Andres Noriega v. Commissioner of Social Security
5:19-cv-02116
C.D. Cal.Feb 18, 2021Background:
- Plaintiff filed for DIB on December 2, 2015, alleging onset November 5, 2009; insured through December 31, 2014.
- ALJ hearing held August 9, 2018; ALJ denied benefits on October 9, 2018; Appeals Council denied review on September 9, 2019.
- ALJ found severe impairments: right-knee degenerative joint disease, lumbar degenerative disc disease, and obesity.
- ALJ assessed RFC for light work with a cane: lift 50/25 lbs (occasionally/frequently), stand/walk/sit 6 hours/8-hour day, limited climbing/stooping/kneeling/crawling; unable to perform past work.
- Vocational expert identified representative light jobs (bench assembler; school bus monitor); ALJ relied on these to find work exists in significant numbers.
- District court affirmed, finding ALJ errors (e.g., inconsistent lifting limits, not discussing some treating opinions) harmless.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Weight given to treating physician (Dr. Shen) | ALJ improperly discounted/failed to discuss Dr. Shen’s opinions (avoid lifting/bending; light duties) | ALJ’s RFC effectively adopted light-duty limitations; any omission harmless | Harmless error: ALJ limited claimant to light work matching Dr. Shen’s restrictions, so nondisability conclusion stands |
| Need for medical expert to determine onset/date-last-insured | ALJ should have called medical expert to assess functional limitations before 12/31/2014 | ALJ may determine onset without a medical advisor when record is sufficiently complete or nature of impairment permits inference | No error: record included a relatively complete medical chronology; even if omission was error, it was harmless given VE jobs identified |
| RFC internal inconsistency and other medical opinions (Dr. Namazian) | ALJ erred by listing 50/25 lb limits while concluding light work; improperly discounted Dr. Namazian’s brief no-work opinion | Any RFC drafting errors or discounting of short-term opinions do not meet duration or change outcome | Error acknowledged re: lifting numbers, but harmless; Dr. Namazian’s short no-work period failed 12-month durational requirement |
| Credibility / consideration of strong work history | ALJ discounted subjective pain without expressly weighing claimant’s strong work history | ALJ considered activities, treatment records, and work activity at hearing; not required to single out work history | No reversible error: ALJ gave specific, clear, convincing reasons to discount symptoms and was not required to elevate or separately discuss work history |
Key Cases Cited
- Moncada v. Chater, 60 F.3d 521 (9th Cir. 1995) (standard of review: substantial evidence)
- Drouin v. Sullivan, 966 F.2d 1255 (9th Cir. 1992) (consider whole record when assessing substantial evidence)
- Barnhart v. Thomas, 540 U.S. 20 (U.S. 2003) (definition of disability under Social Security Act)
- Orn v. Astrue, 495 F.3d 625 (9th Cir. 2007) (treating physician rule; requirements for rejecting treating opinion)
- Stout v. Comm’r, 454 F.3d 1050 (9th Cir. 2006) (harmless error standard in Social Security cases)
- Marsh v. Colvin, 792 F.3d 1170 (9th Cir. 2015) (failure to discuss treating opinion may be harmless)
- Wellington v. Berryhill, 878 F.3d 867 (9th Cir. 2017) (when ALJ must call medical advisor to determine onset date)
- Treichler v. Comm’r, 775 F.3d 1090 (9th Cir. 2014) (RFC is most claimant can do despite limitations)
- Vasquez v. Astrue, 572 F.3d 586 (9th Cir. 2009) (two-step test for evaluating claimant’s symptom testimony)