Nocon v. Commissioner of Social Security
2:18-cv-01605
| W.D. Wash. | Jun 26, 2019Background
- Plaintiff (age 44) applied for SSI and DIB alleging disability beginning November 14, 2014; ALJ held a hearing and denied benefits in October 2017; Appeals Council denied review.
- ALJ found severe impairments: personality disorder, mood disorder, anxiety disorder, and polysubstance abuse in early remission; none met a listing.
- RFC: full range of exertional work but limited to simple, routine tasks and occasional superficial public contact.
- ALJ rejected several examining psychologists’ opinions (Drs. Hapke, Widlan, Czysz) and one non‑examining psychologist (Dr. Petaja), favoring non‑examining reviewers (Drs. Robinson, Lewis) and treatment records.
- ALJ discounted Plaintiff’s symptom testimony as inconsistent with treatment records showing improvement with counseling/medication and ability to function in some work‑like activities.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether ALJ improperly discounted examining psychologists’ opinions | ALJ gave insufficient weight to Drs. Hapke, Widlan, Czysz | ALJ cited specific, legitimate, record‑based reasons to discount each opinion | Court: ALJ’s reasons were supported by substantial evidence; no reversible error |
| Whether ALJ improperly discounted non‑examining psychologist Dr. Petaja | Dr. Petaja’s concurrence with Dr. Widlan deserved more weight | Dr. Petaja relied only on Widlan’s flawed evaluation and did not review other records | Court: ALJ properly discounted Petaja for reliance on Widlan and limited record review |
| Whether ALJ failed to give clear and convincing reasons for discounting Plaintiff’s testimony | Plaintiff says ALJ did not meet clear‑and‑convincing standard | ALJ pointed to longitudinal treatment records showing improvement and past ability to work | Court: ALJ gave specific, clear, convincing reasons; credibility discount upheld |
| Whether non‑examining opinions alone can justify rejecting examining opinions | Implicit: Plaintiff argues examining opinions should control | Commissioner relied on non‑examining reviews plus treatment notes and inconsistencies in exam opinions | Court: Rejection of examining opinions was supported by record and non‑examining opinions where appropriate; no reversible error |
Key Cases Cited
- Molina v. Astrue, 674 F.3d 1104 (9th Cir. 2012) (standard for reversal: lack of substantial evidence or legal error)
- Thomas v. Barnhart, 278 F.3d 947 (9th Cir. 2002) (review deferential when evidence permits more than one rational interpretation)
- Lester v. Chater, 81 F.3d 821 (9th Cir. 1995) (weighting treating/examining opinions and standards for rejecting them)
- Sousa v. Callahan, 143 F.3d 1240 (9th Cir. 1998) (limitations on relying solely on non‑examining opinions)
- Garrison v. Colvin, 759 F.3d 995 (9th Cir. 2014) (error to cherry‑pick only high‑functioning evidence when symptoms wax and wane)
- Hunter v. Colvin, 798 F.3d 749 (9th Cir. 2015) (requirement for clear and convincing reasons to reject claimant testimony)
- Carmickle v. Comm’r, Soc. Sec. Admin., 533 F.3d 1155 (9th Cir. 2008) (harmless‑error rule when ALJ gives other valid reasons for credibility finding)