Elizabeth Rivera v. Carolyn W. Colvin, 2:16-cv-05735

Background

Rivera applied for SSI in 2012; an ALJ denied benefits in January 2015 after a hearing and written VE interrogatories. The ALJ found severe impairments including hypothyroidism, left knee meniscus degeneration, hyperlipidemia, and bipolar II disorder.
The ALJ assessed an RFC for medium work with limits: 6 hours standing/walking, 8 hours sitting, 30 minutes walking/1 hour standing at a time; frequent kneel/crouch/crawl and frequent upper‑extremity push/pull; limited to simple, routine, repetitive tasks and less than occasional complex technical work; occasional interaction with others; stress level limited to 3/10.
The ALJ relied primarily on a consultative psychologist (Dr. Colonna) who gave relatively mild functional limitations and questioned the credibility of low IQ testing; the ALJ summarized but did not expressly weigh the more restrictive opinions of Rivera’s treating psychiatrist (Dr. Longhitano) and a treating psychologist (Dr. Tolmasoff).
Dr. Longhitano (treating psychiatrist) opined to severe workplace limitations including near‑total inability to interact with others, inability to perform detailed or skilled work, and more than four absences per month. Dr. Tolmasoff provided a brief letter stating Rivera’s bipolar symptoms impair ability to sustain employment.
The ALJ found Rivera could perform past relevant work as a garment sorter based on VE answers. The district court found (1) the ALJ failed to give specific, legitimate reasons for discounting the treating psychiatrist’s opinion and (2) no substantial evidence showed Rivera’s garment‑sorter work met the SGA threshold.
The Court reversed and remanded for further proceedings because the untreated conflict between the treating psychiatrist’s restrictive opinions and the consultative examiner’s opinion was not adequately addressed and the past‑relevant‑work finding was erroneous and not harmless.

Issues

Issue	Rivera's Argument	Berryhill's Argument	Held
Whether ALJ properly rejected/treated treating psychiatrist Dr. Longhitano’s RFC opinions	Longhitano’s restrictive opinions should have been credited or the ALJ must give specific, legitimate reasons for discounting them	ALJ permissibly relied on consultative examiner and Rivera’s limited/ conservative treatment to discount treating opinions	ALJ erred: failed to provide specific, legitimate reasons for discounting treating psychiatrist; error not harmless given potential impact on RFC
Whether ALJ properly considered Dr. Tolmasoff’s one‑paragraph letter	Tolmasoff’s letter supports greater limitations; ALJ erred in discounting it	Letter is vague, non‑specific and concerns ultimate disability issue; not probative	Court held ALJ did not err in failing to give Tolmasoff’s letter controlling weight because it was vague and on an issue reserved to the Commissioner
Whether Plaintiff’s work as a garment sorter qualifies as past relevant work (SGA)	Rivera did not earn sufficient wages as a garment sorter during the relevant period to meet SGA thresholds	ALJ treated garment sorter as past relevant work per VE identification	ALJ erred: no substantial evidence that earnings as garment sorter reached SGA; past‑work finding reversed
Whether the errors were harmless because VE identified other jobs	Rivera: VE’s alternate jobs not relied on by ALJ and stress/physical demands unclear	Berryhill: any Step‑4 error harmless because VE identified other jobs at Step‑5	Error not harmless: ALJ ended at Step‑4, VE’s stress level designations ambiguous and physical demands may conflict with RFC; remand required

Key Cases Cited

Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389 (discusses substantial evidence standard for SSA findings)
Parra v. Astrue, 481 F.3d 742 (9th Cir. 2007) (standard of review and weighing evidence)
Lingenfelter v. Astrue, 504 F.3d 1028 (9th Cir. 2007) (substantial evidence definition)
Reddick v. Chater, 157 F.3d 715 (9th Cir. 1998) (weighing supporting and detracting evidence)
Bayliss v. Barnhart, 427 F.3d 1211 (9th Cir. 2005) (ALJ need not prepare function‑by‑function analysis for rejected impairments)
Batson v. Comm’r of SSA, 359 F.3d 1190 (9th Cir. 2004) (treating and examining physician opinion weight)
Orn v. Astrue, 495 F.3d 625 (9th Cir. 2007) (specific and legitimate reasons required to reject treating physician)
Miller v. Heckler, 770 F.2d 845 (9th Cir. 1985) (examining physician’s independent clinical findings can constitute substantial evidence)
Lester v. Chater, 81 F.3d 821 (9th Cir. 1995) (treating/ examining/ non‑examining physician hierarchy)
Tommasetti v. Astrue, 533 F.3d 1035 (9th Cir. 2008) (harmless error at Step‑4 when ALJ proceeds to Step‑5 and relies on VE)
Stout v. Comm’r of SSA, 454 F.3d 1050 (9th Cir. 2006) (harmless error standard)
Garrison v. Colvin, 759 F.3d 995 (9th Cir. 2014) (remand vs. credit‑as‑true analysis)
Harman v. Apfel, 211 F.3d 1172 (9th Cir. 2000) (remand for further proceedings vs. immediate award)
Treichler v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 775 F.3d 1090 (9th Cir. 2014) (utility of further proceedings guides remedy)
Brewes v. Comm’r of SSA, 682 F.3d 1157 (9th Cir. 2012) (Appeals Council new evidence becomes part of administrative record)
Howard v. Barnhart, 341 F.3d 1006 (9th Cir. 2003) (ALJ need not discuss evidence that is neither significant nor probative)
McLeod v. Astrue, 640 F.3d 881 (9th Cir. 2011) (disability determination is an administrative finding)