Jones v. Commissioner of Social Security
4:17-cv-05098
E.D. Wash.Jul 25, 2018Background
- Plaintiff (born 1971) applied for SSI alleging disability from September 6, 2013, based on spine curvature, osteoarthritis, left knee problems from prior injury, PTSD/affective and anxiety disorders; administrative denial led to ALJ hearing and unfavorable decision in Feb. 2016; district court review followed.
- ALJ found severe impairments (spine curvature, osteoarthritis, affective and anxiety disorders), but concluded Plaintiff did not meet Listings and had RFC for a reduced range of sedentary work with a handheld assistive device for prolonged ambulation and limited social interaction.
- ALJ assigned varying weight to medical opinions: little weight to Dr. Mark Merrell, partial weight to Dr. Hazel Gavino (treating), partial/some weight to other sources, and significant weight to state agency reviewers.
- ALJ rejected portions of Plaintiff’s symptom testimony based on medical records showing improvement, part‑time work/activity, noncompliance with prescribed opiates, and positive marijuana screens.
- Vocational expert (VE) testimony identified several sedentary jobs Plaintiff could perform; ALJ concluded step five that there are jobs in significant numbers.
- District court reversed in part and remanded: held ALJ erred in discounting Dr. Gavino’s treating‑physician opinion (insufficient reasons), but upheld other credibility and medical‑opinion findings; declined to rule on step five pending reconsideration.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Weight given to treating physician Dr. Hazel Gavino | ALJ improperly discounted Gavino’s opinion that Plaintiff must lie down 3–4 hrs/day and would miss ≥4 days/month | Gavino’s opinion was non‑specific (no concrete work quantification) and daily activities/part‑time work contradict it | Court: ALJ erred—rejection lacked clear and convincing reasons; remand for reconsideration |
| Weight given to treating physician Dr. Mark Merrell | Merrell’s statement that Plaintiff is "significantly disabled" should be credited | Merrell’s opinion was brief, conclusory, and unsupported by clinical findings; disability determination reserved to SSA | Court: ALJ correctly gave little weight to Merrell (opinion conclusory and inadequately supported) |
| Lay/other‑source testimony (therapist Workman) | ALJ failed to give germane reasons for discounting therapist’s checklist showing marked limits and missed work | Therapist is not an acceptable medical source and her checklist is unexplained/checkbox style | Court: ALJ permissibly discounted Workman’s unexplained checkbox opinion; no error |
| Credibility of Plaintiff’s symptom testimony and Listings (1.02) | Plaintiff contends ALJ improperly rejected his subjective reports and should have found Listing 1.02 met (ineffective ambulation) | ALJ relied on medical improvement, part‑time work, treatment noncompliance and drug test inconsistencies; no evidence of need for two‑handed assistive device required by Listing | Court: ALJ did not err in discounting subjective testimony and reasonably found Listing 1.02 not met; remand limited to reassessing Dr. Gavino’s opinion (step five left open) |
Key Cases Cited
- Hill v. Astrue, 698 F.3d 1153 (9th Cir. 2012) (standard for substantial evidence review)
- Molina v. Astrue, 674 F.3d 1104 (9th Cir. 2012) (ALJ credibility review and harmless‑error principles)
- Holohan v. Massanari, 246 F.3d 1195 (9th Cir. 2001) (relative weight of treating, examining, and non‑examining opinions)
- Bayliss v. Barnhart, 427 F.3d 1211 (9th Cir. 2005) (standard for rejecting uncontradicted treating/examining opinions)
- Bray v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 554 F.3d 1219 (9th Cir. 2009) (ALJ may reject brief/conclusory physician opinions)
- Garrison v. Colvin, 759 F.3d 995 (9th Cir. 2014) (limitations on relying on daily activities to discredit medical opinions)
- Tommasetti v. Astrue, 533 F.3d 1035 (9th Cir. 2008) (specificity required for adverse credibility findings)
- Carmickle v. Comm’r, Soc. Sec. Admin., 533 F.3d 1155 (9th Cir. 2008) (contradiction with medical record supports rejecting subjective testimony)
- Rollins v. Massanari, 261 F.3d 853 (9th Cir. 2001) (medical evidence relevant to pain credibility)
- Lingenfelter v. Astrue, 504 F.3d 1028 (9th Cir. 2007) (clear and convincing reasons required when no malingering and medical evidence supports symptoms)
- Shinseki v. Sanders, 556 U.S. 396 (U.S. 2009) (burden on appellant to show prejudice from error)