(SS) Porter v. Commissioner of Social Security
1:20-cv-01586-SKO
E.D. Cal.Aug 10, 2022Background
- Plaintiff Brian Keith Porter (born 1971, eighth‑grade education) filed for SSI on December 14, 2017, alleging anxiety, learning disability, memory problems/neurocognitive disorder, gout, and related limitations.
- Medical records show diagnoses including generalized anxiety disorder, unspecified learning disorder, mild neurocognitive disorder, and intermittent gout; treatment notes generally record normal physical and mental-status exams and improvement or stability with medication and counseling.
- Treating PCP Rodrigo De Zubiria, M.D., completed an April 2019 physical RFC form finding substantial functional limitations (e.g., frequent lifting <10 lbs, sitting ~6 hrs) and concluded Plaintiff was essentially unemployable, but his written responses contained internal inconsistencies (also checked “no exertional limitations”).
- At an April 7, 2020 hearing a VE testified jobs existed for an individual with the ALJ’s assessed RFC: light work with specific mental limits (simple routines, 2‑hour concentration periods, occasional coworker contact, low‑stress, no production‑rate pace).
- The ALJ discounted Dr. De Zubiria’s opinion as unpersuasive (citing internal inconsistency and inconsistency with treatment notes/exams) and discounted Plaintiff’s symptom testimony for clear and convincing reasons (improvement with treatment and daily activities).
- The Appeals Council denied review; the district court affirmed the ALJ, holding the ALJ’s evaluation of the treating opinion and Plaintiff’s testimony was supported by substantial evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the ALJ properly evaluated/taxed the treating physician’s opinion under the new regs (20 C.F.R. §416.920c) | Porter: ALJ failed to properly articulate reasons for rejecting Dr. De Zubiria’s RFC and should have sought clarification of ambiguities | Kijakazi: ALJ reasonably found the opinion unpersuasive — internally inconsistent and inconsistent with treatment notes and objective exams; ALJ complied with §416.920c supportability/consistency analysis | Court: Affirmed. ALJ permissibly found internal inconsistency and lack of support/consistency with the record; substantial evidence supports discounting the opinion (any error about weight on a disability conclusion was harmless) |
| Whether the ALJ gave legally sufficient reasons to reject Plaintiff’s subjective symptom testimony | Porter: ALJ failed to provide clear and convincing reasons to discount his complaints of disabling anxiety, memory problems, and gout flares | Kijakazi: ALJ cited improvement with treatment/medication and Plaintiff’s daily activities as valid reasons to discount testimony | Court: Affirmed. ALJ gave clear and convincing reasons (improvement with treatment; activities inconsistent with totally disabling claims) supported by substantial evidence |
Key Cases Cited
- Woods v. Kijakazi, 32 F.4th 785 (9th Cir. 2022) (under revised regs ALJ must assess persuasiveness via supportability and consistency; rejection need only be supported by substantial evidence)
- Bayliss v. Barnhart, 427 F.3d 1211 (9th Cir. 2005) (ALJ may rely on internal inconsistencies in a physician's opinion)
- Batson v. Comm’r Soc. Sec. Admin., 359 F.3d 1190 (9th Cir. 2004) (defer to ALJ when evidence permits more than one rational interpretation)
- Bunnell v. Sullivan, 947 F.2d 341 (9th Cir. 1991) (medical evidence must reasonably support alleged symptoms; burden rules on credibility)
- Smolen v. Chater, 80 F.3d 1273 (9th Cir. 1996) (clear and convincing reasons required to reject symptom testimony absent malingering)
- Molina v. Astrue, 674 F.3d 1104 (9th Cir. 2012) (harmless error standard for ALJ decisions)
- Fair v. Bowen, 885 F.2d 597 (9th Cir. 1989) (daily activities are relevant to credibility where inconsistent with claimed disability)
- Morgan v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 169 F.3d 595 (9th Cir. 1999) (improvement with treatment is a permissible basis to discount symptom testimony)
- Reddick v. Chater, 157 F.3d 715 (9th Cir. 1998) (ALJ must make specific findings when rejecting claimant's testimony)