Heiskanen v. Astrue
2:12-cv-03063
E.D. Wash.Sep 19, 2013Background
- Plaintiff applied for SSDI and SSI alleging disability from July 1, 2003 due to bilateral shoulder degenerative disease and psychiatric conditions (PTSD, depression, anxiety); applications denied and ALJ found not disabled; Appeals Council denied review.
- Hearing included testimony from Plaintiff, an impartial medical expert (Dr. Rullman), and a vocational expert (VE); ALJ issued decision October 8, 2010; district court review followed.
- ALJ found severe impairments: left and right shoulder degenerative joint disease with history of surgery; found no severe psychiatric impairment at step two.
- ALJ assessed RFC: lift 25 lb occasionally/10 lb frequently; stand/walk 6 of 8 hours; sit 6 of 8 hours; little/no reaching above mid-chest; no crawling or climbing ladders/ropes/scaffolds.
- ALJ discounted treating/examining opinions (treating therapists and several physicians) and Plaintiff’s subjective complaints as inconsistent with medical records, activities, and treatment compliance; relied on Dr. Rullman and VE testimony to find Plaintiff could perform light, unskilled jobs (e.g., booth cashier, mail clerk).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Step Two: severity of mental impairments | Therapists diagnosed PTSD/depression causing work limitations; ALJ erred in finding no severe psychiatric impairment | Therapists are "other sources"; ALJ reasonably credited thorough psychologist evaluation (Dr. Joseph) that contradicted therapists | ALJ did not err; rejection of therapists’ opinions was germane and supported by contradictory acceptable-source opinion |
| Step Four: weight given to treating/examining physicians | ALJ improperly rejected opinions of Drs. Zuck, Bothamley, Smith that limited claimant to sedentary work or greater restrictions | ALJ gave specific and legitimate reasons: internal inconsistencies, inconsistencies with activities, and contradiction by impartial medical expert (Dr. Rullman) | ALJ permissibly discounted those opinions for specific and legitimate reasons |
| Credibility of subjective complaints | ALJ failed to give clear and convincing reasons for discounting pain and functional limitations | ALJ cited inconsistencies with activities, treatment noncompliance (early use of Vicodin), and ability to perform lighter tasks; no affirmative evidence of malingering | ALJ provided clear, specific, convincing reasons; credibility discount upheld |
| Step Five: VE hypothetical adequacy | VE was asked an incomplete hypothetical that omitted properly supported limitations | VE was presented with limitations the ALJ found credible and supported by record; hypothetical matched ALJ-assessed RFC | ALJ properly relied on VE response; step five finding supported |
Key Cases Cited
- Bowen v. Yuckert, 482 U.S. 137 (explains the five-step disability evaluation framework)
- Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389 (defines substantial evidence standard)
- Smolen v. Chater, 80 F.3d 1273 (step-two de minimis severity standard)
- Tackett v. Apfel, 180 F.3d 1094 (burden at steps one–four and standard of review on disability determinations)
- Molina v. Astrue, 674 F.3d 1104 (standard for credibility findings and required specificity)