Littledeer v. Commissioner Social Security Administration
6:12-cv-02024
D. Or.Sep 17, 2013Background
- Plaintiff Darrell Littledeer (b. 1971) applied for DIB and SSI, alleging disability from January 1, 1998; applications filed February 27, 2007.
- Primary impairments asserted: degenerative disc disease, sciatic nerve damage, arthritis, left knee ACL/meniscus tears, and mental disorders (cognitive disorder NOS, affective disorder, impulse control disorder); alcohol abuse in remission.
- Administrative record includes treating notes (Dr. Martin Smart; Dr. Marc Williams; therapist Stacy VanEpps), consultative/examining reports (Drs. Greenleaf, Trueblood, Jensen), and state agency reviews.
- ALJ John Madden found claimant had severe impairments, assessed an RFC for medium work with only simple, routine tasks and occasional public contact, and concluded Littledeer could perform past janitorial work and other work — therefore not disabled.
- The Appeals Council denied review; Littledeer sought district-court review. The district court affirmed the Commissioner.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Credibility of claimant's symptom testimony | Littledeer: ALJ failed to credit his pain and functional limitations. | ALJ: testimony inconsistent with work activity, treatment noncompliance, and clinic findings; thus properly discounted. | Court: ALJ gave specific, clear, convincing, supported reasons; credibility ruling affirmed. |
| Weight given to treating physician Martin Smart, M.D. | Littledeer: ALJ improperly rejected Dr. Smart's restrictive RFC opinions. | Commissioner: Dr. Smart's opinion contradicted objective findings, other examiners, claimant's activities, and rested on discredited subjective reports. | Court: ALJ provided specific, legitimate reasons to reject Dr. Smart; affirmed. |
| Weight given to mental‑health providers (Dr. Williams; Stacy VanEpps) | Littledeer: ALJ erred in rejecting VanEpps' and Williams' restrictive mental‑work capacity assessments. | Commissioner: VanEpps was an "other" source (not entitled to treating‑source deference); opinions contradicted by examiners and state reviewers; Dr. Williams' notes do not support extreme limits. | Court: ALJ gave germane/specific reasons supported by record; rejection upheld. |
| Lay witness testimony (Michelle Littledeer) | Littledeer: ALJ improperly discounted sister‑in‑law's lay statements about functional limits. | Commissioner: Lay statements contradicted by claimant's improvement with sobriety and by medical opinions; ALJ gave germane reasons. | Court: Any error harmless; ALJ's reasons were germane and her testimony conflicted with credited medical evidence. |
| Listings (12.02, 12.04, 12.06, 12.08) | Littledeer: mental impairments meet listings based on treating providers' opinions. | Commissioner: Credible evidence does not establish listing‑level severity. | Court: Because ALJ reasonably rejected the controlling treating opinions, listings not met; affirmed. |
| RFC formulation | Littledeer: ALJ omitted limitations supported by providers. | Commissioner: RFC incorporated all properly supported limitations; rejected limitations were unsupported. | Court: RFC appropriate; ALJ need not include properly rejected limitations. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bowen v. Yuckert, 482 U.S. 137 (1987) (framework for five‑step disability evaluation)
- Smolen v. Chater, 80 F.3d 1273 (9th Cir. 1996) (two‑step credibility analysis for subjective symptom testimony)
- Lingenfelter v. Astrue, 504 F.3d 1028 (9th Cir. 2007) (substantial‑evidence standard and review of ALJ findings)
- Thomas v. Barnhart, 278 F.3d 947 (9th Cir. 2002) (ALJ credibility findings must be upheld if supported by substantial evidence)
- Tommasetti v. Astrue, 533 F.3d 1035 (9th Cir. 2008) (inconsistency between a physician's opinion and treatment records is a legitimate reason to discount that opinion)
- Tonapetyan v. Halter, 242 F.3d 1144 (9th Cir. 2001) (non‑examining opinions can constitute substantial evidence when supported by other record evidence)
- Murray v. Heckler, 722 F.2d 499 (9th Cir. 1983) (when a treating opinion is contradicted, ALJ must give specific, legitimate reasons to reject it)
- Molina v. Astrue, 674 F.3d 1104 (9th Cir. 2012) (ALJ must give germane reasons for discounting lay testimony; harmless‑error principles for improperly discounted lay evidence)