Bartol v. Commissioner of Social Security

• Court: District Court, W.D. Washington
• Decided: August 9, 2024
• Docket: 3:24-cv-05180
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 7 CHRISTOPHER B., 8 Plaintiff, CASE NO. 24-5180-BAT 9 v. ORDER AFFIRMING AND 10 DISMISSING WITH PREJUDICE COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, 11 Defendant. 12

13 Plaintiff appeals the ALJ’s decision finding him not disabled.1 Plaintiff contends the ALJ 14 misevaluated the medical evidence and symptom testimony. Dkt. 17. For the reasons below, the 15 Court AFFIRMS the Commissioner’s final decision and DISMISSES the case with prejudice. 16 DISCUSSION 17 The Court may reverse the ALJ’s decision only if it is not supported by substantial 18 evidence or if the ALJ applied the wrong legal standard. Molina v. Astrue, 674 F.3d 1104, 1115 19 (9th Cir. 2012) (cited sources omitted). The Court may not reverse the ALJ’s decision if an error 20 is harmless. Id. at 1111. Substantial evidence is “such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind 21 might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.” Biestek v. Berryhill, 139 S. Ct. 1148, 1154 22 (2019) (cleaned up). When the evidence is susceptible to more than one rational interpretation, 23

1 The Parties consented to proceed before the undersigned Magistrate Judge. Dkt. 2. 1 the Court must uphold the Commissioner’s conclusion. Thomas v. Barnhart, 278 F.3d 947, 954 2 (9th Cir. 2002). 3 A. Medical Evidence 4 The applicable regulations require the ALJ to articulate the persuasiveness of each 5 medical opinion, specifically with respect to whether the opinions are supported and consistent

6 with the record. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920c(a)-(c). An ALJ’s consistency and supportability findings 7 must be supported by substantial evidence. Woods v. Kijakazi, 32 F.4th 785, 792 (9th Cir. 2022). 8 1. David Morgan, Ph.D. 9 In January 2023, Dr. Morgan evaluated Plaintiff and opined Plaintiff had moderate to 10 marked mental limitations in most domains. Tr. 1831-36. The ALJ discounted the doctor’s 11 opinion noting that while Dr. Morgan provided a narrative explanation for his opinion, it was 12 inconsistent with objective evidence from August 2019 through October 2022. Tr. 459. An ALJ 13 may reject a medical opinion that is contradicted by objective evidence in the medical record. 14 Ford v. Saul, 950 F.3d 1141, 1156 (9th Cir. 2020); Woods, 32 F.4th at 793 n.4 (even if an

15 opinion is supported, an ALJ may find it unpersuasive because it is inconsistent). The ALJ cited 16 numerous instances showing Plaintiff’s treatment providers consistently noted Plaintiff’s 17 pleasant and cooperative demeanor, linear and focused thoughts, euthymic mood, good eye 18 contact, organized, conversational, and spontaneous speech, attention to hygiene and grooming, 19 lack of medication issues, and generally stable or improved symptoms. Tr. 1098, 1100, 1102, 20 1104, 1110, 1112, 1114, 1119, 1121-22, 1125, 1127, 1129, 1132, 1134, 1136, 1139, 1141, 1143, 21 1145, 1148, 1150, 1153, 1155, 1157, 1159, 1161, 1163, 1170, 1173, 1175, 1177, 1180, 1183, 22 1185, 1187, 1191, 1193, 1195, 1197, 1200, 1203, 1206, 1209, 1212, 1218, 1497, 1499, 1501, 23 1503, 1506, 1509, 1512, 1514, 1517, 1519, 1521, 1523, 1525, 1527, 1529, 1531, 1535, 1542, 1 1544, 1547, 1549, 1552, 1555, 1558, 1561, 1730, 1732, 1738, 1743, 1745, 1749, 1758, 1764, 2 1772, 1775, 1780, 1783, 1792, 1803, 1806. These findings are unchallenged in Plaintiff’s 3 opening brief. In the reply brief, Plaintiff argues the ALJ should not have placed “much stock” in 4 these records. However, the Court cannot say it was unreasonable to consider these records and 5 to find Dr. Morgan’s opinions are not consistent with them. The Court thus finds substantial

