Eason v. Commissioner of Social Security

W.D. Washington

Eason v. Commissioner of Social Security

DecidedApril 5, 2021

Docket3:20-cv-05738

StatusUnknown

This text of Eason v. Commissioner of Social Security (Eason v. Commissioner of Social Security) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, W.D. Washington primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Eason v. Commissioner of Social Security, (W.D. Wash. 2021).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 7 TRACIE E., 8 Plaintiff, Case No. C20-5738 RAJ 9 v. ORDER AFFIRMING DENIAL 10 OF BENEFITS 11 COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, 12 Defendant. 13 Plaintiff appeals denial of her application for Supplemental Security Income. 14 Plaintiff contends the ALJ erred by discounting her testimony and the opinion of treating 15 mental health counselor Shelby Barber, MSW. Dkt. 17. As discussed below, the Court 16 AFFIRMS the Commissioner’s final decision and DISMISSES the case with prejudice. 17 BACKGROUND 18 19 Plaintiff is 52 years old, has a high school education, and has worked as a truck 20 driver. Dkt. 15, Admin. Transcript (Tr.) 23-24. Plaintiff alleges disability as of May 29, 21 2018. Tr. 15. After conducting a hearing in July 2019, the ALJ issued a decision finding 22 Plaintiff not disabled. Tr. 30-82, 15-25. In pertinent part, the ALJ found Plaintiff’s 23 severe impairments, major depressive disorder and status post-motor vehicle accident, 1 limited her to simple, routine, light-exertion work, interacting occasionally with the 2 public, and without a fast-paced environment. Tr. 17, 19. 3 DISCUSSION 4 This Court may set aside the Commissioner’s denial of Social Security benefits 5 only if the ALJ’s decision is based on legal error or not supported by substantial evidence 6 in the record as a whole. Trevizo v. Berryhill, 871 F.3d 664, 674 (9th Cir. 2017). 7 A. Plaintiff’s Testimony 8 The ALJ could only discount Plaintiff’s testimony as to symptom severity by 9 providing “specific, clear, and convincing” reasons supported by substantial evidence. 10 Trevizo, 871 F.3d at 678. Plaintiff testified to isolating herself, and three or four times a 11 week being unable to do anything beyond “the bare survival minimum.” Tr. 70, 48. The 12 13 ALJ discounted Plaintiff’s mental symptom testimony based on conservative treatment, 14 conflict with medical evidence, and conflict with her activities. Tr. 20-22. 15 1. Conservative Treatment 16 The ALJ permissibly discounted Plaintiff’s testimony of disabling mental 17 limitations on the grounds that she did not seek anything beyond conservative treatment. 18 See Tommasetti v. Astrue, 533 F.3d 1035, 1039 (9th Cir. 2008) (ALJ permissibly 19 “inferred that Tommasetti’s pain was not as all-disabling as he reported in light of the 20 fact that he did not seek an aggressive treatment program”). Plaintiff attended 21 counseling, but did not seek medication. Tr. 21. She testified she initially took 22 medication but stopped due to side effects, and had not sought alternative medication. 23 1 Tr. 51-52. An ALJ may discount the testimony of a claimant who, like Plaintiff, “did not 2 seek an alternative or more-tailored treatment program after [stopping] an effective 3 medication due to mild side effects.” Tommasetti, 533 F.3d at 1039. Conservative 4 treatment was a clear and convincing reason to discount Plaintiff’s testimony. 5 2. Medical Evidence 6 The ALJ found Plaintiff’s testimony of disabling depression inconsistent with 7 medical evidence showing almost entirely normal mental health findings, with only 8 occasional observations of depressed or anxious mood. Tr. 21. Plaintiff contends the 9 ALJ erred by relying exclusively on evidence predating the May 2018 alleged onset date 10 because, from that time onward, her condition deteriorated. Dkt. 17 at 2-3. Plaintiff is 11 incorrect; the ALJ cited extensive medical evidence from throughout the relevant period 12 13 to support his finding that treatment records conflicted with Plaintiff’s symptom 14 testimony. See Tr. 21 (citing, e.g., Tr. 1085, 1088). 