Villarreal v. Colvin
4:14-cv-02399
| D. Ariz. | Jan 14, 2016Background
- Plaintiff Adela V. Villarreal sought SSI and DIB for an amended onset date of March 1, 2010 through her date last insured (DLI) September 30, 2010, alleging rheumatoid arthritis, chronic pain/fatigue, limited mobility and depression.
- Extensive treatment records (orthopedics, rheumatology, neurology, PT, and primary care) document persistent multi-site pain, neck/cervical disc disease, shoulder surgery (Dec 2009), multiple injections, PT with variable benefit, and ongoing complaints through 2012.
- Treating PCP Dr. Alfred Wu completed a 2012 physical RFC limiting sitting, standing, lifting, requiring alternating positions and frequent lying down, and predicting >5 absences/month; he later confirmed the RFC applied to March–Sept 2010.
- Treating counselor Dr. Ernestina Buck completed mental RFC forms in 2012–2013 reporting marked-to-extreme work-related limits, but she began treating Villarreal in 2012 (after the DLI).
- The ALJ gave little weight to Drs. Wu and Buck, adopted state-agency consultant Dr. Hirsch’s RFC (light work/6 hours sit/stand), found Villarreal’s testimony not fully credible, and concluded at Step Four that Villarreal could perform past work (sales rep and caseworker).
- The Magistrate Judge recommends remand for an award of benefits, finding multiple harmful errors: failure to develop/read treating records, improper discounting of Dr. Wu, flawed credibility findings, and unaddressed conflicts between the VE testimony and the DOT.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Weight given to treating physician (Dr. Wu) | ALJ improperly rejected Dr. Wu’s RFC, failed to read his notes, and didn’t develop record; Dr. Wu’s limitations apply to relevant period and are supported by records | ALJ permissibly discounted Dr. Wu because opinion dated after DLI and records were illegible; state consultant better supported | Court: ALJ erred. Initial reasons to discount were mooted by post-decision transcribed notes and doctor’s addendum; ALJ had duty to develop record and gave insufficient reasons to reject Dr. Wu — error not harmless. |
| Weight given to treating psychologist/counselor (Dr. Buck) | Dr. Buck’s opinion should be credited / at least fully considered; ALJ failed to obtain treatment notes before discounting | Buck’s opinions post-date DLI; limited objective support for extreme mental limits | Court: ALJ should have developed record, but Buck’s severe limitations do not relate to the March–Sept 2010 period and are not supported for that period — ALJ properly gave limited weight on temporal/support grounds. |
| Credibility of plaintiff and lay testimony | Villarreal’s pain/fatigue testimony and husband’s report are consistent with treating records and Dr. Wu; ALJ failed to give clear and convincing reasons to reject them | ALJ reasonably found improvement and objective tests inconsistent with claimed severity; daily activities undercut credibility | Court: ALJ’s credibility findings not supported. She mischaracterized daily activities and isolated favorable evidence; reasons given were not specific, clear, and convincing — error was harmful. |
| VE/DOT and Step Four past-work finding | ALJ failed to ask VE whether testimony was DOT-consistent; VE classified caseworker as sedentary but ALJ’s hypothetical allowed more exertion; plaintiff’s description of past work exceeded sedentary/light limits | Commissioner contends Step Four finding was supported by VE testimony and ALJ need not proceed to Step Five | Court: ALJ erred. Failure to ask about VE–DOT consistency and to reconcile apparent conflict was not harmless; plaintiff’s own description of past job duties suggested higher exertion — Step Four finding unreliable; with credited treating limits, all work would be precluded. |
Key Cases Cited
- Heckler v. Campbell, 461 U.S. 458 (U.S. 1983) (describing the five-step sequential evaluation for disability claims)
- Lester v. Chater, 81 F.3d 821 (9th Cir. 1996) (treating physician rule and standard for rejecting an uncontradicted treating opinion)
- Mayes v. Massanari, 276 F.3d 453 (9th Cir. 2001) (ALJ duty to fully and fairly develop the record even when claimant is represented)
- Massachi v. Astrue, 486 F.3d 1149 (9th Cir. 2007) (ALJ must ask VE whether testimony is consistent with the DOT and reconcile conflicts)
- Benecke v. Barnhart, 379 F.3d 587 (9th Cir. 2004) (credit-as-true standard and when remand for benefits is appropriate)
- Molina v. Astrue, 674 F.3d 1104 (9th Cir. 2012) (harmless error framework in Social Security cases)
- Garrison v. Colvin, 759 F.3d 995 (9th Cir. 2014) (credibility assessment: cannot reject testimony for waxing/waning symptoms and must consider record as a whole)
- Rounds v. Comm'r Soc. Sec. Admin., 807 F.3d 996 (9th Cir. 2015) (failure to resolve apparent VE–DOT inconsistency can create a gap in the record)