Rutledge v. Colvin, 4:16-cv-01689

Background

Rutledge filed a second Title II DIB application alleging disability beginning April 12, 2010; SSA denied benefits and an ALJ denied the claim on August 20, 2014; Appeals Council denied review.
Medical record includes consultative physical exam (Dr. Rana, 2012), consultative psychological exam (Dr. Kerosky, 2012), state-agency reviews, and a 2013 lumbar MRI showing moderate-to-severe facet arthropathy and central stenosis.
Dr. Rana found substantial physical capacity (standing/walking/sitting ~6 hours, lifting up to 50 lbs occasionally); Dr. Kerosky found moderate-to-marked mental limitations; state reviewers found more moderate restrictions.
The ALJ found severe physical impairments (obesity, lumbar degenerative disease, knee pain, asthma, pulmonary embolism history), but concluded mental impairments were nonsevere and assessed a medium RFC with some postural and environmental limits.
The ALJ discounted Plaintiff’s credibility for several reasons (reported daily activities, alleged memory of work history, medication noncompliance, and appearance at hearing) and relied heavily on Dr. Rana’s exam while giving less weight to file-reviewing physicians.
The district court granted Rutledge’s summary judgment, found multiple errors in the ALJ’s analysis, and remanded for further proceedings including a new hearing and consultative physical evaluation.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Application of Chavez (changed circumstances)	ALJ inconsistently found changed circumstances but then assigned a less restrictive RFC; Chavez requires deterioration to overcome prior nondisability	ALJ permissibly considered changed circumstances and evaluated the new record evidence	Court: ALJ’s Chavez finding conflicted with a less restrictive RFC and the issue must be reassessed on remand
Severity of mental impairments at step two	Kerosky and Bilik found moderate–marked limitations; medication alone does not render impairments nonsevere	ALJ relied on reported improvement with medication and lack of intensive treatment	Court: ALJ erred; mental limitations at least moderate should be reflected in the RFC on remand
Credibility of claimant’s symptom testimony	ALJ failed to give clear and convincing reasons supported by substantial evidence; ignored MRI worsening and mischaracterized work-memory testimony	ALJ cited inconsistent daily activities, work-history gaps, medication noncompliance, and hearing demeanor	Court: ALJ’s reasons were insufficient or inadequately explained; credibility must be reassessed on remand
Factual errors / incomplete record reliance	ALJ misstated Dr. Rana’s exam date and failed to consider the 2013 MRI that post-dated the consultative exam; Dr. Rana’s opinion was given great weight without full record	Defendant contends error was harmless because other imaging showed similar problems	Court: Error was not harmless; consultative and other opinions must be re-evaluated with the complete record on remand

Key Cases Cited

Tackett v. Apfel, 180 F.3d 1094 (9th Cir. 1999) (standard for reviewing ALJ disability findings and substantial evidence)
Smolen v. Chater, 80 F.3d 1273 (9th Cir. 1996) (standard for subjective symptom evaluation and substantial evidence)
Chavez v. Bowen, 844 F.2d 691 (9th Cir. 1988) (presumption of continuing nondisability and requirement to show changed circumstances)
Lingenfelter v. Astrue, 504 F.3d 1028 (9th Cir. 2007) (two-step analysis for evaluating claimant symptom testimony)
Chaudhry v. Astrue, 688 F.3d 661 (9th Cir. 2012) (ALJ duty to resolve conflicts in medical evidence)
Burch v. Barnhart, 400 F.3d 676 (9th Cir. 2005) (ALJ must identify specific evidence undermining subjective complaints)
Matney on Behalf of Matney v. Sullivan, 981 F.2d 1016 (9th Cir. 1992) (ALJ may consider claimant’s demeanor and appearance at hearing)
Varney v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 859 F.2d 1396 (9th Cir. 1988) (ALJ should explain discrediting factors at first opportunity)