhart, 420 F.3d 1002, 1006 (9th Cir. 2005). Nor is a doctors note that Beach “possibly” had Lyme disease based on her self-report sufficient evidence that she had that condition. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1521.

b. To establish fibromyalgia as an MDI, the evidence must satisfy one of two sets of criteria outlined by the American College of Rheumatology. SSR 12-2p, 77 Fed. Reg. 43,640 (July 25, 2012); Ford v. Saul, 950 F.3d 1141, 1155 n.7 (9th Cir. 2020). The first set requires the presence of 11 or more fibromyalgia tender points during a physical examination and the second the “manifestations of six or more” enumerated fibromyalgia symptoms, signs, or co-occurring conditions. SSR 12-2p; Ford, 950 F.3d at 1155 n.7.

Beach argues only that the ALJ “improperly” focused on the first set. But the ALJ addressed both sets of criteria, and Beach did not establish eligibility under either. There is no evidence that any doctor examined Beach for fibromyalgia using either test. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1521; SSR 12-2p; see Ford, 950 F.3d at 1155 n.7.

c. Although Beach claimed at various times that she suffered from fatigue, she also repeatedly denied fatigue, and more importantly, presented no medical diagnosis of chronic fatigue syndrome. Moreover, the ALJ considered Beachs claim of fatigue, but found her extensive daily activities contradicted the claim. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(a).

AFFIRMED.

FOOTNOTES

. Beachs reference to a supposed diagnosis by another doctor is simply a self-report about her medical history.