Karen Lambert v. Andrew Saul (2020)

“We ‘review the district court’s order affirming the ALJ’s denial of social security benefits de novo and will disturb the denial of benefits only if the decision contains legal error or is not supported by substantial evidence.’” Lambert v. Saul, 980 F.3d 1266, 1270 (9th Cir. 2020) (quoting Tommasetti v. Astrue, 533 F.3d 1035, 1038 (9th Cir. 2008) (superseded by statute on other grounds)). 1.

See, e.g., Lambert v. Saul, 980 F.3d 1266, 1278 (9th Cir. 2020) (“An error is harmless only if it is inconsequential to the ultimate nondisability determination.”) (internal quotation omitted). 3 generally describing Kiss’s mental capacity as “not significantly” and “moderately” limited, the ALJ “was required to give only ‘specific and legitimate’ reasons for rejecting the opinion.” Ford v. Saul, 950 F.3d 1141, 1156 (9th Cir. 2020).

See Lambert, 980 F.3d at 1278 (“The credibility 15 determination is exclusively the ALJ’s to make.”); Brown-Hunter, 806 F.3d at 491 (“Although the 16 inconsistencies identified by the district court could be reasonable inferences drawn from the 17 ALJ’s summary of the evidence, the credibility determination is exclusively the ALJ’s to make, 18 and ours only to review. . . .

See Ferguson, 95 F.4th at 1200 (finding error where the ALJ failed to specify which of Ferguson’s many symptoms were, in 15 the ALJ’s view, inconsistent with the record evidence); Brown-Hunter, 806 16 F.3d at 494 (holding that an ALJ’s analysis was insufficient where “[the ALJ] 17 simply stated her non-credibility conclusion and then summarized the medical 18 evidence supporting her RFC determination.”); Burrell, 775 F.3d at 1137 19 (same where the ALJ’s decision made a gene…

Sec., 775 8 F.3d 1090, 1103 (9th Cir. 2014) (recognizing the ALJ must “specifically identify the 9 testimony [from a claimant] she or he finds not to be credible”) (brackets in original) 10 (internal citations omitted); Lambert, 980 F.3d at 1277 (“We cannot review whether the 11 ALJ provided specific, clear, and convincing reasons for rejecting [the plaintiff’s] pain 12 testimony where, as here, the ALJ never identified which testimony she found not credible, 13 and never ex…

Identification of Testimony and Evidence Undermining 27 To meet the clear and convincing standard, the Ninth Circuit “require[s] the ALJ to 28 specifically identify the testimony from a claimant [the ALJ] finds not to be credible and . 1 . . explain what evidence undermines this testimony.” Treichler, 775 F.3d at 1102 ; 2 Lambert v. Saul, 980 F.3d 1266, 1268 (9th Cir. 2020) (“the ALJ must identify the specific 3 testimony that he discredited and explain the evidence undermin…

Cal. May 17, 2021) 28 (citing Lambert v. Saul, 980 F.3d 1266, 1277 (9th Cir. 2020) (“[T]he ALJ must provide sufficient 1 reasoning that allows [for] review.”)).

Accord Lambert, 980 F.3d at 1277 (“Our cases do not require ALJ’s to perform a line-by-line exegesis of the claimant’s testimony....”).

Google LLC v. Oracle America, Inc., ___ U.S. ___, 141 S. 25 Ct. 1183, 1197 (2021) (appellate courts “should not answer more than is 26 necessary to resolve the parties’ dispute” on appeal); see also Smith v. 27 Kijakazi, 14 F.4th 1108, 1111 (9th Cir. 2021) (“While Smith raises a number 28 of issues on appeal, the court addresses only those relevant to its decision to remand the case to the agency.”); Lambert v. Saul, 980 F.3d 1266, 1278 (9th Cir. 2020) (“We have no occasion …

Accord Lambert, 980 F.3d at 1277 (“Our cases do not require ALJ’s to perform a line-by-line exegesis of the claimant's testimony....”).

