Debbra Hill v. Michael Astrue
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 22245
| 9th Cir. | 2012Background
- Hill filed for disability insurance benefits and SSI alleging disability since April 4, 2004 due to multiple impairments including diabetes, mental health disorders, pain, and panic episodes.
- The SSA denied benefits initially and on reconsideration; an ALJ held a hearing on September 24, 2008 and denied benefits in a 2009 decision.
- Hill's alleged impairments were determined via a five-step sequential analysis; the ALJ found at step four a residual functional capacity (RFC) for light work with numerous physical and mental limitations.
- The ALJ’s RFC assessment relied on certain medical opinions while omitting others, notably Dr. Lynn Johnson's evaluation suggesting a low likelihood of sustained full-time employment.
- The Appeals Council denied review; Hill challenged the district court’s grant of summary judgment for the Commissioner, and the Ninth Circuit found reversible errors requiring remand.
- The panel ultimately reversed and remanded, remanding for reconsideration of Hill’s application for benefits.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the ALJ properly evaluate Dr. Johnson’s opinion? | Hill’s combination of mental/medical problems undermines sustained employment. | The opinion concerns disability status, which is reserved and not binding. | No; Johnson’s opinion required consideration and was not harmless error. |
| Did the ALJ adequately account for Hill’s panic disorder and associated limitations in the RFC? | ALJ failed to include panic disorder and its impact. | ALJ referenced panic effects via other sources and did not err. | No; panic disorder was improperly excluded from the impairment list, rendering the RFC incomplete. |
| Was the hypotetical to the vocational expert complete and accurate? | Incomplete RFC produced an incomplete hypothetical. | VE testimony supported by an adequate hypothetical. | No; incomplete hypothetical invalidated VE testimony’s usefulness. |
| Should remand be required given errors in the RFC and VE testimony? | Remand is appropriate to resolve all impairments. | Remand for further proceedings may be unnecessary if benefits can be awarded. | Remand is appropriate to allow proper consideration of evidence. |
Key Cases Cited
- Regennitter v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 166 F.3d 1294 (9th Cir. 1999) (need for clear and convincing reasons to reject examining physicians)
- Matthews v. Shalala, 10 F.3d 678 (9th Cir. 1993) (rejecting medical opinions requires substantial basis and clear rationale)
- Tackett v. Apfel, 180 F.3d 1094 (9th Cir. 1999) (five-step evaluation framework for disability claims)
- Berry v. Astrue, 622 F.3d 1228 (9th Cir. 2010) (standard of review and substantial evidence requires review of whole record)
- Vasquez v. Astrue, 572 F.3d 586 (9th Cir. 2009) (remand when record unresolved by ALJ)
- Swenson v. Sullivan, 876 F.2d 683 (9th Cir. 1989) (remand appropriate when benefits are not clearly warranted)
- Gallant v. Heckler, 753 F.2d 1450 (9th Cir. 1984) (VE testimony must reflect all impairments to be evidentiary)