Fimbres v. Astrue
4:11-cv-00349
D. Ariz.Oct 23, 2012Background
- Fimbres sues under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) seeking review of SSA disability decision.
- ALJ found no disability at Step Two and denied benefits; Appeals Council denied review.
- ALJ identified three impairments: depression, PTSD, and polysubstance abuse in remission.
- Parties moved for summary judgment/remand; matter referred to magistrate judge by consent.
- Court orders remand for further proceedings; addressable issues include treating source and credibility.
- Remand to ALJ for de novo hearing; though issues identified, outstanding steps Three–Five must be evaluated.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether ALJ properly rejected treating psychiatrist Diez de Pinos. | Fimbres’s doctor’s limitations should be given weight. | ALJ reasonably found notes inconsistent with the opinion. | ALJ erred; remand required for reevaluation. |
| Whether credibility findings about Fimbres are supported by substantial evidence. | ALJ failed to provide specific, clear, convincing reasons. | Record supports reduction of credibility due to treatment history and activity. | Credibility must be reconsidered on remand. |
| Whether lack of consistent treatment undermines credibility. | Lack of treatment may reflect impairment; ALJ did not seek explanation. | Recorded noncompliance supports lessened credibility. | Remand needed to reconsider explanation for treatment gaps. |
| Whether daily activities negate disabling limitations or are non-transferable to work. | Daily activities do not negate disability; inconsistent transfer to work. | Daily activities demonstrate some functioning; could be inconsistent with disability. | Remand to reassess transferability to competitive work. |
Key Cases Cited
- Sprague v. Bowen, 812 F.2d 1226 (9th Cir. 1987) (must provide legitimate reasons to discount treating opinions)
- Robbins v. Soc. Sec. Admin., 466 F.3d 880 (9th Cir. 2006) (credibility requires specific, articulable reasons)
- Lingenfelter v. Astrue, 504 F.3d 1028 (9th Cir. 2007) (two-step credibility analysis for subjective complaints)
- Vasquez v. Astrue, 547 F.3d 1101 (9th Cir. 2008) (affirmative evidence of malingering required clear, convincing reasons)
- Parra v. Astrue, 481 F.3d 742 (9th Cir. 2007) (ALJ credibility resolution is a function of the judge)
- Tommasetti v. Astrue, 533 F.3d 1035 (9th Cir. 2008) (two-step credibility analysis for subjective symptoms)