Browning v. Colvin
228 F. Supp. 3d 932
N.D. Cal.2017Background
- Richard Browning (born ~1961) applied for disability insurance benefits; prior ALJ granted a closed period of disability (9/5/2010–10/1/2011); Browning filed a new Title II claim with amended onset date 6/9/2012.
- Medical record shows long-standing lumbar degenerative disc disease with progressive MRIs (2012–2013), obesity (BMI ≈33–36 during relevant period), and a right-knee medial meniscus tear (2013 MRI).
- Treating physician Dr. Saxena completed a Physical RFC questionnaire indicating severe functional limits (very limited standing, frequent position changes, 20-minute unscheduled breaks daily).
- Two non‑examining State reviewers (Drs. Saphir and Mitchell) gave light‑work RFCs with differing views on obesity; SSA medical expert Dr. Clark testified that claimant could perform the full range of light work though later acknowledged standing/walking limitations from knee/gout concerns.
- ALJ Sleater found degenerative disc disease and right‑knee meniscus tear severe, but concluded Browning could perform the full range of light work, gave great weight to Dr. Clark, little weight to Dr. Saxena, and found Browning could return to past work (janitor, forklift operator, sales clerk); Appeals Council denied review.
- Browning appealed, arguing (1) failure to evaluate obesity, (2) failure to consider medication side effects, and (3) inadequate step‑four findings about the physical/mental demands of past work; the district court reversed and remanded for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Browning's Argument | Commissioner’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether ALJ considered obesity | ALJ failed to treat obesity as a medically determinable impairment and to assess its combined effect with other impairments | ALJ considered obesity implicitly in RFC and any omission was harmless because RFC accounted for weight-related limits | Court: ALJ erred by not addressing obesity or Dr. Saphir’s opinion; remand required to evaluate obesity’s interactive effects |
| Whether ALJ considered medication side effects | Cyclobenzaprine causes grogginess that could impair work (e.g., forklift operation) | Testimony showed medication mainly helped sleep and claimant denied other side effects; no objective evidence of disabling side effects | Court: No error — claimant failed to show medication side effects substantially limited work capacity |
| Whether ALJ made required findings about past work demands (forklift) | ALJ failed to make factual findings about physical/mental demands and relied on VE without basis; work history report is incomplete | ALJ properly relied on VE and claimant’s work history report indicating light-level performance | Court: ALJ failed to make required SSR 82-62 findings; VE testimony and work report do not supply substantial evidence; remand required |
| Whether ALJ properly found claimant could do janitor and sales clerk jobs | ALJ improperly adopted prior ALJ’s findings without current evidentiary basis; record does not show these jobs were performed at light exertion | Commissioner relied on prior decision, earnings records, and DOT codes | Court: ALJ’s reliance on prior decision and record was unsupported; insufficient evidence to conclude claimant could perform these past jobs; remand required |
Key Cases Cited
- Batson v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 359 F.3d 1190 (9th Cir. 2004) (substantial‑evidence standard for factual findings)
- Tackett v. Apfel, 180 F.3d 1094 (9th Cir. 1999) (standards for review and five‑step analysis)
- Molina v. Astrue, 674 F.3d 1104 (9th Cir. 2012) (substantial evidence defined and review requires considering record as a whole)
- Harman v. Apfel, 211 F.3d 1172 (9th Cir. 2000) (district court discretion to remand for further proceedings vs. award benefits)
- Burch v. Barnhart, 400 F.3d 676 (9th Cir. 2005) (ALJ must explain how obesity affects RFC)
- Celaya v. Halter, 332 F.3d 1177 (9th Cir. 2003) (ALJ must develop record when impairments are implicated)
- Bray v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 554 F.3d 1219 (9th Cir. 2009) (ALJ is responsible for explicit factual findings; cannot delegate required findings to VE)
- Pinto v. Massanari, 249 F.3d 840 (9th Cir. 2001) (step‑four burden and sources for defining past work)