Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Plaintiff Phillip James Berg sought judicial review under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) after the Commissioner denied his October 2022 applications for Disability Insurance Benefits and Supplemental Security Income, alleging disability from February 28, 2022. Following a telephone hearing, an administrative law judge issued an unfavorable decision on May 24, 2024. The ALJ found severe mental and lumbar impairments but assessed a residual functional capacity for medium work with frequent stooping, simple, routine, repetitive tasks, and occasional public interaction. Relying on vocational expert testimony, the ALJ found Plaintiff could work as a laborer of stores, floor waxer, or custodian. The Appeals Council denied review on March 24, 2025.
On cross-motions for summary judgment, Plaintiff challenged the ALJ's rejection of his mental symptom testimony, the evaluation of opinions from a treating physician, an examining psychologist, and two examining physicians, and the step five findings. This document is an unreported magistrate judge's findings and recommendations to the assigned district judge; it is not a final judgment.
The Court’s Holding
The magistrate judge recommends finding legal error in the symptom analysis. The ALJ summarized clinical findings and mentioned chores such as sweeping, cooking, and dishes and medication benefit only within a description of testimony, without explaining how those facts contradicted a consistent history of agoraphobia and paranoia. A sequential summary of clinical data is not a clear and convincing analysis, and a court cannot affirm on reasons the ALJ did not rely on.
The treating physician's form opinion was discounted as only marginally supported. The magistrate judge accepted that check-box opinions with little explanation may be discounted, but found the ALJ looked only at the form and ignored the physician's treatment notes documenting severe anxiety, difficulty leaving home, paranoia, and hypervigilance, and relied on scattered normal findings without reconciling abnormal specialty records. The ALJ's rejection of the psychologist's cognitive testing because of numeric variations among subtests was characterized as substituting lay intuition for clinical judgment. Both examining physicians limited Plaintiff to occasional bending and stooping, yet the RFC allowed frequent stooping and the ALJ gave no reason, contrary to SSR 96-8p. The magistrate judge found no error, however, in rejecting one examiner's four-hour standing and walking limit or the other's lifting restriction, because the ALJ cited examination findings and state agency opinions and the evidence supported more than one rational reading.
The step five finding was also unsupported. Floor waxer and laborer of stores require frequent bending and stooping, so crediting the unrejected postural limitation eliminates them. The custodian job was identified by a code for central-supply worker, with reasoning level 3 and semi-skilled status, an apparent conflict with simple, routine tasks that neither the ALJ nor the vocational expert addressed; the Commissioner did not defend it. The argument that the Grids direct a finding of disability failed because it depended on exertional limits the court found properly rejected. Because factual conflicts remain, the recommendation is reversal and remand under sentence four for further administrative proceedings, not an award of benefits.
Key Takeaways
- Summarizing clinical findings and listing daily activities, without explaining how they contradict specific symptom testimony, does not satisfy the clear and convincing standard.
- Even under the revised regulations, the supportability analysis of a treating opinion should account for the source's own treatment notes, not just the opinion form.
- An ALJ who does not adopt an examiner's opined limitation that conflicts with the RFC must explain why.
- Step five jobs must be checked against the RFC and the Dictionary of Occupational Titles, and apparent conflicts must be resolved with the vocational expert.
- This is only a recommendation; the district judge may adopt, modify, or reject it after objections, which are due within 14 days.
Why It Matters
As unreported findings and recommendations, this document has no precedential weight and applies established Ninth Circuit principles rather than announcing new law. Its value lies in showing how a court sorts ALJ errors: it found error in several areas but upheld the ALJ's treatment of the exertional limits, which kept the Grids from directing a finding of disability.
The district judge has not yet ruled. If the recommendation is adopted, the ALJ would reassess the symptom testimony, medical opinions, and step five findings on remand, and Plaintiff's disability would remain undetermined.