McTernan v. Berryhill

Background

Patricia McTernan sought Social Security Disability Insurance benefits under Title II of the Social Security Act. She alleged disability beginning February 1, 2015, based on physical and mental conditions including left-ankle problems, back pain, fibromyalgia, depression, attention deficit disorder, dyslexia, and obsessive-compulsive disorder.

The administrative law judge found that McTernan had severe osteoarthritis, left-ankle tendinitis, degenerative disc disease, and obesity. The judge found her depression and anxiety nonsevere, determined that her impairments did not meet or equal a listed impairment, and assessed a residual functional capacity for light work with certain postural restrictions. Relying on vocational-expert testimony, the judge concluded that McTernan could perform past work as a banquet waiter, bartender, and counter attendant.

Court’s Analysis

The court held that the administrative law judge did not adequately evaluate the medical and other opinion evidence when determining McTernan’s residual functional capacity.

The court found that the administrative law judge improperly discounted the opinion of examining psychologist Dr. Robert Bilbrey as vague and inadequately supported. If the opinion was too ambiguous to evaluate, the administrative law judge had a duty to develop the record further. The court also found error in discounting the opinions of state-agency psychological consultants Dr. M. D. Morgan and Dr. Brooks because their opinions relied substantially on Dr. Bilbrey’s assessment.

The court further held that the administrative law judge did not give specific and legitimate reasons supported by substantial evidence for rejecting treating psychologist Dr. Jennifer Garbarino’s opinions about McTernan’s mental-work limitations. The administrative law judge also failed to address opinions from Dr. Adrian Strand and Nurse Practitioner Sandoval concerning McTernan’s limits on standing, walking, and lifting. Because those opinions could have affected the residual functional capacity, the court found the error was not harmless.

Finally, the court held that the administrative law judge did not adequately explain the decision to give no weight to treating rheumatologist Dr. Marc Lieberman’s opinion. Although an opinion may receive reduced weight when unsupported by objective evidence, the administrative law judge did not show that he considered Dr. Lieberman’s treatment notes or identify specific evidence and daily activities inconsistent with the opinion.

The court also concluded that the administrative law judge failed to explain how McTernan’s limited daily activities were relevant to her ability to work or contradicted her providers’ opinions. On remand, the administrative law judge must provide specific, clear, and convincing reasons for rejecting McTernan’s testimony about the severity of her symptoms.

Disposition

Judge William H. Orrick granted McTernan’s motion for summary judgment, denied the defendant’s cross-motion for summary judgment, and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with the order. The court did not award benefits in this order.