Standifer v. Colvin, 2:13-cv-01878

Background

Plaintiff Sean Standifer applied for Social Security disability insurance and SSI in July 2009, alleging disability beginning February 12, 2008; claims were denied initially and on reconsideration.
An administrative hearing was held October 11, 2011; the ALJ issued a decision December 28, 2011 denying benefits; the Appeals Council denied review, making the ALJ’s decision final.
The ALJ found severe impairments including chronic pancreatitis, COPD, cervical degenerative disc disease, major depressive disorder, and alcohol dependence, but determined plaintiff did not meet or equal a listing.
The ALJ assessed an RFC for sedentary, unskilled work with limitations (avoid pollutants/heights/machinery; moderate limits in coworker/supervisor interaction) and found plaintiff could perform other work in significant numbers.
Plaintiff challenged the ALJ’s step-three analysis (Listing 5.08) and the RFC determination, particularly the ALJ’s treatment of treating/consultative examiner Dr. Prabhu’s opinion.
The magistrate judge agreed the ALJ properly rejected Listing 5.08 but found reversible error in the RFC analysis because the ALJ misstated Prabhu’s exertional findings; remand was recommended for clarification of RFC.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether ALJ erred at step three by failing to find Listing 5.08 met or equivalent	Listing 5.08 applies because plaintiff had digestive disorders and twice-recorded BMI < 17.5 within 6 months	Plaintiff did not show required "weight loss despite prescribed treatment" and failed to present evidence of equivalence at hearing; mere diagnosis is insufficient	ALJ did not err; record lacks treatment history and objective evidence to meet Listing 5.08
Whether ALJ properly evaluated and explained weight given to Dr. Prabhu’s opinion in assessing RFC	ALJ misstated Prabhu’s findings (credited 6 hrs standing/sitting) though Prabhu actually found limited standing (≈2 hrs) and sitting (<6 hrs), and failed to explain rejection	ALJ reasonably relied on Prabhu and any misreading was harmless because Prabhu’s form is susceptible to multiple interpretations	Error found: ALJ misread Prabhu’s report; because RFC relied on that misreading, remand is required for proper RFC assessment
Whether vocational expert testimony need be reconsidered	VE testimony is affected by RFC errors and may be inaccurate	VE testimony was consistent with ALJ’s RFC	Not addressed on merits; remand ordered so VE issues can be revisited after RFC clarification
Remedy: reversal or remand and scope of relief	Plaintiff sought reversal or remand for benefits	Defendant sought affirmance	Court recommended partial grant (remand for further RFC development); affirmed step-three conclusion regarding Listing 5.08

Key Cases Cited

Akopyan v. Barnhart, 296 F.3d 852 (9th Cir. 2002) (judicial review under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g))
Batson v. Commissioner, 359 F.3d 1190 (9th Cir. 2004) (deference to Commissioner where supported by substantial evidence)
Ukolov v. Barnhart, 420 F.3d 1002 (9th Cir. 2005) (Commissioner’s factual findings conclusive if supported by substantial evidence)
Stout v. Comm’r, Soc. Sec. Admin., 454 F.3d 1050 (9th Cir. 2006) (findings may be set aside for legal error or lack of substantial evidence)
Thomas v. Barnhart, 278 F.3d 947 (9th Cir. 2002) (standards for reviewing ALJ credibility and RFC findings)
Sullivan v. Zebley, 493 U.S. 521 (1990) (claimant must satisfy all criteria of a listing to meet it)
Reddick v. Chater, 157 F.3d 715 (9th Cir. 1998) (review the record as a whole; weigh supporting and detracting evidence)
Lewin v. Schweiker, 654 F.2d 631 (9th Cir. 1981) (ALJ must make specific, comprehensive findings to allow meaningful judicial review)
Bowen v. Yuckert, 482 U.S. 137 (1987) (five-step sequential evaluation process)
Barnhart v. Thomas, 540 U.S. 20 (2003) (sequential-evaluation step finality)