Moungchanh v. Colvin
2:14-cv-01540
W.D. Wash.Jul 23, 2015Background
- Plaintiff Ricky Moungchanh applied for SSDI and SSI alleging disability beginning August 20, 2011, based mainly on right knee osteoarthritis, diabetes, obesity, and hepatitis B; claims were denied and ALJ Robinson held a hearing.
- ALJ found severe impairments (knee osteoarthritis, diabetes type II, obesity, hepatitis B) but not meeting listings and assessed an RFC: light work-like limits — lift/carry 20/10 lbs, stand/walk up to 2 hours, sit up to 6 hours in an 8-hour day, brief position changes hourly; never kneel/crawl/rope/ladder; avoid vibrations and hazards; occasional stoop/crouch/climb ramps/stairs.
- ALJ concluded plaintiff could not perform his past relevant work but could perform other jobs (e.g., injection molding machine operator, plastic board inspector, house sitter), so not disabled.
- Plaintiff appealed, arguing the ALJ erred in (a) discrediting his symptom testimony, (b) improperly evaluating/treating Dr. Soung’s opinions, (c) failing to develop the record regarding anxiety/depression, (d) improperly weighing lay witness evidence and VE testimony, and (e) step-five showing and new evidence submitted to the Appeals Council.
- Appeals Council denied review; district court reviewed the record (including evidence submitted to the Appeals Council) and affirmed the Commissioner’s denial of benefits.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Credibility of plaintiff's symptom testimony | Moungchanh contends the ALJ failed to give clear and convincing reasons to reject his testimony about disabling knee pain and related limitations | ALJ relied on medical improvement after injections, conservative treatment, minimal pain medication use, and activities (e.g., walking/sitting at event) as clear/convincing reasons to discount severity | Court upheld ALJ: improvement with treatment and activities are clear and convincing reasons to discount testimony |
| Weight given to treating physician Dr. Soung | Moungchanh argues the ALJ failed to properly accept/reject specific findings (inability to stand from seated without hands; inability to sit without using hands) | ALJ gave significant weight overall to Dr. Soung’s opinion; the specific sit/stand note was part of exam findings considered in form and not a discrete, controlling work restriction requiring separate adoption | Court held no error: ALJ reasonably considered and incorporated Dr. Soung’s opinion; omission of that specific phrasing was not reversible |
| Duty to develop record for mental impairments (anxiety/depression) | Moungchanh contends sparse references to Zoloft, panic attacks, and family statements required a consultative psychological exam | Commissioner/ALJ: medical records lacked a formal diagnosis or sufficient medical signs to establish a medically determinable mental impairment; plaintiff bears burden to show such impairment | Court held ALJ reasonably concluded the record did not establish a medically determinable mental impairment and had no duty to further develop the record |
| Step five / VE testimony and additional evidence before Appeals Council | Moungchanh asserts hypothetical to VE omitted limitations and that new lumbar x‑ray and VE/DOT variance undermine ALJ’s step-five finding | Defendant: ALJ’s hypothetical matched RFC supported by record; Appeals Council evidence was considered but plaintiff did not show it materially affects ALJ’s conclusions; issues unassigned in briefing waived | Court held no reversible error at step five; new evidence did not change outcome and other issues were waived for lack of proper assignment |
Key Cases Cited
- Bayliss v. Barnhart, 427 F.3d 1211 (9th Cir. 2005) (definition and application of substantial evidence standard)
- Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389 (U.S. 1971) (substantial evidence standard)
- Magallanes v. Bowen, 881 F.2d 747 (9th Cir. 1989) (courts may draw specific and legitimate inferences from ALJ findings)
- Lester v. Chater, 81 F.3d 821 (9th Cir. 1996) (standards for rejecting claimant testimony and treating physician opinions)
- Smolen v. Chater, 80 F.3d 1273 (9th Cir. 1996) (ALJ duty to develop record; evaluation of symptoms)
- Thomas v. Barnhart, 278 F.3d 947 (9th Cir. 2002) (ALJ credibility determinations upheld when supported by substantial evidence)
- Parra v. Astrue, 481 F.3d 742 (9th Cir. 2007) (conservative treatment may undermine claims of disabling pain)
- Brewes v. Commissioner of Social Security, 682 F.3d 1157 (9th Cir. 2012) (district court must consider new evidence submitted to Appeals Council)