Muhammad Chaudhry v. Michael Astrue
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 16704
9th Cir.2012Background
- Chaudhry, age 32 at onset, alleged disability from Feb. 26, 2005 due to back injury, migraines, narcolepsy, and depression.
- Past relevant work: fast-food worker, sales clerk, cashier, waiter, housekeeper/cleaner; Army service 2002–2005.
- VA evaluations (2004–2007) show back pain, migraine, narcolepsy, depression; some doctors questioned objective findings and noted possible somatization.
- May 2008 consultative exam found limited standing/walking and pain-related limitations; some inconsistencies in testing observed.
- Non-examining reviewers found non-severe mental impairment; DVA ratings indicated multiple impairments with varying disability levels; GAF 55.
- ALJ found Chaudhry not disabled after five-step analysis, assigning light work RFC with specific limitations; substantial evidence supported credibility determinations; Appeals Council denied review; district court granted summary judgment for the Commissioner.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| VA rating consideration in SSA decision | Chaudhry argues the ALJ failed to adequately consider the VA disability rating. | ALJ properly evaluated VA rating within the record and did not need a separate determination. | ALJ adequately considered the VA rating; McLeod duty to inquire not triggered; record sufficient. |
| Severity of psychiatric impairments | Somatization and depressive disorder are severe and impair function. | ALJ properly applied psychiatric review technique and found non-severe impact. | ALJ applied required psychiatric evaluation and properly documented functional limitations. |
| Weight given to medical opinions (Ho/Schultz vs. Kraft/Staley) | ALJ erred by not crediting Ho/Schultz opinions over Kraft/Staley. | ALJ properly weighed conflicting medical opinions with substantial evidence. | RFC based on Kraft/Staley; reasons for discounting Ho/Schultz were specific, legitimate, and supported. |
| Credibility determination | ALJ did not provide clear and convincing reasons; Chaudhry’s symptoms credible. | Record shows inconsistent statements and lack of treatment; credibility properly assessed. | ALJ’s credibility determination supported by substantial evidence and related symptoms to RFC. |
Key Cases Cited
- McLeod v. Astrue, 640 F.3d 881 (9th Cir. 2011) (VA rating consideration; ALJ must evaluate and ordinarily give weight to VA finding; inquiry when rating unclear)
- Keyser v. Comm’r Soc. Sec. Admin., 648 F.3d 721 (9th Cir. 2011) (special psychiatric review technique; require explicit functional-area findings)
- Taylor v. Comm’r Soc. Sec. Admin., 659 F.3d 1228 (9th Cir. 2011) (credibility requires clear and convincing reasons where objective evidence supports conditions)
- Tommasetti v. Astrue, 533 F.3d 1035 (9th Cir. 2008) (consider credibility factors and unexplained treatment failures in evaluating pain)
- Orn v. Astrue, 495 F.3d 625 (9th Cir. 2007) (credibility and disability determinations require weighing of subjective complaints against evidence)