15 Plaintiff argues her treatment notes from May 2018 onward consistently show 16 “impairment to functioning” and “suicidal ideation.” Dkt. 17 at 3 (citing Tr. 965). 17 However, Plaintiff’s citation is to her presenting problem, which remained the same 18 throughout the Greater Lakes Mental Healthcare treatment notes from 2016 to 2018. Tr. 19 895 (“Primary Treatment Problem” in 2016 treatment plan); see Tr. 917-89 (“Problem”). 20 Observations from each session, however, showed entirely or almost entirely normal 21 mental status examination findings. See, e.g., Tr. 944, 959. And Plaintiff expressly 22 denied suicidal ideation. See, e.g., Tr. 922 (in August 2018 Plaintiff “reports no suicidal 23 1 ideation during the past 6 months”), 951, 992. 2 Plaintiff cites a treatment note where she reported “increasing … symptoms of 3 depression.” Tr. 951. In the same note, however, Plaintiff’s mental status findings were 4 entirely normal and she “responded positively to the supportive interventions” provided. 5 Tr. 952, 950. In other treatment notes Plaintiff cites, while she reported sometimes not 6 doing much or “struggl[ing] with getting out of the house,” her mood was observed to be 7 “[e]uthymic (reasonably positive mood/not depressed, anxious, irritable or euphoric).” 8 Tr. 960, 959, 956-57, 989-90. 9 Plaintiff contends several mental status examinations documented depressed, 10 anxious, or irritable mood. Dkt. 17 at 4. However, at least half of the examinations 11 12 documented euthymic mood, and in all examinations the other areas observed were 13 overwhelmingly normal. See Tr. 1085-1223. The ALJ reasonably interpreted the overall 14 record as showing only mild symptoms. When the evidence is susceptible to more than 15 one interpretation, the ALJ’s rational interpretation must be upheld. Burch v. Barnhart, 16 400 F.3d 676, 680-81 (9th Cir. 2005). Because the ALJ provided the clear and 17 convincing reason of conservative treatment, he permissibly relied on lack of supporting 18 medical evidence as an additional reason to discount Plaintiff’s testimony. See Rollins v. 19 Massanari, 261 F.3d 853, 857 (9th Cir. 2001) (“While subjective pain testimony cannot 20 be rejected on the sole ground that it is not fully corroborated by objective medical 21 evidence, the medical evidence is still a relevant factor in determining the severity of the 22 claimant’s pain and its disabling effects.”). 23 1 3. Activities 2 Conflict with Plaintiff’s activities was not a clear and convincing reason to 3 discount Plaintiff’s testimony. The ALJ cited only “riding a motorcycle and planning 4 overseas trips.” Tr. 21. Plaintiff reported “looking into” taking a trip, but did not take it. 5 Tr. 1167. “Only if the level of activity were inconsistent with Claimant’s claimed 6 limitations would these activities have any bearing on Claimant’s credibility.” Reddick v. 7 Chater, 157 F.3d 715, 722 (9th Cir. 1998). The ALJ failed to explain how either activity 8 was inconsistent with Plaintiff’s testimony. 9 Inclusion of erroneous reasons was harmless, however, because the ALJ provided 10 other clear and convincing reasons. See Carmickle v. Comm’r, Soc. Sec. Admin., 533 11 F.3d 1155, 1163 (9th Cir. 2008) (inclusion of erroneous reasons to discount claimant’s 12 13 testimony was harmless because “remaining valid reasons supporting the ALJ’s 14 determination are not ‘relatively minor’”). The Court concludes the ALJ did not err by 15 discounting Plaintiff’s testimony. 16 B. Medical Opinion 17 Plaintiff contends the ALJ erred by discounting Ms. Barber’s opinion that her 18 “symptoms have worsened from September 2018 to February 2019,” because “the ALJ 19 only relied on records predating the amended onset date.” Dkt. 17 at 5; Dkt. 19 at 4. 20 However, Ms.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 7 TRACIE E., 8 Plaintiff, Case No. C20-5738 RAJ 9 v. ORDER AFFIRMING DENIAL 10 OF BENEFITS 11 COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, 12 Defendant. 