773 F.3d 704
N.D. Cal.2014Background
- Plaintiff Emilia Gonzales, former janitor, stopped working after back and shoulder injuries and applied for SSDI alleging disability with an amended onset date of December 1, 2009.
- ALJ found Gonzales had a severe impairment but retained RFC for light work with no bilateral overhead reaching and some postural limits; concluded she could perform past work as a janitor and other jobs, and denied benefits.
- Medical record includes MRIs, nerve studies, multiple treating/examining providers (orthopedists, pain management, chiropractors), shoulder surgery (failed rotator cuff repair), chronic pain diagnoses, and opinions restricting left-arm lifting/pushing/pulling and limiting overhead work.
- ALJ credited Drs. Aptekar and Auerbach but (1) misidentified/misweighed Dr. Krosin’s reports, (2) largely discounted a chiropractor’s functional opinion, and (3) characterized examination findings as poor effort without explanation.
- ALJ’s vocational expert (VE) testimony was based on a hypothetical that omitted several left-arm and postural limitations found by the medical sources; a follow-up hypothetical that included more left-arm limits would have precluded past work, but the ALJ did not rely on it.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether ALJ gave legally adequate reasons for rejecting/discounting treating/examining medical opinions | Gonzales: ALJ mischaracterized evidence, misidentified Dr. Krosin as a different physician, and failed to give specific, legitimate (or clear and convincing) reasons to reject treating/exam opinions | Commissioner: ALJ permissibly weighed evidence and gave more weight to certain specialists; some sources are not "acceptable" for diagnosis | Court: ALJ erred — failed to provide adequate reasons for discounting Krosin and other opinions, misapplied rules on treating/examining source weight, and should have considered chiropractor's opinion as evidence of severity |
| Whether the VE testimony is substantial evidence when based on ALJ’s hypothetical | Gonzales: ALJ’s hypothetical omitted documented limitations (left-arm push/pull/lift, limited reaching, limits on crouching/kneeling), so VE testimony is unreliable | Commissioner: VE testimony based on ALJ’s RFC and hypothetical that ALJ found credible | Court: ALJ’s hypothetical was defective because it did not incorporate all medically supported limitations; VE testimony therefore cannot support denial |
| Whether remand is required or immediate award appropriate | Gonzales: Errors warrant remand for further proceedings and proper development of record | Commissioner: Decision should be upheld | Court: Remand for further proceedings; record insufficient to award benefits outright |
Key Cases Cited
- Bustamante v. Massanari, 262 F.3d 949 (9th Cir. 2001) (burden allocation and ALJ duty to develop record)
- Orn v. Astrue, 495 F.3d 625 (9th Cir. 2007) (standards for rejecting treating-source opinions)
- Reddick v. Chater, 157 F.3d 715 (9th Cir. 1998) (clear and convincing and specific, legitimate reasons for rejecting physician opinions)
- Valentine v. Comm'r Soc. Sec. Admin., 574 F.3d 685 (9th Cir. 2009) (requirements when ALJ rejects treating physician in favor of examining physician)
- Hill v. Astrue, 698 F.3d 1153 (9th Cir. 2012) (vocational expert testimony must be based on a fully accurate hypothetical)
- Turner v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 613 F.3d 1217 (9th Cir. 2010) (treating physician rule overview)
- Garrison v. Colvin, 759 F.3d 995 (9th Cir. 2014) (remand for further proceedings when record ambiguous or factual issues remain)