Moreover, although 11 the ALJ summarized both Plaintiff’s testimony at the hearing as well as the medical evidence, 12 “she did not link that testimony to the particular parts of the record supporting her non-credibility 13 determination.” Id.; see also Lambert v. Saul, 980 F.3d 1266, 1278 (9th Cir. 2020) (“Although the 14 ALJ did provide a relatively detailed overview of [the claimant’s] medical history, ‘providing a 15 summary of medical evidence . . . is not the same as p…

“The ALJ was not required to mention explicitly, in his ruling, each detail of Young’s testimony, such as the need to take off weeks at a time from work.” Id. at 520 (citing Lambert, 980 F.3d at 1277 (“Our cases do not require ALJs to perform a line-by-line exegesis of the claimant’s testimony. . . .”).

Cf. Lambert, 980 F.3d at 1277 (“[w]e cannot review whether the ALJ provided specific, clear, and convincing reasons for rejecting [the claimant’s] testimony where, as here, the ALJ never identified which testimony she found not credible, and never explained which evidence contradicted that testimony”) (emphasis in original); see also Holcomb v. Saul, 832 Fed.Appx. 505 , 506 (9th Cir. 2020) (“the ALJ discussed relevant medical evidence but failed to link [the claimant’s] symp…

“The ALJ was not required to mention explicitly, in his ruling, each detail of Young’s testimony, such as the need to take off weeks at a time from work.” Id. at 520 (citing Lambert, 980 F.3d at 1277 (“Our cases do not require ALJs to perform a line-by-line exegesis of the claimant’s testimony. . . .”).

Lambert, 980 F.3d at 1278 (“Although the ALJ did 19 provide a relatively detailed overview of [plaintiff’s] medical history, 20 ‘providing a summary of medical evidence ... is not the same as providing 21 clear and convincing reasons for finding the claimant’s symptom testimony 22 not credible.”) (quoting Brown-Hunter, 806 F.3d at 494 ); see also id. at 1268 23 (“[T]he ALJ must identify the specific testimony that he discredited and 24 explain the evidence undermining it.”).

See Lambert, 980 F.3d at 1278 (“Because the ALJ did not provide enough ‘reasoning in order for us to meaningfully determine whether the ALJ’s conclusions were supported by substantial evidence,’ we cannot treat the error as harmless.”).

See Lambert v. Saul, 980 F.3d 1266, 1268 (9th 14 Cir. 2020) (“[T]he ALJ must identify the specific testimony that he discredited and explain the 15 evidence undermining it.”); Burrell v. Colvin, 775 F.3d 1133, 1139 (9th Cir. 2014) (finding legal 16 error where the ALJ “never connected the medical record” to the claimant’s testimony and did 17 not make “a specific finding linking a lack of medical records to [the claimant’s] testimony about 18 the intensity of her . . . . pai…

The Ninth Circuit “require[s] the ALJ 5 to ‘specifically identify the testimony from a claimant [the ALJ] finds not to be credible 6 and . . . explain what evidence undermines this testimony.” Treichler, 775 F.3d at 1102 ; 7 Lambert v. Saul, 980 F.3d 1266, 1268 (9th Cir. 2020) (“[T]he ALJ must identify the 8 specific testimony that he discredited and explain the evidence undermining it.”); Smolen, 9 80 F.3d at 1284 (“The ALJ must state specifically which symptom testimony is…

Case No. 3:21-cv-00187-SLG Decision and Order Page 13 of 26 evidence and other evidence in the record for the reasons explained in this decision.”62 However, the ALJ did not specifically identify which of Plaintiff’s claims were inconsistent with the medical evidence.63 “To ensure that review of the ALJ’s credibility determination is meaningful, and that the claimant’s testimony is not rejected arbitrarily,” an ALJ must “specify which testimony she finds not credible, and th…

See Lambert v. Saul, 980 F.3d 1266, 1277 (9th Cir. 2020) (“Our decisions do not require ALJs … to draft dissertations when denying benefits.”); see also Treichler v. Comm’r of Soc.

