Amelia Gomez De Dykstra v. Nancy A. Berryhill

• Court: District Court, C.D. California
• Decided: January 28, 2020
• Docket: 2:19-cv-04552
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 WESTERN DIVISION 11 AMELIA D.,1 ) Case No. 2:19-cv-04552-JDE ) 12 ) Plaintiff, ) MEMORANDUM OPINION AND 13 ) ORDER ) 14 v. ) ) 15 ANDREW M. SAUL,2 ) )

Commissioner of Social Security, ) 16 ) ) 17 Defendant. ) 18 19 Plaintiff Amelia D. (“Plaintiff”) filed a Complaint on May 24, 2019, 20 seeking review of the Commissioner’s denial of her applications for disability 21 insurance benefits (“DIB”) and supplemental security income (“SSI”). The 22 parties filed a Joint Submission (“Jt. Stip.”) regarding the issues in dispute on 23 January 14, 2020. The matter now is ready for decision. 24 1 Plaintiff’s name has been partially redacted in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. 25 P. 5.2(c)(2)(B) and the recommendation of the Committee on Court Administration and Case Management of the Judicial Conference of the United States. 26 27 2 Andrew Saul, now Commissioner of the Social Security Administration, is substituted as defendant for Nancy A. Berryhill. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 25(d). 28 1 I. 2 BACKGROUND 3 Plaintiff applied for DIB and SSI on January 29, 2016, alleging disability 4 commencing on July 25, 2015. Administrative Record (“AR”) 70-71, 193-99. 5 On May 22, 2018, after her applications were denied initially (AR 48-71) and 6 on reconsideration (AR 72-95), Plaintiff, represented by counsel, testified before 7 an Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”), as did a vocational expert (“VE”). AR 8 28-47. 9 On June 13, 2018, the ALJ issued a written decision concluding Plaintiff 10 was not disabled. AR 10-18. The ALJ found Plaintiff had not engaged in 11 substantial gainful activity since her alleged onset date and had severe 12 impairments of rheumatoid arthritis and right knee tenderness. AR 12-13. The 13 ALJ also found Plaintiff did not have an impairment or combination of 14 impairments that met or medically equaled a listed impairment and had the 15 residual functional capacity (“RFC”) to perform the full range of medium 16 work,3 and alternatively, a full range of light work.4 AR 15. 17 The ALJ further found that Plaintiff was capable of performing past 18 relevant work as a fast food clerk (DOT #: 313.374-010), sandwich maker 19

20 3 “Medium work” “involves lifting no more than 50 pounds at a time with frequent lifting or carrying of objects weighing up to 25 pounds.” 20 C.F.R. 21 §§ 404.1567(c), 416.967(c). 22 4 “Light work” is defined as 23 lifting no more than 20 pounds at a time with frequent lifting or carrying of objects weighing up to 10 pounds. Even though the weight 24 lifted may be very little, a job is in this category when it requires a good 25 deal of walking or standing, or when it involves sitting most of the time with some pushing and pulling of arm or leg controls. To be considered 26 capable of performing a full or wide range of light work, you must have 27 the ability to do substantially all of these activities. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1567(b), 416.967(b). 28 1 (DOT#: 317.664-010), and housekeeper (DOT#: 313.687-014). AR 16-17. The 2 ALJ also alternatively found that there were “other jobs” existing in the 3 national economy that Plaintiff was able to perform. Considering her age, 4 education, work experience, and RFC, the ALJ concluded that Plaintiff was 5 capable of performing jobs that exist in significant numbers in the national 6 economy, including: pantry cook (DOT#: 317.684-014) and short order cook 7 (DOT#: 313.374-014). AR 17-18. Thus, the ALJ found Plaintiff was not under 8 a “disability,” as defined in the Social Security Act, from the alleged onset date 9 of July 25, 2015, through the date of the decision. AR 18. Plaintiff’s request for 10 review of the ALJ’s decision by the Appeals Council was denied, making the 11 ALJ’s decision the agency’s final decision. AR 1-3. 12 II. 13 LEGAL STANDARDS 14 A. Standard of Review 15 Under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), this Court may review the Commissioner’s 16 decision to deny benefits. The ALJ’s findings and decision should be upheld if 17 they are free from legal error and supported by substantial evidence based on 18 the record as a whole. Brown-Hunter v. Colvin, 806 F.3d 487, 492 (9th Cir. 19 2015) (as amended); Parra v. Astrue, 481 F.3d 742, 746 (9th Cir. 2007). 