Armando Barrera Aguilar v. Carolyn W. Colvin
2:16-cv-07565
C.D. Cal.Aug 1, 2017Background
- Plaintiff Armando Barrera Aguilar applied for DIB and SSI alleging disabling physical and mental impairments beginning October 30, 2008; insured through June 30, 2011.
- ALJ found severe impairments including lumbar and cervical degenerative changes and depressive/anxiety disorders, but concluded Plaintiff could perform a reduced range of unskilled work (RFC: lifting up to 50/25 lbs, standing/walking/sitting six hours, frequent climbing, limited to simple repetitive tasks, limited social contact).
- ALJ found Plaintiff unable to perform past work but capable of other work and denied benefits at Step Five.
- Treating psychologist Dr. Arturo Fierro opined (after weekly treatment beginning April 2014) that Plaintiff had severe major depression with psychotic features and chronic disabling psychiatric and physical impairments; consultative psychiatrist Dr. Rama Nadella assessed moderate limitations in work consistency and dealing with work stressors.
- ALJ gave little weight to Dr. Fierro and limited weight to Dr. Nadella, relying instead principally on state agency reviewers in formulating the RFC.
- The district court reversed and remanded, concluding the ALJ failed to give specific and legitimate reasons supported by substantial evidence for rejecting portions of the medical opinions and should further develop the record where ambiguous.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether ALJ gave legally sufficient reasons to reject treating psychologist Dr. Fierro | Fierro’s opinion should be credited or afforded controlling/greater weight; ALJ’s stated reasons are inadequate | ALJ permissibly discounted Fierro for inconsistent notes, lack of hospitalization/referral, daily activities, and absence of psychotropic prescriptions | Court: ALJ erred — reasons were not specific and legitimate; waxing/waning, lack of hospitalization or meds, and limited daily activities do not reliably contradict Fierro; remand to develop record and reassess weight |
| Whether ALJ permissibly relied on Plaintiff’s daily activities to discount severe mental limits | Daily activities (public transport, church, self-care) do not demonstrate ability to work or contradict extreme limitations | Activities show functionality inconsistent with extreme limits | Court: Activities do not show substantial transferable, work-like functioning; ALJ erred relying on them |
| Whether ALJ properly faulted Fierro for not hospitalizing or referring to a psychiatrist and for absence of psychotropic prescriptions | Fierro’s failure to hospitalize or prescribe does not undermine his opinion; as a psychologist he could not prescribe | Lack of hospitalization or psychotropic prescriptions undermines the severity inferred by Fierro | Court: Error — hospitalization and prescription evidence are not dispositive; psychologist cannot prescribe; ALJ should have developed record before rejecting opinion |
| Whether ALJ adequately considered/credited consultative examiner Dr. Nadella’s functional limitations in the RFC | ALJ omitted two of Nadella’s moderate limitations (work consistency, dealing with stress) without explanation; must explain rejection | ALJ assigned limited weight to Nadella and adopted consistent limitations; RFC is supported by whole record | Court: ALJ erred by failing to give specific, legitimate reasons for omitting portions of Nadella’s opinion; must reassess and explain on remand |
Key Cases Cited
- Reddick v. Chater, 157 F.3d 715 (9th Cir. 1998) (standard for substantial evidence review)
- Tackett v. Apfel, 180 F.3d 1094 (9th Cir. 1999) (five-step sequential evaluation description)
- Lester v. Chater, 81 F.3d 821 (9th Cir. 1995) (treating/examining source weight rules; clear-and-convincing and specific-and-legitimate standards)
- Smolen v. Chater, 80 F.3d 1273 (9th Cir. 1996) (ALJ duty to develop record; evaluating medical opinion evidence)
- Magallanes v. Bowen, 881 F.2d 747 (9th Cir. 1989) (ALJ may meet burden by detailed summary of facts and conflicting evidence)
- Tonapetyan v. Halter, 242 F.3d 1144 (9th Cir. 2001) (ALJ duty to develop record when evidence is ambiguous)
- Gallant v. Heckler, 753 F.2d 1450 (9th Cir. 1984) (limited daily activities do not necessarily preclude disability finding)
- Cooper v. Sullivan, 880 F.2d 1152 (9th Cir. 1989) (RFC must reflect impairments and related symptoms)