Tina Martinez v. Carolyn W. Colvin
2:16-cv-07701
C.D. Cal.Oct 6, 2017Background
- Plaintiff (b.1978) applied for SSI in Nov 2012 alleging long‑standing back/leg pain, fibromyalgia, rheumatoid arthritis, neuropathy, tremor, knee osteoarthritis, headaches, and obesity; claim denied and ALJ found not disabled (Feb 26, 2015); Appeals Council denied review.
- Treating providers included PCP Dr. Gustavo Calleros (regular care Oct 2012–Oct 2014) and rheumatologist Dr. Thomas Romano (two visits Aug–Oct 2014); treating opinions assessed very restrictive limits (below sedentary).
- Consultative/other exams: orthopedist Dr. Galloni and PT records showing MRI L5‑S1 degenerative changes and some benefit from physical therapy; orthopedic consultative exam (Dr. Keller) found much milder limitations (able to perform light work).
- ALJ assessed severe impairments but limited claimant to less than full range of light work (RFC) and gave no weight to the treating‑physician medical‑source statements from Drs. Calleros and Romano.
- Plaintiff challenged (1) rejection of treating doctors’ opinions and (2) adverse credibility findings. Court remanded because ALJ failed to provide specific and legitimate reasons for rejecting Dr. Calleros’s opinion; ALJ’s reasons were adequate for rejecting Dr. Romano.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether ALJ permissibly rejected treating physicians’ opinions | Treating opinions (Calleros, Romano) should be credited or at least given controlling/greater weight; ALJ lacked substantial evidence to reject them | ALJ relied on other medical opinions, inconsistencies in Dr. Romano’s notes, and treatment gaps to discount opinions | ALJ erred as to Dr. Calleros (no specific and legitimate reasons supported by record); ALJ properly discounted Dr. Romano (contradicted by his own notes) |
| Credibility of claimant’s symptom testimony | Martinez said ALJ mischaracterized evidence and improperly relied on activities, therapy improvements, and nonadherence to treatment | Commissioner argued claimant’s limited treatment, conservative care, and improvement undermined credibility | Court did not decide — remand required for ALJ to reassess credibility after reweighing Calleros opinion |
| Whether gaps/limited treatment justified discounting treating opinions | Plaintiff: gaps caused by insurance/authorization problems and are a valid reason for limited care | Commissioner: limited or intermittent/ conservative treatment undermines severity claims | Court: claimant’s insurance/authorization issues were supported in record; ALJ erred to treat treatment as sparse or merely conservative in rejecting Calleros |
| Remedy — credit‑as‑true vs remand for further proceedings | Plaintiff urged that treating opinions be credited and benefits awarded | Commissioner sought affirmance or further proceedings to reweigh evidence | Court remanded for further proceedings (not immediate benefits) so ALJ can reassess Calleros opinion, credibility, and RFC |
Key Cases Cited
- Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389 (principle of substantial evidence review)
- Lester v. Chater, 81 F.3d 821 (treating, examining, nonexamining physician weight rules)
- Smolen v. Chater, 80 F.3d 1273 (treating‑physician deference and credibility issues)
- Carmickle v. Commissioner, 533 F.3d 1155 (standard for rejecting contradicted treating opinion: specific and legitimate reasons)
- Lingenfelter v. Astrue, 504 F.3d 1028 (substantial evidence standard and weighing record)
- Reddick v. Chater, 157 F.3d 715 (review must weigh supporting and detracting evidence)
- Rollins v. Massanari, 261 F.3d 853 (rejecting physician opinion when inconsistent with treatment reports)
- Thomas v. Barnhart, 278 F.3d 947 (ALJ need not accept brief/conclusory physician opinions unsupported by clinical findings)
- Garrison v. Colvin, 759 F.3d 995 (credit‑as‑true doctrine and remand discretion)
- Harman v. Apfel, 211 F.3d 1172 (remand standards and credit‑as‑true guidance)