(SS) Dosty v. Commissioner of Social Security
2:16-cv-00522
E.D. Cal.Sep 7, 2017Background
- Plaintiff Rachelle Marie Dosty applied for SSI on June 19, 2012, alleging disability since November 14, 2009; prior SSI denial from 2012 was not reopened.
- ALJ Carol A. Eckersen held hearings in Feb. and May 2014, considered testimony (claimant and vocational expert), and issued an unfavorable decision on Sept. 26, 2014.
- ALJ found severe impairments: borderline personality disorder, depression, thoracic compression fracture, and mild lumbar degenerative disc disease; assessed RFC for medium work limited to simple, repetitive tasks in a nonpublic setting with occasional coworker/supervisor contact.
- ALJ concluded claimant could not do past work but could perform jobs existing in significant numbers; thus claimant was not disabled from the June 19, 2012 application date.
- Plaintiff appealed to district court, asserting six errors including alleged constructive reopening of prior claim, failure to weigh multiple physicians, improper discounting of agency and claimant testimony, errors in RFC regarding walking/obesity, and an incomplete VE hypothetical.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Constructive reopening of prior ALJ decision | ALJ effectively reopened and re-adjudicated prior 2012 denial, requiring remand | No reopening: plaintiff never requested re-opening and ALJ limited adjudication to period from June 19, 2012 | No reopening; ALJ did not constructively reopen prior claim |
| Failure to consider opinions of ~16 physicians | ALJ omitted or failed to weigh numerous treating/examining physicians’ opinions | Many cited documents were not medical opinions or predate the relevant period; records do not alter RFC | No reversible error; either not opinions, outside period, or harmless even if omitted |
| Treatment of agency physicians’ opinions (Drs. Biala, Brode) | ALJ ignored or misapplied their findings (esp. on coworker contact and walking limits) | ALJ gave these opinions significant weight; no conflict with other opinions (e.g., Dr. Kravatz) | No error; ALJ’s RFC aligned with agency opinions and conflicts were not shown |
| Credibility / symptom testimony | ALJ failed to specify which parts of claimant’s testimony were rejected and gave contradictory treatment to mental vs physical complaints | ALJ gave benefit of doubt to mental limitations but discounted exaggerated physical claims with clear reasons (criminal history, inconsistent drug testimony, ability to sit at hearing, inconsistency with medical record) | Credibility discounting supported by specific, clear, convincing reasons |
| RFC regarding walking and obesity | ALJ failed to consider morbid obesity’s effect on walking and other physical functions | ALJ assessed obesity and found no evidence of specific, quantifiable functional impact; obesity found non-severe and non-limiting | No reversible error; obesity found non-severe and not limiting RFC |
| VE hypothetical completeness | VE hypothetical omitted limitations (e.g., need for breaks, coworker restrictions) | ALJ must include only limitations supported by substantial evidence; VE hypotheticals matched supported RFC | No error; hypotheticals appropriately included supported limitations |
Key Cases Cited
- Howard ex rel. Wolff v. Barnhart, 341 F.3d 1006 (9th Cir. 2003) (substantial-evidence standard for upholding Commissioner’s decision)
- Molina v. Astrue, 674 F.3d 1104 (9th Cir. 2012) (definition and application of substantial evidence standard)
- Brown-Hunter v. Colvin, 806 F.3d 487 (9th Cir. 2015) (ALJ must give specific, clear, convincing reasons when rejecting symptom testimony)
- Carmickle v. Comm’r, Soc. Sec. Admin., 533 F.3d 1155 (9th Cir. 2008) (standards for weighing treating and examining physician opinions)
- Edlund v. Massanari, 253 F.3d 1152 (9th Cir. 2001) (ALJ responsibility for credibility and resolving medical conflicts)
- Robbins v. Soc. Sec. Admin., 466 F.3d 880 (9th Cir. 2006) (ALJ must include in vocational hypothetical only limitations supported by substantial evidence)