2:13-cv-01593
E.D. Cal.Sep 30, 2014Background
- Foster filed for DIB under Title II, alleging disability beginning April 29, 2009.
- ALJ denied benefits; later denied reconsideration; hearing held January 3, 2012.
- ALJ found Plaintiff not disabled and established an RFC for light work with limitations.
- Treating psychiatrist Dr. Hla provided opinions in February 2011 about marked impairments.
- District court granted Plaintiff’s summary judgment on the treating-physician issue and remanded to award benefits.
- Appeals Court remands for benefits because ALJ did not properly evaluate Dr. Hla’s opinion and the record shows disability if credited.
- On remand, VE testimony indicated disabling limitations would preclude employment when evaluated properly.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the treating psychiatrist Dr. Hla’s opinion properly weighed? | Foster’s treating psychiatrist opinion should be given controlling weight. | ALJ properly weighed the opinion against the record evidence. | ALJ erred by not giving specific, legitimate reasons supported by substantial evidence. |
| Should the case be remanded with benefits due to erroneous weighing? | If Dr. Hla’s opinion is credited, Foster is disabled. | Remand for further proceedings may be appropriate. | Remand with an instruction to award benefits. |
| Does VE testimony support disability if Dr. Hla’s limitations are credited? | VE would show no suitable jobs given Dr. Hla’s limits. | Not addressed; focus is on ALJ error. | VE testimony supports disability when properly included in the hypothetical. |
Key Cases Cited
- Lester v. Chater, 81 F.3d 821 (9th Cir. 1995) (weight of treating physician opinions; framework for evaluating medical opinions)
- Embrey v. Bowen, 849 F.2d 418 (9th Cir. 1988) (ALJ must set forth interpretation and evidentiary support for medical opinions)
- Tackett v. Apfel, 180 F.3d 1094 (9th Cir. 1999) (requires explanation of evidentiary support for interpreting medical evidence)
- McAllister v. Sullivan, 888 F.2d 599 (9th Cir. 1989) (broad and vague reasons for rejecting treating physician’s opinion insufficient)
- Garrison v. Colvin, 759 F.3d 995 (9th Cir. 2014) (remand when crediting remaining evidence would require a finding of disability)