20 Substantial evidence means such relevant evidence as a reasonable person 21 might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. Lingenfelter v. Astrue, 504 22 F.3d 1028, 1035 (9th Cir. 2007). It is more than a scintilla, but less than a 23 preponderance. Id. To determine whether substantial evidence supports a 24 finding, the reviewing court “must review the administrative record as a whole, 25 weighing both the evidence that supports and the evidence that detracts from 26 the Commissioner’s conclusion.” Reddick v. Chater, 157 F.3d 715, 720 (9th 27 Cir. 1998). “If the evidence can reasonably support either affirming or 28 reversing,” the reviewing court “may not substitute its judgment” for that of 1 the Commissioner. Id. at 720-21; see also Molina v. Astrue, 674 F.3d 1104, 2 1111 (9th Cir. 2012) (“Even when the evidence is susceptible to more than one 3 rational interpretation, [the court] must uphold the ALJ’s findings if they are 4 supported by inferences reasonably drawn from the record.”). 5 Lastly, even if an ALJ errs, the decision will be affirmed where such 6 error is harmless (Molina, 674 F.3d at 1115), that is, if it is “inconsequential to 7 the ultimate nondisability determination,” or if “the agency’s path may 8 reasonably be discerned, even if the agency explains its decision with less than 9 ideal clarity.” Brown-Hunter, 806 F.3d at 492 (citation omitted). 10 B. Standard for Determining Disability Benefits 11 When the claimant’s case has proceeded to consideration by an ALJ, the 12 ALJ conducts a five-step sequential evaluation to determine at each step if the 13 claimant is or is not disabled. See Molina, 674 F.3d at 1110. First, the ALJ 14 considers whether the claimant currently works at a job that meets the criteria 15 for “substantial gainful activity.” Id. If not, the ALJ proceeds to a second step 16 to determine whether the claimant has a “severe” medically determinable 17 physical or mental impairment or combination of impairments that has lasted 18 for more than twelve months. Id. If so, the ALJ proceeds to a third step to 19 determine whether the claimant’s impairments render the claimant disabled 20 because they “meet or equal” any of the listed impairments set forth in the 21 Social Security regulations at 20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1. See 22 Rounds v. Comm’r Soc. Sec. Admin., 807 F.3d 996, 1001 (9th Cir. 2015) (as 23 amended). If the claimant’s impairments do not meet or equal a “listed 24 impairment,” before proceeding to the fourth step the ALJ assesses the 25 claimant’s RFC, that is, what the claimant can do on a sustained basis despite 26 the limitations from her impairments. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4), 27 416.920(a)(4); Social Security Ruling (“SSR”) 96-8p. 28 1 After determining the claimant’s RFC, the ALJ proceeds to the fourth 2 step and determines whether the claimant has the RFC to perform her past 3 relevant work, either as she “actually” performed it when she worked in the 4 past, or as that same job is “generally” performed in the national economy. See 5 Stacy v. Colvin, 825 F.3d 563, 569 (9th Cir. 2016). If the claimant cannot 6 perform her past relevant work, the ALJ proceeds to a fifth and final step to 7 determine whether there is any other work, in light of the claimant’s RFC, age, 8 education, and work experience, that the claimant can perform and that exists 9 in “significant numbers” in either the national or regional economies. See 10 Tackett v. Apfel, 180 F.3d 1094, 1100-01 (9th Cir. 1999). If the claimant can 11 do other work, she is not disabled; but if the claimant cannot do other work 12 and meets the duration requirement, the claimant is disabled. See id. at 1099. 13 The claimant generally bears the burden at each of steps one through 14 four to show she is disabled, or she meets the requirements to proceed to the 15 next step; and the claimant bears the ultimate burden to show she is disabled. 16 See, e.g., Molina, 674 F.3d at 1110; Johnson v. Shalala, 60 F.3d 1428, 1432 17 (9th Cir. 1995). However, at step five, the ALJ has a limited burden of 18 production to identify representative jobs that the claimant can perform and 19 that exist in “significant” numbers in the economy. See Hill v. Astrue, 698 20 F.3d 1153, 1161 (9th Cir. 2012); Tackett, 180 F.3d at 1100. 21 III. 22 DISCUSSION 23 The parties present one disputed issue: whether the ALJ properly 24 considered Plaintiff’s subjective symptom testimony. Jt. Stip. at 4. 