Helms Eddy v. Commissioner Social Security Administration
3:14-cv-01418
D. Or.Sep 1, 2016Background
- Plaintiff Terri J. Helms Eddy applied for SSI in Feb. 2008 alleging disability from May 1, 2004; ALJs denied benefits after hearings (2010, remand, 2012) and Appeals Council denied review in 2014.
- ALJ found severe impairments: multiple sclerosis, asthma, mild glaucoma, obesity, depression; non-severe: diabetes, controlled seizure disorder, mild sleep apnea; noted fibromyalgia references but did not find it severe.
- ALJ assessed an RFC for medium work with restrictions: no smoke/fumes/dust, no fine visual discrimination, only occasional public contact, up to 4-step tasks; could not do past work but VE identified other jobs.
- Plaintiff challenged credibility findings, lay witness discounting, treatment of medical opinions (treating Dr. Kapka and state non‑examiner Dr. Alley), step‑two omissions (fibromyalgia, headaches, seizures), RFC formulation, and step‑five job findings.
- Magistrate Judge Jelderks recommended affirming the Commissioner, concluding (inter alia) that most ALJ rationales were supported by substantial evidence and that any ALJ errors were harmless.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| ALJ credibility finding re: symptom testimony | Eddy: ALJ failed to give clear and convincing reasons to reject her symptom reports | Colvin: ALJ properly relied on noncompliance and lack of objective support | Court: Some ALJ reasons valid (noncompliance, objective inconsistency); error re: smoking explanation harmless because other reasons suffice |
| Lay witness (father) testimony | Eddy: ALJ gave inadequate germane reasons to discount lay testimony | Colvin: Lay testimony inconsistent with medical record so minimal weight appropriate | Court: ALJ erred in reasoning but error harmless because father’s affidavit did not show greater limitations than RFC |
| Step Two omissions (fibromyalgia, headaches, seizures) | Eddy: ALJ should have found fibromyalgia and headaches/seizures severe | Colvin: Seizures controlled with medication; fibromyalgia not shown to produce more than minimal work effects | Court: ALJ erred in omitting fibromyalgia but error harmless; headaches/seizures reasonably found non‑severe because controlled and not shown to cause more than minimal work limitations |
| Medical opinions and RFC (Drs. Kapka, Alley) | Eddy: ALJ improperly rejected treating opinion and overrelied on stale non‑examining opinion; RFC omitted limitations (stooping, color vision) | Colvin: Dr. Kapka’s opinion conclusory; Dr. Alley’s limits consistent with record and any omission (stooping, climbing) was harmless | Court: ALJ permissibly discounted Kapka for vagueness; giving weight to Alley was reasonable; omission of occasional stooping and other minor RFC aspects were harmless because identified jobs remained compatible |
Key Cases Cited
- Tackett v. Apfel, 180 F.3d 1094 (9th Cir.) (summary of five‑step SSDI/SSI analysis)
- Lingenfelter v. Astrue, 503 F.3d 1028 (9th Cir.) (two‑step credibility framework)
- Vasquez v. Astrue, 572 F.3d 586 (9th Cir.) (credibility/symptom testimony principles)
- Smolen v. Chater, 80 F.3d 1273 (9th Cir.) (clear and convincing reasons required to reject testimony absent malingering)
- Batson v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 359 F.3d 1190 (9th Cir.) (ALJ credibility review and reasonable interpretation standard)
- Carmickle v. Comm’r, Soc. Sec. Admin., 533 F.3d 1155 (9th Cir.) (treating‑opinion and harmless error principles)
- Thomas v. Barnhart, 278 F.3d 947 (9th Cir.) (ALJ may reject brief, conclusory, unsupported physician opinions)
- Burch v. Barnhart, 400 F.3d 676 (9th Cir.) (step‑two de minimis standard and impact of noncompliance)
- Reddick v. Chater, 157 F.3d 715 (9th Cir.) (treating physician opinions and when they must be credited)
- Warre v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 439 F.3d 1001 (9th Cir.) (impairments controllable with medication are not disabling)
- Osenbrock v. Apfel, 240 F.3d 1157 (9th Cir.) (RFC must include all credible, supported limitations)
- Meanel v. Apfel, 172 F.3d 1111 (9th Cir.) (duty to raise issues at hearing to preserve them on appeal)
- Molina v. Astrue, 674 F.3d 1104 (9th Cir.) (harmless error doctrine in social security review)
- Overman v. Astrue, 546 F.3d 456 (7th Cir.) (conflict between RFC prohibition on fine discrimination and DOT near‑acuity requirement)