(SS) Pallesi v. Commissioner of Social Security
1:13-cv-01813
E.D. Cal.Dec 11, 2014Background
- Pallesi applied for disability insurance and SSI benefits alleging onset in December 2009; the claim was denied initially (Feb. 25, 2011) and on reconsideration (June 16, 2011).
- A May 22, 2012 hearing before ALJ Tamia N. Gordon featured testimony from Pallesi and a vocational expert; medical evidence included treating and consulting mental health professionals.
- Treating providers Guzzetta, Holloway, and Luu diagnosed major depressive disorder with anxiety; LMFT Powers and LCSW Lometti provided extensive therapy notes; GAF scores ranged from the 40s to 60s over time.
- The ALJ found Pallesi did not have a severe mental impairment at Step Two and assessed an RFC allowing full range of work with only simple tasks and limited public interaction; physical/other limitations were not included.
- The ALJ gave substantial weight to a State agency psychologist (Dr. Fair) and discounted treating and other-source evidence, including LMFT/LCSW opinions, without explicit germane reasoning.
- The district court reversed, finding legal error and lack of substantial evidence, and remanded for calculation of benefits because the record supports disability if treating and other-source evidence is credited.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Step Two severity finding based on mental impairments | ALJ erred by undervaluing treating/other-source evidence of mental illness. | State agency opinion relied on; rationally assessed mild impact on RFC. | ALJ's Step Two finding invalid; error in weighing mental impairments. |
| Credibility and rejection of treating/other-source testimony | ALJ failed to properly credit the LMFT/LCSW and treating physicians. | ALJ properly weighed evidence and credibility within legal standards. | ALJ failed to provide clear, convincing reasons; credibility error. |
| RFC construction and weighting of medical opinions | RFC relied on flawed weighting of treating/LMFT/LCSW opinions over contrary evidence. | RFC supported by record evidence and State agency physician. | RFC invalid as grounded in legal error; credits treated opinions. |
Key Cases Cited
- Smolen v. Chater, 80 F.3d 1273 (9th Cir. 1996) (merits credibility and evidence weight at steps 2-4; concept of de minimis impairment)
- Ukolov v. Barnhart, 420 F.3d 1002 (9th Cir. 2005) (medical evidence required for impairment; combine signs and symptoms)
- Lester v. Chater, 81 F.3d 821 (9th Cir. 1995) (clear reasons required for credibility and disability findings)
- Embrey v. Bowen, 849 F.2d 418 (9th Cir. 1988) (tie objective factors to rejected opinions; core to RFC proper weighing)
- Stout v. Comm'r, Soc. Sec. Admin., 454 F.3d 1050 (9th Cir. 2006) (harmless error doctrine and need for substantial evidence in weighting)
- Matthews v. Shalala, 10 F.3d 678 (9th Cir. 1993) (rejecting treating opinions requires clear, convincing justification)