CINDY ESTRADA V. ANDREW SAUL, No. 19-35734 (9th Cir. 2021)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED MAR 31 2021 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT CINDY M. ESTRADA, No. Plaintiff-Appellant, v. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 19-35734 D.C. No. 3:18-cv-05362-RSM MEMORANDUM* ANDREW M. SAUL, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant-Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington Ricardo S. Martinez, Chief District Judge, Presiding Submitted February 2, 2021** Seattle, Washington Before: GRABER, McKEOWN, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges. Cindy Estrada appeals the district court’s affirmance of the Social Security Commissioner’s denial of her application for disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income under Titles II and XVI of the Social Security Act. * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). The parties are familiar with the facts, so we do not repeat them here. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we vacate the denial of benefits and remand for reconsideration in light of Revels v. Berryhill, 874 F.3d 648 (9th Cir. 2017). The ALJ concluded that Estrada’s “statements concerning the intensity, persistence and limiting effects of [her] symptoms are not entirely consistent with the medical evidence and other evidence in the record . . . .” The ALJ noted that the record “lacks significant findings to support [Estrada’s] extreme allegations,” “support for her neck and hand complaints is elusive,” examinations are within “normal limits,” neck pain patterns do not correlate with MRI findings, and “diagnostic imaging of the hips and hands were repeatedly negative,” among other statements. Estrada argues that the ALJ improperly discounted her testimony because the lack of objective findings is consistent with her fibromyalgia—a diagnosis that the ALJ recognized as a severe impairment adequately supported by medical evidence at step two. The ALJ did not have the benefit of our decision in Revels, which was issued two months after the ALJ’s decision. In Revels, we concluded that the ALJ erred in rejecting a claimant’s testimony where the ALJ stated that the testimony was “undercut by the lack of ‘objective findings’ supporting her claims of severe pain” because examinations showing mostly normal results “are perfectly consistent with 2 debilitating fibromyalgia.” 874 F.3d at 666. We noted that the ALJ’s error “arose from an apparent fundamental misunderstanding of fibromyalgia,” id. at 662, and emphasized that fibromyalgia “is diagnosed entirely on the basis of patients’ reports of pain and other symptoms, and there are no laboratory tests to confirm the diagnosis,” id. at 666 (quotations omitted). Here, in assessing the credibility of Estrada’s symptoms testimony, the ALJ appears to have similarly failed to construe the medical evidence “in light of fibromyalgia’s unique symptoms and diagnostic methods.” Id. at 662. For this reason, we remand. On remand, the ALJ should address how the fibromyalgia diagnosis weighs on his evaluation of the medical evidence for purposes of assessing the credibility of Estrada’s symptoms testimony, id. at 666, explain why he deemed Estrada’s treatment “conservative” for fibromyalgia, id. at 667, and address how evidence that Estrada at times denied pain comports with the recognition that “the symptoms of [fibromyalgia] can wax and wane so that a person may have ‘bad days and good days.’” Social Security Ruling, SSR 12-2p (Jul. 25, 2012); see also Revels, 874 F.3d at 663. Because we remand for consideration of Revels, we do not reach Estrada’s other challenges to the ALJ’s decision. VACATED and REMANDED. Each party shall pay its own costs on appeal. 3
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.
