Jeronimo Ponce Ulloa v. Carolyn W Colvin
5:15-cv-00031
C.D. Cal.Dec 23, 2015Background
- Plaintiff Jeronimo Ponce Ulloa applied for Disability Insurance Benefits alleging disability beginning December 15, 2005; insured status ended December 31, 2011. ALJ denied benefits; Appeals Council denied review; district court review followed.
- ALJ found severe impairments (diabetes, atrial fibrillation, spine disorder, kidney problem, hip pain, vision issues, hypertension, mild peripheral neuropathy, insomnia) but not meeting listings, and assigned an RFC for light work with multiple postural and reach limitations and a sit/stand/change-position option.
- Treating physician Enna Serina, M.D., completed a January 2012 RFC questionnaire asserting markedly restrictive limits (e.g., sit ~4 hrs/day, stand/walk <2 hrs/day, needs unscheduled breaks, 3 absences/month, 70% reaching limitation).
- ALJ gave little weight to Dr. Serina’s opinion as conclusory and unsupported by longitudinal objective findings; gave significant weight to consultative examiner Dr. Nguyen and medical expert Haynes whose findings supported a less restrictive RFC.
- Vocational expert (VE) testified that Plaintiff could perform his past relevant work (rehabilitation counselor and supervisor) under the RFC, including with a sit/stand option; ALJ relied on that testimony and found no disability.
- Plaintiff challenged (1) rejection of treating physician’s opinion and (2) reliance on VE testimony regarding past work/sit–stand without DOT reconciliation. Court affirmed Commissioner, finding ALJ’s reasons supported by substantial evidence and any DOT issue harmless.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether ALJ properly rejected treating Dr. Serina’s restrictive RFC | Serina’s opinion should have controlling weight; ALJ lacked specific and legitimate (or clear and convincing) reasons to reject it | ALJ permissibly discounted Serina as conclusory and unsupported by objective, longitudinal findings; consultative exam and ME contradicted it | ALJ properly discounted Serina: opinion was conclusory and not supported by objective evidence; contradicted by exam findings (Dr. Nguyen) and ME testimony |
| Whether ALJ erred in finding Plaintiff could perform past relevant work relying on VE | VE testimony conflicted with DOT because DOT does not address sit/stand options; ALJ failed to ask VE about DOT conflict at supplemental hearing | DOT does not address sit/stand; VE testimony that sit/stand would not preclude the jobs sufficed; failure to ask was harmless error | No reversible error: DOT silent on sit/stand, VE explained sit/stand would not affect occupation; any procedural omission was harmless |
Key Cases Cited
- Batson v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 359 F.3d 1190 (9th Cir. 2004) (treating physician opinion not binding on ALJ regarding ultimate disability)
- Magallanes v. Bowen, 881 F.2d 747 (9th Cir. 1989) (weight to medical opinions depends on support and consistency)
- Orn v. Astrue, 495 F.3d 625 (9th Cir. 2007) (contradicted treating opinions may be rejected with specific and legitimate reasons; examining physician’s independent findings can constitute substantial evidence)
- Carmickle v. Comm'r, 533 F.3d 1155 (9th Cir. 2008) (standard for rejecting treating physician when contradicted)
- Thomas v. Barnhart, 278 F.3d 947 (9th Cir. 2002) (ALJ need not accept physician opinion that is brief, conclusory, or unsupported)
- Tonapetyan v. Halter, 242 F.3d 1144 (9th Cir. 2001) (examining physician’s opinion can be substantial evidence to reject treating physician)
- Massachi v. Astrue, 486 F.3d 1149 (9th Cir. 2007) (ALJ must inquire about VE–DOT conflicts; failure may be harmless if no actual conflict or VE support suffices)