25 A. Applicable Law 26 Where a disability claimant produces objective medical evidence of an 27 underlying impairment that could reasonably be expected to produce the pain 28 or other symptoms alleged, absent evidence of malingering, the ALJ must 1 provide “‘specific, clear and convincing reasons for’ rejecting the claimant’s 2 testimony regarding the severity” of the symptoms. Treichler v. Comm’r Soc. 3 Sec. Admin., 775 F.3d 1090, 1102 (9th Cir. 2014) (citation omitted); Moisa v. 4 Barnhart, 367 F.3d 882, 885 (9th Cir. 2004). The ALJ’s findings “must be 5 sufficiently specific to allow a reviewing court to conclude that the [ALJ] 6 rejected [the] claimant’s testimony on permissible grounds and did not 7 arbitrarily discredit the claimant’s testimony.” Moisa, 367 F.3d at 885 (citation 8 omitted). But if the ALJ’s assessment of the claimant’s testimony is reasonable 9 and is supported by substantial evidence, it is not the Court’s role to “second- 10 guess” it. See Rollins v. Massanari, 261 F.3d 853, 857 (9th Cir. 2001). Finally, 11 the ALJ’s credibility finding may be upheld even if not all the ALJ’s reasons 12 for rejecting the claimant’s testimony are upheld. See Batson v. Comm’r of 13 Soc. Sec. Admin., 359 F.3d 1190, 1197 (9th Cir. 2004). 14 B. Analysis 15 At the May 2018 hearing, Plaintiff testified that she recently had surgery 16 to remove a cyst, and had some pain from the surgery. AR 33-34. She stated 17 that her physician has also recommended surgery for carpal tunnel in her left 18 hand because she had “bad pains,” could not hold anything heavy, had had 19 surgery on her right hand, which helped, but she still could not hold anything 20 heavy with that hand. AR 35-36. She described taking medication that helped 21 control the pain. AR 36-37. Plaintiff also testified that she had arthritis, pain in 22 her knees and ankles, did physical therapy, but stopped following surgery for a 23 cyst. AR 37, 41. She advised her physician recommended shots for her knees 24 and ankles, but she was still thinking about it. AR 41. She stated she otherwise 25 took medication to control the pain and reduce inflammation, though the 26 medication caused stomachaches. AR 41-42. 27 Plaintiff indicated she was seeing a speech pathologist for Bell’s Palsy as 28 her face was “still crooked.” AR 40. She stated Bell’s Palsy caused dry eyes, 1 headaches, and dizziness. AR 40. She described having suffered from 2 depression in the past, which had been treated with medication. AR 42. 3 The ALJ considered Plaintiff’s subjective complaints and found her 4 medically determinable impairments could reasonably be expected to cause the 5 alleged symptoms, but her statements “concerning the intensity, persistence[,] 6 and limiting effects of these symptoms” were “not entirely consistent with the 7 medical evidence and other evidence in the record.” The ALJ discounted 8 Plaintiff’s subjective symptom testimony for the following reasons: (1) an 9 examining physician believed Plaintiff was exaggerating her pain symptoms; 10 (2) Plaintiff’s symptoms were being effectively controlled by medication; and 11 (3) lack of objective medical evidence. AR 16. 12 First, the ALJ found that at least one examining physician believed 13 Plaintiff was exaggerating her pain symptoms, “presumably with the goal of 14 secondary gain in efforts to receive Social Security disability benefits.” AR 16. 15 Dr. Barbara E. Weiss conducted a comprehensive internal medicine evaluation 16 on May 1, 2016. AR 509-14. Plaintiff reported that she had arthritis in her 17 knees, hands, wrists, elbows, and feet, causing pain. AR 509. She claimed it 18 was painful to stretch, sit, put on socks, and stand up for long periods of time. 19 She stated that she was able to bathe and dress herself, toilet by herself, feed 20 herself, prepare meals, wash dishes and put them away, load and unload the 21 dishwasher, do laundry, shop, drive, vacuum, mop, sweep, and wipe the 22 counters. She described watching an hour of television a day, talking on the 23 phone, and socializing with family. Id. During the examination, Dr. Weiss 24 noted that Plaintiff was able to walk into the examination room without 25 difficulty with her left foot slightly pigeon-toed and moved her right arm less 26 than usual, but otherwise her gait was normal. She noted that Plaintiff was 27 able to sit comfortably and get in and out of the chair and examination table 28 without difficulty. She could pick up and manipulate small objects, take her 1 shoes on and off, and was otherwise alert, cooperative, and could follow 2 instructions. She observed no discomfort when Plaintiff changed positions. She 3 found, however, that Plaintiff “displayed exaggerated facial and verbal 4 expressions of pain no matter where she was touched all over her body, which 5 were in contrast to her movements about the room and