Julia Rose Avila v. Carolyn W. Colvin
2:16-cv-07746
C.D. Cal.Sep 21, 2017Background
- Plaintiff Julia Rose Avila applied for Disability Insurance Benefits alleging disability beginning October 29, 2010, after a work-related head and right-shoulder injury; ALJ denied benefits and the decision was appealed.
- Medical record showed right shoulder tendinopathy (post-surgery), patellofemoral osteoarthritis, degenerative cervical and lumbar disc disease, depression, and anxiety; treating psychiatrist Dr. Susan Wallace treated Plaintiff from 2009–2015.
- ALJ found severe impairments but assessed an RFC for light work with limitations: frequent pushing/pulling and frequent overhead lifting with the right arm; no social-functioning limits included in the RFC.
- ALJ relied on opinions of orthopedist Dr. Peter Newton (permanent/restricted to 20-pound lifting; avoid repetitive/prolonged overhead work) and consultative examiner Dr. Seung Ha Lim (lift/carry higher but limited right-arm overhead use); ALJ gave greater weight to Dr. Newton.
- ALJ discounted Plaintiff’s subjective pain and symptom testimony as not fully credible, citing conservative treatment (physical therapy, injections, limited prescription use) and inconsistent statements about daily activities.
- Based on the RFC and VE testimony, ALJ found Plaintiff could perform past relevant work (substance abuse counselor, psychological aide) and alternatively other light/simple jobs if limited to occasional contact with others; decision affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Evaluation of psychological impairments | Avila argues mental impairments plus pain preclude work; GAF 55 indicates moderate limits | ALJ gave greater weight to long‑term treating psychiatrist who found mild symptoms and functioning; ALJ accounted for mental limits in alternative hypothetical | ALJ did not err; mental impairments accounted for and RFC supported by record |
| 2. Physical limitations / RFC (lifting & right arm use) | Avila contends she is limited to lifting ≤10 lbs and no repetitive right-arm use, citing early treating note of temporary disability | Commissioner relied on Dr. Newton’s permanent report and consultative exam; early temporary WC note limited in time and superseded by post‑surgical evaluation | ALJ properly favored permanent/stationary opinion over temporary WC note and reasonably adopted limitations (frequent overhead, no constant overhead) |
| 3. Subjective pain testimony | Avila contends objective findings support her pain reports and the ALJ erred in discounting them | Commissioner points to conservative treatment, prescription history, and inconsistencies in activity reports as valid bases to discount testimony | ALJ’s reasons (conservative treatment; inconsistent statements) were supported and were not improper sole reliance on lack of objective evidence |
| 4. VE hypotheticals accuracy | Avila argues jobs identified require light exertion and RFC is wrong | Commissioner asserts VE hypotheticals matched the RFC supported by record and identified alternative work for added mental limits | ALJ properly posed hypotheticals reflecting RFC; VE testimony supported Step Four findings |
Key Cases Cited
- Lester v. Chater, 81 F.3d 821 (9th Cir. 1996) (treating-source opinions generally merit greater weight)
- Molina v. Astrue, 674 F.3d 1104 (9th Cir. 2012) (plaintiff bears burden to show harmful error)
- Parra v. Astrue, 481 F.3d 742 (9th Cir. 2007) (ALJ may discount testimony based on conservative treatment)
- Thomas v. Barnhart, 278 F.3d 947 (9th Cir. 2002) (ALJ may discount testimony for inconsistencies)
- Magallanes v. Bowen, 881 F.2d 747 (9th Cir. 1989) (hypotheticals to VE must reflect restrictions supported by substantial evidence)
- Rollins v. Massanari, 261 F.3d 853 (9th Cir. 2001) (objective evidence may be one factor in credibility evaluation)
- Carmickle v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 533 F.3d 1155 (9th Cir. 2008) (court need not address issues inadequately argued)