Pola v. Commissioner of Social Security (previously Astrue and Colvin)
2:12-cv-03068
E.D. Wash.Aug 27, 2013Background
- Pola sought Title II disability benefits for onset Sept 30, 2007; ALJ denied benefits after hearing.
- ALJ found Schizoaffective and related disorders as severe impairments but RFC allowed full range with limited isolation.
- Dr. Rita Flanagan opined multiple moderate limitations in section I; narrative section III limited to simple work with concentration issues.
- VE testified that a hypothetical including Flanagan’s moderate limits would preclude unskilled work; plaintiff’s wife testified to functional limitations.
- The ALJ did not explain weight given to medical opinions or resolve Dr. Flanagan’s conflicting sections; failed to incorporate all limitations into RFC or hypothetical.
- Court reversed and remanded for explicit evaluation of medical opinions, resolving ambiguities, and proper vocational testimony.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the ALJ properly weigh medical opinions? | Pola argues Flanagan’s moderate limits were not properly weighed. | Colvin contends Section I is a worksheet and not controlling, with weight given to other records. | Remand for explicit weighing and reasoning on medical opinions. |
| Was the RFC/hypothetical complete given Flanagan’s opinions? | RFC failed to include multiple moderate limitations from Dr. Flanagan. | Section I limitations are not controlling for RFC and VE. | Remand to include all significant limitations and reconcile Section I with Section III. |
| Was the VE testimony based on a proper, complete hypothetical? | Incomplete hypothetical due to unresolved medical limitations. | VE testimony relies on the RFC as stated. | VE testimony had no evidentiary value due to an incomplete hypothetical. |
| Did the ALJ properly resolve conflicts in the medical evidence? | ALJ failed to explain weight given to each source and resolve ambiguities. | Not clearly stated, but reliance on overall record. | Remand to provide specific analysis and rational grounds for weightings. |
Key Cases Cited
- Edlund v. Massanari, 253 F.3d 1152 (9th Cir. 2001) (requires substantial evidence and proper legal standards)
- Harman v. Apfel, 211 F.3d 1172 (9th Cir. 2000) (standard of review for denial of benefits)
- Tackett v. Apfel, 180 F.3d 1094 (9th Cir. 1999) (substantial evidence and burden shifting in evidence review)
- Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389 (U.S. 1971) (requires substantial evidence; rational interpretation of record)
- Reddick v. Chater, 157 F.3d 715 (9th Cir. 1998) (ALJ must articulate reasons and weigh medical opinions)
- Vincent v. Heckler, 739 F.2d 1393 (9th Cir. 1984) (must resolve ambiguities in medical opinions)
- Carmickle v. Commissioner, 533 F.3d 1166 (9th Cir. 2008) (VE testimony has no value if hypothetical is incomplete)
- Lewis v. Apfel, 236 F.3d 503 (9th Cir. 2001) (incomplete hypotheticals undermine VE testimony)