Dudics v. Astrue
3:10-cv-05501
| W.D. Wash. | Feb 16, 2011Background
- Plaintiff Brenda Dudics applied for SSI and DIB alleging disability beginning March 15, 2004 (amended to June 1, 2005).
- Applications denied initially and on reconsideration; ALJ held hearing April 12, 2009 and issued June 26, 2009 finding not disabled.
- Appeals Council denied review; thus the ALJ’s decision became the Commissioner's final decision.
- ALJ found severe impairments: neck/back pain, left shoulder pain, dysthymia, major depressive disorder, and PTSD; headaches were not found severe.
- Headaches were medically noted; ALJ rejected them without adequate analysis of their functional impact.
- RFC limited to light work with restricted activities and limited social interaction; specific lifting limitations varied by arm.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Step-Two failure to classify headaches as severe impairment | Dudics demonstrates medically determinable headache impairment | ALJ rejected headaches for lack of work-related connection | ALJ erred by not finding headaches severe at step-two. |
| Rejection of examining/treating physicians’ opinions | Wheeler, Krueger, and Neims opinions supported disability | ALJ gave no clear, legitimate reasons for rejection | ALJ erred in rejecting these opinions without substantial, specific justification. |
| Failure to address ARNP Wagonblast’s opinions and GAF scores | GAF scores and treating opinions align with impairment | GAF considerations permissible but not adequately discussed | ALJ erred by not addressing Wagonblast’s findings and GAF scores. |
| Credibility assessment of Dudics’s testimony | Testimony supported by medical evidence and functional limits | Discrepancies with objective evidence justify discounting | Reversal required due to improper credibility evaluation. |
| Hypothetical to vocational expert based on flawed record | VE relied on properly supported limitations | Record supported different limitations | Remand appropriate to reevaluate with proper record. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bowen v. Yuckert, 482 U.S. 137 (U.S. 1987) (defining step-two severity standard and review of impairment)
- Smolen v. Chater, 80 F.3d 1273 (9th Cir. 1996) (improper step-two severity assessment and credibility evaluation)
- Lester v. Chater, 81 F.3d 821 (9th Cir. 1996) (examination opinions require clear and convincing/legitimate reasons)
- Pinto v. Massanari, 249 F.3d 840 (9th Cir. 2001) (post-hoc rationalizations not allowed; must rely on record)
- Rollins v. Massanari, 261 F.3d 853 (9th Cir. 2001) (consideration of GAF scores and treating opinions)
- Andrews v. Shalala, 53 F.3d 1035 (9th Cir. 1995) (receiving proper weight to GAF or treating opinions when supported)
- Webb v. Barnhart, 433 F.3d 683 (9th Cir. 2005) (standards for evaluating step-two and medical opinions)