Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-02941/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-02941-1/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 ADDITIONAL 

LEGAL AUTHORITIES

The Court relied on the following additional legal authorities in its discussion and 

rulings in this case:

A. Credibility

1. GAF Score1

Thomas v. Barnhart, 278 F.3d 947, 954 (9th Cir. 2002) (“Where the evidence is 

susceptible to more than one rational interpretation, one of which supports the ALJ’s 

 

1 The Global Assessment of Functioning ranges relevant here are:

 51-60: “Moderate symptoms (e.g., flat affect and circumstantial speech, occasional 

panic attacks) OR moderate difficulty in social, occupational, or school 

functioning (e.g., few friends, conflicts with peers or co-workers).”

 41-50: “Serious symptoms (e.g., suicidal ideation, severe obsessional rituals, 

frequent shoplifting) OR any serious impairment in social, occupational, or 

school functioning (e.g., no friends, unable to keep a job).”

 31-40: “Some impairment in reality testing or communication (e.g., speech is at 

timesillogical, obscure, or irrelevant) OR major impairment in several areas, 

such as work or school, family relations, judgment, thinking, or mood (e.g., 

depressed man avoids friends, neglects family, and is unable to work; child 

beats up younger children, is defiant at home, and is failing at school.)”

Keyes-Zachary v. Astrue, 695 F.3d 1156, 1162 n.1 (10th Cir. 2012) (citation omitted, 

formatting and bolding added).

Case 3:16-cv-02941-AGS Document 31 Filed 09/27/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 6
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

decision, the ALJ’s conclusion must be upheld.” (citation omitted)); see also Tommasetti 

v. Astrue, 533 F.3d 1035, 1041 (9th Cir. 2008) (“[T]he ALJ is the final arbiter with respect 

to resolving ambiguities in the medical evidence.”).

2. Associate’s Degree

Dubois v. Colvin, 649 F. App’x 439, 441 (9th Cir. 2016) (noting that “academic 

achievements” including earning a “Bachelor of Science degree” could be considered in 

claimant credibility); Gee v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., No. 16-cv-00124-MKD, 2017 WL 

3749810, at *7 (E.D. Wash. Aug. 30, 2017) (claimant credibility “contradicted by his 

admission that he earned two associates degrees”); Shinn v. Astrue, No. C08-1786-RSL, 

2009 WL 2473513, at *9 n.2 (W.D. Wash. Aug. 10, 2009) (holding that an ALJ may 

consider community college attendance, including that which did not yet yield an 

associate’s degree, as “relevant to a determination of his credibility”).

Thomas v. Barnhart, 278 F.3d 947, 959 (9th Cir. 2002) (noting that a conclusion a 

claimant “had not been a reliable historian” is a specific, clear, and convincing reason to 

reject credibility (quotation marks omitted)); Wittner v. Astrue, No. SACV 11-01926 AJW, 

2012 WL 6214436, at *4 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 12, 2012) (same for “poor historian”); Everett v. 

Astrue, No. 10-cv-1831 LJO-BAM, 2012 WL 1965958, at *15 (E.D. Cal. May 31, 2012) 

(same).

3. Objective Medical Evidence

Smith v. Marsh, 194 F.3d 1045, 1052 (9th Cir. 1999) (holding that courts may not 

consider “an argument raised for the first time in a reply brief”). 

Rollins v. Massanari, 261 F.3d 853, 857 (9th Cir. 2001) (holding that “medical 

evidence is still a relevant factor in determining the severity of the claimant’s pain and its 

disabling effects,” though it cannot be “the sole ground” for rejecting “subjective pain 

testimony” (citation omitted)).

4. Conservative Treatment

Parra v. Astrue, 481 F.3d 742, 751 (9th Cir. 2007) (“[E]vidence of conservative 

treatment is sufficient to discount a claimant’s testimony regarding severity of an 

Case 3:16-cv-02941-AGS Document 31 Filed 09/27/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 6
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

impairment.” (citation omitted)); Lapeirre-Gutt v. Astrue, No. 09-15642, 2010 WL

2317918, at *1 (9th Cir. June 9, 2010) (“A claimant cannot be discredited for failing to 

pursue non-conservative treatment options where none exist.”); id. (criticizing an ALJ’s 

finding of “conservative treatment” considering the claimant’s “regimen of powerful pain 

medications and injections”). 

5. Daily Activities

Popa v. Berryhill, ___ F.3d ___, No. 15-16848, 2017 WL 4160041, at *5 (9th Cir. 

Aug. 18, 2017) (chastising an ALJ for “fail[ing] to explain” how identified daily activities 

“contrast” with claimant testimony); McLees v. Colvin, No. C13-5218BHS, 2014 WL 

813754, at *4 (W.D. Wash. Mar. 3, 2014) (upholding a public-transit credibility 

determination where the ALJ explained that “plaintiff’s use of public transportation 

showed that he had the physical capability to ride the bus, which involves walking to stops, 

often standing at stops because not all stops have seats, and often walking to the end of the 

bus to find a seat” contrasted with plaintiff’s alleged limitations from an ankle injury).

Molina v. Astrue, 674 F.3d 1104, 1112-13 (9th Cir. 2012) (holding a claimant “need 

not vegetate in a dark room” to be eligible for benefits, but everyday activities “may be 

grounds for discrediting the claimant’s testimony to the extent that they contradict claims 

of a totally debilitating impairment” and indicate “capacities that are transferable to a work 

setting.” (citations omitted)).

