Coleen Colunga v. Kilolo Kijakazi
19-15288
| 9th Cir. | Dec 17, 2021Background
- Colunga applied for disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income; ALJ denied benefits and the district court affirmed; Colunga appealed to the Ninth Circuit.
- Ninth Circuit reviews denial de novo and may set aside the ALJ’s decision only for legal error or lack of substantial evidence.
- Primary contested factual findings: ALJ’s RFC determination and credibility findings about Colunga’s COPD-related symptoms (breathing shortness, coughing, fatigue/napping, sensitivity to volcanic off-gassing/vog).
- Colunga argued the ALJ ignored or inadequately explained rejection of her testimony and failed to account for her daughter’s lay-witness statements.
- At step five, the ALJ posed a hypothetical to a vocational expert (VE) that omitted the RFC phrase “occasional interaction with supervisors” (it included only public and coworkers); VE identified three jobs.
- Majority affirmed the denial, finding the ALJ adequately explained credibility and need not individually recount the daughter’s statements; any VE questioning omission was harmless. Judge Collins concurred in parts 1–2 but dissented as to part 3, arguing the VE error was not harmless and remand was required.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether ALJ sufficiently explained rejection of Colunga’s symptom testimony (breathing, sleep, vog) | ALJ ignored key testimony about shortness of breath, coughing, fatigue/naps, and sensitivity to vog, so RFC unsupported | ALJ specifically addressed breathing problems, sleep disorder and exposure-to-irritants issue and identified evidentiary reasons undermining testimony | Affirmed: ALJ’s explanation was sufficiently specific and supported by record; not arbitrary rejection (Bunnell/Treichler standards) |
| Whether ALJ erred by not expressly addressing daughter’s lay-witness statements | ALJ’s failure to discuss daughter’s statements requires remand because they corroborate claimant’s testimony | If claimant’s testimony was properly discounted, similar lay testimony need not be discussed individually; ALJ gave germane reasons | Affirmed: ALJ not required to discuss every lay witness individually; daughter’s statements merely echoed claimant and were thus effectively rejected on the same grounds (Molina/Valentine) |
| Whether VE hypothetical omitted RFC limitation (interaction with supervisors) and whether that error was harmful | Omission of “supervisors” made VE testimony unreliable; error not harmless — VE should have addressed supervisors separately | Error was harmless because the three jobs identified require at most minimal supervisor interaction per DOT descriptions | Majority affirmed (harmless): DOT entries show the jobs do not require significant supervisor interaction, so omission was inconsequential; Collins dissented and would remand because VE should have addressed it directly |
Key Cases Cited
- Benton ex rel. Benton v. Barnhart, 331 F.3d 1030 (9th Cir. 2003) (standard for appellate review of ALJ disability denials)
- Bunnell v. Sullivan, 947 F.2d 341 (9th Cir. 1991) (ALJ must give sufficiently specific reasons when rejecting claimant’s symptom testimony)
- Treichler v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 775 F.3d 1090 (9th Cir. 2014) (ALJ must explain what evidence undermines testimony; harmless-error framework)
- Holohan v. Massanari, 246 F.3d 1195 (9th Cir. 2001) (ALJ should tie credibility findings to specific evidence)
- Molina v. Astrue, 674 F.3d 1104 (9th Cir. 2012) (ALJ not required to discuss every witness individually)
- Valentine v. Comm’r Soc. Sec. Admin., 574 F.3d 685 (9th Cir. 2009) (when lay testimony echoes claimant, rejecting claimant can supply germane reasons for rejecting lay testimony)
- Hill v. Astrue, 698 F.3d 1153 (9th Cir. 2012) (VE hypotheticals must reflect all limitations supported by the record)
- Matthews v. Shalala, 10 F.3d 678 (9th Cir. 1993) (if VE hypothetical omits limitations, VE testimony lacks evidentiary value)
- Zavalin v. Colvin, 778 F.3d 842 (9th Cir. 2015) (permissible to consult DOT job descriptions when assessing whether VE error was harmless)
- Brown-Hunter v. Colvin, 806 F.3d 487 (9th Cir. 2015) (reviewing courts may not make independent factual findings to cure ALJ error)