activities of daily 6 living.” AR 510. The ALJ properly considered Dr. Weiss’s finding that 7 Plaintiff exaggerated her symptoms as a clear and convincing reason for 8 discounting her subjective testimony. See Tonapetyan v. Halter, 242 F.3d 9 1144, 1148 (9th Cir. 2001) (exaggeration was a specific and convincing reason 10 to support the ALJ’s credibility determination where a claimant was 11 “uncooperative during cognitive testing” but “‘much better’ when giving 12 reasons for being unable to work”); Uchanski v. Berryhill, 2018 WL 3078551, 13 at *5 (C.D. Cal. June 19, 2018) (finding that the ALJ properly considered 14 plaintiff’s exaggerated responses as a clear and convincing reason for his 15 adverse credibility finding). 16 Next, the ALJ found that Plaintiff’s rheumatoid arthritis was controlled 17 with medication. AR 16. The ALJ was entitled to discount Plaintiff’s 18 subjective symptoms based on her positive response to treatment. See 19 Tommasetti v. Astrue, 533 F.3d 1035, 1040 (9th Cir. 2008) (plaintiff’s 20 “response to conservative treatment undermines [his] reports regarding the 21 disabling nature of his pain”); Uchanski, 2018 WL 3078551, at *5 (“The fact 22 that Plaintiff’s pain was addressed by medication alone (without surgery or 23 injections) provided another valid basis for discounting Plaintiff’s credibility.”); 24 see also Marsh v. Colvin, 792 F.3d 1170, 1173 n.2 (9th Cir. 2015) (finding that 25 plaintiff’s treatment was “routine and conservative” was a permissible basis for 26 discounting the credibility of plaintiff’s symptom testimony); Warre v. Comm’r 27 of Soc. Sec. Admin., 439 F.3d 1001, 1006 (9th Cir. 2006) (“[i]mpairments that 28 can be controlled effectively with medication are not disabling”). 1 The ALJ noted Plaintiff testified she took medications to control pain 2 and inflammation from rheumatoid arthritis, and her treating physician Dr. 3 Javeed Ahmed reported that her condition was “very well controlled” within a 4 couple months of starting methotrexate. AR 16. Medical records reflect she 5 began treatment with Dr. Ahmed for rheumatoid arthritis in May 2017. AR 6 548-49. The following month, Dr. Ahmed reported Plaintiff was “responding 7 to medication very well” and was “feeling much better.” AR 551-52. In August 8 2017, Dr. Ahmed again reported Plaintiff’s rheumatoid arthritis was “very well 9 controlled” and she was to continue her regime of methotrexate and folic acid. 10 Dr. Ahmed noted Plaintiff had “mild swelling” in both ankles due to 11 osteoarthritis and recommended considering a steroid injection if the pain 12 continued to bother her. AR 555. Plaintiff’s podiatrist similarly recommended 13 a cortisone injection for her ankle pain related to rheumatoid arthritis. See AR 14 580 (advising Plaintiff to change her shoes and recommending cortisone 15 injection if no improvement), 583 (recommending injection). In December 16 2018, Dr. Ahmed again reported that Plaintiff’s rheumatoid arthritis was “very 17 well controlled” with medication. AR 558. Plaintiff was seen by Nurse 18 Practitioner Jake Carpenter at the end of January 2018, at which time 19 Carpenter found that Plaintiff’s ankle swelling was stable. AR 576. In addition, 20 at the hearing, Plaintiff testified that medication controlled the pain and 21 inflammation, and although shots have been recommended, Plaintiff had not 22 pursued this treatment, without explanation. AR 41. Despite alleging disabling 23 pain, Plaintiff has only pursued conservative treatment, and refused to follow 24 the treatment recommendations for steroid injections. The ALJ’s finding 25 regarding Plaintiff’s positive response to medication was a clear and 26 convincing reason to discount Plaintiff’s statements of a disabling impairment. 27 Finally, the ALJ discounted Plaintiff’s subjective symptom testimony 28 because it was not supported by objective medical evidence. AR 16. “Although 1 lack of medical evidence cannot form the sole basis for discounting pain 2 testimony, it is a factor that the ALJ can consider in his credibility analysis.” 