Beasley v. Astrue
3:10-cv-05486
W.D. Wash.Mar 24, 2011Background
- Beasley seeks review of the ALJ's denial of SSI and DIB benefits.
- The ALJ identified severe impairments as right ankle distal tibiofibular syndesmotic diastasis, cervical syrinx C6-C7, cervical degenerative disease C5-6, and left knee osteoarthritis.
- The RFC limits Beasley to sedentary work with specific lifting, standing, walking, and postural restrictions.
- The ALJ found he cannot perform past work and that jobs exist he can perform, so not disabled.
- The Court recommends reversal and remand for further development of the medical record and reevaluation of credibility, RFC, and steps four/five, with possible vocational expert input.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Severe impairments and functional limitations | Beasley argues ALJ failed to identify all severe impairments and consider all functional limitations. | ALJ adequately identified severe impairments and considered limitations. | Waived/No reversible error on this issue. |
| Evaluation of medical evidence (Sebby/Lindahl) | ALJ failed to discuss Sebby’s orthopedic-dilemma/prognosis and Lindahl’s February 2007 letter. | ALJ sufficiently explained why opinions were not controlling or were addressed. | No reversible error; harmless or adequately explained. |
| Evaluation of MRI reports | ALJ misrepresented or failed to discuss August 2006 MRI findings showing significant pathology. | Record–supported findings; ALJ did not misstate evidence. | Not grounds for reversal. |
| Beasley's credibility and pain testimony | ALJ did not adequately credit pain evidence or consider its impact on work capacity. | ALJ provided reasons supported by evidence for credibility assessment. | Remand to reassess pain impact and complete medical-development. |
| Lay testimony | Court should give more weight to lay witnesses showing limitation. | ALJ appropriately weighed lay testimony within the record. | No reversible error; remand to reassess in light of updated record. |
Key Cases Cited
- Smolen v. Chater, 80 F.3d 1273 (9th Cir. 1996) (requires specific, clear findings when rejecting pain testimony)
- Vincent v. Heckler, 739 F.2d 1393 (9th Cir. 1984) (requires explanation of rejected medical evidence)
- Stout v. Comm'r, Soc. Sec. Admin., 454 F.3d 1050 (9th Cir. 2006) (harmless error if nonprejudicial to claimant)
- Fair v. Bowen, 885 F.2d 597 (9th Cir. 1989) (unexplained failure to seek treatment can affect credibility)
- Orn v. Astrue, 495 F.3d 625 (9th Cir. 2007) (daily activities alone cannot establish disability; consider overall record)
- Tonapetyan v. Halter, 242 F.3d 1144 (9th Cir. 2001) (ALJ not required to allow further explanation at hearing to assess credibility)
- Cooper v. Bowen, 815 F.2d 557 (9th Cir. 1987) (rejecting argument that claimant is disabled solely due to attempts to live normally)
- Andrews v. Shalala, 53 F.3d 1035 (9th Cir. 1995) (discretion in credibility determinations; court defers to ALJ unless error)
- Thomas v. Barnhart, 278 F.3d 947 (9th Cir. 2002) (reviewing court upholds ALJ where evidence supports multiple rational interpretations)
- Vandenboom v. Barnhart, 421 F.3d 745 (8th Cir. 2005) (agency need not discuss every piece of medical evidence)