6 evidence supports the ALJ’s reliance upon the above records to discount Dr. Morgan’s opinions. 7 The Court notes that Plaintiff argues the ALJ erred in discounting Dr. Morgan’s opinions 8 because Dr. Morgan’s opinions relied upon in part on statements that Plaintiff made to the 9 doctor. This argument does not diminish the propriety of the ALJ’s finding that the doctors’ 10 opinion was not consistent with many records created by Plaintiff’s treatment providers, and the 11 Court thus declines to find it establishes the ALJ harmfully erred. 12 Plaintiff also argues the ALJ relied on outdated evidence and failed to consider the 13 temporal aspect of Dr. Morgan’s opinion. Dkt. 17 at 8. This argument lacks merit. As previously 14 noted, the ALJ discussed evidence provided less than three months before Dr. Morgan’s

15 assessment. The mere passage of a short amount of time and subsequent entry evidence into the 16 record do not preclude an ALJ from relying on prior administrative medical findings. See, e.g., 17 Meadows v. Saul, 807 F. App’x 643, 647 (9th Cir. 2020); Owen v. Saul, 808 F. App’x 421, 423 18 (9th Cir. 2020); Jennings v. Saul, 804 F. App’x 458, 462 (9th Cir. 2020); Garner v. Saul, 805 F. 19 App’x 455, 458 (9th Cir. 2020). Nor must an ALJ develop the record further simply because new 20 medical records exist postdating the agency doctors’ reviews, especially when the new records 21 are consistent with earlier findings. See, e.g., Trevino v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 2021 WL 620700, 22 at *1 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 17, 2021); Lamas v. Saul, 2020 WL 6561306, at *10 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 9, 23 2020). 1 Plaintiff suggests Dr. Morgan provided superior information showing Plaintiff’s stability 2 and improvement did not last. Dkt. 17 at 8. The record tells a different story. Dr. Morgan 3 conducted a telephonic exam and noted Plaintiff was cooperative, with normal affect, thought 4 processes, orientation, perception, fund of knowledge, abstract thought, and insight. Tr. 1831-36. 5 He observed Plaintiff was engaged in treatment and reported no suicidal ideation. Id. The only

6 other medical evidence postdating the ALJ’s citations is from February through April 2023, 7 showing conservative treatment for knee pain and unremarkable medication management during 8 this period. Tr. 1838-76. This evidence is generally consistent with the findings the ALJ relied 9 on. The ALJ was not required to accept Dr. Morgan’s opinion merely because it was provided 10 more recently than others. Substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s reasoning. 11 2. Kimberley Wheeler, Ph.D., and Holly Petaja, Ph.D. 12 In December 2019, Dr. Wheeler opined Plaintiff had mild to marked limitations in his 13 ability to perform basic mental work activities. Tr. 992-96. Later that month, Dr. Petaja affirmed 14 Dr. Wheeler’s assessment. Tr. 997-1000. Plaintiff argues the ALJ erred by finding these opinions

15 irrelevant, noting the ALJ is required to consider evidence from a year prior to the application 16 date. Dkt. 17 at 11. This argument is unpersuasive. While the ALJ noted the opinions were 17 provided before the relevant period, the ALJ’s analysis did not end there. Tr. 458. The ALJ also 18 found the opinions inconsistent with objective evidence and with Plaintiff’s functioning during 19 the relevant period. See generally Tr. 1098-1218, 1497-1561, 1730-1806. The ALJ’s 20 characterization of the record evidence in this case is reasonable and supported by substantial 21 evidence. Plaintiff’s request for an alternative interpretation of the record does not establish 22 harmful error. Thomas, 278 F.3d at 954. The Court accordingly declines to find that the ALJ 23 harmfully erred in assessing the opinions of Drs. Wheeler and Petaja. 1 B. Plaintiff’s Testimony 2 The ALJ evaluated Plaintiff’s testimony and deemed it inconsistent with evidence showing 3 improvement and stability with therapy and medication, generally unremarkable mental status 4 findings, and Plaintiff’s daily activities. Tr. 449-56. Absent evidence of malingering, an ALJ is 5 required to provide clear and convincing reasons to discount a claimant’s testimony. Burrell v.

