Kane v. Colvin, 2:13-cv-01731

Linda M. Kane appealed the Commissioner’s denial of Social Security disability benefits; Magistrate Judge Weinberg issued a Report and Recommendation (R&R).
Kane objected to the R&R on four issues: weight given to treating physician Timothy Burner’s opinion; consideration of psychologist Cheryl Hart’s opinion; finding of past relevant work as a bookkeeper; and a step-five issue not reached by the R&R.
The ALJ gave "little weight" to Dr. Burner’s 2011 opinions, citing lack of supporting medical narrative and alleged inconsistency with treatment notes.
Dr. Burner had treated Kane’s arm problems since 2000 and provided narrative explanations in 2011 linking scar tissue, contracture, and prior infections to limitations in lifting, reaching, handling, and fingering.
The ALJ misread the record on knee pain and the date Kane stopped using drugs; Kane stopped in December 2010 and Dr. Burner’s 2011 opinions reflect her post-substance-use condition.
District court adopted the R&R as to issues two–four, found legal error in the ALJ’s treatment of Dr. Burner’s opinion, reversed the Commissioner, and remanded for further proceedings.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Weight given to treating physician (Dr. Burner)	ALJ improperly gave "little weight" to Burner despite his long treatment history and narrative explaining functional limits	ALJ relied on perceived lack of supporting records and alleged inconsistencies to discount Burner	Court: ALJ erred; reasons not specific or supported by substantial evidence; error was not harmless; reversal and remand required
Consideration of psychologist (Dr. Hart)	Hart’s opinion limits Kane to three-step tasks; ALJ failed to explain rejection	ALJ and Commissioner construe Hart as describing limits during heavy drug use, not permanent incapacity	Court: No error; ALJ properly considered Hart’s opinion; R&R adopted
Past relevant work as bookkeeper	ALJ failed to reconcile conflicting evidence about employment history	Commissioner relied on Kane’s own statements and other evidence supporting bookkeeping work	Court: Substantial evidence supports ALJ’s finding; R&R adopted
Step-five vocational issue (not reached in R&R)	Raised by Kane but not addressed below because step four was affirmed in R&R	N/A at district-court stage	Court: Not reached by R&R; remand may change the record so ALJ should reassess on remand

Orn v. Astrue, 495 F.3d 625 (9th Cir. 2007) (treating physician opinions require specific and legitimate reasons for rejection)
Molina v. Astrue, 674 F.3d 1104 (9th Cir. 2012) (harmless error principles apply in Social Security cases; error is harmless only if inconsequential to the ultimate nondisability determination)