463 F. App'x 640
9th Cir.2011Background
- Ramirez appeals a district court denial of social security disability benefits under Title II.
- The ALJ found a combination of severe impairments through the date last insured: fibromyalgia, asthma, spinal surgery residuals, obesity, sleep disorder, and depression.
- The ALJ concluded an RFC for light work with occasional climbing, balancing, stooping, kneeling, crouching, and crawling, plus a sit/stand option, and ability to perform simple and detailed tasks.
- The record was deemed unambiguous and sufficient to evaluate disability from October 2002 through December 2007.
- The ALJ discounted certain treating/examining physicians’ opinions on bilateral hand impairment.
- The ALJ found mood disorder aggravation related to the felony and that the condition was fairly well controlled by medication.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the ALJ properly discounted hand impairment opinions | Scalapino's opinion supported disabling hand impairment. | ALJ properly rejected it due to lack of objective support and contradictions. | Yes; proper reasons supported discounting Scalapino. |
| Whether the ALJ properly discounted Kofoed's exam findings | Kofoed found disability factors based on symptoms. | No objective disability factors; relied on other evidence. | Yes; valid reasons to discount Kofoed. |
| Whether mood disorder aggravation was properly analyzed | Aggravation linked to arrest/felony should be considered. | Record shows aggravation linked to arrest and mild impairment overall. | Yes; substantial evidence supports aggravation linkage and control by meds. |
| Whether RFC and transferability findings are supported | Transferability of past skills to semiskilled work insufficient. | SSR 82-41 supported transferability assessment and vocational evidence. | Yes; findings supported by SSR 82-41 and VE testimony. |
| Whether VE testimony at second hearing adequately supports alternate work | Unavailable VE from first hearing undermines reliance on VE. | Second VE testimony sufficient to support alternate work. | Yes; reliance on second VE testimony proper. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bray v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 554 F.3d 1219 (9th Cir. 2009) (substantial evidence/legal error standard for disability determinations)
- Tackett v. Apfel, 180 F.3d 1094 (9th Cir. 1999) (standard for reviewing disability determinations)
- Lester v. Chater, 81 F.3d 821 (9th Cir. 1995) (discounting medical opinions; legitimate reasons required)
- Mayes v. Massanari, 276 F.3d 453 (9th Cir. 2001) (evidence sufficiency in disability evaluation)
- Johnson v. Shalala, 60 F.3d 1428 (9th Cir. 1995) (vocation evidence and transferability considerations)
- Batson v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 359 F.3d 1190 (9th Cir. 2004) (VE testimony and reliance on vocational expert when making disability determinations)