13 Plaintiff appeals denial of her application for Supplemental Security Income. 14 Plaintiff contends the ALJ erred by discounting her testimony and the opinion of treating 15 mental health counselor Shelby Barber, MSW. Dkt. 17. As discussed below, the Court 16 AFFIRMS the Commissioner’s final decision and DISMISSES the case with prejudice. 17 BACKGROUND 18 19 Plaintiff is 52 years old, has a high school education, and has worked as a truck 20 driver. Dkt. 15, Admin. Transcript (Tr.) 23-24. Plaintiff alleges disability as of May 29, 21 2018. Tr. 15. After conducting a hearing in July 2019, the ALJ issued a decision finding 22 Plaintiff not disabled. Tr. 30-82, 15-25. In pertinent part, the ALJ found Plaintiff’s 23 severe impairments, major depressive disorder and status post-motor vehicle accident, 1 limited her to simple, routine, light-exertion work, interacting occasionally with the 2 public, and without a fast-paced environment. Tr. 17, 19. 3 DISCUSSION 4 This Court may set aside the Commissioner’s denial of Social Security benefits 5 only if the ALJ’s decision is based on legal error or not supported by substantial evidence 6 in the record as a whole. Trevizo v. Berryhill, 871 F.3d 664, 674 (9th Cir. 2017). 7 A. Plaintiff’s Testimony 8 The ALJ could only discount Plaintiff’s testimony as to symptom severity by 9 providing “specific, clear, and convincing” reasons supported by substantial evidence. 10 Trevizo, 871 F.3d at 678. Plaintiff testified to isolating herself, and three or four times a 11 week being unable to do anything beyond “the bare survival minimum.” Tr. 70, 48. The 12 13 ALJ discounted Plaintiff’s mental symptom testimony based on conservative treatment, 14 conflict with medical evidence, and conflict with her activities. Tr. 20-22. 15 1. Conservative Treatment 16 The ALJ permissibly discounted Plaintiff’s testimony of disabling mental 17 limitations on the grounds that she did not seek anything beyond conservative treatment. 18 See Tommasetti v. Astrue, 533 F.3d 1035, 1039 (9th Cir. 2008) (ALJ permissibly 19 “inferred that Tommasetti’s pain was not as all-disabling as he reported in light of the 20 fact that he did not seek an aggressive treatment program”). Plaintiff attended 21 counseling, but did not seek medication. Tr. 21. She testified she initially took 22 medication but stopped due to side effects, and had not sought alternative medication. 23 1 Tr. 51-52. An ALJ may discount the testimony of a claimant who, like Plaintiff, “did not 2 seek an alternative or more-tailored treatment program after [stopping] an effective 3 medication due to mild side effects.” Tommasetti, 533 F.3d at 1039. Conservative 4 treatment was a clear and convincing reason to discount Plaintiff’s testimony. 5 2. Medical Evidence 6 The ALJ found Plaintiff’s testimony of disabling depression inconsistent with 7 medical evidence showing almost entirely normal mental health findings, with only 8 occasional observations of depressed or anxious mood. Tr. 21. Plaintiff contends the 9 ALJ erred by relying exclusively on evidence predating the May 2018 alleged onset date 10 because, from that time onward, her condition deteriorated. Dkt. 17 at 2-3. Plaintiff is 11 incorrect; the ALJ cited extensive medical evidence from throughout the relevant period 12 13 to support his finding that treatment records conflicted with Plaintiff’s symptom 14 testimony. See Tr. 21 (citing, e.g., Tr. 1085, 1088). 15 Plaintiff argues her treatment notes from May 2018 onward consistently show 16 “impairment to functioning” and “suicidal ideation.” Dkt. 17 at 3 (citing Tr. 965). 17 However, Plaintiff’s citation is to her presenting problem, which remained the same 18 throughout the Greater Lakes Mental Healthcare treatment notes from 2016 to 2018. Tr. 19 895 (“Primary Treatment Problem” in 2016 treatment plan); see Tr. 917-89 (“Problem”). 20 Observations from each session, however, showed entirely or almost entirely normal 21 mental status examination findings. See, e.g., Tr. 944, 959. And Plaintiff expressly 22 denied suicidal ideation. See, e.g., Tr. 922 (in August 2018 Plaintiff “reports no suicidal 23 1 ideation during the past 6 months”), 951, 992. 