Branch v. Berryhill

Background

Marcell Lamont Branch sought judicial review of an administrative law judge’s partially favorable decision on his application for Supplemental Security Income under Title XVI of the Social Security Act. The administrative law judge found Branch disabled because of his age beginning November 1, 2017, but found him not disabled from his alleged onset date, July 1, 2001, through that date. The Appeals Council denied review, making the administrative law judge’s decision the final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security for purposes of district-court review.

The administrative law judge found degenerative disc disease of the lumbar spine, diabetes, and gout to be severe impairments, but found Branch’s shoulder dislocations, gunshot wound, and mental impairments non-severe. The administrative law judge determined that Branch could perform light work with postural limitations and concluded that he could work as a fast-food worker, housekeeping cleaner, or food-service worker.

Branch challenged the decision on three grounds: the administrative law judge improperly evaluated the medical opinions; improperly rejected Branch’s testimony about pain and other symptoms; and adopted a residual functional capacity—the most he could still do in a work setting—that was not supported by substantial evidence. Branch also sought an immediate award of benefits.

Medical Evidence and Administrative Decision

The record included opinions from Dr. Jeffrey Seal, Branch’s treating psychiatrist; Kari Jennings-Parriott, a social worker who co-signed Dr. Seal’s report; Laura Jean Catlin, a psychologist who examined Branch twice; Dr. Huen, an internal-medicine physician who examined him; and four state-agency consultants who did not examine him.

Dr. Seal and Dr. Catlin described serious mental limitations, including marked limitations in understanding and applying information, interacting with others, concentrating and maintaining pace, and adapting or managing oneself. Dr. Seal also opined that Branch would be off-task for more than 30 percent of a workday and absent at least four days per month. Dr. Catlin similarly opined that Branch would miss more than four days of work per month and could not engage in meaningful employment.

Dr. Huen concluded that Branch’s physical limitations left him with less than a sedentary work capacity at that time. The vocational expert testified that a person who was off-task 10 percent of the time, absent one day per month on a continuing basis, or regularly arrived late or left early by an hour could not sustain employment.

The administrative law judge gave little weight to the opinions of Drs. Huen, Seal, and Catlin and controlling weight to the state-agency consultants’ opinions. The administrative law judge cited inconsistency with the overall record, non-examining consultants’ opinions, a 2013 general assessment score from jail records, and some reports of normal mental status.

Court’s Analysis

The court held that the administrative law judge did not provide legally sufficient reasons for rejecting the treating and examining providers’ opinions. The explanation for rejecting Dr. Huen’s opinion was brief and inconsistent with the administrative law judge’s own description of Branch’s back problems, gout, pain, swelling, arthritis, and other physical findings.

The court also found that the administrative law judge mischaracterized or ignored important mental-health evidence, including Branch’s very low scores on intelligence and memory testing. The court criticized the reliance on a jail-record general assessment score while failing to discuss the intelligence-test results. It further found that reports of normal mental status on forms prepared for physical treatment did not adequately explain the rejection of detailed opinions from mental-health specialists.

Because the administrative law judge’s explanations were inadequate and the non-examining consultants’ opinions could not, by themselves, provide substantial evidence for rejecting the treating and examining providers’ opinions, the court found that the opinions of Drs. Huen, Seal, and Catlin had to be credited as true under the applicable Ninth Circuit standard.

Nature of Remand

The court applied the rule allowing an immediate award of benefits when the administrative law judge failed to provide legally sufficient reasons for rejecting evidence, no outstanding issues required resolution, and crediting the evidence required a disability finding.

The court concluded that Branch’s depression, bipolar disorder, posttraumatic stress disorder, and intellectual disorder met the requirements of several disability listings. It also concluded that the credited medical evidence, considered with the vocational expert’s testimony, required a finding that Branch had been disabled since July 1, 2001. The court rejected the Commissioner’s argument that evidence about Branch’s ability to lift 20 pounds, walk, or occasionally ride a bicycle created a sufficient conflict to justify further proceedings.

Disposition

Judge Robert M. Illman granted Branch’s motion for summary judgment and denied the Commissioner’s motion for summary judgment. The court reversed the administrative law judge’s finding of non-disability from July 1, 2001, through November 1, 2017, and remanded the case for the immediate calculation and payment of benefits for that period.