(SS) Caren v. Commissioner of Social Security
2:21-cv-00442
E.D. Cal.Mar 9, 2022Background
- Plaintiff John Caren filed for DIB and SSI in March 2014, alleging disability beginning September 26, 2012, based on memory loss, language/math difficulty, anxiety, disordered thoughts, and dementia.
- Administrative proceedings: initial denials; ALJ denial in 2016; district-court remand in 2019; second ALJ hearing October 3, 2019; ALJ again denied benefits on November 7, 2019.
- ALJ findings: severe impairments of anxiety, depression, and cognitive disorder; RFC—able to perform work at all exertional levels but limited to simple instructions, routine repetitive tasks, occasional public/coworker interaction, and only occasional changes.
- ALJ gave little weight to treating opinions from treating psychiatrist and psychologist (Drs. Hinton and Gilroy) and great weight to examining/medical expert opinions (Dr. Regazzi and Dr. Layton).
- Vocational Expert (VE) testimony relied on an RFC that omitted limitations identified by an examiner (need for more prompts/reminders) and a medical expert (only occasional supervisor contact).
- District court granted plaintiff’s summary judgment motion, reversed the Commissioner, and remanded for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether ALJ properly weighed treating opinions (Drs. Hinton, Gilroy) | Caren: ALJ failed to give specific and legitimate reasons supported by substantial evidence for discounting treating opinions about work-day limitations | Gov: ALJ permissibly relied on therapy notes, observed in-session behavior, and other records to assign little weight | Held: ALJ erred—rejection of treating opinions not supported by specific and legitimate reasons; plaintiff entitled to summary judgment on this claim |
| Whether VE testimony supports step-five finding | Caren: ALJ’s hypothetical omitted limitations (need for extra prompts/reminders; limitation to only occasional supervisor contact) so VE testimony lacks evidentiary value | Gov: Post-hoc rationale attempts to justify ALJ’s question; ALJ’s RFC and VE testimony were adequate | Held: ALJ erred by failing to include those limitations in the controlling hypothetical; VE testimony therefore unreliable |
Key Cases Cited
- Hill v. Astrue, 698 F.3d 1153 (9th Cir. 2012) (standard of review—substantial evidence)
- Lester v. Chater, 81 F.3d 821 (9th Cir. 1995) (weight to treating, examining, nonexamining opinions)
- Smolen v. Chater, 80 F.3d 1273 (9th Cir. 1996) (treating physician deference rationale)
- Chaudhry v. Astrue, 688 F.3d 661 (9th Cir. 2012) (ALJ need not accept conclusory, unsupported opinions)
- Garrison v. Colvin, 759 F.3d 995 (9th Cir. 2014) (cycles of improvement and the credit-as-true framework)
- Bray v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 554 F.3d 1219 (9th Cir. 2009) (hypothetical must capture all claimant limitations)
- Zavalin v. Colvin, 778 F.3d 842 (9th Cir. 2015) (ALJ must reconcile apparent conflicts between VE testimony and DOT)
- DeLorme v. Sullivan, 924 F.2d 841 (9th Cir. 1991) (vocational testimony ambiguous if limitations unclear)
- Trevizo v. Berryhill, 871 F.3d 664 (9th Cir. 2017) (remand discretion; credit-as-true considerations)
- Holohan v. Massanari, 246 F.3d 1195 (9th Cir. 2001) (improvement does not necessarily negate disability)