Porter v. Colvin, 9:13-cv-00101

Background

Cheryl Porter applied for Social Security disability (Title II) claiming onset July 2007 for chronic neck/back pain, thoracic outlet syndrome, carpal tunnel, headaches, and blurred vision; application denied administratively and by ALJ in Sept. 2011; Appeals Council denied review.
ALJ found Porter had severe impairments (cervical/lumbar degenerative disc disease, thoracic outlet, post–bilateral carpal tunnel release, headaches), but not disabling and retained RFC for a limited range of light work, able to perform past work as phone sales operator and title clerk.
Primary care Dr. Douglas Pittman treated Porter from 2007–2009, ordered MRIs, restricted her from work (Workers’ Comp form June 2009 stating she could not return to any employment), and noted pain was "reasonably controlled" on last visit.
Dr. Scott Janke became her PCP in Dec. 2009; in 2011 he partially adopted a physical-therapist FCE that showed very limited function but questioned the FCE’s validity (submaximal effort, no expected pulse changes).
ALJ did not address Pittman’s opinion that Porter could not work; ALJ gave little weight to Janke’s opinion because it relied on a questionable FCE and lacked explanatory support.
Magistrate Judge recommended reversing and remanding under sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) for the limited purpose of requiring the ALJ to expressly consider Dr. Pittman’s work‑restriction opinion and, if credited, to reassess Porter's credibility and lay testimony.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether ALJ erred by failing to discuss/treat treating physician Pittman’s opinion that Porter cannot work	Porter: ALJ failed to address Pittman’s June 2009 opinion excusing her from work and never releasing her	Commissioner: ALJ considered Pittman’s records generally (MRIs, notes), and other evidence supports the RFC	Court: ALJ erred by not addressing Pittman’s explicit opinion; remand required for ALJ to consider it
Whether ALJ properly weighed Dr. Janke’s opinion based on the FCE	Porter: ALJ should have given greater weight to Janke’s restrictions	Commissioner: Janke’s opinion relied on an FCE showing submaximal effort and lacked explanation; state reviewers contradicted it	Court: ALJ permissibly gave it little weight for specific, legitimate reasons
Whether ALJ mischaracterized Dr. Hollis’s neurosurgical exam	Porter: ALJ relied unduly on Hollis to discredit her	Commissioner: ALJ accurately summarized Hollis’s findings and used them with other evidence	Court: ALJ did not ‘extol’ Hollis but properly considered his findings in context
Appropriate remedy after the identified error (remand vs. immediate benefits)	Porter: Implicitly seeks relief/remand to obtain benefits	Commissioner: ALJ’s other findings supported by evidence; administrative remand appropriate	Court: Remand for further administrative proceedings to allow ALJ to evaluate Pittman’s opinion and reassess credibility; not an immediate award of benefits

Key Cases Cited

Bayliss v. Barnhart, 427 F.3d 1211 (9th Cir.) (standard for RFC evidence and VE testimony)
Thomas v. Barnhart, 278 F.3d 947 (9th Cir.) (substantial evidence standard)
Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389 (Sup. Ct.) (definition of substantial evidence)
Widmark v. Barnhart, 454 F.3d 1063 (9th Cir.) (ALJ’s role re credibility and medical conflicts)
Edlund v. Massanari, 253 F.3d 1152 (9th Cir.) (ALJ credibility and conflict resolution)
Batson v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration, 359 F.3d 1190 (9th Cir.) (deference to ALJ inferences)
Morgan v. Commissioner, 169 F.3d 595 (9th Cir.) (evaluating medical evidence)
Burch v. Barnhart, 400 F.3d 676 (9th Cir.) (burden at steps one–four)
Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391 (9th Cir.) (clear and convincing standard for uncontradicted treating opinions)
Reddick v. Chater, 157 F.3d 715 (9th Cir.) (specific and legitimate reasons for discounting treating opinion)
Lester v. Chater, 81 F.3d 821 (9th Cir.) (treating/examining opinion standards)
Connett v. Barnhart, 340 F.3d 871 (9th Cir.) (court limited to reasons ALJ gave)
Stout v. Commissioner, 454 F.3d 1050 (9th Cir.) (harmless error and credit-as-true analysis)
Pinto v. Massanari, 249 F.3d 840 (9th Cir.) (court may not affirm for reasons not invoked by ALJ)
Benecke v. Barnhart, 379 F.3d 587 (9th Cir.) (credit-as-true framework)
McAllister v. Sullivan, 888 F.2d 599 (9th Cir.) (remand preferred to allow ALJ to address record)
Bray v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration, 554 F.3d 1219 (9th Cir.) (weighing conflicting medical opinions)
Salvador v. Sullivan, 917 F.2d 13 (9th Cir.) (remand discretionary when ALJ fails to explain rejecting treating opinion)