Takeuchi Pierre v. Colvin
2:10-cv-00130
D. Ariz.May 13, 2011Background
- Plaintiff applied for disability benefits in April 2007, amended onset date to August 7, 2007, and is insured through June 30, 2011.
- ALJ denied benefits initially, on reconsideration, and after a hearing; Appeals Council denied review, finalizing the denial.
- ALJ found severe impairments: seizure disorder, migraine headaches, cognitive disorder not otherwise specified, and borderline intellectual functioning.
- RFC limited Plaintiff to medium work with exclusions (no climbing, limited climbing ramps/stairs, frequent balance/stooping/ kneeling/crouching/crawling, avoid hazards and loud noise, no driving) and required simple, unskilled repetitive work.
- Consulting and treating sources showed cognitive deficits and attention/concentration impairments; Dr. Abbott identified marked limitation in sustained attention/concentration, while Dr. Dalton found only moderate limitations and supported simple, repetitive work.
- The court found error in the ALJ’s handling of medical opinions and credibility, reversed the decision, and remanded for an award of benefits.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the ALJ properly weighed Abbott and Dalton opinions | Takeuchi argues ALJ relied on Dalton without rejecting Abbott's marked attention limitation. | Dalton’s assessment supports simple, unskilled work; Abbott's separate MRSF not fully reconciled. | Reversal; improper weighting; remand for benefits. |
| Whether the ALJ properly credited Abbott’s 2007 evaluation | Abbott's marked impairment in attention/concentration should preclude work, per VE. | RFC supported by Dalton and other record evidence; Abbott’s limitations not fully persuasive. | Reversal; Abbott’s marked attention limitation should have been incorporated; remand for benefits. |
| Whether the RFC and hypothetical to the VE reflected the record | ALJ failed to perform function-by-function analysis and selectively cited evidence. | RFC based on substantial evidence, including non-examining consultants. | Reversal; improper reliance on non-treating sources; remand for benefits. |
| Whether the ALJ properly analyzed Plaintiff’s credibility | Symptoms and medication side effects were under-reported or not fully considered. | Allegations inconsistent with daily activities and medical records. | Reversal; credibility analysis inadequate; remand for benefits. |
| Whether the VE testimony aligned with DOT data and medical records | VE cannot rely on marked attention limitation to deny all work. | VE testimony considered; medical record supports some work restrictions. | Reversal; need for benefit remand due to misalignment. |
Key Cases Cited
- Drouin v. Sullivan, 966 F.2d 1255 (9th Cir. 1992) (setup for five-step framework and disability standard)
- Tackett v. Apfel, 180 F.3d 1094 (9th Cir. 1999) (burden on claimant through steps 1-4)
- Ryan v. Commissioner of Social Security, 528 F.3d 1194 (9th Cir. 2008) (substantial evidence standard and review)
- Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389 (U.S. 1971) (evidence standard for disability findings)
- Bayliss v. Barnhart, 427 F.3d 1211 (9th Cir. 2005) (substantial evidence substantial evidence standard)
- Penny v. Sullivan, 2 F.3d 953 (9th Cir. 1993) (treating vs non-treating opinions and evaluating RFC)
- Robinson v. Barnhart, 366 F.3d 1078 (10th Cir. 2004) (cannot cherry-pick medical opinions)
- Harman v. Apfel, 211 F.3d 1172 (9th Cir. 2000) (remand vs benefits depending on utility of proceedings)
- Varney v. Sec’y of HHS, 859 F.2d 1396 (9th Cir. 1988) (VE limitations and disability determination)