(SS) Hamilton v. Commissioner of Social Security, 2:15-cv-02016

Plaintiff (b. 1961) applied for DIB and SSI alleging disability beginning June 3, 2012, citing physical and mental impairments; applications were denied and an ALJ held a hearing September 23, 2014.
ALJ found severe impairments including diabetes with neuropathy, left knee degenerative joint disease, hepatitis C, pancreatitis, hypertension, affective disorder, and alcohol dependence in remission, but no listed impairment met or equaled a listing.
ALJ assessed RFC for a reduced range of light work with cane/walker use, limited to simple, routine, repetitive tasks (SVP 1–2), occasional social contact and occasional changes in work setting; could not do past relevant work.
At step five the ALJ relied on VE testimony that jobs (packer, office helper, electronics worker) existed in significant numbers that plaintiff could perform.
Key disputed points on appeal: the weight given to consultative psychiatrist Dr. Antoinette Acenas’s opinion (which found chronic paranoid schizophrenia and marked work-related limitations), and whether the ALJ permissibly relied on the VE despite an alleged conflict with the DOT.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether ALJ improperly discounted consultative psychiatrist's opinion	Dr. Acenas’s opinion showed inability to sustain regular attendance, follow supervisors' instructions, or tolerate work stress	ALJ reasonably discounted those extreme limitations as inconsistent with treating mental-status findings, Dr. Acenas’s limited objective support, and plaintiff’s inconsistent treatment/compliance; state agency psychologists supported milder limits	Court: ALJ gave specific and legitimate reasons; properly credited parts of Acenas’s opinion (simple tasks) while rejecting unsupported severe limits
Whether ALJ improperly relied on VE testimony that conflicted with DOT	VE testimony allegedly conflicted with DOT/SSR 96-9p concerning use of cane/walker and job requirements	Issue waived because plaintiff (with counsel) did not raise objection at hearing or before Appeals Council; ALJ asked VE about conflicts and confirmed none; even on merits SSR 96-9p addresses sedentary work and ALJ appropriately consulted a VE	Court: Issue waived and, alternatively, VE reliance was proper; no manifest injustice and substantial evidence supports step five finding

Tackett v. Apfel, 180 F.3d 1094 (9th Cir. 1999) (standards for district court review of ALJ decision)
Connett v. Barnhart, 340 F.3d 871 (9th Cir. 2003) (definition of substantial evidence)
Orn v. Astrue, 495 F.3d 625 (9th Cir. 2007) (substantial evidence standard)
Burch v. Barnhart, 400 F.3d 676 (9th Cir. 2005) (scope of review and credibility)
Edlund v. Massanari, 253 F.3d 1152 (9th Cir. 2001) (ALJ’s role in resolving credibility and conflicts)
Tommasetti v. Astrue, 533 F.3d 1035 (9th Cir. 2008) (upholding ALJ when evidence permits multiple rational interpretations)
Holohan v. Massanari, 246 F.3d 1195 (9th Cir. 2001) (weight accorded to treating/examining/non-examining opinions)
Lester v. Chater, 81 F.3d 821 (9th Cir. 1995) (standards for rejecting treating/examining opinions)
Tonapetyan v. Halter, 242 F.3d 1144 (9th Cir. 2001) (non-examining opinions can constitute substantial evidence when consistent with record)
Meanel v. Apfel, 172 F.3d 1111 (9th Cir. 1999) (waiver of issues not raised administratively)
Wentz v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 401 Fed. App’x 189 (9th Cir. 2010) (ALJ’s inquiry to VE re: DOT conflicts satisfies duty when no conflicts identified)
Bowen v. Yuckert, 482 U.S. 137 (U.S. 1987) (burden shifting at step five of sequential evaluation)