Slip Opinion
C.D. Cal.Dec 9, 2011Background
- Plaintiff Edward Munoz seeks SSI and DIB, challenging the SSA Commissioner’s denial of benefits, with magistrate judge jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).
- The ALJ found Munoz not disabled after a five-step sequential evaluation, concluding he could perform light unskilled work with no need for binocular vision.
- Munoz has a history of liver disease, hypertension, viral hepatitis, obesity, and polysubstance abuse in remission; he also has a long history of heroin, cannabis, and alcohol use.
- Treating and examining sources show Munoz had polysubstance abuse in remission and mild cognitive/functional limitations; one-time evaluations raised potential organic or personality disorders, which the ALJ rejected.
- A vocational expert testified that Munoz could perform unskilled, light-wage jobs such as ticket taker, floor worker, and basket filler, given mild functional limitations.
- The Appeals Council denied review; the district court affirmed, issuing a memorandum decision upholding the ALJ’s decision.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the ALJ erred in finding Munoz’s mental impairment non-severe | Munoz contends organic mental disorder and antisocial traits were improperly ignored. | ALJ properly rejected these diagnoses as unsupported by objective evidence and credibility concerns, and relied on substantial medical evidence. | No error; substantial evidence supports non-severe mental impairment finding. |
| Whether Munoz’s polysubstance abuse in remission was properly deemed non-severe | Polysubstance abuse should be a severe impairment affecting work capacity. | State agency opinions and other evidence show only mild restrictions, consistent with the record and Dr. Colonna’s findings; thus non-severe. | Yes, properly non-severe; substantial evidence supports the ruling. |
| Whether any step-two error was harmless given the record | Step-two error could affect the overall disability determination. | Any error was harmless because the RFC accounts for limitations and VE testimony supports remaining work. | Harmless error; ultimate disability determination remains valid. |
Key Cases Cited
- Reddick v. Chater, 157 F.3d 715 (9th Cir. 1998) (substantial evidence standard and record-consideration guidance)
- Tackett v. Apfel, 180 F.3d 1094 (9th Cir. 1999) (five-step framework and burden allocation)
- Bayliss v. Barnhart, 427 F.3d 1211 (9th Cir. 2005) (consistency as a basis for relying on non-examining opinions)
- Morgan v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 169 F.3d 595 (9th Cir. 1999) (rejecting unsupported medical opinions when contradicted by record)
- Tonapetyan v. Halter, 242 F.3d 1144 (9th Cir. 2001) (nonexamining physician opinions as substantial evidence if corroborated)
- Carmickle v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 533 F.3d 1155 (9th Cir. 2008) (harmless error when ultimate disability determination unaffected)