Deborah Rodriguez v. Nancy Berryhill
709 F. App'x 859
| 9th Cir. | 2017Background
- Deborah Rodriguez appealed denial of Social Security disability benefits; district court had affirmed the Commissioner and this Court reviews de novo.
- ALJ found Rodriguez not disabled and assessed a residual functional capacity (RFC) for light work with inability to climb ladders/ropes/scaffolds.
- Rodriguez is obese; ALJ credited Dr. Shahid Ali’s exam-based opinion diagnosing obesity and providing the RFC.
- ALJ gave less weight to treating-source opinions as conclusory, inconsistent with the record and Rodriguez’s statements, and based heavily on subjective reports.
- ALJ found Rodriguez’s and her daughter’s testimony not fully credible, citing daily activities, conservative treatment, response to medication, and inconsistencies with medical evidence.
- The Ninth Circuit affirmed, holding the ALJ’s findings were supported by substantial evidence and legally proper.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether obesity alone entitles Rodriguez to benefits | Obesity and its effects justify disability | Obesity alone is not a listed impairment and plaintiff did not show meeting a listing | ALJ correctly rejected obesity-as-listing; no showing of combined-listing satisfaction |
| Whether ALJ properly considered obesity in RFC | ALJ failed to account for obesity’s impact | ALJ relied on Dr. Ali’s exam-based opinion that diagnosed obesity and informed the RFC | ALJ properly considered obesity by giving great weight to Dr. Ali |
| Whether ALJ conducted a function-by-function RFC assessment | RFC was not assessed function-by-function | RFC defined as light work (which incorporates function-by-function parameters) and specific limits were identified | ALJ satisfied function-by-function requirement |
| Whether ALJ properly weighed medical and lay evidence | Treating-source and lay opinions should have controlling weight | Treating opinions were conclusory/inconsistent; lay testimony mirrored claimant’s noncredible statements | ALJ gave specific, legitimate reasons to discount treating opinions and clear, convincing reasons to reject claimant and lay testimony |
Key Cases Cited
- Smolen v. Chater, 80 F.3d 1273 (9th Cir. 1996) (defines "substantial evidence" standard in Social Security review)
- Greger v. Barnhart, 464 F.3d 968 (9th Cir. 2006) (issues not raised below are waived on appeal)
- Buckner-Larkin v. Astrue, [citation="450 F. App'x 626"] (9th Cir. 2011) (defining work categories incorporates function-by-function parameters)
- Connett v. Barnhart, 340 F.3d 871 (9th Cir. 2003) (ALJ may reject treating physician where specific, legitimate reasons supported by substantial evidence exist)
- Molina v. Astrue, 674 F.3d 1104 (9th Cir. 2012) (harmless error and credibility evaluation standards in Social Security cases)