(SS) King v. Commissioner of Social Security, 1:10-cv-01058

This court affirms the SSA Commissioner’s denial of supplemental security income to King.
King filed prior SSI claims; ALJ Flierl denied on March 21, 2005, and subsequent appeals followed.
The current appeal centers on Tran’s consultative opinion restricting fingering but not grasping.
The ALJ assigned little weight to Tran’s opinion due to inconsistent objective findings.
The ALJ found King capable of light work with specific manipulative and postural limitations.
The court addresses res judicata and credibility considerations to determine if a material change occurred since prior denial.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Did the ALJ properly weigh Tran’s opinion?	King seeks weight for Tran’s opinion.	ALJ appropriately discounted due to inconsistency with objective findings.	Yes; ALJ’s reasons supported by substantial evidence.
Was there a material change in King’s condition to overcome Chavez presumption?	Changed circumstances shown by Tran’s assessment.	No clear change in impairment since prior denial.	No material change; Chavez presumption not overcome.
Did the ALJ provide specific credibility findings for King’s testimony?	King’s pain testimony should be credible.	ALJ identified inconsistencies and limited daily activities.	Yes; credibility properly analyzed with specific reasons.
Is the RFC determination supported by substantial evidence?	RFC fails to reflect limitations.	RFC consistent with medical and examination records.	Yes; substantial evidence supports light work with limitations.

Lester v. Chater, 81 F.3d 821 (9th Cir. 1996) (treating vs. non-treating weight; need for legitimate reasons to reject opinions)
Embrey v. Bowen, 849 F.2d 418 (9th Cir. 1988) (requires detailed articulation when rejecting conflicting medical opinions)
Morgan v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 169 F.3d 595 (9th Cir. 1999) (specific cogent reasons required to discredit testimony)