Rose v. Commissioner Social Security Administration
3:15-cv-02226
D. Or.Sep 7, 2017Background
- Heidi Rose applied for DIB and SSI alleging disability beginning February 10, 2014; ALJ denied benefits and Appeals Council declined review, making ALJ decision final.
- ALJ found severe impairments of bowel (fecal) incontinence and depression but concluded neither met a listing; RFC allowed work at all exertional levels with multiple nonexertional limits and close (roughly two-minute) restroom access.
- Plaintiff testified to 1–5 incontinent episodes per day with immediate need and 10–30 minute unscheduled breaks; VE testified that even one additional unscheduled break of 10–30 minutes would preclude the identified jobs.
- ALJ discounted Rose’s subjective reports based on minimal and inconsistent treatment, failure to follow simple, inexpensive recommended treatment (fiber/bulking agent), and medical records showing symptoms ‘‘unchanged’’ since 2012.
- ALJ also discounted severity of depression (minimal treatment, improvement after counseling) and found hand complaints nonsevere (mild x-ray changes; functional hobbies).
- Relying on VE testimony, ALJ concluded Rose could perform past relevant work (housekeeper, hospital cleaner) and therefore was not disabled; Court affirmed because decision was supported by substantial evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| RFC did not account for required unscheduled bathroom breaks | Rose: frequent immediate episodes and long unscheduled breaks would preclude fulltime work; VE said one extra break would preclude jobs | ALJ: Rose’s incontinence not as severe as alleged; RFC provided close restroom access and normal-length restroom use | Court: ALJ reasonably discounted severity, so no RFC limit for 10–30 minute unscheduled breaks required; VE testimony and jobs consistent with RFC |
| ALJ credibility finding regarding symptoms of incontinence and depression | Rose: ALJ erred; lack of treatment due to inability to afford care; testimony inconsistent with record not sufficient | ALJ/SSA: minimal treatment, failure to follow simple recommended therapy, inconsistent reports, and objective records undermine credibility | Court: ALJ gave clear, convincing, and specific reasons supported by substantial evidence; SSRs considered (including justifiability of noncompliance) |
| Failure to find a severe hand impairment | Rose: hand issues caused functional limits | ALJ: imaging only mild degenerative changes; exam showed slight weakness; claimant’s activities require hand use | Court: substantial evidence supports ALJ’s finding that hand impairment is nonsevere |
| Weight given to treating physician (Dr. Inkeles) and VE/DOT consistency | Rose: ALJ improperly discounted treating opinion and failed to probe VE-DOT consistency | ALJ/SSA: treating relationship limited, opinion relied on claimant’s subjective reports; VE gave job testimony consistent with RFC and DOT | Court: ALJ permissibly discounted the opinion and complied with VE/DOT requirements; substantial evidence supports decision |
Key Cases Cited
- Batson v. Comm’r for Soc. Sec. Admin., 359 F.3d 1190 (9th Cir. 2004) (court defers to agency when inferences reasonably drawn from record)
- Hill v. Astrue, 698 F.3d 1153 (9th Cir. 2012) (definition of substantial evidence)
- Martinez v. Heckler, 807 F.2d 771 (9th Cir. 1986) (court weighs supporting and detracting evidence in administrative record)
- Stout v. Comm’r Soc. Sec. Admin., 454 F.3d 1050 (9th Cir. 2006) (court may not affirm on ground not invoked by agency; harmless error rule)
- Shinseki v. Sanders, 556 U.S. 396 (2009) (burden of showing harmfulness of error lies with party attacking decision)
- Tommasetti v. Astrue, 533 F.3d 1035 (9th Cir. 2008) (ALJ may consider failure to seek or follow treatment in credibility analysis)
- Brown-Hunter v. Colvin, 806 F.3d 487 (9th Cir. 2015) (ALJ must provide specific, clear, and convincing reasons to reject claimant testimony)
- Valentine v. Comm’r Soc. Sec. Admin., 574 F.3d 685 (9th Cir. 2009) (limitations of physicians’ opinions must be supported by treatment records)
- Massachi v. Astrue, 486 F.3d 1149 (9th Cir. 2007) (ALJ must inquire whether VE testimony is consistent with the DOT)