3 Burch v. Barnhart, 400 F.3d 676, 681 (9th Cir. 2005); see also Rollins, 261 4 F.3d at 857. The ALJ cited the inconsistency between Plaintiff’s claim of 5 disability based on the combination of swelling ankles, rheumatoid arthritis, 6 and carpal tunnel and the lack of objective medical evidence supporting 7 Plaintiff’s latter claim. The ALJ noted that the objective medical evidence for 8 carpal tunnel was “very slim and sparse, including essentially a reported right 9 hand release in 2004 and the claimant’s current report that she needs a left 10 hand release, but without definite plan of a date.” AR 16. There are very few 11 objective medical findings supporting Plaintiff claim that she has carpal tunnel 12 in her left hand, and none indicating surgery was necessary. Although Plaintiff 13 disputes the ALJ’s finding that the evidence is slim, Plaintiff herself cites only 14 two records in support of her contention, one reflecting tenderness in the left 15 wrist due to “Dequarian” (De Quervain’s) tenosynovitis (AR 558) and another 16 reflecting a positive Tinsel’s sign (AR 576). Jt. Stip. at 9-10. The records 17 otherwise show “mild degenerative changes” (AR 335) and minimal medical 18 treatment for left wrist pain. A steroid injection was recommended, which 19 Plaintiff refused (AR 557-58), and she was referred to neurology, which, it 20 appears, she never pursued (AR 576). The “case law is clear that if a claimant 21 complains about disabling pain but fails to seek treatment . . . an ALJ may use 22 such failure as a basis for finding the complaint unjustified or exaggerated.” 23 Orn v. Astrue, 495 F.3d 625, 638 (9th Cir. 2007); Burch, 400 F.3d at 681 24 (“ALJ is permitted to consider lack of treatment in his credibility 25 determination”). The ALJ’s determination is supported by the record. 26 Similarly, the ALJ discounted Plaintiff’s subjective complaints of dry 27 eyes, headaches, and dizziness caused by Bell’s Palsy because the record did 28 not document significant ongoing limitations persisting for twelve continuous 1 months that could be objectively attributed to Plaintiff’s Bell’s Palsy. AR 16. 2 Plaintiff does not dispute this finding, which is supported by the record. Greger 3 v. Barnhart, 464 F.3d 968, 973 (9th Cir. 2006) (plaintiff waived issues not 4 raised before the district court); Owens v. Colvin, 2014 WL 5602884, at *4 5 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 4, 2014) (plaintiff’s failure to discuss, or even acknowledge, 6 ALJ’s reliance on certain reasons waived any challenge to those aspects of 7 ALJ’s finding). 8 Relatedly, the ALJ noted that there was no medical evidence regarding 9 any mental health treatment for Plaintiff’s reported anxiety. AR 16. Again, this 10 finding is supported by the record, and Plaintiff fails to point to any objective 11 evidence refuting the ALJ’s finding. At the administrative hearing, Plaintiff 12 was asked whether she was receiving psychological treatment, including for 13 depression, and Plaintiff answered that she has never received mental health 14 treatment and “they just give [her] medication for that,” which helped. AR 42. 15 Plaintiff also addresses the ALJ’s discussion of the lack of recent x-rays 16 regarding her ankle pain. Jt. Stip. at 10 (citing AR 16). It is unclear whether the 17 ALJ relied on this finding as a basis for discounting Plaintiff’s allegations of 18 pain. Although the ALJ stated that the only reported x-ray findings for 19 Plaintiff’s ankles had been narrowed joint spaces in 2016 and that as of 20 December 8, 2017, Plaintiff’s physician did not recommend new ones (AR 16), 21 as the ALJ noted elsewhere in his decision, Dr. Ahmed did recommend that x- 22 rays be taken of both ankles in August 2017. AR 14, 555. In any event, even if 23 the ALJ erred by relying on the lack of x-rays, if other “substantial evidence 24 supporting the ALJ’s conclusions” exists and the error “does not negate the 25 validity of the ALJ’s ultimate [credibility] conclusion,” any error is harmless 26 and does not warrant reversal. Batson, 359 F.3d at 1197; Uchanski, 2018 WL 27 3078551, at *5 (improper finding was harmless because “of the other clear and 28 convincing reasons” supporting the ALJ’s adverse credibility conclusion). As 1 ALJ had at least three other proper bases for discounting Plaintiff's 2 subjective complaints, any error in relying on this reason was harmless. 3 Contrary to Plaintiff's contention that the ALJ failed to “articulate 4 || sufficient reasons for rejecting” her subjective symptom testimony (Jt. Stip. at 5 the ALJ provided at least three clear and convicting reasons supporting his 6 || determination. The Court finds that the ALJ’s reasons for discounting 7 || Plaintiffs subjecttve complaints are sufficiently specific, clear, and convincing 8 ||enough to support his determination. Accordingly, reversal is not warranted. 9 IV. 10 ORDER 11 IT THEREFORE IS ORDERED that Judgment be entered affirming 12 ||the decision of the Commissioner and dismissing this action with prejudice. 13 14 || Dated: January 28, 2020 15 16 ND. EARLY 17 nited States Magistrate Judge 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 12