Perez
Perez v. Astrue
Opinion
Lead Opinion
MEMORANDUM. ****
Susana Perez (“Perez”) applied for disability insurance benefits and Supplemental Security Income benefits under Titles II and XVI of the Social Security Act. Perez’s application was denied at all levels of the administrative process and by the district court. 1 This Court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 to review the decision below.
The administrative law judge (“ALJ”) determined that Perez’s mental impairment was not severe (“mild difficulties in social functioning”). This finding was supported by substantial evidence in the record. In evaluating the alleged mental impairment, the ALJ relied more heavily upon the opinions of examining psychiatrist, Dr. Paculdo, and of non-examining psychiatrist, Dr. Pasricha, than on those of treating family practice physician, Dr. Perez, and of consulting orthopedist, Dr. Grogan. The ALJ set forth specific, legitimate reasons for doing so. See Thomas v. Barnhart, 278 F.3d 947, 957 (9th Cir.2002).
As to Perez’s claimed physical impairments, the ALJ determined that Perez could perform her past relevant work and is, therefore, not disabled. A claimant is not disabled under the Social Security Act if she can perform her…
Dissenting Opinion
Berzon, J.
dissenting:
I respectfully dissent.
The ALJ’s credibility determination was, in my view, improper. That determination was critical in this case, as Perez’s subjective report of incapacitating pain and depression is at the heart of her disability claim. Specifically, the ALJ largely discounted Perez’s testimony because she had not aggressively sought treatment, but the reason she had not done so was her inability to afford treatment. Denying benefits because Perez was too poor to secure treatment for her pain is improper.
*935 A.
The ALJ provided eight justifications, three of which are directly related to Perez’s treatment decisions, for discrediting Perez’s subjective reports of pain. On the surface, the reasons concerning medical treatment appear to be inconsistencies. “Ordinary techniques of credibility evaluation,” including identification of inconsistencies, may be applied at disability hearings. Fair v. Bowen, 885 F.2d 597 , 604 n. 5 (9th Cir.1989). Patients complaining of pain who do not have an adequate explanation for not seeking treatment may be found not credible. Id. at 604 ; see Burch v. Barnhart, 400 F.3d 676, 681 (9th Cir.2005).