Hirsch v. Commissioner of Social Security
3:24-cv-05024
W.D. Wash.Aug 26, 2024Background
- Plaintiff Sonja H. sought judicial review of the denial of her application for Supplemental Security Income (SSI) benefits under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).
- Plaintiff alleged disability based on mental impairments, with an onset date amended to June 9, 2020.
- The ALJ denied benefits, finding Plaintiff did not meet or equal the criteria for Listing 12.05 (intellectual disorder) and could perform other work in the national economy.
- Plaintiff argued the ALJ erred at step three (listing equivalence) and step five (vocational evidence), including failure to order updated IQ testing.
- The Appeals Council denied review, making the ALJ's decision final. Plaintiff appealed to the U.S. District Court.
- The District Court affirmed the ALJ’s decision, finding no legal error and that substantial evidence supported the conclusions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| ALJ failed to fully develop the record (Step 3) | ALJ denied request for updated IQ testing despite expert advice | Record already included IQ testing; evidence was not ambiguous | No error; ALJ not required to order new testing |
| Listing 12.05 equivalence | Plaintiff met or equaled Listing 12.05 for intellectual disorder | Plaintiff's IQ score and adaptive functioning did not meet test | Record supported ALJ finding Listing 12.05 not met |
| Step 5 finding – job skill requirements | Identified jobs exceeded Plaintiff’s cognitive abilities | Jobs matched Plaintiff’s residual functional capacity (RFC) | Vocational expert testimony was proper; no error |
| Evaluation of adaptive functioning | ALJ wrongly assessed areas of mental functioning | Plaintiff’s limitations did not rise to required severity | Any error in these findings was harmless |
Key Cases Cited
- Bayliss v. Barnhart, 427 F.3d 1211 (9th Cir. 2005) (setting standard for substantial evidence review and ALJ reliance on vocational expert testimony)
- Tackett v. Apfel, 180 F.3d 1094 (9th Cir. 1999) (describing burden of proof at step three and requirements for listing equivalence)
- Garrison v. Colvin, 759 F.3d 995 (9th Cir. 2014) (limit on reviewing only the specific reasons given by an ALJ)
- Osenbrock v. Apfel, 240 F.3d 1157 (9th Cir. 2001) (Commissioner may rely on vocational expert at step five)
- Pinto v. Massanari, 249 F.3d 840 (9th Cir. 2001) (Commissioner’s burden at step five to show significant gainful work exists)