Davis v. Commissioner Social Security
3:10-cv-00742
D. Or.Dec 7, 2011Background
- This is a Social Security disability review of Diana M. Davis’s denial of DIB and SSI based on bone disease, depression, and alcoholism.
- Davis filed SSI on Sept. 30, 2004 and DIB on Oct. 6, 2004, with an alleged onset date of Sept. 30, 2001; ALJ hearing held Apr. 14, 2008; final decision issued Jun. 25, 2008; Appeals Council denied review; district court granted remand.
- Davis was born in 1963, was 45 at the ALJ decision, and her last insured date was June 30, 2005; past relevant work included prep cook.
- Medical impairments include dyschondrosteosis/Madelung deformity, pain disorder with psychological factors, depressive disorder, and alcohol dependence in remission.
- The ALJ found some severe impairments but limited Davis to unskilled sedentary work; relied on VE testimony at step five; Davis challenged the analysis at step three, credibility, and VE/DOT conflict; the court reverses and remands at step five.
- Davis treated with naturopaths Jessica and Jason Black; orthopedic and cervical spine imaging from 2005–2008 showed various abnormalities but no definitive nerve impingement; Davis testified to significant pain and functional limits.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Step three analysis and need for medical expert opinion | Davis argues the ALJ should have evaluated Listing 11.00C or 11.04B. | Defendant contends no medical expert is required for step three and listing analysis was properly conducted. | No error; ALJ not required to call a medical expert for step-three determination. |
| Credibility of Davis’s pain and symptom complaints | Davis contends the ALJ erred in discounting her credibility. | ALJ properly rejected credibility based on lack of corroborating clinical evidence and inconsistent behavior. | Credibility findings were clear and convincing and supported by medical record and conduct. |
| Weight given to naturopathic evidence | ALJ erred in treating Ms. Black’s opinions as medical opinions. | Ms. Black is not an acceptable medical source; her statements treated as lay testimony. | ALJ correctly classified Black as non-acceptable medical source and evaluated her testimony as lay witness. |
| Step five and VE testimony vs. DOT | VE testimony conflicted with DOT and the RFC; ALJ failed to resolve the conflict. | VE testimony was permissible deviation from DOT with explanations. | ALJ erred by not resolving conflicts between VE testimony and DOT; remand at step five. |
Key Cases Cited
- Lewis v. Apfel, 236 F.3d 503 (9th Cir. 2001) (equivalence analysis requires medical evidence; ALJ need not elaborate on step-three determination)
- Tommasetti v. Astrue, 533 F.3d 1035 (9th Cir. 2008) (VE testimony must be persuasive and not conflict with DOT without adequate justification)
- Massachi v. Astrue, 486 F.3d 1149 (9th Cir. 2007) (ALJ must resolve conflicts between VE and DOT; SSR 00-4p compliance)
- Burch v. Barnhart, 400 F.3d 676 (9th Cir. 2005) (clear and convincing standard for credibility; noncompliance with treatment is a factor)
- Holohan v. Massinari, 246 F.3d 1195 (9th Cir. 2001) (unexplained inconsistencies between testimony and medical evidence undermine credibility)