Vera Conrad v. Carolyn W. Colvin
2:16-cv-07987
C.D. Cal.Jan 16, 2018Background
- Plaintiff (b. 1966) applied for DIB and SSI alleging disability from July 27, 2011, based on cardiac, pulmonary, diabetic, and mental conditions; ALJ denied benefits and Appeals Council denied review.
- Earlier ALJ in 2010 found Plaintiff not disabled and assessed a sedentary RFC; this became final. The 2015 ALJ found new severe impairments (major depressive disorder, borderline intellectual functioning, diabetes, congestive heart failure) and assessed a light-work RFC with limitations to unskilled, low‑stress jobs with simple instructions.
- At step four the ALJ found Plaintiff could perform her past work as a cashier; at step five he alternatively identified several representative jobs in the national economy at reasoning level one/two.
- Plaintiff challenged (1) the ALJ’s departure from the prior RFC/continuing nondisability presumption and treatment of age category, (2) the step‑four finding that she could return to past work (reasoning-level conflict), and (3) the rejection of treating physician Dr. Tu’s highly restrictive physical‑RFC questionnaire.
- The court affirmed the Commissioner: it found (a) Plaintiff established changed circumstances so the 2015 ALJ was not bound by the prior RFC; (b) the ALJ permissibly treated her as a "younger" person at time of decision (not a borderline older‑age case); (c) the step‑four error (cashier requires Reasoning Level 3) was harmless because alternative Level‑1 jobs existed; and (d) the ALJ gave specific and legitimate reasons to discount Dr. Tu (check‑box form lacking objective support, inconsistency with daily activities, and conflict with other objective evidence).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether ALJ improperly changed prior RFC / misapplied presumption of continuing nondisability | ALJ purported to adopt prior ALJ RFC but actually assessed a different RFC and should have followed res judicata absent proper showing | ALJ found changed circumstances (new severe impairments) and independently reviewed post‑2010 medical evidence | Court: ALJ did not err — changed circumstances rebutted presumption and any misstatement was harmless |
| Whether ALJ should have treated Plaintiff as "closely approaching advanced age" for grid rules | Being ~8 months from 50 made this a "borderline" case; older‑age category should apply yielding disability under grids | Age at time of ALJ decision (49, ~8 months short) was not within "a few days to a few months" of the higher category; ALJ considered DOB and regs | Court: No abuse of discretion; ALJ adequately considered age and reasonably treated Plaintiff as younger individual |
| Whether ALJ erred finding Plaintiff could return to past work (cashier requires Reasoning Level 3) | Cashier requires Reasoning Level 3; conflicts with RFC limiting to simple instructions/unskilled work | ALJ erred at step four but alternatively found available jobs at reasoning level one consistent with RFC | Court: Step‑four error acknowledged but harmless because substantial alternative Level‑1 jobs existed at step five |
| Whether ALJ improperly rejected treating physician Dr. Tu’s opinion | Dr. Tu’s notes (e.g., foot swelling) supported the severe limitations assessed | Dr. Tu’s opinion was a conclusory check‑box form, lacked objective clinical/diagnostic support, was inconsistent with Plaintiff’s reported activities and with other medical opinions | Court: ALJ gave specific and legitimate reasons to discount Dr. Tu (lack of explanation/support, inconsistency with activities, inconsistency with objective medical record); rejection affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Chavez v. Bowen, 844 F.2d 691 (9th Cir. 1988) (presumption of continuing nondisability and when changed circumstances rebut it)
- Lester v. Chater, 81 F.3d 821 (9th Cir. 1995) (standards for weighing physician opinions and changed circumstances)
- Zavalin v. Colvin, 778 F.3d 842 (9th Cir. 2015) (RFC limiting to simple, repetitive tasks conflicts with Reasoning Level 3 jobs)
- Tommasetti v. Astrue, 533 F.3d 1035 (9th Cir. 2008) (ALJ must resolve apparent conflicts between VE testimony and DOT)
- Bayliss v. Barnhart, 427 F.3d 1211 (9th Cir. 2005) (ALJ may discount physician opinions that are conclusory and unsupported)
- Carmickle v. Commissioner, 533 F.3d 1155 (9th Cir. 2008) (standard for rejecting contradicted medical opinions)
- Magallanes v. Bowen, 881 F.2d 747 (9th Cir. 1989) (ALJ may discount physician opinions for specific, legitimate reasons)
- Lockwood v. Commissioner, 616 F.3d 1068 (9th Cir. 2010) (applicable age for grid analysis is age at decision, and ALJ need only consider whether to use older age category)