Gorkovchenko v. Commissioner of Social Security
2:15-cv-00228
| E.D. Wash. | Jan 30, 2017Background
- Plaintiff Vladimir Gorkovchenko suffered a small right frontal stroke in April 2012 and later applied for DIB and SSI (filed May 2012).
- Early examinations (April–May 2012) — ARNP Worley Mental Status Exam (27/30) and Dr. Conovalciuc cognitive test (28/33) — showed mild or no cognitive deficits.
- Dr. Jeanette Higgins (psychological consult, fall 2012) diagnosed cognitive disorder/memory impairment and opined plaintiff lacked ability for complex instructions or appropriate public interaction.
- Consulting psychologist Dr. Diana Fligstein and non-examining neurologist Dr. James Haynes disagreed with Dr. Higgins: Fligstein found minimal memory impairment and that plaintiff’s activities (e.g., driving) contradicted severe limits; Haynes characterized the stroke as very small and not functionally limiting.
- ALJ gave little weight to Dr. Higgins and plaintiff’s subjective testimony, significant weight to Dr. Fligstein and some weight to Dr. Haynes, found plaintiff capable of past relevant work, and denied benefits. Appeals Council denied review; district court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether ALJ properly rejected Dr. Higgins’ opinion | Higgins’ exam supports disabling cognitive and social limitations | ALJ relied on exam results (Worley, Conovalciuc), hearing observations, and Haynes/Fligstein to discount Higgins | ALJ gave specific, legitimate reasons supported by substantial evidence; Higgins given little weight |
| Whether ALJ properly found plaintiff not fully credible about memory loss | Plaintiff asserts memory problems and related functional limits | ALJ cited objective cognitive tests, hearing performance, and internal inconsistencies to discredit claim | Court upheld ALJ’s clear and convincing reasons for discounting subjective testimony |
| Whether ALJ properly assessed physical symptoms (cane, knee pain, dizziness) | Plaintiff testified he needs a cane and has limiting knee pain/dizziness | ALJ found medical records did not support cane use, treatment was conservative and recommendations did not include cane; noted inconsistencies in ADL reports | ALJ reasonably found plaintiff overstated physical limitations; decision supported by record |
| Whether ALJ’s RFC and step-four past-work finding were supported | Plaintiff argues limitations preclude past work | Defendant argues RFC was supported by medical opinions and credibility findings | Court affirmed ALJ: RFC and step-four determination supported by substantial evidence |
Key Cases Cited
- Green v. Heckler, 803 F.2d 528 (9th Cir.) (review limited to substantial evidence and legal error)
- Desrosiers v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 846 F.2d 573 (9th Cir.) (definition of substantial evidence)
- Reddick v. Chater, 157 F.3d 715 (9th Cir.) (ALJ must give specific, legitimate reasons to discount an examining physician)
- Morgan v. Comm'r, 169 F.3d 595 (9th Cir.) (limitations on rejecting an examining opinion based solely on a non-examining expert)
- Molina v. Astrue, 674 F.3d 1104 (9th Cir.) (ALJ’s opportunity to observe witness demeanor is a factor in credibility assessments)
- Tackett v. Apfel, 180 F.3d 1094 (9th Cir.) (reviewing court should not substitute its judgment for ALJ when supported by substantial evidence)
- Smolen v. Chater, 80 F.3d 1273 (9th Cir.) (clear and convincing reasons required to reject claimant testimony absent malingering)