Admin., 775 F.3d 1090, 1103 (9th Cir. 214) (finding insufficient the ALJ’s assertion that the claimant’s unidentified statements were “not credible to the extent they are inconsistent [with the analysis of the medical evidence]”); Lambert v. Saul, 980 F.3d 1266, 1277 (9th Cir. 2020) (“[O]ur precedents plainly required the ALJ to do more than was done here, which consisted of offering non-specific conclusions that [the claimant’s] testimony was inconsistent with her medical t…

Lambert v. Saul, 980 F.3d 1266, 1271 (9th Cir. 2020) (“Our cases do not require ALJs to perform a line-by-line exegesis of the claimant’s testimony, nor do they require ALJs to draft dissertations when denying benefits.”).

See Buethe, 2021 WL 1966202 , at *7 (citing Lambert v. Saul, 980 F.3d 1266, 1277 (9th 5 Cir. 2020) (“[T]he ALJ must provide sufficient reasoning that allows [for] review.”)).

Br. at 17-19.) “The ALJ must state specifically which symptom testimony is not credible and what facts in the record leads to that conclusion.” Smolen v. Chater, 80 F.3d 1273, 1273 (9th Cir. 1996) (citing Dodrill v. Shalala, 12 F.3d 915, 918 (9th Cir. 1993)); see also Lambert v. Saul, 980 F.3d 1266, 1278 (9th Cir. 2020) (“providing a summary of medical evidence is not the same as providing clear and convincing reasons for finding the claimant’s symptom testimony not credible…

In the 14 “analysis” portion of the ALJ’s RFC discussion, the ALJ wrote: “I limited [Plaintiff] to simple and routine instructions with only occasional changes in a 15 routine work setting and using judgment to make simple decisions to account 16 for his symptoms including tangential thoughts, insomnia, and hallucinations 17 and paranoid delusions at times.” [AR 34.] After explaining the other 18 limitations provided, the ALJ wrote: “However, the medical evidence does not 19…

(See Doc. 13-3 at 28, 31–32); 25 Lambert v. Saul, 980 F.3d 1266, 1277 (9th Cir. 2020) (“Our cases do not require ALJs to 26 perform a line-by-line exegesis of the claimant’s testimony, nor do they require ALJs to 27 draft dissertations when denying benefits.”).

No. 12 at 9 (citing Lambert v. Saul, 980 F.3d 1266, 1278 (9th Cir. 2020) (“providing a 16 summary of medical evidence in support of a [RFC] finding is not the same as providing clear 17 and convincing reasons for finding the claimant’s testimony not credible”)).

Admin., 775 F.3d 1090, 1103 (9th Cir. 214) (finding insufficient the ALJ’s assertion that the claimant’s unidentified statements were “not credible to the extent they are inconsistent [with the analysis of the medical evidence]”); Lambert v. Saul, 980 F.3d 1266, 1277 (9th Cir. 2020) (“[O]ur precedents plainly required the ALJ to do more than was done here, which consisted of offering non- specific conclusions that [the claimant’s] testimony was inconsistent with her medical …

Google LLC v. 6 || Oracle Am., Inc., 593 U.S. 1 , 20 (2021) (“[W]e should not answer more than is 7 || necessary to resolve the parties’ dispute.”); see also Smith, 14 F.4th at 1111 8 || C[T]he court addresses only those [issues on appeal] relevant to its decision to 9 || remand the case to the agency[.]”); Lambert v. Saul, 980 F.3d 1266, 1278 (9th 10 || Cir. 2020) (“We have no occasion to reach [the claimant’s] other assignments 11 || of error, as the record may change on r…

Regardless, the undersigned has provided for the claimant’s reported 21 right hand symptoms, in the residual function capacity. 22 (AR 34). 23 Upon review of the record, the Court concludes that the ALJ provided “findings 24 sufficiently specific to permit the [C]ourt to conclude that the ALJ did not arbitrarily discredit 25 [Plaintiff’s] testimony.” Thomas v. Barnhart, 278 F.3d 947, 958 (9th Cir. 2002); see Lambert v. 26 Saul, 980 F.3d 1266, 1277 (9th Cir. 2020) (“Our cases…

Overall, I find the 6 claimant’s statements generally inconsistent with the evidence of record. 7 After careful consideration of the evidence, I find that the claimant’s medically 8 determinable impairments could reasonably be expected to cause the alleged symptoms; however, the claimant’s statements concerning the intensity, 9 persistence and limiting effects of these symptoms are not entirely consistent with the medical evidence and other evidence in the record for the rea…

