Cerrillo v. Berryhill
- Richard Seeborg
- 3:18-cv-03863
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 10
In John P. Cerrillo v. Andrew Saul, Judge Seeborg vacated the denial of disability benefits and remanded for payment because the administrative law judge improperly rejected mental-health evidence.
John P. Cerrillo, whose denial of disability benefits was vacated, and the Commissioner of Social Security, to whom the matter was remanded for payment of benefits.
What happened
John P. Cerrillo v. Andrew Saul concerned Cerrillo’s challenge to the denial of his applications for disability insurance benefits and Supplemental Security Income. An administrative law judge found that he was not disabled and could perform his past work and other jobs.
Cerrillo argued that the judge improperly rejected opinions from three doctors, his own testimony, and his mother’s testimony. The court agreed that the judge did not adequately explain why the medical opinions and mental-health evidence should be rejected, and that the judge treated basic household activities as inconsistent with disability.
Judge Richard Seeborg vacated the administrative decision and remanded the matter for payment of benefits. The court concluded that crediting the improperly rejected evidence would mean Cerrillo met the requirements for a listed mental impairment and was disabled.
The detailed version
- Cerrillo v. Berryhill · No. 3:18-cv-03863
- Richard Seeborg
- Dec. 3, 2019
Background
John P. Cerrillo appealed the Commissioner of Social Security’s denial of his applications for disability insurance benefits and Supplemental Security Income. He alleged physical and mental impairments, including degenerative disc disease in his cervical and lumbar spine, right ankle trauma, depression, post-traumatic stress disorder, and a stomach tumor.
An administrative law judge (ALJ) considered Cerrillo’s testimony, a statement from his mother, medical opinions, and testimony from a vocational expert. The ALJ found that Cerrillo had several severe impairments but did not meet or equal a listed impairment. The ALJ determined that Cerrillo had the residual functional capacity (RFC)—the most he could still do despite his limitations—to perform light work with restrictions. The ALJ found that Cerrillo could perform his past work as a clerk and other jobs existing in significant numbers, and therefore was not disabled. The Social Security Appeals Council declined review.
Court’s Analysis
Cerrillo argued that the ALJ improperly rejected the opinions of Dr. Vinh Thai, Dr. Danielle Nelson, and Dr. Paul Martin; improperly discounted Cerrillo’s testimony about his limitations; and improperly rejected his mother’s testimony.
The court held that the ALJ failed to provide the required reasons for rejecting the doctors’ opinions about Cerrillo’s mental-health limitations. The ALJ said Dr. Thai’s assessment was based mainly on forms and lacked supporting treatment records, but the record contained hundreds of pages of narrative treatment notes from the behavioral health center where Dr. Thai treated Cerrillo. The court also found inadequate the ALJ’s reasons for discounting Dr. Nelson’s and Dr. Martin’s opinions. The ALJ did not identify specific conflicting medical evidence or otherwise provide clear and convincing reasons for rejecting those assessments.
The court also found that the ALJ improperly rejected Cerrillo’s mental-health testimony. Although the ALJ identified evidence contradicting some claimed physical limitations, the ALJ did not adequately address the extensive evidence supporting Cerrillo’s mental-health limitations. The court further concluded that the ALJ improperly rejected Cerrillo’s mother’s testimony by treating his ability to perform basic household activities as inconsistent with his inability to work full time. The court emphasized that daily activities and full-time employment involve important differences.
Because the ALJ rejected this evidence improperly, the RFC did not fully reflect Cerrillo’s limitations, and the hypothetical questions posed to the vocational expert were incomplete. As a result, the ALJ’s findings at steps four and five were not supported by substantial evidence, meaning relevant evidence that a reasonable person could accept as adequate support for the decision.
Disposition
The court determined that further administrative proceedings would serve no useful purpose. If the improperly rejected evidence were credited as required by law, Cerrillo would meet or equal Listing 12.04, which concerns certain mental impairments and requires a finding of disability when its criteria are met.
The court vacated the ALJ’s decision and remanded the matter for payment of benefits.
Read the full 10-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.