Caseflicks

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit • 2002

Maureen Thomas v. Jo Anne Barnhart, Commissioner of the Social Security Administration

278 F.3d 947 | 2002 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 639 | 2002 Daily Journal DAR 877 | 2002 U.S. App. LEXIS 920 | 2002 WL 89074

Full access

Unlock the video and quiz

The written brief is free to read below. Subscribe to watch the video explainer and take the quiz.

Create an account Log in

Takeaway

In short, this case confirms that an ALJ may deny benefits when a complete vocational hypothetical, supported resolution of conflicting medical evidence, and specific credibility findings establish that the claimant can perform a significant number of available jobs.

Background

Maureen Thomas applied for Supplemental Security Income in December 1993, alleging disability beginning August 11, 1993. She claimed disabling back, neck, shoulder, knee, and wrist pain; carpal tunnel syndrome; fatigue; difficulty concentrating; depression; and sleep disturbance. Her past work included bartending, house cleaning, and concession work.

The medical record contained evidence of injuries and chronic pain but also repeated findings of improvement, normal or limited objective abnormalities, and preserved function. Treating and examining sources offered mixed views. Some forms described Thomas as disabled, including forms revised at her request and a student-loan-discharge certificate. Other clinical notes indicated that medication and restrictions on heavy lifting would permit work. Mental-health evidence supported moderate limits in concentration, social functioning, and adaptation, rather than marked mental impairment.

At the administrative hearing, Thomas testified that she had severe restrictions in walking, standing, lifting, and reaching, although she also lived alone, drove, cooked simple meals, shopped, did laundry and dishes, read, and watched television. A medical expert testified to moderate mental residual-functional-capacity limitations. A vocational expert testified that a person with the limitations adopted by the ALJ could perform jobs such as office helper, surveillance-system monitor, telephone quotation clerk, and call-out operator.

The ALJ found that Thomas had severe impairments and could not return to past work, but that she retained the capacity for a reduced range of light and sedentary work. The ALJ discounted her symptom testimony based on, among other things, her sparse work history, daily activities, inconsistent statements about substance use, and apparent self-limiting effort during physical-capacity testing. The Appeals Council denied review, making the ALJ's decision final. The district court affirmed, and Thomas appealed.

Issues

Issue #1

Whether the vocational expert's testimony was reliable when the ALJ's hypothetical did not expressly repeat that Thomas often had deficiencies in concentration, persistence, and pace.

Holding

Yes. The hypothetical adequately incorporated the concentration, persistence, and pace limitations supported by the record.

Reasoning

A vocational expert's testimony is reliable only if the hypothetical includes all functional limitations supported by the record. Here, the ALJ instructed the expert to credit the medical expert's opinion, and that expert had just testified that Thomas had deficiencies in concentration, persistence, and pace occurring often. The vocational expert was present for that testimony and had the supporting exhibits before her.

The ALJ was not required to repeat the phrase that the deficiencies could result in untimely completion of tasks. That phrase describes a potential consequence of concentration, persistence, and pace deficits rather than an additional functional limitation. This was not a case in which the expert had to reconstruct limitations from a large and conflicting record; the ALJ specifically directed her to adopt a discrete, recently presented medical opinion.

The expert also explained that the identified jobs were unskilled, involved simple tasks, and did not require substantial sustained concentration. Thus, the record supported the conclusion that Thomas's moderate mental limitations did not preclude the work identified.

Issue #2

Whether the ALJ improperly rejected medical opinions supporting disability or was required to recontact the evaluator who performed Thomas's first physical-capacity test.

Holding

No. The ALJ gave specific, legitimate reasons grounded in substantial evidence for weighing the conflicting medical evidence, and no duty to recontact arose.

Reasoning

A treating physician's opinion is not conclusive on either a claimant's physical condition or the ultimate question of disability. When medical opinions conflict, the ALJ resolves the conflict and may reject a treating opinion by stating specific, legitimate reasons supported by substantial evidence. The ALJ may also discount an opinion that is brief, conclusory, or unsupported by clinical findings.

