Revels v. Berryhill, No. 15-16477 (9th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this CaseThe Ninth Circuit reversed the district court's order affirming the denial of supplemental security income and disability insurance benefits. Plaintiff suffers from fibromyalgia. In July 2012, the SSA issued Social Security Ruling (SSR) 12-2P, a ruling that establishes that fibromyalgia may be a severe medical impairment for purposes of determining disability, and provided guidelines for the proper evaluation of the disease. The panel held that the ALJ, SSA Appeals Council, and the district court failed to heed the instructions of those rulings, and instead analyzed plaintiff's symptoms and rejected her claim without considering the unique characteristics of fibromyalgia, the principal source of her disability. The panel remanded with instructions for the district court to remand the case to the agency for the calculation and award of benefits.
Court Description: Social Security. The panel reversed the district court’s order affirming the denial of supplemental security income and disability insurance benefits by the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration, and remanded with instructions to remand the case to the agency for the calculation and award of benefits. The administrative law judge (“ALJ”) found that claimant had three severe medical impairments – arthritis, obesity, and fibromyalgia – but determined that claimant could perform her past relevant work, and denied benefits. In July 2012, the Social Security Administration issued Social Security Ruling (“SSR”) 12-2P, a ruling that established that fibromyalgia may be a severe medical impairment for purposes of determining disability. The panel held that in determining the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of claimant’s symptoms, the ALJ failed to provide legally sufficient reasons for rejecting the opinions of rheumatologist Dr. Nolan, physical therapist Richard Randall, and nurse practitioner Mager. The panel also held that the ALJ erred in rejecting claimant’s symptom testimony and the lay opinions of her mother and father. The panel concluded that these errors arose from a fundamental misunderstanding of fibromyalgia. The panel further held REVELS V. BERRYHILL 3 that the ALJ failed to properly analyze claimant’s fibromyalgia-related symptoms pursuant to SSR 12-2P, and the court’s opinion in Benecke v. Barnhart, 379 F.3d 587 (9th Cir. 2004). Specifically, the panel held that the ALJ erred in giving Dr. Nolan’s opinion no weight, and instead should have found it to be controlling as to the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of claimant’s fibromyalgia. The panel concluded that because the vocational expert testified that a claimant with the physical limitations outlined in Dr. Nolan’s medical opinion would be unable to do any full-time work, Dr. Nolan’s opinion by itself established that claimant was entitled to benefits. The panel concluded that each of the “credit-as-true” factors, outlined in Garrison v. Colvin, 759 F.3d 995, 1020 (9th Cir. 2014), were satisfied, and that remand for the calculation and award of benefits was warranted. Judge Kleinfeld dissented. Judge Kleinfeld would hold that the ALJ properly found that claimant was not wholly credible, and properly dismissed medical testimony supporting claimant’s position. Judge Kleinfeld would conclude that claimant did not establish that the ALJ’s conclusions were unsupported by substantial evidence, and he would affirm the ALJ’s decision to deny benefits. 4 REVELS V. BERRYHILL
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.