Laurie Arevalo v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration, 8:12-cv-00895

Plaintiff Laurie Arevalo, born 1956, filed for Disability Insurance Benefits on May 6, 2009, alleging disability since April 30, 2004 from fibromyalgia, pain, depression, back problems, and plantar fasciitis; past work as secretary; education high school.
The application was denied initially and on reconsideration; a December 9, 2010 hearing followed with a medical and a vocational expert; ALJ issued Jan. 4, 2011 finding not disabled; Appeals Council denied on Apr. 16, 2012; case proceeded in district court.
The ALJ found severe impairments of fibromyalgia, lumbar disc protrusion, and shoulder arthritis; determined a residual functional capacity for light work; concluded plaintiff could perform past relevant work as an administrative clerk.
Plaintiff challenged step-two severity findings (mental impairment, pulmonary insufficiency, plantar fasciitis), treating-physician opinions (Burris, Deckey), and credibility; the court remands for further proceedings.
There was evidence of pulmonic insufficiency (moderate to severe) and plantar fasciitis; treating physicians’ opinions supported greater limitations; licensed clinical social worker Buttkus provided opinions not sufficiently addressed by the ALJ.
The case requests remand to reevaluate mental impairment, whether pulmonic insufficiency and plantar fasciitis are severe, reweigh Burris and Deckey opinions, and reassess credibility through proper analysis.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether plaintiff has a severe mental impairment at step two	Arevalo has substantial evidence of mental limitations from Bagner and Shuler.	Non-examining Dr. Balson found no severe mental impairment.	Remanded for proper mental-impairment analysis.
Whether pulmonic insufficiency and plantar fasciitis are severe impairments	These conditions have at least minimal impact on basic work activities.	Pulmonic insufficiency and plantar fasciitis not shown as severe.	Remanded to properly evaluate severity of these impairments.
Whether ALJ properly rejected treating physicians Burris and Deckey	ALJ failed to provide specific, legitimate reasons to discount Burris and Deckey.	ALJ weighed other evidence and concluded milder limitations.	Remanded for proper consideration of treating-physician opinions.
Whether the opinion of licensed clinical social worker Buttkus was considered	Buttkus' opinion on depression should be germane and weighed.	Buttkus' status as an LMSW means opinions are not controlling.	Remand to address Buttkus’ opinion with germane reasons.
Whether credibility assessment properly supported	ALJ’s reasons for rejecting subjective symptoms were legally inadequate.	ALJ relied on medical history and other factors.	Remand to correct credibility analysis.

Corrao v. Shalala, 20 F.3d 943 (9th Cir. 1994) (step-two severity screening and de minimis standard)
Smolen v. Chater, 80 F.3d 1273 (9th Cir. 1996) (severe impairment and credibility framework; de minimis screening)
Ryan v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 528 F.3d 1194 (9th Cir. 2008) (rejecting treating/examining opinions requires specific reasons)
Embrey v. Bowen, 849 F.2d 418 (9th Cir. 1988) (ALJ must provide detailed analysis of conflicting medical evidence)
Reddick v. Chater, 157 F.3d 715 (9th Cir. 1998) (requires explicit articulation of why evidence supports or undermines claims)
Dodrill v. Shalala, 12 F.3d 915 (9th Cir. 1993) (credibility evaluation requires clear and convincing reasons)
Lingenfelter v. Astrue, 504 F.3d 1028 (9th Cir. 2007) (two-step credibility analysis; objective evidence not always necessary)