(SS) Alvarez v. Commissioner of Social Security, 1:15-cv-01708

Background

Plaintiff Luisa Alvarez applied for DIB, alleging disability from November 1, 2008; insured status through December 31, 2013. ALJ denied benefits; Appeals Council denied review. District court review followed.
Medical issues: multi-level degenerative disc disease, history of neck sarcoma, pain, paresthesia in right upper extremity, headaches; limited right shoulder ROM and decreased right-sided sensation; limited English literacy.
Exam and consultant evidence: consultative orthopedic examiner (Dr. Vesali) found medium-level exertional capacity with frequent right-hand manipulations except occasional overhead reaching; treating physician (Dr. Devireddy) completed restrictive medical source statements (very limited sitting/standing, frequent unscheduled breaks, marked manipulative limits) with minimal objective findings documented; state agency reviewers found light restrictions consistent with Dr. Vesali but more restrictive than treating opinion.
VE testimony identified past relevant work (including nut sorter) and alternative jobs; noted conflicts between DOT and VE regarding handling/fingering for nut sorter.
ALJ found Plaintiff not disabled through the date last insured, gave limited weight to treating physician, limited weight to consultative examiner but did not account for the consultative finding of frequent right-hand fingering, and found Plaintiff only capable of light work. District court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Credibility of symptom testimony	Alvarez: ALJ failed to give clear and convincing reasons to discredit her pain/symptom testimony	Commissioner: ALJ properly relied on daily activities and medical record inconsistencies	Held for Commissioner — ALJ gave clear & convincing, supported reasons (daily activities, foster care duties, objective record)
Weight given to treating physician (Devireddy)	Alvarez: treating opinion should be adopted / given controlling weight	Commissioner: treating opinion inconsistent with objective findings; state reviewers provide substantial contrary evidence	Held for Commissioner — ALJ gave specific, legitimate reasons to discount (lack of objective support)
Failure to adopt consultative examiner's frequent right‑hand fingering limitation (Vesali)	Alvarez: ALJ erred by not explaining rejection of frequent fingering limitation	Commissioner: VE and other jobs justify omission; limitation not necessary	Held for Alvarez in part — ALJ erred by not explaining rejection of Vesali’s fingering limitation; remand required
VE/DOT conflicts and English illiteracy	Alvarez: ALJ failed to resolve apparent conflict between VE testimony and DOT re: fingering; failed to account for claimant’s illiteracy in English when relying on jobs	Commissioner: any conflict is harmless; reaching limits affect only overhead reaching with right arm	Held for Alvarez — Court found unresolved DOT/VE conflict re: nut sorter and required ALJ to address impact of English illiteracy on ability to perform identified jobs; remand for further admin proceedings

Key Cases Cited

Molina v. Astrue, 674 F.3d 1104 (9th Cir. 2012) (two-step test for evaluating claimant symptom testimony)
Lester v. Chater, 81 F.3d 821 (9th Cir. 1995) (weight accorded treating physician opinions)
Tonapetyan v. Halter, 242 F.3d 1144 (9th Cir. 2001) (non-examining opinions can be substantial evidence when consistent with record)
Gutierrez v. Colvin, 844 F.3d 804 (9th Cir. 2016) (ALJ must address only obvious/apparent conflicts between VE and DOT)
Pinto v. Massanari, 249 F.3d 840 (9th Cir. 2001) (ALJ/VE must account for claimant illiteracy when relying on DOT job descriptions)
Treichler v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 775 F.3d 1090 (9th Cir. 2014) (remand principles; when to remand for further proceedings vs. benefits)
Garrison v. Colvin, 759 F.3d 995 (9th Cir. 2014) (framework for remand for benefits vs. further proceedings)