Berry v. Commissioner Social Security Administration
2:18-cv-00956
D. Or.Jun 11, 2019Background
- Plaintiff Valerie Joan B. applied for Disability Insurance Benefits alleging onset June 1, 2014; insured through December 31, 2016; ALJ denied benefits and Appeals Council declined review.
- ALJ found severe impairments: lumbar degenerative disc disease, fibromyalgia, obesity, depression, and anxiety; nonsevere: hypertension; intracranial aneurysm not medically determinable for the period.
- ALJ assessed an RFC for light work with limits: lift/carry 20/10 lbs; stand/walk 2 hours/8-hour day; sit 6 hours/8-hour day; occasional stoop/kneel/crouch/crawl/ramps-stairs; simple instructions; no more than occasional interaction with others.
- ALJ found claimant could not perform past relevant work but could perform other jobs per VE testimony, so not disabled.
- Plaintiff challenged (1) partial rejection of her symptom testimony, (2) partial rejection of treating rheumatologist Dr. Bright’s opinion, and (3) an inadequate hypothetical to the vocational expert (VE) for failing to account for moderate limitations in concentration, persistence, and pace.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Credibility of claimant's symptom testimony | Testimony that pain, falls, and mental symptoms were disabling and caused frequent work absences | ALJ relied on medical records showing normal strength, negative nerve studies, mild imaging, and activities inconsistent with total limitation | ALJ gave permissible reasons; partial rejection was proper (supported by substantial evidence) |
| Weight given to treating rheumatologist Dr. Bright | Dr. Bright opined claimant would miss 16+ hours/month from work; that opinion should be credited | ALJ discounted that portion as brief, conclusory, inconsistent with other records, based on limited treatment contacts | ALJ permissibly rejected the specific 16+ hours/month limitation for specific, legitimate reasons |
| Hypothetical to the vocational expert re: mental limitations | ALJ limited to simple instructions but failed to include moderate limitations in concentration, persistence, or pace | Defendant urged that limiting to simple work captures those deficits or relied on other authority | Court found error: hypothetical omitted concentration/persistence/pace limits the ALJ had found; VE testimony therefore incomplete |
| Remedy | Plaintiff sought benefits or remand for benefits | Defendant sought affirmance or remand for further proceedings | Court remanded for further proceedings for the ALJ to pose a proper hypothetical to the VE; did not award benefits outright |
Key Cases Cited
- Sims v. Apfel, 530 U.S. 103 (U.S. 2000) (Appeals Council denial makes ALJ decision final)
- Molina v. Astrue, 674 F.3d 1104 (9th Cir. 2012) (standard for substantial evidence review)
- Cotton v. Bowen, 799 F.2d 1403 (9th Cir. 1986) (two-step test for symptom testimony)
- Smolen v. Chater, 80 F.3d 1273 (9th Cir. 1996) (claimant need not produce objective evidence of symptom severity)
- Thomas v. Barnhart, 278 F.3d 947 (9th Cir. 2002) (standards for weighing treating physician opinions)
- Lester v. Chater, 81 F.3d 821 (9th Cir. 1996) (ALJ must give specific reasons for rejecting physicians' opinions)
- Brink v. Comm’r Soc. Sec. Admin., [citation="343 F. App'x 211"] (9th Cir. 2009) (hypothetical must include moderate limitations in concentration, persistence, or pace)
- Stubbs-Danielson v. Astrue, 539 F.3d 1169 (9th Cir. 2008) (when medical testimony does not establish pace limitations, limiting to simple tasks can suffice)
- Harman v. Apfel, 211 F.3d 1172 (9th Cir. 2000) (test for when to credit improperly rejected evidence and award benefits)