(SS) Henry v. Commissioner of Social Security
1:13-cv-00830
E.D. Cal.Jun 27, 2014Background
- Plaintiff Thomas R. Henry (born 1949) applied for Social Security disability benefits alleging onset August 5, 2008 (post–myocardial infarction and quintuple bypass); ALJ denied; Appeals Council denied review; district court affirmed.
- Established severe impairments: bilateral hip arthritis, degenerative cervical/lumbar disc disease, and coronary artery disease status post CABG.
- Medical record: consultative exam (Dr. Malik) and agency RFC review (Dr. Jackson) both found capacity for light work (sit/stand/walk ~6 hrs; lift 20/10 lbs); later imaging showed more severe degenerative changes but did not include new treating opinions quantifying greater functional limits.
- Plaintiff testified to significant pain, limitations in standing/sitting, use of limited narcotics, daily activities including driving short distances, household chores, light yard work, and recreational shooting/fishing.
- Vocational expert: with RFC for full range of light work, plaintiff could perform his past relevant work as generally performed and some unskilled jobs; with more restrictive RFC (limited sit/stand, need for unscheduled rests, no posturals) no jobs would be available.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Credibility of plaintiff's symptom testimony | Henry argues ALJ erred in discounting his pain complaints and daily-activity reports | Commissioner: ALJ permissibly relied on inconsistencies between reported activities and claimed limitations; applied correct credibility standards | Court: ALJ’s credibility finding supported by substantial evidence (inconsistencies and daily activities); no reversible error |
| Reliance on consulting/agency opinions (outdated) | Henry argues Drs. Malik and Jackson lacked later records (stress test, x‑rays) so their RFCs are stale | Commissioner: consulting and agency opinions are valid and ALJ may rely on them where supported by record and plaintiff bears burden | Court: ALJ did not err; those opinions are the only expert RFC evidence and are consistent with plaintiff’s testimony and support RFC finding |
| Rejection of environmental restrictions (heights, heavy machinery) | Henry contends ALJ improperly rejected Dr. Malik’s restriction against heights/heavy machinery without clear and convincing reasons | Commissioner: no objective evidence supports those specific environmental restrictions | Court: ALJ gave specific, legitimate reason—record lacks support for environmental limits—and rejection was permissible |
| Past relevant work analysis | Henry argues ALJ failed to compare RFC to the actual physical demands of jobs he performed | Commissioner: ALJ correctly assessed ability to perform past relevant work as generally performed in the national economy (VE testimony) | Court: ALJ’s step‑4 finding that plaintiff can perform his past work as generally performed is supported by VE testimony and substantial evidence |
Key Cases Cited
- Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389 (1971) (definition of substantial evidence)
- Lester v. Chater, 81 F.3d 821 (9th Cir. 1995) (requirements for evaluating medical opinions and credibility)
- Orn v. Astrue, 495 F.3d 625 (9th Cir. 2007) (ALJ not required to accept all subjective complaints; must give specific reasons when rejecting)
- Morgan v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 169 F.3d 595 (9th Cir. 1999) (when no affirmative evidence of malingering, reasons to reject claimant testimony must be clear and convincing)
- Thomas v. Barnhart, 278 F.3d 947 (9th Cir. 2002) (specificity required in credibility findings)
- Molina v. Astrue, 674 F.3d 1104 (9th Cir. 2012) (daily activities may undermine claims of total disability to extent activities transferable to work)
- Rollins v. Massanari, 261 F.3d 853 (9th Cir. 2001) (court may not substitute its view where ALJ’s interpretation is reasonable)
- Key v. Heckler, 754 F.2d 1545 (9th Cir. 1985) (when evidence supports either outcome, court must defer to ALJ)