Sweeney-Emanuel v. Commissioner Social Security Administration
3:11-cv-00962
D. Or.Nov 1, 2012Background
- Plaintiff seeks judicial review of the Commissioner’s denial of SSI under the Act; ALJ finding disabled denial reviewed by Appeals Council denial; district court ordered findings and recommendation to reverse/remand.
- Plaintiff, born 1960, had high school education with some college; past work as child care worker, teacher's aide, and receptionist; last worked July 2005.
- Plaintiff alleges disability due to PTSD, anxiety, depression, insomnia, asthma, obesity, anemia, migraines, diverticulitis, fatigue, fibroids, diabetes, hypertension; sleep disorder is most significant.
- ALJ’s five-step framework applied; found severe impairments (asthma, degenerative knee disease, obesity, anxiety, depression) but not disability; RFC limited to sedentary work with multiple restrictions.
- Lay witness Dolores Johnson provided third-party function report supporting claimant’s limitations; ALJ discounted lay witness testimony as limited value.
- Action remanded for reconsideration of lay witness testimony, credibility assessment, RFC, and disability determination; scheduling order issued.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Do the mental impairments meet or equal Listings 12.04/12.06? | Depression, anxiety, PTSD diagnosed; GAF 75 indicates impairment; evidence supports listing criteria. | Record shows only mild to moderate limitations; does not meet or equal the listings. | ALJ’s conclusion that listings not met or equaled affirmed (no error established). |
| Was an updated medical opinion needed to assess psychological RFC? | ALJ should have ordered psychiatric evaluation due to inconclusive treating records. | Record was sufficient; no ambiguity requiring consultative exam. | No reversible error; substantial evidence supported ALJ’s mental RFC assessment. |
| Were lay witness statements properly considered and credited? | ALJ erred in discounting Ms. Johnson’s lay testimony which supported greater limitations. | Lay testimony considered but is of limited reliability since not medical expertise. | ALJ erred in discounting lay witness; remand to reexamine lay testimony and its impact on RFC and disability. |
| Did the ALJ comply with SSR 96-8p in function-by-function RFC assessment? | ALJ failed to provide clean function-by-function RFC narrative. | RFC sufficiently explained with narrative and medical evidence; VE testimony consistent with RFC. | RFC supported by substantial evidence; no reversible error on SSR 96-8p grounds. |
Key Cases Cited
- Tackett v. Apfel, 180 F.3d 1094 (9th Cir. 1999) (framework for five-step disability analysis)
- Smolen v. Chater, 80 F.3d 1273 (9th Cir. 1996) (clear and convincing reasons required for adverse credibility findings)
- Carmickle v. Commissioner of Social Security, 533 F.3d 1155 (9th Cir. 2008) (upholding credibility ruling if supported by substantial evidence; some reasons may be flawed)
- Johnson v. Shalala, 60 F.3d 1428 (9th Cir. 1995) (routine/conservative treatment supports discounting complaints)
- Molina v. Astrue, 674 F.3d 1104 (9th Cir. 2012) (lay witness testimony must be considered; rejection requires germane reasons)
- Andrews v. Shalala, 53 F.3d 1035 (9th Cir. 1995) (standard for reviewing Commissioner’s findings; substantial evidence)
- Tommasetti v. Astrue, 533 F.3d 1035 (9th Cir. 2008) (ambiguities resolved by ALJ; duty to resolve medical evidence)