Laborin v. Berryhill, No. 15-15776 (9th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this CaseThe Ninth Circuit reversed the district court's judgment affirming the ALJ's denial of plaintiff's applications for disability benefits and supplemental security income (SSI). The panel held that the ALJ failed to credit plaintiff's testimony regarding the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of his symptoms to the extent that testimony was "inconsistent with the residual functional capacity assessment [(RFC)]"; this boilerplate language encouraged an inaccurate assessment of a claimant's credibility and also permitted determination of RFCs that were inconsistent with truly credible testimony; the approach taken by the ALJ was inconsistent with the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C 301-1397m, and should not be used in disability decisions; and the ALJ did not give clear and convincing reasons for rejecting plaintiff's symptom testimony.
Court Description: Social Security. The panel reversed the district court’s judgment affirming the administrative law judge’s (“ALJ”) denial of Bernard Laborin’s applications for disability benefits and supplemental security income under Titles II and XVI of the Social Security Act. The ALJ did not credit Laborin’s testimony regarding the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of his symptoms to the extent that testimony was “inconsistent with the above residual functional capacity assessment [(RFC)].” The panel held that this boilerplate language encouraged an inaccurate assessment of a claimant’s credibility and also permitted determination of RFCs that were inconsistent with truly credible testimony. The panel further held that the approach taken by the ALJ was inconsistent with the Social Security Act and should not be used in disability decisions. The panel held that the ALJ’s analysis was also illogical: because the claimant’s symptom testimony must be taken into account when the ALJ assesses the claimant’s RFC, it cannot be discredited because it is inconsistent with that RFC. The panel noted that inclusion of the flawed boilerplate language, was not by itself, reversible error and could be harmless.
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.