Schafer v. Colvin (previously Astrue)
2:12-cv-00229
E.D. Wash.Sep 10, 2013Background
- Plaintiff Daniel L. Schafer (age 52 at hearing) applied for DIB and SSI, alleging disability from October 1, 2009 due to COPD and coronary artery disease (CAD).
- Applications were denied; ALJ Payne held a hearing on Feb 28, 2011 with medical expert Dr. Alpern testifying; ALJ denied benefits on Mar 4, 2011; Appeals Council denied review; district court review followed.
- Treating physician Dr. Robert Margraf completed a 4/23/2010 DSHS physical evaluation diagnosing COPD and CAD, rating them "moderate," and opining sedentary limitations, but he awaited cardiology results before finalizing disability assessment.
- Cardiology workup (myocardial perfusion study and 7/2/2010 left heart catheterization) showed a perfusion defect on the scan but angiographically normal coronary arteries; cardiologist recommended non-cardiac follow up.
- Medical expert Dr. Alpern concluded Plaintiff had mild obstructive lung disease, no CAD, and an RFC of medium (or light per DDS); ALJ adopted a light-work RFC (20 lbs occasionally, 10 lbs frequently, sit/stand/walk 6 hours, occasional stoop).
- ALJ rejected Dr. Margraf’s sedentary limitation in favor of Dr. Alpern’s opinion, finding the treating physician’s restriction premised on assumed CAD that later was not substantiated; court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether ALJ improperly rejected treating physician's opinion | Schafer: ALJ erred in rejecting Dr. Margraf’s sedentary limitation without proper reasons | Colvin: ALJ gave specific, legitimate reasons supported by record (cardiology results contradicted assumption of significant CAD) | Court: Held ALJ permissibly rejected treating opinion for specific, legitimate reasons supported by substantial evidence |
| Whether ALJ’s RFC finding is unsupported by substantial evidence | Schafer: RFC to perform light work is not supported by medical evidence and underestimates limitations | Colvin: Medical expert and objective tests support light/medium RFC; rules direct nondisability | Court: Held RFC supported by substantial evidence; denial of benefits affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389 (1971) (defines substantial evidence standard)
- Benecke v. Barnhart, 379 F.3d 587 (9th Cir. 2004) (treating physician opinion rule and special weight principle)
- Lester v. Chater, 81 F.3d 821 (9th Cir. 1996) (requirements to reject an uncontradicted treating opinion)
- Bayliss v. Barnhart, 427 F.3d 1211 (9th Cir. 2005) (ALJ may reject opinions that are brief, conclusory, or inadequately supported)
- Andrews v. Shalala, 53 F.3d 1035 (9th Cir. 1995) (non-examining medical expert opinion can constitute substantial evidence when consistent with the record)