Taylor v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration
659 F.3d 1228
| 9th Cir. | 2011Background
- Taylor applied for disability insurance benefits; ALJ denied; Appeals Council initially dismissed then reviewed after mandamus; new medical evidence (Dr. Thompson, Greenberg, Ali, O'Sullivan) submitted; Council found evidence post-insured period and declined to change decision; Thompson's opinion was not considered; case remanded to ALJ for consideration of Thompson’s opinion.”,
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the Appeals Council improperly fail to consider Dr. Thompson's opinion? | Taylor argues Thompson's pre-expiration opinion is relevant. | Commissioner says Thompson post-dates insured period and not considered. | Remand for reconsideration of Thompson's opinion. |
| Did the ALJ err at step three by not addressing combined impairments and listings? | Taylor contends impairment combination may meet listings 12.06/12.07. | ALJ need only consider severe vs non-severe separately. | Remand to reassess step-three findings. |
| Was the step-four RFC incomplete and evidence improperly discounted? | Non-treating opinions and nurse practitioner evidence were ignored; pain/psych issues understated. | Court defers to ALJ’s weight judgments within substantial evidence. | Remand to reevaluate RFC with proper evidentiary weighing. |
| Did the ALJ err in discounting lay witness and credibility evidence? | Wanda Taylor and Elin Keffr corroborate limitations. | ALJ properly weighed credibility against medical evidence. | Remand to reconsider lay testimony and credibility. |
| Was there error at step five due to VE and conflicts with DOT? | ALJ must verify no DOT conflict and include all impairments in RFC. | VE testimony suffices absent conflict. | Remand to address DOT conflict and complete hypothetical. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ramirez v. Shalala, 8 F.3d 1451 (9th Cir.1993) (remand to consider improperly rejected treating opinion for benefits)
- Gomez v. Chater, 74 F.3d 967 (9th Cir.1996) (no detailed evidentiary findings required for rejected post-decision evidence)
- Lester v. Chater, 81 F.3d 821 (9th Cir.1996) (treating physician opinion cannot be rejected without specific, legitimate reasons)
- Regennitter v. Comm'r of Social Sec. Admin., 166 F.3d 1294 (9th Cir.1999) (nonexamining physician alone cannot justify rejection of other medical opinions)
- Lingenfelter v. Astrue, 504 F.3d 1028 (9th Cir.2007) (framework for considering treating opinions in overall evidence)
- Tackett v. Apfel, 180 F.3d 1094 (9th Cir.1999) (importance of using all evidence in five-step analysis)
- Montijo v. Sec. of Health & Human Servs., 729 F.2d 599 (9th Cir.1984) (cognitive observations cannot substitute for medical evidence)
- Bruce v. Astrue, 557 F.3d 1113 (9th Cir.2009) (lay testimony requires germane reasons for discounting)
- Gallant v. Heckler, 753 F.2d 1450 (9th Cir.1984) (hypothetical must include all impairments for VE testimony)
- Vasquez v. Astrue, 572 F.3d 586 (9th Cir.2009) (remand appropriate when outstanding issues exist)
- Vertigan v. Halter, 260 F.3d 1044 (9th Cir.2001) (disabled requires more than occasional function loss)