Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-02941/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-02941-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 865
Nature of Suit: Social Security - RSI (405(g))
Cause of Action: 42:1383 Review of HHS Decision (regarding payment of benefits)

---

1

16-cv-2941-AGS

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Patrick BERNARDINO,

Plaintiff,

v.

Nancy A. BERRYHILL, Acting 

Commissioner of Social Security,

Defendant.

Case No.: 16-cv-2941-AGS

STATEMENT OF LEGAL 

PRINCIPLES FOR SUMMARY 

JUDGMENT HEARING

The Court has considered the following legal principles for today’s summary 

judgment hearing and will apply these principles to the Court’s ultimate ruling: 

A. Credibility

In evaluating the credibility of subjective symptom testimony, “the ALJ must 

determine whether the claimant has presented objective medical evidence of an underlying 

impairment which could reasonably be expected to produce the pain or other symptoms 

alleged.” Ghanim v. Colvin, 763 F.3d 1154, 1163 (9th Cir. 2014) (citation omitted). If so, 

and absent evidence of malingering, “the ALJ can only reject the claimant’s testimony 

about the severity of the symptoms if she gives ‘specific, clear and convincing reasons’ for 

the rejection.” Id. (citations omitted). “General findings are insufficient; rather, the ALJ 

must identify what testimony is not credible and what evidence undermines the claimant’s 

Case 3:16-cv-02941-AGS Document 30 Filed 09/26/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
2

16-cv-2941-AGS

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

complaints.” Id. (citation omitted). These adverse credibility findings must be “sufficiently 

specific to permit the court to conclude that the ALJ did not arbitrarily discredit claimant’s 

testimony.” Turner v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 613 F.3d 1217, 1224 n.3 (9th Cir. 2010) 

(citation omitted). In weighing a claimant’s testimony, the ALJ may consider all the typical 

credibility factors, such as prior inconsistent statements, falsehoods, and discrepancies 

between the claimant’s statements and conduct. Ghanim, 763 F.3d at 1163; Light v. Soc. 

Sec. Admin., 119 F.3d 789, 792 (9th Cir. 1997). Even where the ALJ makes an error, or 

more than one, in his analysis, “[s]o long as there remains substantial evidence supporting 

the ALJ’s conclusions on credibility and the error does not negate the validity of the ALJ’s 

ultimate credibility conclusion, such is deemed harmless and does not warrant reversal.”

Carmickle v. Comm’r of Sec. Sec. Admin., 533 F.3d 1155, 1162 (9th Cir. 2008) (alterations 

and citations omitted). 

B. Treating Physician

If a treating physician’s opinion is well-supported and consistent with the rest of the 

record, it must be given “controlling weight.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2). When the 

treating physician’s opinion is contradicted by another doctor, “an ALJ may only reject it 

by providing specific and legitimate reasons that are supported by substantial evidence.” 

Trevizo v. Berryhill, ___ F.3d ___, No. 15-16277, 2017 WL 4053751, at *7 (9th Cir. Sept. 

14, 2017) (citation omitted). “The ALJ can meet this burden by setting out a detailed and 

thorough summary of the facts and conflicting clinical evidence, stating his interpretation 

thereof, and making findings.” Id. (citations omitted). The harmless error analysis also 

applies in the treating physician context. See Marsh v. Colvin, 792 F.3d 1170, 1173 (9th 

Cir. 2015) (holding that “harmless error analysis applies in the social security context,” 

including in the area of a “treating source’s medical opinion”); see also Baily v. Colvin, 

659 F. App’x 413, 415 (9th Cir. 2016) (“Any error in the ALJ’s additional reasons for 

rejecting [the treating physician’s] opinions was harmless.”). 

Case 3:16-cv-02941-AGS Document 30 Filed 09/26/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 3
3

16-cv-2941-AGS

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

C. Lay Witness Testimony

Lay witness testimony is considered an “other source” by the social security 

regulations and are not afforded the same deference as accepted medical sources, so the 

ALJ need only give “reasons germane to each witness” to reject such testimony. Molina v. 

Astrue, 674 F.3d 1104, 1111 (9th Cir. 2012) (citation omitted). Harmless error applies to 

lay witness testimony in the same way it applies to credibility determinations. See Oh v. 

Astrue, No. EDCV 10-1076-MLG, 2011 WL 486592, at *3 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 3, 2011). 

D. Severity

An impairment is “not severe” if it does not “significantly limit” the ability to do 

basic work activities. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1521(a), 416.921(a). But “[a]mple authority 

cautions against a determination of nondisability at step two.” Ortiz v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 

425 F. App’x 653, 655 (9th Cir. 2011). “[T]he step-two inquiry is a de minimis screening 

device to dispose of groundless claims.” Smolen v. Chater, 80 F.3d 1273, 1290 (9th Cir. 

1996). “An impairment or combination of impairments can be found ‘not severe’ only if 

the evidence establishes a slight abnormality that has no more than a minimal effect on an 

individual[’]s ability to work.” Id. (citation omitted). But even if the ALJ fails to conclude

an impairment is severe, if he goes on to “extensively discuss[]” the impairment “at Step 4 

of the analysis,” any error in “neglecting to list [those impairments as severe] at Step 2 . . . 

was harmless.” Lewis v. Astrue, 498 F.3d 909, 911 (9th Cir. 2007) (citation omitted).

Dated: September 26, 2017

Case 3:16-cv-02941-AGS Document 30 Filed 09/26/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3