Gino Quartucci v. Kilolo Kijakazi
20-35740
| 9th Cir. | Jul 23, 2021Background
- Quartucci applied for Supplemental Security Income (Title XVI); ALJ denied benefits and the district court affirmed; Quartucci appealed to the Ninth Circuit.
- Central disputed medical evidence: examining psychologist Terilee Wingate, Ph.D., opined Quartucci had several "marked" functional limitations; treating mental health counselor Judith Oliver opined marked inability to sustain a work routine.
- Non-examining state psychological consultants (Drs. Brown and Donahue) found no severe or only moderate limitations; their views were given significant weight in the RFC.
- ALJ discounted Dr. Wingate’s and Oliver’s opinions as unsupported by their own records and by treatment notes; ALJ found claimant’s function report and daily activities inconsistent with extreme limitations.
- Claimant’s testimony that he could not keep a schedule or remain oriented was rejected as unsupported; ALJ relied on RFC incorporating moderate limitations and on a vocational expert to conclude jobs exist in the national economy.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Weight given to Dr. Wingate (examining psychologist) | ALJ erred in discounting Wingate’s opinion of marked limitations | ALJ provided specific, legitimate, supported reasons: Wingate’s opinion contradicted other medical opinions and her own exam/treatment notes lacked findings to justify marked limits | ALJ permissibly discounted Wingate; decision supported by substantial evidence |
| Weight given to Judith Oliver (treating counselor) | ALJ erred by giving little weight to Oliver’s opinion of marked inability to sustain work | At claim’s filing date, counselor was an "other source"; ALJ gave germane reason—Oliver’s own records showed relatively benign findings | ALJ permissibly rejected Oliver’s opinion |
| Consideration of ARNP Nancy Armstrong’s notes | ALJ erred by not properly evaluating Armstrong’s findings | Armstrong did not provide an opinion on work-related functional capacity; claimant fails to show how notes establish inability to work | No reversible error—Armstrong gave no work-capacity opinion supporting disability |
| Credibility, RFC, and reliance on vocational expert | ALJ erred in rejecting claimant’s testimony about severe disorientation and inability to keep schedule; RFC and VE conclusions therefore flawed | ALJ gave clear and convincing reasons to reject testimony (lack of record support, inconsistent daily activities) and reasonably relied on non-examining consultants and VE | ALJ’s credibility finding, RFC, and VE reliance upheld; benefits denial affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Buck v. Berryhill, 869 F.3d 1040 (9th Cir. 2017) (standard of review for Social Security appeals)
- Lester v. Chater, 81 F.3d 821 (9th Cir. 1995) (standards for rejecting examining medical opinions)
- Leon v. Berryhill, 880 F.3d 1041 (9th Cir. 2017) (treatment of medical and non-acceptable medical sources under regulations in effect at filing)
- Morgan v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration, 169 F.3d 595 (9th Cir. 1999) (clear and convincing reasons required to reject claimant testimony)
- Bray v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration, 554 F.3d 1219 (9th Cir. 2009) (consideration of claimant’s daily activities in assessing credibility)