Rounds v. Commissioner Social Security Administration
2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 21393
| 9th Cir. | 2015Background
- Heather Rounds, 22, applied for SSI (protective date March 10, 2009); ALJ denied benefits on Sept. 3, 2010; denial affirmed by Appeals Council and district court; Rounds appealed.
- Medical records show diagnoses including major depressive disorder, social phobia, pervasive developmental disorder NOS, cognitive disorder NOS; treating records later referenced chronic fibromyalgia but the ALJ found fibromyalgia not a medically determinable impairment under the criteria he applied.
- ALJ found severe mental impairments, RFC limited Rounds to one- to two-step tasks, no public contact, no teamwork, limited coworker contact; no past relevant work.
- At Step Five the ALJ relied on a vocational expert (VE) who identified jobs (kitchen helper, hand packager, recycler) that the DOT lists as requiring Reasoning Level 2.
- Rounds argued the RFC (one- to two-step tasks) conflicts with Level 2 Reasoning; record contains opinions from examining and nonexamining psychologists and lay witnesses; ALJ discounted some testimony but credited key medical opinions in formulating RFC.
- Ninth Circuit vacated in part and remanded because the ALJ failed to reconcile an apparent conflict between the VE testimony and the DOT regarding reasoning level; other issues largely affirmed or left for remand consideration (including fibromyalgia under 2010 criteria).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether ALJ must reconcile VE testimony with DOT when RFC limits claimant to one- to two-step tasks but VE identifies Level 2 jobs | Rounds: RFC to one- to two-step tasks is inconsistent with DOT Level 2 reasoning; ALJ erred by not reconciling | Comm’r: "tasks" differ from "instructions"; Level 2 jobs may be consistent with simple/repetitive RFC | Court: Remand — apparent conflict exists; ALJ must obtain VE explanation and resolve it before relying on testimony |
| Whether ALJ properly rejected fibromyalgia diagnosis | Rounds: ALJ failed to develop record, relied on pre-diagnosis reviews, substituted his judgment; should apply 2010 ACR criteria | Comm’r: ALJ considered evidence and left record open after hearing; fibromyalgia not proven under criteria he applied | Court: Did not decide merits; remand required to apply SSR 12-2p/2010 criteria and determine if fibromyalgia is medically determinable |
| Whether ALJ properly weighed medical opinions (Drs. McKenna, Boyd) | Rounds: ALJ ignored or failed to fully adopt treating/examining recommendations | Comm’r: ALJ incorporated relevant limitations into RFC and reasonably translated recommendations into functional terms | Court: Affirmed — ALJ adequately accounted for and gave weight to those opinions in RFC |
| Whether ALJ properly evaluated claimant and lay-witness testimony | Rounds: ALJ improperly discounted her and lay witnesses' credibility | Comm’r: ALJ cited inconsistencies, daily activities, secondary motives, and treatment noncompliance as reasons | Court: Affirmed — ALJ gave clear, convincing reasons to discount claimant and germane reasons regarding lay testimony; any omission harmless as to Davidson |
Key Cases Cited
- Molina v. Astrue, 674 F.3d 1104 (9th Cir. 2012) (standard of review and credibility analysis factors)
- Zavalin v. Colvin, 778 F.3d 842 (9th Cir. 2015) (ALJ must reconcile apparent conflicts between VE testimony and DOT)
- Massachi v. Astrue, 486 F.3d 1149 (9th Cir. 2007) (SSR 00-4p requires VE explanation for conflicts with DOT)
- Smolen v. Chater, 80 F.3d 1273 (9th Cir. 1996) (requirements for assessing symptom testimony credibility)
- Benecke v. Barnhart, 379 F.3d 587 (9th Cir. 2004) (characterization of fibromyalgia)
- Tommasetti v. Astrue, 533 F.3d 1035 (9th Cir. 2008) (substantial evidence standard and evaluating inferences)