Robert M. Carey v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration, 8:12-cv-00173

Carey sued the Commissioner of the SSA in the Central District of California challenging denial of disability benefits (Case No. SA CV 12-173 JCG).
Plaintiff raises four main issues regarding ALJ decisions on step-two severity, hand limitations, treating-source opinion, and credibility of subjective complaints.
Court acknowledges an erroneous step-two finding of no severe impairment for lumbar spine but finds the error harmless because the back condition was considered at later steps in determining RFC.
ALJ rejected Dr. Enriquez’s hand-timing limitation opinion, relying on Plaintiff’s statements and the Bozorgchami record showing tremor improvement with Propranolol.
Treating physician Dr. Stewart’s opinion is deemed conclusory and a non-binding issue reserved to the Commissioner; ALJ’s credibility analysis found substantial evidence supporting his conclusions.
Overall, the court affirms the Commissioner’s denial of benefits as substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s decision.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Step-two severity of lumbar spine	Carey argues lumbar spine impairment was not found severe	ALJ’s error harmless since impairment weighed at later steps	No reversible error; harmless despite step-two finding
ALJ’s rejection of Dr. Enriquez’s hand limits	HAD hand limitations as per consultative opinion	ALJ properly relied on other evidence including Plaintiff’s statements	No error; hand limitations adequately addressed
ALJ’s handling of Dr. Stewart’s treating-opinion	ALJ failed to discuss treating physician’s disability opinion	Opinion not significant or probative; issue reserved to Commissioner	No error; opinion deemed conclusory and not controlling
Assessment of Plaintiff’s subjective complaints	ALJ did not adequately credit his testimony	ALJ provided clear, convincing reasons supported by record	Held substantial evidence supported credibility assessment

Webb v. Barnhart, 433 F.3d 683 (9th Cir. 2005) (non-severe impairment can be harmless if considered later)
Burch v. Barnhart, 400 F.3d 676 (9th Cir. 2005) (harmless error where impairment considered in RFC)
Carmickle v. Comm’r, Soc. Sec. Admin., 533 F.3d 1155 (9th Cir. 2008) (rejection requires specific, legitimate reasons supported by substantial evidence)
Lester v. Chater, 81 F.3d 821 (9th Cir. 1995) (requires explanation of why evidence is not persuasive)
Vincent v. Heckler, 739 F.2d 1394 (9th Cir. 1984) (ALJ must explain why significant probative evidence was rejected)
Thomas v. Barnhart, 278 F.3d 947 (9th Cir. 2002) (references inconsistent statements as credibility factor)
Rollins v. Massanari, 261 F.3d 853 (9th Cir. 2001) (lack of objective evidence supports credibility findings)
Mayes v. Massanari, 276 F.3d 453 (9th Cir. 2001) (substantial evidence standard for disability determinations)