Altemus v. Astrue
3:10-cv-05451
W.D. Wash.Feb 23, 2011Background
- Plaintiff Joan Marie Altemus applied for Disability Insurance Benefits, alleging disability beginning January 26, 2002.
- She is insured for DIB through December 31, 2004; prior denials at initial and reconsideration levels preceded a hearing.
- An ALJ held a May 8, 2009 hearing and issued a June 2, 2009 decision finding no disability.
- Appeals Council granted review and, on February 26, 2010, found plaintiff not entitled to disability benefits.
- The Appeals Council ultimately found plaintiff not disabled after step five, using the Medical-Vocational Guidelines as framework.
- The court affirms the Commissioner’s decision, reviewing for substantial evidence and proper legal standards.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether depression was a severe impairment at step two | Altemus argues depression was severe and non-exertional limits apply. | Commissioner contends depression not medically determinable pre-insured period; minimal records. | No error; depression not severe before DLI; grids appropriately used. |
| Reliance on the Grids given alleged non-exertional impairment | Depression is significant non-exertional impairment avoiding grid reliance. | No significant non-exertional impairment; grids appropriate because impairment not severe. | Grids properly used; no reversible error. |
| Whether substantial evidence supports treating decision as credible | ALJ ignored symptoms and treatment history showing functional limitations. | Record shows limited treatment and symptoms; ALJ properly weighed evidence. | Substantial evidence supports ALJ’s findings. |
Key Cases Cited
- Penny v. Sullivan, 2 F.3d 953 (9th Cir. 1993) (court reviews for substantial evidence and legal compliance)
- Magallanes v. Bowen, 881 F.2d 747 (9th Cir. 1989) (substantial evidence standard defined)
- Smolen v. Chater, 80 F.3d 1273 (9th Cir. 1996) (step-two de minimis screening device)
- Tackett v. Apfel, 180 F.3d 1094 (9th Cir. 1999) (significant non-exertional impairments may affect grid use)
- Thomas v. Barnhart, 278 F.3d 947 (9th Cir. 2002) (more than one rational interpretation retained; upholding if reasonable)