MOORES v. SAUL (2021)

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.2021-02-16No. No. 19-16098

Summary · law.co

Holding. The court affirmed the Social Security Administration's denial of disability benefits because the ALJ provided specific, legitimate reasons supported by substantial evidence for rejecting the claimant's testimony and the medical opinions of treating physicians.

Kelly Moores sought disability benefits, claiming severe symptoms from Lyme disease and related conditions. The Social Security Administration denied her claim, and the district court affirmed that denial. Moores appealed, but the appellate court found the administrative law judge (ALJ) properly evaluated the evidence and credibility of her statements.

The court determined the ALJ had substantial evidentiary support for finding Moores' symptom complaints not credible. Her reported symptoms conflicted with the conservative medical treatment she received and the actual findings documented in medical records. The ALJ also properly discounted testimony from lay witnesses and three treating physicians—Dr. Stricker, Dr. Hynote, and Dr. Monk—because their opinions relied heavily on Moores' own uncredible statements, lacked adequate treatment records to support their conclusions, or contradicted her demonstrated daily activities and conservative treatment approach.

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

Key issues

Credibility of claimant's subjective symptom testimony in disability determination
Weight given to lay witness testimony mirroring claimant's uncredible claims
Proper basis for discounting treating physician opinions that rely on subjective complaints
Consistency between claimed symptoms and conservative medical treatment received

Procedural posture

Moores appealed the district court's affirmance of the Social Security Administration's denial of disability benefits.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion · public domain

MEMORANDUM ***

Kelly Moores appeals the district courts order affirming the Social Security Administrations denial of disability benefits. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and affirm.

1. The ALJ gave specific, clear, and convincing reasons supported by substantial evidence for finding Moores’ subjective symptom testimony not credible. Garrison v. Colvin, 759 F.3d 995, 1009-10 (9th Cir. 2014). Moores’ complaints were inconsistent with the conservative treatment prescribed and received, Parra v. Astrue, 481 F.3d 742, 751 (9th Cir. 2007); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3), and her explanations were not so compelling that the ALJ was required to credit them. Moores’ complaints were also inconsistent with the medical record, which did not document symptoms as severe as she claimed. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(2); SSR 16-3p, 2017 WL 5180304 (Oct. 25, 2017).

2. The ALJ gave germane reasons supported by substantial evidence for discounting lay witness testimony. Valentine v. Commr, 574 F.3d 685, 694 (9th Cir. 2009). The lay testimony mirrored Moores’ and could be rejected for similar reasons, id., including inconsistency with the medical evidence, Bayliss v. Barnhart, 427 F.3d 1211, 1218 (9th Cir. 2005). Any error in the other reasons given is harmless. See Valentine, 574 F.3d at 694.

3. The ALJ gave specific and legitimate reasons supported by substantial evidence for discounting Dr. Strickers opinion. Lester v. Chater, 81 F.3d 821, 830 (9th Cir. 1995). Dr. Stricker relied substantially on Moores’ description of her condition, Tommasetti v. Astrue, 533 F.3d 1035, 1041 (9th Cir. 2008), as evidenced by the limited duration of their treatment relationship and the sparse findings in his treatment notes. Test results show that Moores suffers from Lyme disease and co-infections but do not alone establish the severity of her symptoms. And, although a physician may consider subjective complaints in assessing non-specific symptoms, an ALJ may reject reliance on self-reports that lack credibility. See id. Dr. Strickers opinion is also inconsistent with Moores’ daily activities. Rollins v. Massanari, 261 F.3d 853, 856 (9th Cir. 2001). For instance, he opined that Moores could not repetitively use foot controls, a fact contradicted by her ability to drive. Although the ALJs decision does not refer to Dr. Strickers specialization, the record shows she considered the relevant factors. See Trevizo v. Berryhill, 871 F.3d 664, 676 (9th Cir. 2017).

4. The ALJ gave specific and legitimate reasons supported by substantial evidence for discounting Dr. Hynotes opinion. Lester, 81 F.3d at 830. Dr. Hynotes treatment records do not corroborate why Moores must elevate her legs above her heart 100 percent of the time, how she was limited in the use of upper extremities, and how her left hand was more impaired than her right. See Tommasetti, 533 F.3d at 1041. Dr. Hynotes opinion is also inconsistent with Moores’ conservative treatment. See Rollins, 261 F.3d at 856. Moores recognizes that antibiotics are the standard treatment for chronic Lyme disease and does not persuasively explain why her regimen cannot be considered conservative.

5. Moores forfeited a number of challenges to the ALJs specific and legitimate reasons for discounting Dr. Monks’ opinion by not raising them in her opening brief. Rizk v. Holder, 629 F.3d 1083, 1091 n.3 (9th Cir. 2011). The challenges Moores did raise are unavailing and do not undercut the reasons given by the ALJ for discounting Dr. Monks’ opinion.

AFFIRMED.