Locatelli v. Saul, 3:19-cv-01409

Plaintiff Marysarah L., age 53, former Army chef, stopped working August 15, 2014, and applied for DIB on August 25, 2015.
ALJ held a hearing (Aug. 22, 2017) with testimony from plaintiff, a medical expert, and a vocational expert; ALJ issued an adverse decision Dec. 20, 2017; Appeals Council denied review.
ALJ found severe impairments (angina without ischemic heart disease, fibromyalgia, abdominal pain with prior obstruction, back pain, hypertension) but concluded plaintiff did not meet listings.
ALJ assessed RFC: medium work with lift/carry 50 lbs occasionally/25 lbs frequently; sit/stand/walk up to 6 hours in an 8-hour day; no other limitations; found plaintiff could perform past work as chef and athletic trainer.
Plaintiff submitted additional medical records dated Oct. and Dec. 2019 and alleged ineffective assistance of administrative counsel; district court found the new evidence untimely/not material and held plaintiff had no right to counsel-based relief.
Court denied plaintiff’s summary judgment, granted Commissioner’s cross-motion, and affirmed the ALJ because the decision was supported by substantial evidence.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether ALJ’s denial is supported by substantial evidence	ALJ misconstrued and ignored severity of symptoms and records	ALJ’s RFC and factual findings are supported by medical evidence and testimony	Denial affirmed — ALJ’s interpretation is reasonable and supported by substantial evidence
Whether post-decision medical records (Oct./Dec. 2019) warrant remand under sentence six	New Mexican reports show adhesions/obstruction and would change outcome	Records post‑date the administrative period, plaintiff failed to show good cause or materiality	Remand denied — records untimely, not shown to relate to period before ALJ or likely to change result
Whether ineffective assistance of counsel at administrative hearing warrants relief	Counsel failed to meaningfully question witnesses or object, prejudicing case	No constitutional right to counsel or to effective assistance in SSA hearings; administrative process is nonadversarial	Argument rejected — ineffective‑assistance claim does not justify reversal/remand
Whether ALJ properly relied on medical expert and vocational testimony	Plaintiff contests ME’s assessment and VE hypotheticals	ME’s opinion and VE’s testimony were consistent with record and supported RFC/past‑work finding	Held proper — ME and VE testimony constitute substantial evidence supporting RFC and step‑4 finding

Biestek v. Berryhill, 139 S. Ct. 1148 (2019) (defines substantial‑evidence standard for administrative findings)
Trevizo v. Berryhill, 871 F.3d 664 (9th Cir. 2017) (ALJ findings must be upheld when rational and supported by substantial evidence)
Molina v. Astrue, 674 F.3d 1104 (9th Cir. 2012) (harmless‑error standard in Social Security cases)
Bayliss v. Barnhart, 427 F.3d 1211 (9th Cir. 2005) (claimant bears burden at steps 1–4)
Mayes v. Massanari, 276 F.3d 453 (9th Cir. 2001) (standards for sentence‑six remand: new, material evidence and good cause)
Sanchez v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 812 F.2d 509 (9th Cir. 1987) (new evidence must pertain to period before ALJ decision)
Jamerson v. Chater, 112 F.3d 1064 (9th Cir. 1997) (focus on whether substantial evidence supports Commissioner’s finding)
Curry v. Sullivan, 925 F.2d 1127 (9th Cir. 1990) (daily activities can undermine claims of total disability)
Thomas v. Barnhart, 278 F.3d 947 (9th Cir. 2002) (non‑examining physicians’ opinions may constitute substantial evidence when consistent with record)
Sample v. Schweiker, 694 F.2d 639 (9th Cir. 1982) (existence of diagnosis alone does not establish disability)