Trevizo v. Berryhill, No. 15-16277 (9th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this CaseThe Ninth Circuit reversed the denial of disability benefits and held that the ALJ did not follow the appropriate methodology for weighing a treating physician's medical opinion. In this case, the panel explained that the ALJ should have credited the treating physician's opinion and found that plaintiff was disabled, and the district court erred by developing its own reasons to discount the treating physician's opinion, rather than reviewing the ALJ's reasons for substantial evidence. The panel held that substantial evidence did not support the ALJ's finding that plaintiff's symptoms were not as severe as she testified, particularly in light of the extensive medical record objectively verifying her claims. Because each of the "credit-as-true" factors in Garrison v. Colvin, 759 F.3d 995, 1020 (9th Cir. 2014), was satisfied, remand for the calculation and award of benefits was warranted.
Court Description: Social Security. The panel reversed the district court’s order affirming the denial of disability benefits by the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration, and remanded with instructions to remand to the administrative law judge (“ALJ”) for the calculation and award of benefits. The panel held that the ALJ did not follow the appropriate methodology for weighting a treating physician’s opinion, and there was no legitimate stated reason for rejecting the treating physician’s opinion. The panel concluded that the ALJ should have credited the treating physician’s opinion and found that claimant was disabled. The panel further held that the district court erred by developing its own reasons to discount the treating physician’s opinion, rather than reviewing the ALJ’s reasons for substantial evidence. The panel held that the ALJ erred in discounting the claimant’s testimony regarding her subjective symptoms. The panel held that the vast majority of the ALJ’s bases for rejecting claimant’s testimony were legally or factually erroneous; and substantial evidence did not support a finding that claimant’s symptoms were not as severe as she testified, particularly in light of the extensive medical record objectively verifying her claims. TREVIZO V. BERRYHILL 3 The panel held that each of the “credit-as-true” factors outlined in Garrison v. Colvin, 759 F.3d 995, 1020 (9th Cir. 2014), was satisfied, and therefore remand for the calculation and award of benefits was warranted.
The court issued a subsequent related opinion or order on September 14, 2017.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.