Tammy Gonsalez v. Commissioner of Social Security

Summary

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of California reviewed the Commissioner of Social Security’s denial of Tammy Gonsalez’s application for disability insurance benefits. The court denied Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and granted the Commissioner’s cross-motion, upholding the ALJ’s evaluation of Plaintiff’s subjective symptoms, medical opinions, residual functional capacity, and step-five findings.

Holdings

1. The ALJ properly discounted Plaintiff's subjective symptom testimony because the ALJ provided specific, clear, and convincing reasons supported by substantial evidence, including inconsistency with objective medical evidence, conservative or limited treatment, and daily activities inconsistent with the alleged degree of impairment.
2. The ALJ did not err in finding the opinions of Dr. Wilson and Dr. Dixit only partially persuasive because the ALJ adequately addressed supportability and consistency and supported the evaluation with substantial evidence.
3. The ALJ's isolated reference to light work was a harmless typographical error because the decision consistently found Plaintiff limited to sedentary work and the ALJ's step-five analysis expressly relied on a sedentary residual functional capacity.
4. The ALJ did not err at step five because the vocational expert identified 28,000 jobs in the national economy that Plaintiff could perform, a number sufficient under Ninth Circuit precedent, and the incorrect DOT code for the touch-up screener position was harmless in context.
5. The post-decision evaluation by Physician Assistant Hubbard did not warrant remand because it post-dated the relevant period, was not shown to be retroactive, and did not create a reasonable probability of changing the outcome.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the ALJ provided legally sufficient, specific, clear, and convincing reasons for discounting Plaintiff's subjective symptom testimony.
2. Whether the ALJ properly evaluated the persuasiveness of the medical opinions of Dr. Wilson and Dr. Dixit under the post-2017 Social Security regulations.
3. Whether an isolated reference to light work constituted reversible error in the formulation of Plaintiff's residual functional capacity.
4. Whether the vocational expert's testimony established that a significant number of jobs existed in the national economy that Plaintiff could perform, despite an incorrect DOT code for the touch-up screener position.
5. Whether new evidence submitted to the Appeals Council warranted remand.

Disposition

other