MCGOWAN v. SAUL (2021)

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.2021-01-06No. No. 17-56904

Summary · law.co

Holding. The court affirmed the Commissioner's denial of benefits, finding the ALJ committed no reversible error in failing to include an exhibit list and providing adequate reasons supported by the record for discounting the claimant's symptom testimony.

Brenda McGowan appealed the denial of her applications for disability and supplemental security income benefits. The court reviewed the Administrative Law Judge's decision and found no reversible errors. Although the ALJ failed to include an exhibit list as required by internal Social Security procedures, this omission was not legally enforceable and caused no harm because McGowan did not dispute that she understood which evidence the ALJ considered. The ALJ provided clear reasons for finding McGowan's testimony about pain and functional limitations not fully credible, noting inconsistencies between her reported limitations and her actual daily activities, as well as gaps between her symptoms and objective medical findings. The ALJ acknowledged her fibromyalgia diagnosis as severe and imposed appropriate work restrictions.

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

Key issues

Whether the ALJ's failure to comply with internal procedural manual requirements constitutes reversible error
Whether the ALJ properly evaluated the claimant's credibility regarding pain and functional limitations
Whether objective medical evidence is required to support credibility determinations
Whether the ALJ adequately considered all medical conditions including fibromyalgia

Procedural posture

The claimant appealed pro se the district court's affirmance of the Social Security Commissioner's denial of disability benefits.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion · public domain

MEMORANDUM **

Brenda Ann McGowan appeals pro se the district courts judgment affirming the Commissioner of Social Securitys denial of McGowans application for disability insurance benefits and supplemental social security income under Titles II and XVI of the Social Security Act. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). We review de novo, Molina v. Astrue, 674 F.3d 1104, 1110 (9th Cir. 2012), and we affirm.

The Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) did not commit a reversible error by not including the exhibit list required by the Hearings, Appeals, and Litigation Law Manual (“HALLEX”) in its decision because the ALJs noncompliance with HALLEX is not legally enforceable. See Moore v. Apfel, 216 F.3d 864, 868 (9th Cir. 2000) (“HALLEX is strictly an internal guidance tool” and “[a]s such, it does not prescribe substantive rules and therefore does not carry the force and effect of law”). In any case, the error was harmless because McGowan does not dispute on appeal that she knows what evidence the ALJ relied upon, or that the ALJ did, in fact, consider the complete record. See Molina, 674 F.3d at 1111 (“we may not reverse an ALJs decision on account of an error that is harmless”).

The ALJ proffered specific, clear, and convincing reasons for discounting McGowans pain and limitations testimony because McGowans testimony conflicted with the nature and extent of her daily activities and because the objective medical record did not fully support her allegations. See id. at 1113 (explaining that even where daily activities suggest some difficulty functioning, “they may be grounds for discrediting the claimants testimony to the extent that they contradict a claim of a totally debilitating impairment”); Burch v. Barnhart, 400 F.3d 676, 681 (9th Cir. 2005) (“Although lack of medical evidence cannot form the sole basis for discounting a claimants [alleged symptoms], it is a factor that the ALJ can consider in his credibility analysis.”). Contrary to McGowans argument, the ALJ considered all of the relevant medical conditions and records. Moreover, although the lack of evidence of physical causes of pain is not incompatible with the diagnosis of fibromyalgia, the ALJ acknowledged McGowans fibromyalgia diagnosis, found it a severe impairment, and limited McGowan to sedentary work with some additional limitations.

We decline to review the additional arguments raised by McGowan in her opening brief because they were raised for the first time on appeal. See Warre v. Commr of Soc. Sec. Admin., 439 F.3d 1001, 1007 (9th Cir. 2006) (issues not raised before the district court are waived on appeal).

AFFIRMED.