Zulfiqar v. Colvin
2:16-cv-00526
| W.D. Wash. | Sep 29, 2016Background
- Plaintiff Tahir Zulfiqar (b. 1964) applied for DIB alleging disability from December 13, 2010; claims include chronic mental illness (schizophrenia/schizoaffective, major depression) and physical conditions.
- ALJ Ilene Sloan found several severe impairments but concluded plaintiff was not disabled after hearings and issued an unfavorable decision dated September 18, 2014; Appeals Council denied review.
- Treating psychiatrist Beenish Shoro treated Zulfiqar (2011–2013), completed mental status exams and two mental-impairment questionnaires describing marked to extreme limitations and repeated decompensations.
- The ALJ assigned minimal weight to Dr. Shoro’s opinions for five reasons: reliance on claimant’s subjective reports, inconsistency with treatment records, use of check-box forms, a “Not Valid for Court” disclaimer on records, and limited number/recency of visits.
- Magistrate Judge J. Richard Creatura concluded the ALJ erred in rejecting Dr. Shoro’s opinion because the reasons were not specific, legitimate, or supported by substantial evidence; the error was not harmless and remand for further proceedings was required.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether ALJ properly rejected treating psychiatrist Dr. Shoro’s opinion | Shoro’s opinions are supported by mental status exams and treatment notes; ALJ lacked specific, legitimate reasons to discount them | ALJ: Shoro relied on subjective reports, inconsistent with records, used check-box forms, records had “Not Valid for Court” disclaimer, limited visits | Court: ALJ erred; reasons were not specific or supported by substantial evidence; must reevaluate Shoro’s opinion on remand |
| Whether ALJ properly evaluated other medical opinions (Drs. Siddiq, Schimmel) | Their opinions relied on Shoro and treating records and thus should be reassessed if Shoro credited | ALJ relied on them in part but discounted some conclusions | Court: Remand to reevaluate these opinions in light of Shoro reanalysis |
| Whether ALJ properly assessed plaintiff’s credibility / symptom testimony | Credibility depends on medical evidence; plaintiff argues ALJ’s credibility finding is tied to flawed medical evaluation | ALJ discounted claimant’s credibility and used that to discount medical opinions | Court: Credibility should be reassessed after medical-opinion reevaluation on remand |
| Whether plaintiff meets Listing 12.03 (schizophrenia) / whether award of benefits is appropriate | Plaintiff asks for remand for an award of benefits given treating opinions indicating marked/exreme limitations | Defendant opposes immediate benefits, argues need for further proceedings | Court: Outstanding issues remain (medical opinions, credibility, RFC, past work/VE findings); remand for further proceedings rather than immediate benefits |
Key Cases Cited
- Lester v. Chater, 81 F.3d 821 (9th Cir. 1996) (ALJ must give clear and convincing reasons to reject uncontradicted treating/examining physician opinions)
- Reddick v. Chater, 157 F.3d 715 (9th Cir. 1998) (ALJ must set out detailed, thorough summary and build an adequate logical bridge)
- Ghanim v. Colvin, 763 F.3d 1154 (9th Cir. 2014) (treating opinion cannot be rejected if based on clinical observations rather than only self-report)
- Garrison v. Colvin, 759 F.3d 995 (9th Cir. 2014) (ALJ may not reject check-box forms when consistent with extensive treatment notes)
- Smolen v. Chater, 80 F.3d 1273 (9th Cir. 1996) (standards for remand vs. award of benefits)
- Harman v. Apfel, 211 F.3d 1172 (9th Cir. 2000) (three-part test for crediting improperly rejected evidence and awarding benefits)
- Molina v. Astrue, 674 F.3d 1104 (9th Cir. 2012) (harmless error principles in Social Security cases)