2 Plaintiff cites a treatment note where she reported “increasing … symptoms of 3 depression.” Tr. 951. In the same note, however, Plaintiff’s mental status findings were 4 entirely normal and she “responded positively to the supportive interventions” provided. 5 Tr. 952, 950. In other treatment notes Plaintiff cites, while she reported sometimes not 6 doing much or “struggl[ing] with getting out of the house,” her mood was observed to be 7 “[e]uthymic (reasonably positive mood/not depressed, anxious, irritable or euphoric).” 8 Tr. 960, 959, 956-57, 989-90. 9 Plaintiff contends several mental status examinations documented depressed, 10 anxious, or irritable mood. Dkt. 17 at 4. However, at least half of the examinations 11 12 documented euthymic mood, and in all examinations the other areas observed were 13 overwhelmingly normal. See Tr. 1085-1223. The ALJ reasonably interpreted the overall 14 record as showing only mild symptoms. When the evidence is susceptible to more than 15 one interpretation, the ALJ’s rational interpretation must be upheld. Burch v. Barnhart, 16 400 F.3d 676, 680-81 (9th Cir. 2005). Because the ALJ provided the clear and 17 convincing reason of conservative treatment, he permissibly relied on lack of supporting 18 medical evidence as an additional reason to discount Plaintiff’s testimony. See Rollins v. 19 Massanari, 261 F.3d 853, 857 (9th Cir. 2001) (“While subjective pain testimony cannot 20 be rejected on the sole ground that it is not fully corroborated by objective medical 21 evidence, the medical evidence is still a relevant factor in determining the severity of the 22 claimant’s pain and its disabling effects.”). 23 1 3. Activities 2 Conflict with Plaintiff’s activities was not a clear and convincing reason to 3 discount Plaintiff’s testimony. The ALJ cited only “riding a motorcycle and planning 4 overseas trips.” Tr. 21. Plaintiff reported “looking into” taking a trip, but did not take it. 5 Tr. 1167. “Only if the level of activity were inconsistent with Claimant’s claimed 6 limitations would these activities have any bearing on Claimant’s credibility.” Reddick v. 7 Chater, 157 F.3d 715, 722 (9th Cir. 1998). The ALJ failed to explain how either activity 8 was inconsistent with Plaintiff’s testimony. 9 Inclusion of erroneous reasons was harmless, however, because the ALJ provided 10 other clear and convincing reasons. See Carmickle v. Comm’r, Soc. Sec. Admin., 533 11 F.3d 1155, 1163 (9th Cir. 2008) (inclusion of erroneous reasons to discount claimant’s 12 13 testimony was harmless because “remaining valid reasons supporting the ALJ’s 14 determination are not ‘relatively minor’”). The Court concludes the ALJ did not err by 15 discounting Plaintiff’s testimony. 16 B. Medical Opinion 17 Plaintiff contends the ALJ erred by discounting Ms. Barber’s opinion that her 18 “symptoms have worsened from September 2018 to February 2019,” because “the ALJ 19 only relied on records predating the amended onset date.” Dkt. 17 at 5; Dkt. 19 at 4. 20 However, Ms. Barber did not give her own opinion, but stated that Plaintiff “reported 21 worsening of depressive symptoms” from September 2018 to February 2019. Tr. 1276. 22 Moreover, as discussed above, the ALJ relied on evidence from throughout the relevant 23 1 period. Plaintiff has shown no error. 2 The Court concludes the ALJ did not err in analyzing Ms. Barber’s statements. 3 CONCLUSION 4 For the foregoing reasons, the Commissioner’s final decision is AFFIRMED and 5 this case is DISMISSED with prejudice. 6

7 DATED this 5th day of April, 2021.

8 A 9 10 The Honorable Richard A. Jones 11 United States District Judge

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Eason v. Commissioner of Social Security, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/eason-v-commissioner-of-social-security-wawd-2021.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack