Muccigrosso v. Commissioner Social Security Administration, 3:16-cv-01624

Background

Plaintiff Donald P. Muccigrosso, Jr. applied for DIB and SSI alleging disability from December 31, 2005; initial denials were upheld then reversed and remanded by a prior district judge for further administrative proceedings.
On remand, ALJ Paul Robeck conducted a hearing and found Plaintiff disabled beginning November 23, 2014 (age 55) but not disabled from December 31, 2010 through November 23, 2014; he adopted an RFC for modified light work with specific limits on lifting, sitting/standing, stooping, and overhead work.
Treating neurosurgeon Dr. Darrell Brett, reviewing physician Dr. Mark Shoag, and examining physician Dr. Paolo Punsalan each opined that Plaintiff could not perform repetitive lifting, bending, or stooping and could not sit or stand in a stationary position for more than two consecutive hours; Dr. Brett gave specific lifting limits (initially 25–35 lbs.).
Plaintiff testified to severe, disabling pain and severe limitations in sitting, standing, and upper-extremity use; a lay witness (friend Lisa Cheeley) corroborated significant functional limits but also reported the claimant engaged in some activities (playing guitar in public, shopping).
The ALJ discounted portions of the claimant’s testimony, gave little weight to some medical opinions (Brett, Shoag) and some weight to the lay witness, and relied on VE testimony to find that prior to November 23, 2014 there were jobs the claimant could perform.
The district court reversed, concluding the ALJ improperly discredited medical and lay evidence that, if credited, would compel a finding of disability, and remanded for an immediate award of benefits.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether ALJ properly discounted Plaintiff’s symptom testimony	Muccigrosso: ALJ failed to give clear and convincing reasons to reject testimony of severe pain and inability to sit/stand	Commissioner: ALJ permissibly relied on daily activities, conservative treatment, and sporadic work history to discount credibility	Court: ALJ erred in some reasons (treatment analysis) but overall credibility finding is affirmed because substantial evidence supports it
Whether ALJ erred in rejecting treating/examining/reviewing medical opinions (Drs. Brett, Punsalan, Shoag)	Muccigrosso: ALJ gave insufficient reasons to discount Drs. Brett, Shoag, and Punsalan; their limitations were supported and largely consistent	Commissioner: ALJ permissibly gave little weight to opinions inconsistent with record and claimant’s activities; non‑examining opinion less persuasive	Court: ALJ legally erred — Dr. Brett and Shoag were improperly discounted; ALJ also failed to give specific, legitimate reasons to discredit Punsalan
Whether ALJ properly discounted lay witness (Lisa Cheeley)	Muccigrosso: Cheeley’s report is germane and consistent with medical record; ALJ did not give adequate reasons to discount it	Commissioner: ALJ reasonably found portions inconsistent with activities (e.g., sitting) and gave only some weight	Court: ALJ gave a germane reason re: sitting but other reasons for discounting were not germane; error to partly reject Cheeley’s testimony
Whether ALJ properly relied on VE testimony at step five	Muccigrosso: VE testimony did not incorporate all credited limitations (no repetitive lifting/bending/stooping) so step‑five finding unsupported	Commissioner: Jobs identified exist given ALJ’s RFC	Held: Because key medical testimony limiting repetitive lifting/bending/stooping was improperly rejected, crediting it would eliminate the jobs the VE identified; therefore benefits are warranted and immediate award ordered

Key Cases Cited

Vasquez v. Astrue, 572 F.3d 586 (9th Cir. 2009) (substantial‑evidence standard and review of ALJ findings)
Valentine v. Commissioner, 574 F.3d 685 (9th Cir. 2009) (five‑step sequential evaluation and RFC interpretation principles)
Carmickle v. Commissioner, 533 F.3d 1155 (9th Cir. 2008) (ALJ must give clear and convincing reasons to reject symptom testimony when no malingering shown)
Molina v. Astrue, 674 F.3d 1104 (9th Cir. 2012) (factors for evaluating symptom testimony and limits on discounting evidence)
Garrison v. Colvin, 759 F.3d 995 (9th Cir. 2014) (credit‑as‑true rule for remand for benefits)
Benecke v. Barnhart, 379 F.3d 587 (9th Cir. 2004) (considerations against further remand and claimant hardship)
Harman v. Apfel, 211 F.3d 1172 (9th Cir. 2000) (standards for remand vs. benefits)
Tommasetti v. Astrue, 533 F.3d 1035 (9th Cir. 2008) (permissible factors for credibility findings)