The ALJ reasonably gave little weight to Dr. Groves's student-loan-discharge form because it conflicted with her earlier examination notes. In those notes, Dr. Groves stated that Thomas should be able to work if she received effective anti-inflammatory medication. The record did not show objective evidence explaining a later change from that view.

The ALJ also accounted for the limitations noted by Drs. Duncan and Silver. The hypothetical included mild-to-moderate carpal tunnel syndrome, restricted lifting to twenty pounds occasionally, and limited Thomas to less than the full range of light work. Later notes documented improvement, and Dr. Silver's revised disability form was prepared at Thomas's request, rested on subjective complaints rather than new objective findings, and did not materially change his earlier assessment.

The regulation requiring recontact applies when evidence from a treating source is inadequate to determine disability. The physical-capacity evaluator was not a treating source but a consultant, and the ALJ did not find the record inadequate. Instead, the ALJ permissibly found the one-hour evaluation unpersuasive because Thomas appeared to exaggerate symptoms and gave less than full effort, undermining the evaluator's conclusion that the test was valid.

Issue #3

Whether the ALJ lawfully discounted Thomas's testimony about the intensity of her pain, her need for assistive devices, and medication side effects.

Holding

Yes. The ALJ provided specific, clear, and convincing reasons, supported by substantial evidence, for finding her symptom testimony not fully credible.

Reasoning

Once an ALJ determines that a claimant's testimony about symptoms is unreliable, the ALJ must give sufficiently specific reasons to show that the testimony was not rejected arbitrarily. The ALJ may consider ordinary credibility factors, including inconsistent statements, daily activities, work history, and medical or other evidence concerning the claimed symptoms.

The ALJ identified several valid reasons for discounting Thomas's allegations. Her pre-disability work history was notably sporadic, her reported daily activities showed some ability to function independently, and she gave materially inconsistent accounts of her alcohol and marijuana use to different medical providers. The ALJ could reasonably infer that these inconsistencies undermined the reliability of her broader descriptions of pain and limitation.

Most importantly, two physical-capacity evaluations documented self-limiting behavior or less than valid effort. The ALJ reasonably treated efforts to impede accurate measurement of functional ability as strong evidence against the credibility of Thomas's claimed limitations. The court would not second-guess that supported credibility determination.

Because the ALJ properly discredited Thomas's subjective allegations, he was not required to include an alleged psychological source of pain, use of a cane or wheelchair, or claimed medication-related dizziness and concentration problems in the vocational hypothetical. The record lacked objective evidence establishing a medical need for those assistive devices or substantiating the asserted medication effects, apart from Thomas's discredited statements.

Issue #4

Whether the ALJ improperly applied the Medical-Vocational Guidelines by finding Thomas capable of less than the full range of light work without quantifying the erosion of the light-work occupational base.

Holding

No. The ALJ properly used the Guidelines as a framework and relied on vocational-expert testimony to establish a significant number of available jobs.

Reasoning

The Medical-Vocational Guidelines directly resolve disability only for claimants whose limitations match the rules' substantially uniform exertional categories. When a claimant's capacity falls between grid rules or includes limitations not fully captured by them, the ALJ should use the Guidelines as a framework and obtain vocational-expert evidence about the claimant's actual occupational base.

Thomas's residual functional capacity fell between the sedentary and light-work rules. The ALJ therefore followed the proper method by consulting a vocational expert, who considered Thomas's sit-stand option, lifting restriction, limited bending, right-hand numbness, and mental limitations.

The vocational expert identified office-helper, surveillance-system-monitor, and clerical positions totaling approximately 622,000 jobs nationally and 1,300 jobs in Oregon. Those numbers constitute a significant number of jobs in the economy, so substantial evidence supported the ALJ's conclusion that Thomas was not disabled.