See Lambert v. Saul, 980 F.3d 1266, 1278 (9th Cir. 2020) (“providing a summary of medical evidence is not the same as providing clear and convincing reasons for finding the claimant’s symptom testimony not credible”) (citation and internal quotations and ellipses omitted); Holcomb v. Saul, 832 F. App’x 505 , 506 (9th Cir. 2020) (“the ALJ discussed relevant medical evidence but failed to link [the claimant’s] symptom testimony to specific medical records and explain why those…

See Lambert v. Saul, 980 F.3d 1266, 1278 (9th Cir. 2020) (“Although the ALJ did provide a relatively detailed overview of [plaintiff's] medical history, ‘providing a summary of medical evidence ... is not the same as providing clear and convincing reasons for finding the claimant's symptom testimony not credible.”) (citing Brown-Hunter, 806 F.3d at 494 ).

Lambert v. Saul, 980 F.3d 1266, 1277 (9th Cir. 2020) (“[T]he ALJ 20 must provide sufficient reasoning that allows us to perform our own review, because the 21 grounds upon which an administrative order must be judged are those upon which the 22 record discloses that its action was based.”) (cleaned up). 23 The final portion of the ALJ’s consistency analysis that the Commissioner seeks to 24 defend is the ALJ’s finding that Dr. Higgins’s opinions were inconsistent with Plaint…

Cf. Lambert, 980 F.3d at 1278 (“providing a summary of medical evidence ... is not the 23 same as providing clear and convincing reasons for finding the claimant's symptom testimony not 24 credible.”); Brown-Hunter, 806 F.3d at 494 (“Because the ALJ failed to identify the testimony she 25 found not credible, she did not link that testimony to the particular parts of the record supporting her 26 non-credibility determination.

Cal. Feb. 13, 2020) (distinguishing Brown- 21 Hunter where “the ALJ made specific references to the portions of the Plaintiff’s testimony and 22 record that were found to be inconsistent with the alleged disabilities”); see also Molina v. 23 Astrue, 674 F.3d 1104, 1121 (“Even when an agency ‘explains its decision with less than ideal 24 1 clarity,’ [the Court] must uphold it ‘if the agency’s path may reasonably be discerned.’”) 2 (quotation omitted); Lambert v. Saul, 980 F.3…

Lambert v. Saul, 980 F.3d 1266, 1278 (9th Cir. 2020) (“[P]roviding a summary of medical evidence. . . is not the same as providing clear and convincing reasons for finding the claimant’s symptom testimony not credible.”).

A reviewing court, however, must look to “all the 3 pages of the ALJ’s decision.” Kaufmann v. Kijakazi, 32 F.4th 843, 851 (9th Cir. 2022) 4 (affirming the ALJ’s decision and finding that a prior discussion sufficiently demonstrated 5 which of the claimant’s daily activities conflicted with the reported testimony); Lambert v. 6 Saul, 980 F.3d 1266, 1277 (9th Cir. 2020) (“Our cases do not require ALJs to perform a 7 line-by-line exegesis of the claimant’s testimony, nor do the…

Cal. Feb. 17, 2021) (the ALJ cannot “forego articulation of their reason or reasons 22 altogether”); see also Lambert v. Saul, 980 F.3d 1266, 1277 (9th Cir. 2020) (“[T]he ALJ must 23 provide sufficient reasoning that allows [for] review.”).

Young v. Saul, 845 F. App’x 518 , 520 (9th Cir. 2021); see also Lambert v. Saul, 980 F.3d 1266, 1277 (9th Cir. 2020) (“Our cases do not require ALJs to perform a line-by-line exegesis of the claimant’s testimony[.]”).

Van R., 2024 WL 897571 , at *7; see also Lambert v. 5 Saul, 980 F.3d 1266, 1277 (9th Cir. 2020) (“Our cases do not … require ALJs to draft dissertations 6 when denying benefits.”).

