(SS) Compean v. Commissioner of Social Security
1:21-cv-01447
| E.D. Cal. | Jun 27, 2025Background
- Rosalinda Compean filed for Social Security disability insurance benefits in February 2019, claiming disability starting September 25, 2017, based on fibromyalgia, asthma, and other physical and mental conditions.
- Her application was denied initially and on reconsideration. After an unfavorable decision by the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ), Compean sought review from the Appeals Council, which was also denied.
- The ALJ held that although Compean had several severe and non-severe impairments, she was not disabled under the Social Security Act, finding she could perform past relevant work as a community program aide.
- The ALJ relied on a vocational expert (VE) to classify her past work and determine that she could perform the job as generally performed in the national economy, not just as she had performed it.
- Compean challenged the ALJ's findings in district court, focusing on the reliance on the VE’s opinion, exclusion of new medical evidence, and assessment of asthma-related limitations.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| ALJ's Reliance on VE for Past Relevant Work | ALJ erred by accepting the VE’s categorization of past work as a light job, while Plaintiff’s actual duties were more demanding | VE's testimony was substantial evidence; claim about job classification was waived by lack of timely objection at hearing | ALJ properly relied on VE's opinion and applied proper test; substantial evidence supports the finding |
| New Evidence to Appeals Council | New letter from Dr. Del Rosario justified remand and warranted greater RFC limitations | New evidence was not material or outcome determinative; no good cause for late submission | Appeals Council only looked at, did not consider, new evidence; Plaintiff failed to show good cause for late submission, so evidence not reviewed by court |
| Environmental RFC Limitations (Asthma) | ALJ’s RFC inconsistent with onset date and severity of asthma; exposure limitations inadequate | ALJ thoroughly assessed medical records, and RFC included more restrictions than doctors recommended | RFC and environmental limitations supported by substantial evidence and consistent with medical record |
Key Cases Cited
- Hill v. Astrue, 698 F.3d 1153 (9th Cir. 2012) (standard for substantial evidence in Social Security review)
- Pinto v. Massanari, 249 F.3d 840 (9th Cir. 2001) (ALJ's duty for factual findings at step four)
- Bayliss v. Barnhart, 427 F.3d 1211 (9th Cir. 2005) (VE testimony can serve as substantial evidence)
- Massachi v. Astrue, 486 F.3d 1149 (9th Cir. 2007) (ALJ must resolve any conflict between VE and DOT)
- Tommasetti v. Astrue, 533 F.3d 1035 (9th Cir. 2008) (harmless error rule in Social Security cases)
- Andrews v. Shalala, 53 F.3d 1035 (9th Cir. 1995) (scope of review under substantial evidence standard)