Arthur Gamez v. Carolyn W. Colvin
2:16-cv-07526
C.D. Cal.Oct 30, 2017Background
- Plaintiff Arthur Gamez filed for SSI and DIB alleging disability beginning December 16, 2011, from bilateral carpal tunnel, ulnar entrapment, shoulder and cervical issues, and obesity.
- ALJ held a hearing (March 6, 2016) and issued an unfavorable decision (May 4, 2015): severe impairments found but RFC accommodated frequent handling/fingering and light work; claimant could not do past work but could perform other jobs.
- ALJ gave partial weight to state agency consultants and rejected or limited weight to treating/examining opinions of Drs. Patricia Hong (treating), John Sedgh (consultative), and John Cook (workers’ comp examiner).
- ALJ discounted those medical opinions as unsupported or inconsistent with objective findings, treatment notes, timing (Dr. Cook predated alleged onset), or because recommendations were prophylactic and not reflective of current limitations.
- Appeals Council denied review; Magistrate Judge affirmed the Commissioner, finding ALJ’s reasons specific, legitimate, and supported by substantial evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether ALJ improperly rejected treating physician Dr. Hong’s restrictions | Hong’s opinions show severe manipulative limits, absenteeism, and stress intolerance warranting more restrictive RFC | ALJ: Hong’s opinions are unsupported by her notes, conflict with intact sensory/exam findings, and inconsistent with electrodiagnostic evidence | Court: Rejection upheld — specific, legitimate reasons supported by record evidence |
| Whether ALJ erred in discounting consultative Dr. Sedgh’s limitation on gross/fine manipulation | Sedgh’s opinion that manipulation should be only occasional should control RFC limits | ALJ: Sedgh’s exam findings were largely unremarkable and not supporting the restrictive manipulation finding; state consultants reasonably rejected it | Court: No error — ALJ reasonably relied on exam findings and state consultants’ assessments |
| Whether ALJ improperly rejected workers’ comp examiner Dr. Cook’s restrictions | Cook’s work restrictions for gripping, writing, repetitive use support greater RFC limits | ALJ: Cook’s opinion predated alleged onset, used "prophylactic" restrictions (preventive), and lacked subsequent treatment/support | Court: No error — limited relevance and properly weighed against other evidence |
| Whether the ALJ’s RFC and credibility findings were supported by substantial evidence | Plaintiff argues RFC underestimated limitations and ALJ improperly discounted symptom reports | Defendant: RFC based on record, state medical opinions, and inconsistencies in objective findings and treatment; ALJ permissibly weighed evidence | Court: RFC stands — substantial evidence supports ALJ’s findings and any errors were not prejudicial |
Key Cases Cited
- Molina v. Astrue, 674 F.3d 1104 (9th Cir. 2012) (definition and durational requirement for disability)
- Trevizo v. Berryhill, 871 F.3d 664 (9th Cir. 2017) (substantial-evidence review and standard for medical-opinion evaluation)
- Garrison v. Colvin, 759 F.3d 995 (9th Cir. 2014) (weighing evidence as whole in substantial-evidence review)
- Brown-Hunter v. Colvin, 806 F.3d 487 (9th Cir. 2015) (ALJ must state reasoning with sufficient specificity for meaningful review)
- Bayliss v. Barnhart, 427 F.3d 1211 (9th Cir. 2005) (ALJ need not accept brief/conclusory opinions unsupported by clinical findings)
- Ghanim v. Colvin, 763 F.3d 1154 (9th Cir. 2014) (ALJ may discount medical opinion based on claimant’s not-credible symptom reports and conflicts with records)
- Carmickle v. Commissioner, 533 F.3d 1155 (9th Cir. 2008) (medical opinions predating alleged onset are of limited relevance)
- Tonapetyan v. Halter, 242 F.3d 1144 (9th Cir. 2001) (nonexamining or nontreating opinions can constitute substantial evidence if consistent with the record)