Bass v. Berryhill
3:18-cv-04365
N.D. Cal.Sep 30, 2019Background
- Plaintiff Latrice Bass applied for SSDI and SSI in April 2014, alleging disability (amended onset November 9, 2010); ALJ denied benefits in June 2017; district court granted plaintiff’s summary judgment and remanded.
- Medical record shows long‑standing obesity, diabetes (with neuropathy), hypertension, carpal tunnel, chronic pain/fatigue, and mental disorders (depressive disorder, PTSD); treatment was largely with a community clinic and was described as sporadic/conservative.
- Consultative examiners: Dr. Van Gaasbeek (psychologist) found moderate–to–substantial limitations in work attendance, stress tolerance, and social interaction; Dr. Dixit (psychologist) and Dr. Rana (internal medicine) gave less restrictive assessments; Dr. Ede Thomsen (psychologist) found marked to extreme limitations.
- ALJ excluded diabetes and hypertension as ‘‘non‑severe,’’ found severe impairments of obesity, carpal tunnel, depressive disorder, and PTSD, and assessed an RFC for medium work with limits (simple tasks, occasional public contact, occasional bilateral fingering).
- ALJ gave significant weight to some consultative opinions but discounted Dr. Van Gaasbeek’s GAF and gave little weight to Dr. Thomsen, relying in part on Bass’s reported daily activities.
- Court held the ALJ erred in evaluating the Van Gaasbeek and Thomsen opinions (and mischaracterized Bass’s daily‑activity evidence), and remanded for further proceedings to reassess those opinions and related RFC/vocational findings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Step Two: whether diabetes is a "severe" impairment | Bass: ALJ erred by excluding diabetes, ignoring combined effects (fatigue, neuropathy, pain) | Commissioner: omission harmless because RFC considered all impairments and their limitations | Harmless error: court found ALJ considered diabetes‑related symptoms in the RFC analysis, so Step Two omission was immaterial |
| Consideration of obesity | Bass: ALJ failed to consider obesity’s functional effects and its interaction with other impairments | Commissioner: ALJ considered obesity and related complaints; no evidence of additional functional limits the ALJ missed | No reversible error: court held ALJ considered obesity and plaintiff pointed to no medical evidence of unconsidered functional limits |
| Weight given to Dr. Van Gaasbeek (psych consultative) | Bass: ALJ purported to give great weight but failed to account for Van Gaasbeek’s moderate–to–substantial limits (attendance, stress, interruptions) in the RFC | Commissioner: RFC (simple, routine work; occasional public contact) accommodated those limitations; precedent allows unskilled work despite moderate limits | Error: court concluded ALJ did not adequately account for Van Gaasbeek’s moderate–to–substantial limitations and failed to reconcile them with the RFC, requiring remand |
| Weight given to Dr. Ede Thomsen (psych evaluator) | Bass: ALJ improperly discounted Thomsen’s testing‑supported opinion as based on self‑report and inconsistent with activities | Commissioner: ALJ permissibly discounted as reliant on subjective reports and inconsistent with record/daily activities | Error: court held ALJ erred in discounting Thomsen; psychiatric opinions rely on self‑report and Thomsen also used clinical testing and record review, so opinion warrants further consideration on remand |
| Credibility / RFC / use of vocational grids | Bass: ALJ gave insufficient reasons for rejecting subjective statements, used grids despite unaddressed moderate‑to‑severe mental limits | Commissioner: ALJ’s RFC and credibility findings supported by record; grids appropriate | Court did not reach full merits but noted these arguments had merit given the errors on opinion evidence; remand required for proper reassessment |
Key Cases Cited
- Buck v. Berryhill, 869 F.3d 1040 (9th Cir. 2017) (RFC must account for all impairments; psychiatric opinions frequently rely on self‑report)
- Hoopai v. Astrue, 499 F.3d 1071 (9th Cir. 2007) (unskilled work may be compatible with certain moderate mental‑functional limitations)
- Smolen v. Chater, 80 F.3d 1273 (9th Cir. 1996) (ALJ must consider combined effects of impairments)
- Celaya v. Halter, 332 F.3d 1177 (9th Cir. 2003) (ALJ must determine obesity’s effect on other impairments and functional capacity)
- Burch v. Barnhart, 400 F.3d 676 (9th Cir. 2005) (no reversible error where record lacks evidence of functional limitations due to obesity beyond clinical observations)
- Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389 (U.S. 1971) (substantial evidence standard)
- Robbins v. Social Security Admin., 466 F.3d 880 (9th Cir. 2006) (court must consider whole record and both supporting and adverse evidence)
- Morgan v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 169 F.3d 595 (9th Cir. 1999) (ALJ’s reasonable interpretations of evidence are upheld)