Susan Koch v. Nancy Berryhill
15-35444
| 9th Cir. | Dec 21, 2017Background
- Plaintiff Susan R. Koch appealed the denial of Social Security disability insurance benefits and SSI; district court affirmed ALJ’s decision and this appeal followed.
- ALJ issued RFC limiting Koch’s ability to stand and accounted for limitations from treating and consultative sources.
- ALJ gave significant weight to Dr. Sinnathamby’s opinion (standing limits) but discounted Dr. Jenkins’ March 8, 2012 opinion as inconsistent with his own treatment notes and a state agency physician’s opinion.
- A later Dr. Jenkins opinion (April 4, 2013) was submitted to the Appeals Council after the ALJ decision and was not made part of the administrative record; the district court did not consider it.
- ALJ did not list arthritis and varicose veins as severe impairments at step two, but discussed their effects in the RFC; the court found any step-two omissions were harmless.
- ALJ discounted Koch’s subjective symptom testimony as inconsistent with reported activities and objective medical evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether ALJ improperly rejected or failed to weigh treating opinions | Dr. Jenkins’ opinion should have been given controlling or greater weight; ALJ failed to consider later Dr. Jenkins opinion | ALJ permissibly discounted the March 2012 opinion for inconsistency with treatment notes and state agency opinion; later opinion was submitted too late to the record | ALJ properly gave little weight to March 2012 opinion; later 2013 opinion not part of record and need not be considered by district court |
| Whether ALJ erred by omitting arthritis and varicose veins as severe at step two | ALJ’s failure to find these severe impairments prejudiced the decision | ALJ considered their effects in the RFC and any omission at step two was harmless | Errors at step two were harmless because limitations were assessed later in RFC and did not prejudice outcome |
| Whether ALJ improperly discounted claimant’s testimony | Koch argued her reported limitations (e.g., bed confinement, hand pain) were credible and required more restrictive RFC | Commissioner argued testimony conflicted with Koch’s activities and objective clinical findings | ALJ gave specific, clear, and convincing reasons to discount claimant’s testimony; decision upheld |
| Whether ALJ failed to include all relevant limitations in RFC/hypothetical to VE | Koch argued omitted limitations (e.g., from Sjögren’s) would preclude work | Commissioner argued RFC and hypothetical included all credible, supported limitations | Court held ALJ properly included only credible, supported limitations in RFC and provocative VE question |
Key Cases Cited
- Garrison v. Colvin, 759 F.3d 995 (9th Cir. 2014) (standard for reviewing ALJ credibility and harmful error)
- Turner v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 613 F.3d 1217 (9th Cir. 2010) (ALJ need not give reasons for rejecting opinion if RFC accounts for its limitations)
- Ryan v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 528 F.3d 1194 (9th Cir. 2008) (ALJ may reject controverted medical opinion with specific, legitimate reasons)
- Tommasetti v. Astrue, 533 F.3d 1035 (9th Cir. 2008) (incongruities between doctor’s opinion and records can justify discounting opinion)
- Widmark v. Barnhart, 454 F.3d 1063 (9th Cir. 2006) (contradicted treating opinion may be rejected)
- Brewes v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 682 F.3d 1157 (9th Cir. 2012) (procedures for Appeals Council consideration of new evidence)
- Burch v. Barnhart, 400 F.3d 676 (9th Cir. 2005) (step-two errors may be harmless if accounted for later)
- Vasquez v. Astrue, 572 F.3d 586 (9th Cir. 2009) (ALJ must give specific, clear, and convincing reasons to reject claimant testimony)
- Parra v. Astrue, 481 F.3d 742 (9th Cir. 2007) (consistency with medical record is proper ground to discredit testimony)
- Bayliss v. Barnhart, 427 F.3d 1211 (9th Cir. 2005) (vocational expert hypotheticals must reflect RFC limitations)