Steven Arthur Newbanks v. Carolyn W. Colvin
2:16-cv-04445
C.D. Cal.Jul 6, 2017Background
- Plaintiff Steven Newbanks applied for SSI in October 2012, alleging disability beginning August 13, 2012; ALJ denied benefits after a December 3, 2014 hearing.
- ALJ found multiple severe impairments (including lymphoma, pulmonary disease, cervical/thoracic/lumbar degenerative disc disease, right wrist/elbow conditions, anxiety, borderline intellectual functioning) but not a listing-level impairment.
- ALJ assessed RFC for light work with additional limits: simple, repetitive tasks and limited public interaction; no past relevant work could be done but VE identified assembler, garment sorter, and router jobs available.
- Plaintiff argued the ALJ failed to fully develop the record (records from “Dr. Cohn” and 2012–2013) and that the ALJ mischaracterized/omitted parts of Dr. Pierce’s psychological opinion (specifically, limitation to adapting only to minimal changes), rendering the RFC and VE hypothetical incomplete.
- The Appeals Council denied review; district court affirmed ALJ, holding no duty to further develop on these facts, that any omission was waived or harmless, and that the RFC and VE hypothetical were supported by substantial evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether ALJ failed to fully and fairly develop the record | ALJ should have obtained Dr. Cohn’s records and other 2012–2013 treatment records (possible colon cancer references) | No duty triggered: references were isolated, no ambiguity as to limitations, claimant (with counsel) failed to raise issue at hearing or Appeals Council | Waived and/or not required; ALJ had no triggered duty to develop further; no remand warranted |
| Whether ALJ properly accounted for psychologist Dr. Pierce’s opinion about adapting only to minimal changes | ALJ omitted Dr. Pierce’s restriction to only minimal changes, which should have been included in RFC | ALJ reasonably resolved an internal inconsistency (Dr. Pierce also said no significant adaptive deficits) and translated findings into a limiting RFC to simple, repetitive tasks | ALJ’s RFC was supported; omission was not reversible error; interpretation is reasonable |
| Whether hypothetical to the VE was incomplete | VE hypothetical lacked the minimal-changes limitation, so vocational testimony was unreliable | Hypothetical need only include supported limitations; because RFC was proper, VE hypothetical was proper | Hypothetical was adequate; VE testimony supports nondisability finding |
| Whether any error was harmless given the jobs identified | N/A — Plaintiff argues prejudice from omission | Identified DOT jobs do not require more than minimal change and thus would be performable even with that restriction | Any omission was harmless because the three jobs would still be available with a minimal-changes limitation |
Key Cases Cited
- Smolen v. Chater, 80 F.3d 1273 (9th Cir. 1996) (ALJ’s duty to fully and fairly develop the record)
- Tonapetyan v. Halter, 242 F.3d 1144 (9th Cir. 2001) (when ALJ’s duty to develop record is triggered)
- Meanel v. Apfel, 172 F.3d 1111 (9th Cir. 1999) (claimants represented by counsel must raise issues at hearing to preserve them)
- Morgan v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration, 169 F.3d 595 (9th Cir. 1999) (ALJ resolves conflicts and internal inconsistencies in medical reports)
- Burch v. Barnhart, 400 F.3d 676 (9th Cir. 2005) (ALJ findings entitled to deference where evidence allows more than one rational interpretation)
- Osenbrock v. Apfel, 240 F.3d 1157 (9th Cir. 2001) (hypothetical to VE need only include limitations supported by substantial evidence)
- Thomas v. Barnhart, 278 F.3d 947 (9th Cir. 2002) (ALJ need not include unsupported limitations in VE hypotheticals)