Vo v. Commissioner of Social Security, 5:11-cv-01486

Background

Plaintiff Tam Thi Vo, born 1955, applied for SSI on November 30, 2007, alleging disability beginning June 1, 1996 (benefits could only begin after application).
Vo reported PTSD, insomnia, anxiety, depression, chronic back pain, headaches, and memory problems; she had limited formal education and lived with family.
Treating providers (Drs. Phuong-Thuy Le, Hong Bui, Kathy Nguyen) reported significant mental and physical limitations; treating notes largely recorded subjective complaints and medication management.
Examining/consulting physicians (Drs. Antoinette Acenas, Dean Chiang, Archimedes Garcia, George Lockie, Charles Fracchhia) found mostly mild or no functional limitations and issued written reports supporting nonsevere findings.
At a September 15, 2009 hearing Vo’s testimony was inconsistent and vague; the ALJ found her subjective complaints not fully credible.
The ALJ found Vo did not have a “severe” impairment at step two, discounted treating opinions in favor of examining/consulting opinions, and denied SSI; the Appeals Council denied review. Plaintiff sought district-court review.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether ALJ improperly rejected treating physicians’ opinions	ALJ failed to give controlling weight to treating physicians and did not give clear and convincing reasons for discounting them	ALJ permissibly gave specific and legitimate reasons to discount treating opinions in favor of examining/consulting reports that were more consistent with the record	ALJ did not err; specific and legitimate reasons were provided and substantial evidence supports the decision
Whether ALJ failed to acknowledge treating status of Dr. Le	ALJ did not explicitly state Dr. Le was a treating physician, undermining the treating-physician analysis	Record shows Dr. Le was treated as a long-term provider and ALJ discussed her records and reasons for discounting them	No reversible error; ALJ’s discussion shows awareness of treating status and reasons for discounting
Whether ALJ improperly rejected Vo’s subjective symptom testimony	Vo’s testimony should have been credited absent clear contrary evidence	ALJ found testimony vague, inconsistent, contradicted by objective exam findings and daily activities; required clear and convincing reasons to discount were given	Court upheld ALJ: findings about inconsistencies and objective exam evidence are clear and convincing reasons
Whether substantial evidence supports step-two nonsevere finding	Plaintiff contends substantial evidence could support a finding of severe impairments	Commissioner argues record contains substantial evidence supporting nonsevere conclusion (examining/consulting opinions, objective findings)	Substantial evidence supports ALJ’s nonsevere determination; court defers to ALJ’s reasonable interpretation

Key Cases Cited

Morgan v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 169 F.3d 595 (9th Cir. 1999) (standard for disturbing Commissioner’s decision)
Moncada v. Chater, 60 F.3d 521 (9th Cir. 1995) (substantial evidence standard and deference to ALJ when multiple interpretations exist)
Drouin v. Sullivan, 966 F.2d 1255 (9th Cir. 1992) (court must consider the record as a whole)
Hammock v. Bowen, 879 F.2d 498 (9th Cir. 1989) (consider both adverse and supporting evidence)
Bray v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 554 F.3d 1219 (9th Cir. 2009) (treating physician weight and required reasons to discount)
Embrey v. Bowen, 849 F.2d 418 (9th Cir. 1988) (treating physician entitled to substantial weight)
Lester v. Chater, 81 F.3d 821 (9th Cir. 1995) (clear and convincing reasons required to reject claimant testimony absent malingering)
Rollins v. Massanari, 261 F.3d 853 (9th Cir. 2001) (court should not second-guess ALJ credibility determinations supported by substantial evidence)