(SS) Wheeler v. Commissioner of Social Security
1:21-cv-01225-JLT-BAM
E.D. Cal.Apr 14, 2023Background
- Plaintiff Ernestine Wheeler applied for Supplemental Security Income on April 4, 2018, alleging cervical/neck pain, bilateral carpal tunnel, right ankle problems, neuropathy, and related limitations.
- Administrative hearing held Feb. 20, 2020; Plaintiff testified to marked hand weakness, limited standing/ walking (5–10 minutes reported), need to change positions frequently, and reliance on pain medication.
- ALJ Denney denied benefits (Apr. 6, 2020), finding severe impairments including cervical radiculopathy, peripheral neuropathy, post‑operative hand and ankle conditions, and obesity.
- ALJ assigned an RFC for light work with limits: lift 15–20 lbs occasionally/10 lbs frequently, sit 8 hours (2 hours at a time), stand/walk 2 hours total, frequent (not constant) handling/fingering/reaching, occasional ramps/stairs/stooping/kneeling/crouching/crawling, no ladders/heights/fast machinery.
- ALJ found non‑examining State Agency opinions persuasive, gave treating physician Dr. Chi Nguyen’s disabling opinions little weight, and discounted Plaintiff’s symptom testimony as overstated.
- Magistrate Judge McAuliffe recommended denying Plaintiff’s summary judgment motion and affirming the Commissioner, concluding the ALJ’s decision is supported by substantial evidence and proper legal standards.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Evaluation of non‑examining State Agency opinions | ALJ improperly relied on non‑examining consultants who did not review later records (post‑consultation surgery and EMG) | ALJ permissibly relied on consultants and also considered subsequent records when formulating RFC | Court: ALJ did not err; consultants’ opinions were persuasive and ALJ considered later evidence |
| Evaluation of treating physician (Dr. Chi Nguyen) | ALJ failed to give adequate reasons for discounting treating doctor’s opinions that Plaintiff was disabled | ALJ properly found Dr. Nguyen’s opinions unsupported by contemporaneous objective findings and inconsistent with examination/EMG results | Court: ALJ reasonably applied supportability and consistency factors; decision supported by substantial evidence |
| Credibility of Plaintiff’s subjective complaints / RFC limitations | ALJ failed to provide clear and convincing reasons to reject Plaintiff’s symptom testimony and omitted limitations (e.g., need for extra breaks/position changes) | ALJ gave specific, clear and convincing reasons: inconsistent objective findings, conservative treatment, and continued smoking contrary to medical advice; any single infirm reason would be harmless because multiple valid reasons exist | Court: ALJ’s reasons were clear and convincing (and harmless even if one reason invalid); credibility discount upheld |
| Vocational outcome / VE testimony sufficiency | RFC did not capture true limitations, so VE testimony and jobs identified were unreliable | VE testimony based on hypotheticals consistent with ALJ’s RFC; additional breaks/greater limitations would eliminate jobs | Court: Jobs identified remain available under the RFC adopted; no reversible error in relying on VE testimony |
Key Cases Cited
- Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389 (Sup. Ct.) (defines substantial evidence standard)
- Woods v. Kijakazi, 32 F.4th 785 (9th Cir.) (explains new SSA rule: ALJ must articulate persuasiveness by supportability and consistency; prior treating‑doctor deference framework altered)
- Garrison v. Colvin, 759 F.3d 995 (9th Cir.) (two‑step framework for evaluating subjective symptom testimony)
- Batson v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 359 F.3d 1190 (9th Cir.) (credibility evaluation standards)
- Burch v. Barnhart, 400 F.3d 676 (9th Cir.) (medical evidence as a factor in credibility assessment)
- Parra v. Astrue, 481 F.3d 742 (9th Cir.) (conservative treatment may undermine severity of asserted limitations)
- Carmickle v. Comm’r, 533 F.3d 1155 (9th Cir.) (harmless‑error treatment when some reasons for rejecting testimony are invalid)
- Molina v. Astrue, 674 F.3d 1104 (9th Cir.) (same principle on harmless error for credibility findings)