13 F. Supp. 3d 1032
U.S. Circuit Court for the Dis...2012Background
- Moller sought judicial review of an ALJ’s July 27, 2010 denial of Child’s Insurance Benefits.
- Appeals Council denied review on June 23, 2011, making the ALJ decision final.
- The case was consented to proceed before a magistrate judge.
- The Court denied Moller’s motion for summary judgment and granted the Commissioner’s cross-motion.
- Procedural posture centers on whether the pre-22-year-old RFC and credibility findings were supported by substantial evidence.
- Moller’s application originated September 10, 2007, alleging disability dating from June 2, 1967; the ALJ found no disability prior to age 22.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Pre-22 RFC and evidence evaluation | Moller argues ALJ failed to consider all evidence before age 22 | ALJ properly evaluated all pre-22 evidence | ALJ’s findings supported by substantial evidence |
| Treating physician rule adherence | ALJ ignored testimony from Dr. Couperus | ALJ properly weighed treating-source testimony | ALJ did not ignore treating-physician testimony; RFC supported |
| Reliance on VE testimony | VE Berkley relied on without in-person meeting | VE testimony properly used to assess past work and economy | VE testimony properly relied upon without in-person meeting |
| Credibility of plaintiff’s symptoms | ALJ improperly discounted Moller’s subjective complaints | Credibility assessment consistent with evidence and RFC | Credibility found consistent with RFC and objective evidence |
| Consideration of new records outside record | New records not part of the administrative record | Court cannot consider evidence not in the record | Court cannot consider new records; review limited to administrative record |
Key Cases Cited
- Flaten v. Sec’y of Health & Human Services, 44 F.3d 1453 (9th Cir.1995) (substantial evidence standard; harmless errors still reviewed)
- Reddick v. Chater, 157 F.3d 715 (9th Cir.1998) (record review requires considering evidence for and against the decision)
- Vasquez v. Astrue, 572 F.3d 586 (9th Cir.2009) (credibility analysis with objective evidence of impairment)
- Smolen v. Chater, 80 F.3d 1273 (9th Cir.1996) (specific, clear, and convincing reasons required to reject symptom testimony)
- Matney v. Sullivan, 981 F.2d 1016 (9th Cir.1992) (appropriately deferential review of ALJ findings)
- Burch v. Barnhart, 400 F.3d 676 (9th Cir.2005) (burden shift at step five; reliance on VE and grids)
- Langley v. Barnhart, 373 F.3d 1116 (10th Cir.2004) (weight of treating sources; evaluation framework)
- Smith v. Sec’y of Health & Human Services, 893 F.2d 106 (6th Cir.1989) (guideline for evaluating disability claims in certain contexts)