Hegel v. Astrue
Docket: No. 07-35271
Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit; May 13, 2009; Federal Appellate Court
Les Hegel appeals the denial of his Supplemental Security Income benefits application, primarily challenging the administrative law judge's (ALJ) finding that he does not have a severe mental limitation affecting his work ability. The ALJ's decision was informed by the opinions of both examining and non-examining medical experts. Although a non-examining expert's opinion alone cannot justify the rejection of a treating physician's opinion, it can be substantial evidence when consistent with other independent evidence. Examining psychologist Dr. John Arnold noted some limitations in Hegel's work ability but also indicated Hegel exaggerated his psychological issues. Conversely, Dr. Joyce Everhart diagnosed Hegel with malingering and observed he functioned within normal limits, although she also stated he had moderate limitations in a check-the-box format. Non-examining expert Dr. J.M. Toews testified that Hegel’s conditions did not impose significant limitations compared to those suggested by Drs. Arnold and Everhart. The ALJ found substantial evidence supporting the exclusion of the examining physicians' opinions, based on inconsistencies in medical opinions, evidence of malingering, and invalid test results, as well as Hegel's lack of credibility. The ALJ determined that the limitations identified by the examining physicians lacked objective support. The court affirmed that an ALJ can discount treating physicians' opinions if they are conclusory and unsupported by the overall record. Hegel also contended that the ALJ erred in finding his personality disorder did not constitute a severe impairment, arguing that personality disorders are inherently severe. However, the court clarified that severity is determined by the functional impact of an impairment on basic work activities, rendering Hegel’s argument without merit. Additionally, Hegel raised an argument on appeal regarding the rejection of Dr. Ashley's opinion, which was not addressed because it was not presented in the district court and thus deemed unreviewable on appeal. The court affirms the ALJ's decision, stating it is not suitable for publication and does not establish precedent.