Popa v. Berryhill, No. 15-16848 (9th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this CaseThe Ninth Circuit reversed the district court's decision affirming the Commissioner's denial of plaintiff's application for disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income benefits. The panel held that the ALJ committed legal error when she failed to provide legally sufficient reasons to discount the opinions of examining psychologist Dr. Hart, and when she failed to provide germane reasons to discount the opinions of treating nurse practitioner Dr. Sorrell; the ALJ's error in discounting these opinions permeated her hypothetical to the vocational expert regarding the availability of a significant number of jobs in the national economy that plaintiff could perform; and therefore the panel remanded for an award of benefits.
Court Description: Social Security Benefits. The panel reversed the district court’s decision affirming the Commissioner of Social Security’s denial of an application for disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income benefits under Titles II and XVI of the Social Security Act, and remanded for an award of benefits. The panel held that the administrative law judge committed legal error when she failed to provide legally sufficient reasons to discount the opinion of examining psychologist Dr. Hart, who opined that claimant likely would not maintain regular attendance at work. The panel noted that the ALJ provided no explanation as to why claimant’s ability to attend church weekly in the past, shop for groceries, and watch television, established that she possessed the ability to maintain regular attendance at work. The panel also held that the ALJ failed to provide germane reasons to discount the opinion of nurse practitioner Dr. Sorrell, who possessed a Ph.D. in nursing and treated petitioner for more than two years. The panel held that the fact Dr. Sorrell, an “other source,” provided information in a Commissioner-supplied check-box form was not a sufficient reason to reject her opinions, much less a germane reason. The panel further held that the ALJ erred when she discounted claimant’s own testimony based on what the ALJ deemed to be inconsistent statements. The panel held that in POPA V. BERRYHILL 3 this case, a single discrepancy failed to justify the wholesale dismissal of claimant’s testimony. The panel held that the ALJ’s error in discounting the opinions of Dr. Hart and Dr. Sorrell permeated her hypothetical to the vocational expert regarding the availability of a significant number of jobs in the national economy that claimant could perform. The panel found that an award of benefits was warranted because in response to counsel’s questions, the vocational expert stated that a person with the moderate limitations noted by Dr. Sorrell could not perform work that exists in significant numbers in the national economy.
The court issued a subsequent related opinion or order on September 20, 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.