Tonyette N. Devito Ortiz v. Martin J. O Malley
2:24-cv-00333
| C.D. Cal. | May 21, 2025Background
- Plaintiff Tonyette O. applied for Social Security Disability Insurance Benefits (DIB), alleging disability beginning in August 2008 due to back problems and obesity.
- Plaintiff's date last insured was December 31, 2013; to qualify, she must establish disability before this date.
- The ALJ denied her claim, finding her not disabled at any point relevant to eligibility; the Appeals Council denied further review, making the ALJ's decision final.
- Plaintiff challenged the ALJ’s decision on four grounds: evaluation of medical opinion evidence, consideration of new evidence, evaluation of her subjective symptom testimony, and formulation of her residual functional capacity (RFC).
- The district court applied the substantial evidence standard to assess whether legal error or lack of sufficient evidence justified remand.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| ALJ's evaluation of medical opinions | ALJ failed to properly evaluate opinions of Plaintiff’s chiropractors and Dr. Singh, and erred in considering Dr. Geneve’s testimony | Chiropractors are not acceptable medical sources; ALJ provided adequate reasoning; Dr. Singh’s letter was not a medical opinion; Dr. Geneve’s opinion was properly considered | ALJ not required to use full standards for chiropractors/letter; no error in Dr. Geneve evaluation |
| New evidence submitted to Appeals Council | Dr. Singh’s retrospective opinion undermines the ALJ’s decision | Dr. Singh’s opinion was speculative, postdated period in question, and not material | No remand; new evidence not material or definitive |
| ALJ's evaluation of Plaintiff’s testimony | ALJ did not identify specific inconsistencies or clearly explain reasons for rejecting testimony | ALJ cited inconsistencies with medical records, lack of treatment, and activities | ALJ’s explanation was sufficiently specific and supported |
| Formulation of RFC | RFC is inconsistent with chiropractor’s opinion and failed to account for Dr. Singh’s pain evidence | Chiropractor’s opinion not a medical opinion; Dr. Singh’s records don’t support pre-2013 pain | ALJ’s RFC formulation was proper; no harmful error |
Key Cases Cited
- Reddick v. Chater, 157 F.3d 715 (9th Cir. 1998) (requirements for disability and substantial evidence standard)
- Tackett v. Apfel, 180 F.3d 1094 (9th Cir. 1999) (five-step disability inquiry framework)
- Woods v. Kijakazi, 32 F.4th 785 (9th Cir. 2022) (ALJ must explain persuasiveness of medical opinions based on supportability and consistency)
- Trevizo v. Berryhill, 871 F.3d 664 (9th Cir. 2017) (two-step analysis for subjective symptom evaluation)
- Smolen v. Chater, 80 F.3d 1273 (9th Cir. 1996) (clear and convincing standard for rejecting subjective testimony)
- Rollins v. Massanari, 261 F.3d 853 (9th Cir. 2001) (reviewing court defers to supported ALJ findings)