Opinion ID: 740722
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Subjective Symptoms

Text: 9 Sharp argues that the ALJ's denial was not based on substantial evidence. In particular, Sharp argues that the ALJ improperly rejected her testimony about her incapacitation, failed to specify which of her claims were not credible, failed to provide clear and convincing reasons for rejecting her claims, and failed to base his conclusion on substantial evidence. We agree. 10 Sharp testified to a long list of subjective symptoms, including headaches, dizziness, shortness of breath, hand and arm tremors, occasional seizures and nausea. Most significantly, she testified that, on a scale of 1 to 10, 10 being a headache that makes you lie in bed moaning all day, her bi-monthly headaches were an 8, 9 or 10. Each of her symptoms recurs fairly frequently, and is potentially disabling in isolation, or in connection with the others. The ALJ lumped all of her symptoms together, then discounted their severity, concluding that Sharp had a tendency to exaggerate. 11 While the ALJ found that there was medical evidence documenting physical and mental impairments which could have caused most if not all of the type of symptoms and limitations Ms. Sharp described, he concluded that she experienced those symptoms to a lesser degree and with lesser resulting limitations than she asserted. Thus, in making his findings regarding Sharp's functional capacity for work activity, he only partially credited her testimony regarding physical and mental residuals of her brain injury. 12 In finding that Sharp was not disabled, the ALJ also found discrepancies between her testimony and medical evidence from her treating and examining physicians. However, these inconsistencies, standing alone, are an insufficient basis to reject Sharp's testimony. As we stated in Smolen v. Chater, 80 F.3d 1273 (9th Cir.1996): 13 To determine whether the claimant's testimony regarding the severity of her symptoms is credible, the ALJ may consider, for example: (1) ordinary techniques of credibility evaluation, such as the claimant's reputation for lying, prior inconsistent statements concerning the symptoms, and other testimony by the claimant that appears less than candid; (2) unexplained or inadequately explained failure to seek treatment or to follow a prescribed course of treatment; and (3) the claimant's daily activities. 14 Id. at 1284 (citation omitted). The only reason in the record for the ALJ's discounting the severity of Sharp's symptoms is that he believed she was exaggerating. However, there is nothing in the record specifically contradicting her claims. Thus, the ALJ's reasoning appears to be, e.g., with respect to headaches, that Sharp's headaches must not be as bad as she claims because she has a tendency to exaggerate her symptoms. 2 15 The ALJ's articulated reasons for rejecting Sharp's testimony do not meet the specific, clear and convincing requirement of Smolen. Id. at 1281 (citation omitted). The medical history notes of Sharp's treating physicians, when seen in their proper context, are not the clear and convincing evidence required. For example, the doctor's note that a patient had personality conflicts with prior physicians is not necessarily probative of a tendency to exaggerate and is taken out of context in that the doctor also stated she got along well with him. Similarly, in context, his statement that the patient is histrionic does not evidence a character trait to exaggerate, particularly since the statement was made in relation to the patient's reaction to a particular anti-seizure drug. 16 Close examination of the note regarding Sharp's tremors reveals, at worst, an ambiguous situation. The recording doctor was treating Sharp for seizures and not for tremors; thus, he may not have been paying close attention to the patient's tremors. Moreover, the note is in the present tense, indicating only what went on in the examining room. This note does not necessarily contradict Sharp's testimony, which was that she has trouble with tremors a lot, off and on, and that her hand and arms just start shaking uncontrollably that I can't stop them. 17 It is unnecessary to review each item of contradictory evidence relied on by the ALJ to support his conclusion that Sharp exaggerated her symptoms, since the parties are fully familiar with the administrative record. All are similar to those discussed above. Alone or in the aggregate, they do not amount to the specific, clear and convincing evidence we require as an articulated basis to reject Sharp's testimony of her subjective symptoms. Therefore, the ALJ erred in his findings that Sharp's testimony of her symptoms should be disbelieved. Those findings are not supported by substantial evidence.