Cunningham v. Colvin
2:13-cv-02025
D. Nev.Jul 2, 2015Background
- Plaintiff David Cunningham applied for Title II disability benefits alleging disability from May 28, 2010; ALJ denied benefits and Appeals Council denied review; magistrate recommends affirming denial and denying remand.
- Medical record: severe nonischemic dilated cardiomyopathy with ICD implanted June 2010, initial EF ≈10–15% with later improvement to ~35% (2011) and variable studies thereafter; obesity, diabetes, back complaints, and probable diabetic polyneuropathy/carpal tunnel.
- Functionally, Cunningham testified he had significant exertional and manipulatory limits (shortness of breath, chest pain, numb/tingling hands/feet, limited walking/standing), but cared for three young children, shopped, and performed some household tasks.
- Consultative and state-agency examiners offered mixed RFC opinions (ranging from sedentary to light); treating physicians opined total disability but their opinions were discounted by the ALJ.
- ALJ found severe impairments: cardiomyopathy, post-ICD, back disorder, obesity; limited claimant to sedentary work with sit/stand option and environmental restrictions; relied on VE testimony to find available jobs at step five.
- Plaintiff moved to remand arguing the ALJ erred at step three (listing equivalence) and failed to develop the record (and in reply argued improper rejection of treating opinions); magistrate addressed only the step-three and record-development arguments and recommended denial of remand.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether ALJ erred at step three by failing to find Plaintiff met or equaled a cardiovascular listing (e.g., 4.02, 4.04, 4.11) | Cunningham contends his cardiac history (very low EF in 2010, dilated LV, symptoms) plus obesity/diabetes meet or equal Listings 4.02/4.04/4.11 | Commissioner argues the record does not show listing-level findings for the required continuous/duration criteria, exercise-test inability, or required imaging/episodes; medical evidence shows improvement and is not conclusive of equivalence | Held: ALJ did not err; substantial evidence supports conclusion that Plaintiff did not meet or medically equal the cited listings |
| Whether ALJ failed to adequately develop the record by not obtaining treating cardiologists’ specific opinions on listing criteria | Cunningham asserts ALJ should have recontacted treating cardiologists to secure opinions on whether listing criteria were met | Commissioner contends ALJ’s duty to develop arises only if record is ambiguous or inadequate; existing records were sufficient and unambiguous | Held: ALJ did not fail to develop the record; no showing of missing, ambiguous evidence that triggered duty to recontact |
| Whether ALJ improperly rejected treating physicians’ disability opinions (raised in reply) | Cunningham later argued the ALJ unlawfully rejected treating opinions finding total disability | Commissioner points to waiver—argument raised first in reply—and contends ALJ permissibly discounted treating opinions as non-specific and inconsistent with objective record | Held: Argument waived because raised first in reply; magistrate did not reach merits; ALJ had valid reasons for assigning little weight to treating opinions |
| Whether remand for benefits or further proceedings is warranted | Cunningham argued (invoking Garrison) for benefits or remand due to alleged errors | Commissioner sought affirmance and remand denial | Held: Recommendation to deny remand and grant Commissioner’s cross-motion to affirm; no basis to order payment of benefits or further remand |
Key Cases Cited
- Smolen v. Chater, 80 F.3d 1273 (9th Cir. 1996) (standard for reviewing claimant testimony and ALJ credibility findings)
- Tonapetyan v. Halter, 242 F.3d 1144 (9th Cir. 2001) (ALJ duty to develop the record triggered only by ambiguous/inadequate evidence)
- McLeod v. Astrue, 640 F.3d 881 (9th Cir. 2011) (no duty to recontact treating physician when records are comprehensive and unambiguous)
- Garrison v. Colvin, 759 F.3d 995 (9th Cir. 2014) (standards for when a court may credit evidence and remand for an award of benefits)
- Sullivan v. Zebley, 493 U.S. 521 (1990) (to meet a listing, claimant must satisfy all specified medical criteria)
- Kennedy v. Colvin, 738 F.3d 1172 (9th Cir. 2013) (medical equivalence requires findings equal in severity to all criteria of the most similar listing)