Jess v. Colvin
2:16-cv-01476
W.D. Wash.Apr 17, 2017Background
- Jess applied for Supplemental Security Income (SSI) on December 11, 2014; application denied initially and on reconsideration; ALJ hearing held with claimant and vocational expert testimony.
- ALJ issued written decision (June 22, 2016) finding Jess capable of a modified range of medium work, able to perform past relevant work and other jobs — denied disability. Appeals Council denied review. District Court review followed.
- Primary contested evidence: psychological consultative exam by Aaron Russell, Psy.D., treating provider opinions and functional forms from Ellen Kim, M.D., and a Cooperative Disability Investigations Unit (CDIU) investigator’s observations and video.
- Jess challenged ALJ’s weighing of medical opinions (Drs. Russell and Kim), the credibility assessment, rejection of lay (daughter) testimony, and RFC/step 4–5 findings.
- Magistrate Judge Strombom recommended affirming the Commissioner, concluding ALJ gave legally sufficient reasons, supported by substantial evidence, to discount the contested opinions and credibility.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Weight given to Dr. Russell (examining psychologist) | Russell’s opinion of marked mental limitations should have been credited | ALJ: Russell’s clinical findings and mental status exam did not support the severe limits; opinion relied on claimant’s physical complaints outside psychologist’s expertise; CDIU observations and claimant activities contradicted opinion | ALJ properly gave little weight; rejection supported by specific, legitimate reasons and substantial evidence |
| Weight given to Dr. Kim (treating physician) | Treating opinions showing profound physical limitations and absenteeism should control | ALJ: Dr. Kim’s opinions lacked objective support, were internally and longitudinally inconsistent, contradicted other exam findings and CDIU observations | ALJ permissibly discounted Dr. Kim’s opinions for specific, supported reasons |
| Credibility of claimant’s symptom testimony | Jess’s subjective reports should be credited absent clear evidence of malingering | ALJ: Objective medical record, evidence of improvement/controlled asthma, CDIU observations, and claimant’s hearing demeanor undermined credibility | Credibility discount affirmed as supported by clear and convincing reasons |
| Reliance on CDIU investigator observations | CDIU investigator is not a medical professional; observations are unreliable | ALJ: Investigator provided nonmedical observations of claimant’s functional activities and statements, which are proper for assessing credibility and consistency | Court held ALJ properly relied on CDIU observations as nonmedical but probative evidence |
Key Cases Cited
- Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261 (opinion on magistrate referrals and procedure)
- Lester v. Chater, 81 F.3d 821 (9th Cir. 1996) (standards for rejecting treating/examining physician opinions)
- Reddick v. Chater, 157 F.3d 715 (9th Cir. 1998) (ALJ must provide specific, cogent reasons to reject evidence)
- Morgan v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 169 F.3d 595 (9th Cir. 1999) (ALJ’s role resolving conflicts; evaluating opinion support)
- Bayliss v. Barnhart, 427 F.3d 1211 (9th Cir. 2005) (discrepancies between clinical notes and opinion can justify rejection)
- Batson v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 359 F.3d 1190 (9th Cir. 2004) (evaluating treating source opinions)
- Magallanes v. Bowen, 881 F.2d 747 (9th Cir. 1989) (court may draw specific and legitimate inferences from ALJ’s opinion)