6 Colvin, 775 F.3d 1133, 1136-37 (9th Cir. 2014); see also Laborin v. Berryhill, 867 F.3d 1151, 1155 (9th Cir. 2017) (the ALJ must identify “which testimony [the ALJ] found not credible” and explain 7 “which evidence contradicted that testimony.”). The ALJ is not required to “believe every allegation 8 of disabling pain,” Ahearn v. Saul, 988 F.3d 1111, 1116 (9th Cir. 2021) (citing Fair v. Bowen, 885 9 F.2d 597, 603 (9th Cir. 1989)), or to “perform a line-by-line exegesis” of Plaintiff’s testimony. 10 Lambert v. Saul, 980 F.3d 1266, 1277 (9th Cir. 2020). “The standard isn’t whether our court is 11 convinced, but instead whether the ALJ’s rationale is clear enough that it has the power to convince.” 12 Smartt v. Kijakazi, 53 F.4th 489, 499 (9th Cir. 2022). 13 Plaintiff contends the ALJ erred by rejecting his testimony based upon daily activities 14 that were not commensurate with the ability to work. Dkt. 17 at 11-12. However, the ALJ did not 15 equate Plaintiff’s activities with the ability to work. Instead, the ALJ found Plaintiff’s daily 16 activities showed a level of functioning inconsistent with the severe limitations he claimed. Tr. 17 455-56. Despite Plaintiff’s allegations of limitations in sitting, using his hands, concentrating, 18 understanding, following instructions, and getting along with others, Tr. 893, the ALJ noted 19 records indicating Plaintiff frequently played video games and card games with friends. Tr. 892, 20 1209; see also, e.g., Tr. 993 (played video games until 5:00 a.m.), 1127 (“Plays cribbage and 21 video games with his friend in the middle of the night”), 1159 (at friend’s house playing video 22 games), 1177 (playing multiplayer online video games), 1189 (noting playing video games made 23 him feel better); 1209, 1501, 1509, 1523, 1755. The evidence also shows Plaintiff went fishing 1 with friends, sold his dog’s puppies, ran his lawn mowing business, and went to the casino and 2 stores with his mother. Tr. 892-93, 1197, 1199, 1205, 1212; see also, e.g., 948, 951, 958, 1094, 3 1122, 1168, 1170, 1173, 1177, 1180, 1189, 1195, 1538, 1576, 1732-34, 1755. The ALJ 4 reasonably found these activities contradicted the severe social limitations Plaintiff claimed and 5 his testimony that he was unable to do anything and experienced debilitating pain every day. See

6 Molina, 674 F.3d at 1113 (“[e]ven where . . . activities suggest some difficulty functioning, they 7 may be grounds for discrediting the claimant’s testimony to the extent that they contradict claims 8 of a totally debilitating impairment.”); Smartt, 53 F.4th at 500 (holding the court may not 9 “second-guess” an ALJ’s reasonable interpretation of activities). 10 An ALJ may use clear and convincing evidence, including inconsistencies in the medical 11 record and statements about daily activities, to reject symptom testimony. Farlow v. Kijakazi, 53 12 F.4th 485, 489 (9th Cir. 2022). Plaintiff’s conclusory challenge to the ALJ’s decision does not 13 establish error; it merely seeks a more favorable interpretation of the evidence. Even if the 14 evidence is open to multiple rational interpretations, the Court cannot say the ALJ’s

15 interpretation in this case was unreasonable. See Burch v. Barnhart, 400 F.3d 676, 679 (9th Cir. 16 2005) (affirming ALJ where evidence of daily activities was susceptible to more than one 17 rational interpretation). Furthermore, even if the ALJ had overstated the extent that Plaintiff’s 18 activities conflicted with his testimony, any such overstatement would be a harmless error, as the 19 ALJ’s other reasons (improvement and stability with treatment, unremarkable mental status 20 findings) are unchallenged and supported by substantial evidence. See Carmickle v. Comm’r of 21 Soc. Sec. Admin., 533 F.3d 1155, 1162-63 (9th Cir. 2008). 22 23 1 CONCLUSION 2 For the foregoing reasons, the Commissioner’s decision is AFFIRMED, and this case is 3 || DISMISSED with prejudice. 4 DATED this 9" day of August, 2024. S67 6 BRIAN A. TSUCHIDA 7 United States Magistrate Judge 8 9 10 1] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

ORDER AFFIRMING AND DISMISSING WITH PREJUDICE - 7