6. Lack of Compliance with Treatment

Molina v. Astrue, 674 F.3d 1104, 1113 (9th Cir. 2012) (holding an “ALJ may 

properly rely on unexplained or inadequately explained failure . . . to follow a prescribed 

course of treatment”); Lockwood v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 397 F. App’x 288, 290 

(9th Cir. 2010) (holding an ALJ “erred” by relying on a claimant’s “lack of compliance 

with treatment as one reason to discount [his] testimony . . . because the ALJ failed to 

discuss the reasons for noncompliance, such as the side effects of her medication”); 

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

an ALJ’s credibility determination concerning failure to seek more aggressive treatment 

Case 3:16-cv-02941-AGS Document 31 Filed 09/27/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 6
4

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

without wrestling with claimant testimony that he did not “take other pain medication 

because of adverse side effects”). 

Harmless Error – Credibility

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

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.” (alterations and citations omitted)); id.

at 1162-63 (holding two invalid reasons for an adverse credibility finding were harmless 

error in light of the remaining reasoning); Bray v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 554 F.3d 

1219, 1227 (9th Cir. 2009) (holding that one erroneous reason “amounts to harmless error,” 

when the ALJ “presented four other independent bases for discounting [the claimant’s] 

testimony”); Vasquez v. Astrue, 572 F.3d 586, 592-93 (9th Cir. 2009) (explaining the 

“credit as true” doctrine and utilizing it in the claimaint-credibility context).

B. Treating Physician Shah

1. GAF Score

See supra.

2. Inconsistent with Medical Records

Nothing additional.

3. Insignificant Treatment History/Longitudinal Treatment Notes

Colcord v. Colvin, 91 F. Supp. 3d 1189, 1196 (D. Or. 2015) (rejecting “short 

treatment history” as a rationale for discounting a treating psychiatrist’s opinion when the 

treatment lasted “three months” and at the time of the opinion the doctor was “meeting 

with plaintiff on a bi-weekly basis”); Gottuso v. Colvin, No. SACV 12-01705-MAN, 2014 

WL 1286221, at *8 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 28, 2014) (criticizing ALJ who found that the opinion 

of a treating physician who had “significant gaps in his treatment of [plaintiff]” was entitled 

to “little weight,” without explaining why “the lack of any treatment history had no effect 

on the weight afforded to the opinions of the nontreating doctors”). 

Case 3:16-cv-02941-AGS Document 31 Filed 09/27/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 6
5

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

4. In Conflict with Daily Activities

See supra.

5. Conflict with Dr. Engelhorn’s Opinions

Tonapetyan v. Halter, 242 F.3d 1144, 1149 (9th Cir. 2001) (examining physician’s 

opinion is specific and legitimate reason for rejecting a treating physician because “it rests 

on his own independent examination” of claimant).

Harmless Error – Treating Physician Shah

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.”); Carmickle, 533 F.3d at 1162-63 (holding two invalid reasons for an adverse 

credibility finding were harmless error in light of the remaining reasoning).

C. Lay Witness Testimony

Molina v. Astrue, 674 F.3d 1104, 1112 (9th Cir. 2012) (holding that conflict with the 

opinions of an examining medical source is a basis for rejecting other source testimony);

Smolen v. Chater, 80 F.3d 1273, 1289 (9th Cir. 1996) (warning that “testimony from lay 

witnesses who see the claimant every day is of particular value; such lay witnesses will 

often be family members” (citation omitted)); Lewis v. Apfel, 236 F.3d 503, 511 (9th Cir. 

2001) (“One reason for which an ALJ may discount lay testimony is that it conflicts with 

medical evidence.”); Williams v. Astrue, No. 11-cv-5300-RBL-JRC, 2012 WL 2012027, at 

*5 (W.D. Wash. Apr. 27, 2012) (“Testimony from ‘other non-medical sources,’ such as 

friends and family members may not be disregarded simply because of their relationship 

to the claimant or because of any potential financial interest in the claimant’s disability 

benefits.” (citation omitted)); Oh v. Astrue, No. EDCV 10-1076-MLG, 2011 WL 486592, 

at *2 (C.D. Cal Feb. 3, 2011) (and cases cited therein) (“While some courts have held that 

an ALJ may consider a witness’s financial interest in the award of benefits in evaluating 

their credibility, courts in the Ninth Circuit have consistently held that bias cannot be 

Case 3:16-cv-02941-AGS Document 31 Filed 09/27/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 5 of 6
6

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

presumed from a familial or personal relationship.” (footnote omitted)); id. at *3 (noting 

that so long as germane reasoning remains—like a conflict with medical evidence—other 

errors in lay witness credibility determinations are harmless).

D. Severity of Schizophrenia

Stromme v. Barnhart, 50 F. App’x 353, 354 (9th Cir. 2002) (“We also reject 

Stromme’s claim that the ALJ impermissibly ‘cherry-picked’ from the offered testimony. 

While the Commissioner must make particularized findings to support the administrative 

decision and allow for meaningful judicial review, the Commissioner need not discuss all 

evidence presented. The ALJ’s failure to specifically address each opinion was not legal 

error because, in light of the entire record, those omitted opinions were not particularly 

probative.” (citation omitted)). 

Dated: September 27, 2017

Case 3:16-cv-02941-AGS Document 31 Filed 09/27/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 6 of 6