“General findings are 23 insufficient; rather, the ALJ must identify what testimony is not credible and what evidence undermines 24 the claimant’s complaints.” Berry v. Astrue, 622 F.3d 1238 , 1234 (internal quotation marks and citation 25 omitted); see also Smith v. Kijakazi, 14 F.4th 1108, 1113 (9th Cir. 2021) (“In other words, to reject the 1 specific portions of the claimant's testimony that the ALJ has found not to be credible, we require that the 2 ALJ provide clear an…

See Lambert v. Saul, 980 F.3d 1266, 1277 (9th Cir. 2020) (“Our cases do not require ALJs to perform a line-by-line exegesis of the claimant’s testimony, nor do they require ALJs to draft dissertations when denying benefits.”) As the Court has already discussed, the regulations contemplate that ALJs will evaluate the persuasiveness of medical opinions at a source-level, not an opinion-level. 20 C.F.R. § 404 .1520c(b)(1).

In doing so, the ALJ “was not required to mention explicitly, . . . each detail of [plaintiff’s] testimony.” Id. (citing Lambert v. Saul, 980 F.3d 1266, 1277 (9th Cir. 2020) (“Our cases do not require ALJs to perform a line-by-line exegesis of the claimant’s testimony. . . .”).

Sec. 16 Admin., 775 F.3d 1090, 1102 (9th Cir. 2014) (quoting Lingenfelter, 504 F.3d at 1036 ). 17 The Ninth Circuit “require[s] the ALJ to ‘specifically identify the testimony from a 18 claimant [the ALJ] finds not to be credible and . . . explain what evidence undermines 19 this testimony.” Id. at 1102 (internal quotation marks omitted) (omission and alterations 20 in original); Lambert v. Saul, 980 F.3d 1266, 1268 (9th Cir. 2020) (“[T]he ALJ must 21 identify the specific t…

Marcia simply 16 requires an ALJ to discuss and evaluate the evidence that supports his or her conclusion; it does 17 not specify that the ALJ must do so under the heading ‘Findings.’ ” (citing Marcia v. Sullivan, 18 900 F.2d 172, 176 (9th Cir. 1990))); Lambert v. Saul, 980 F.3d 1266, 1277 (9th Cir. 2020) (“Our 19 cases do not . . . require ALJs to draft dissertations when denying benefits.”). 20 The Court also finds Plaintiff’s argument that the records cited by the ALJ wer…

See Lambert v. Saul, 980 F.3d 1266, 1277 (9th Cir. 2020) (“Our cases do 25 not require ALJs to perform a line-by-line exegesis of the claimant’s testimony, nor do they 26 require ALJs to draft dissertations when denying benefits.”); Burch v. Barnhart, 400 F.3d 676 , 27 679 (9th Cir. 2005) (“Where evidence is susceptible to more than one rational interpretation, it is 28 the ALJ’s conclusion that must be upheld.”). 1 Accordingly, the Court concludes that the RFC is supported …

See Lambert v. Saul, 980 F.3d 1266, 1277 (9th Cir. 2020) (“[T]he 20 ALJ must provide sufficient reasoning that allows us to perform our own review, because 21 the grounds upon which an administrative order must be judged are those upon which the 22 record discloses that its action was based.”) (internal citations and quotation marks 23 omitted); see also Carrie D. v. Kijakazi, No. 1:20-CV-03227-LRS, 2022 WL 2901010 , at 24 *6 (E.D.

A finding of light work is also consistent with the claimant’s admissions that she was able to attend a professional sports game during the relevant period, 10 operate a motor vehicle, perform work activities, and tend to other activities of daily living. 11 (A.R. 23-24). 12 While Plaintiff argues that “there is no specific discussion of hearing testimony regarding 13 her pain limitations that are at issue . . . and there is no discussion of any specific objective 14 evidenc…

Case No. 3:21-cv-00203-TMB Decision and Order However, the ALJ did not specifically identify which of Plaintiff’s claims were inconsistent with the medical evidence.101 “To ensure that [a court’s] review of the ALJ’s credibility determination is meaningful, and that the claimant’s testimony is not rejected arbitrarily,” an ALJ must “specify which testimony she finds not credible, and then provide clear and convincing reasons, supported by evidence in the record, to support t…