Salih v. Berryhill
2:17-cv-00554
| W.D. Wash. | Apr 18, 2018Background
- Plaintiff Nadiya Salih (born 1974) applied for Supplemental Security Income in 2013 alleging long‑term lumbar spine problems and obesity; ALJ denied benefits after a 2015 hearing.
- Treating physician Manudeep Mahal, M.D., submitted three functional assessments (Oct 14, 2013; Dec 26, 2013; Oct 23, 2014) limiting sitting, standing, walking, lifting, requiring position changes and unscheduled breaks; supported by PT records and imaging showing degenerative disc disease and spondylolysis/spondylolisthesis.
- ALJ gave little weight to Dr. Mahal’s Dec 2013 and Oct 2013 opinions, citing patient assistance in form completion, lack of physician observation of limitations, and findings of normal range of motion/gait in some records; ALJ credited non‑examining state consultant Charles Wolfe, M.D.
- The ALJ’s RFC found claimant capable of light work with postural and environmental limits but did not adopt many of Dr. Mahal’s specific restrictions (e.g., sitting/standing time limits, lifting rare 10 lbs, unscheduled breaks, absenteeism).
- The Appeals Council denied review; district court reviewed the ALJ decision and found legal error in discounting the treating physician’s opinions and in the ALJ’s reliance on an incomplete assessment of the record.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether ALJ properly rejected treating physician Dr. Mahal’s opinions | Dr. Mahal’s opinions are supported by objective findings, PT records, and imaging; ALJ failed to give specific and legitimate reasons to reject them | ALJ discounted opinions because claimant assisted in completing forms, and doctor did not personally observe proposed limitations; claimant’s credibility also questioned | Court: ALJ erred. Reasons given are unsupported or legally insufficient; remand required to reevaluate treating opinions and RFC |
| Whether ALJ permissibly discounted Dec 26, 2013 opinion (detailed functional limits) | Dec 2013 opinion tied to objective findings and PT course; limitations would preclude competitive work | ALJ said claimant likely assisted with forms and doctor hadn’t observed limitations; Commissioner suggests opinions reflected claimant’s subjective complaints | Court: ALJ’s “assistance” finding unsupported; lack of direct observation is not a valid basis; error harmful because omitted limits affect step‑five vocational finding |
| Whether ALJ permissibly discounted Oct 14, 2013 opinion (ROM, gait findings) | Records show repeated decreased/painful ROM and antalgic gait; ALJ mischaracterized record as showing consistently normal ROM/gait | ALJ pointed to some records noting normal ROM/gait and discounted treating opinion on that basis | Court: ALJ mischaracterized and selectively relied on isolated normal findings; inconsistency with record and failure to give specific, legitimate reasons requires remand |
| Whether ALJ properly relied on non‑examining physician Dr. Wolfe and incorporated his limits into RFC | Treating opinions remain better supported; ALJ overlooked/misinterpreted evidence; Wolfe’s limits were not fully reflected in RFC | ALJ gave Wolfe great weight as consistent with record | Court: ALJ did not explain why Wolfe’s limitations (e.g., <=6 hours sit/stand/walk; close to restroom) were omitted; remand to reassess Wolfe’s opinion and RFC |
Key Cases Cited
- Orn v. Astrue, 495 F.3d 625 (9th Cir. 2007) (treating‑physician controlling weight standard)
- Reddick v. Chater, 157 F.3d 715 (9th Cir. 1998) (standard for rejecting uncontradicted treating opinions)
- Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389 (1971) (substantial evidence standard)
- Magallanes v. Bowen, 881 F.2d 747 (9th Cir. 1989) (substantial evidence explained)
- Ghanim v. Colvin, 763 F.3d 1154 (9th Cir. 2014) (limits on rejecting treating opinions based on claimant self‑report)
- Stout v. Commissioner, Social Security Administration, 454 F.3d 1050 (9th Cir. 2006) (ALJ must not silently disregard evidence/testimony)
- Treichler v. Commissioner of Social Security Admin., 775 F.3d 1090 (9th Cir. 2014) (remand vs. award of benefits framework)
- Marcia v. Sullivan, 900 F.2d 172 (9th Cir. 1990) (district court discretion to remand for further proceedings)
- Connett v. Barnhart, 340 F.3d 871 (9th Cir. 2003) (review limits: court cannot make independent factual findings)