(SS) Maupin v. Commissioner of Social Security
1:16-cv-00722
E.D. Cal.Sep 28, 2017Background
- Plaintiff Marjorie Maupin applied for DIB and SSI, alleging disability since November 15, 2007, from back pain, neuropathy, anxiety, depression, migraines, hypertension, and mood swings.
- State nonexamining physicians (Drs. Jackson, Wong, Funkenstein, Garcia) assessed a light RFC with some mental limitations but intact attention/concentration for unskilled work.
- Examining psychologist Dr. Robert Morgan (single exam, July 2014) diagnosed major depressive disorder and a cognitive disorder and opined marked limitations in concentration, persistence/pace, social functioning, attendance, and ability to complete workdays; he opined disability since application date.
- ALJ held a hearing, found some severe impairments, assigned significant weight to the state reviewers, gave little weight to Dr. Morgan (citing reliance on plaintiff’s subjective reports, single exam, alleged attorney referral, inconsistency with objective evidence, and that disability is an issue reserved to the Commissioner), and concluded plaintiff is not disabled.
- Appeals Council denied review; district court review followed. Plaintiff challenged (1) ALJ’s duty to develop the record and (2) the rejection of Dr. Morgan’s opinion.
- Court affirmed the Commissioner: found no duty-to-develop error and that the ALJ offered at least one valid specific and legitimate reason (overreliance on plaintiff’s non-credible subjective statements) to discount Dr. Morgan; other erroneous reasons were harmless.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Duty to develop record | ALJ should have obtained updated medical clarification or consultative opinion addressing later Ceres Medical Office records and back impairment | Record was adequate; Ceres records were consistent/unremarkable and plaintiff herself said record was complete | No error—duty to develop not triggered because evidence was not ambiguous or inadequate |
| Weight given to examining psychologist (Dr. Morgan) | ALJ improperly rejected substantial parts of Dr. Morgan’s opinion (marked limitations) without valid reasons; state reviewers’ opinions cannot substitute for exam evidence | ALJ permissibly discounted Dr. Morgan because his opinion relied heavily on plaintiff’s subjective, non‑credible reports; state reviewers’ opinions were consistent with record | Affirmed—ALJ provided a specific and legitimate reason (overreliance on plaintiff’s subjective reports) to discount Dr. Morgan; other faulty rationales were harmless |
| Reliance on non‑examining reviewers | Non‑examining opinions are stale and cannot constitute substantial evidence absent updated consideration of Dr. Morgan’s results | Non‑examining opinions may constitute substantial evidence when consistent with the record; ALJ found them consistent | Rejected plaintiff’s challenge—reviewers’ opinions were consistent with the record and properly relied upon |
| Whether error was harmless | Plaintiff contends errors in reasons for discounting Dr. Morgan require remand | Defendant argues additional errors were harmless because a valid reason supported the ALJ’s decision | Held harmless—the valid credibility-based reason made any other error inconsequential |
Key Cases Cited
- Tackett v. Apfel, 180 F.3d 1094 (9th Cir. 1999) (describing the five-step sequential evaluation)
- Lester v. Chater, 81 F.3d 821 (9th Cir. 1995) (standards for weighing treating, examining, and nonexamining physician opinions)
- Molina v. Astrue, 674 F.3d 1104 (9th Cir. 2012) (harmless error standard in Social Security cases)
- Tommasetti v. Astrue, 533 F.3d 1035 (9th Cir. 2008) (ALJ may discount medical opinion based on reliance on claimant’s properly discounted subjective reports)
- Thomas v. Barnhart, 278 F.3d 947 (9th Cir. 2002) (non‑examining physicians’ opinions can constitute substantial evidence when consistent with record)
- McLeod v. Astrue, 640 F.3d 881 (9th Cir. 2011) (ALJ’s duty to develop record triggered by ambiguity or inadequacy of evidence)
- Turner v. Commissioner of Soc. Sec., 613 F.3d 1217 (9th Cir. 2010) (ALJ reasonably may reject physician opinion based largely on claimant’s self‑reports if those reports are discounted)