1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 11 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 12 ERIC F., 13 Plaintiff, Case No. C20-0087 RAJ 14 v. ORDER AFFIRMING DENIAL 15 OF BENEFITS 16 COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, 17 Defendant. 18 Plaintiff seeks review of the denial of his applications for Supplemental Security 19 Income and Disability Insurance Benefits. Plaintiff contends the ALJ erred by (1) 20 rejecting the opinions of Joseph Jemsek, M.D., (2) rejecting the opinions of Susan Marra, 21 N.D., and (3) accepting the opinions of Steven Goldstein, M.D. Pl. Op. Br. (Dkt. 17), pp. 22 23 1–2. As discussed below, the Court AFFIRMS the Commissioner’s final decision and 1 DISMISSES the case with prejudice. 2 BACKGROUND 3 Plaintiff is 36 years old, has a high school education, and has worked as a 4 household appliances salesperson. Admin. Record (“AR”) (Dkt. 15) 64, 241, 824. On 5 August 14, 2013, Plaintiff applied for benefits, alleging disability as of February 10, 6 2012. AR 64–65, 193–216. Plaintiff’s applications were denied initially and on 7 reconsideration. AR 64–85, 88–111. After the ALJ conducted a hearing on February 4, 8 2015, the ALJ issued a decision finding Plaintiff not disabled. AR 12–21. 9 Plaintiff then sought review in this Court. See AR 949–50. On February 15, 2017, 10 Chief District Judge Ricardo Martinez entered an Order granting the parties’ stipulated 11 12 request for remand. AR 956–57. The Order provided Plaintiff would have the 13 opportunity to submit additional evidence and have a new hearing, the ALJ would 14 reconsider Plaintiff’s residual functional capacity (“RFC”), the ALJ would reevaluate the 15 opinions of Dr. Jemsek and Dr. Marra, and the ALJ would seek supplemental vocational 16 expert testimony as needed. Id. 17 On remand, the ALJ held a new hearing on Plaintiff’s claims in January 2019. See 18 AR 835–910.1 The ALJ issued a new decision on January 29, 2019, again finding 19 Plaintiff not disabled. See AR 809–26. In relevant part, the ALJ found Plaintiff had 20 severe impairments of Lyme disease, migraines, depressive disorder, anxiety disorder, 21 22
23 1 The ALJ held an earlier hearing on January 10, 2018, but did not take testimony at that time. See AR 911–24. 1 and substance addiction/abuse disorders. AR 812. The ALJ found Plaintiff’s 2 impairments, including the substance use disorders, would meet a listing, but that 3 Plaintiff would not meet a listing if he stopped substance use. See AR 813–16. The ALJ 4 found, if Plaintiff stopped substance use, Plaintiff would have the RFC to perform work 5 at the medium exertional level, but must be allowed to wear shaded lenses or sunglasses. 6 AR 816. Plaintiff had mental limitations such as restriction to understanding, 7 remembering, and carrying out simple instructions, and performing work in which little 8 specific vocational preparation was needed. See id. Plaintiff had social limitations, such 9 as no teamwork, and no public contact. See id. 10 The Appeals Council considered Plaintiff’s exceptions to the ALJ’s decision, but 11 12 found no reason to assume jurisdiction. See AR 799–802. 13 DISCUSSION 14 This Court may set aside the Commissioner’s denial of Social Security benefits 15 only if the ALJ’s decision is based on legal error or not supported by substantial evidence 16 in the record as a whole. Ford v. Saul, 950 F.3d 1141, 1153–54 (9th Cir. 2020). 17 A. Dr. Jemsek’s Opinions 18 Dr. Jemsek submitted two statements of opinion. AR 793–94, 798. On January 5, 19 2015, Dr. Jemsek signed a completed questionnaire prepared by Plaintiff’s counsel. AR 20 793–94. Dr. Jemsek opined Plaintiff was “100% disabled due to chronic Lyme 21 [disease].” AR 793. Dr. Jemsek agreed Plaintiff had exhibited symptoms and limitations 22 from Lyme disease including frequent severe fatigue, eye pain, eye pressure, 23 1 photophobia, ear pressure, ear pain, migraine headaches, impaired concentration and 2 attention, throat swelling, low grade fevers, night sweats, polydipsia, dizziness, 3 lightheadedness, motion sensitivity, and altered depth perception. AR 794. Dr. Jemsek 4 agreed Plaintiff would have required multiple unscheduled work breaks of 15–30 minutes 5 in addition to the standard three breaks employers provide. Id. Dr. Jemsek opined 6 Plaintiff would be absent from work for three or more days a month. Id. 7 In a letter dated April 22, 2015, Dr. Jemsek wrote that “appropriate diagnosis [of 8 Lyme disease] may be challenging for those in the medical community unfamiliar with 9 the signs and symptoms of the illness, and misdiagnosis or inadequate treatment can be 10 common.” AR 798. Dr. Jemsek added Plaintiff’s “symptomatology has remained 11 12 essentially unchanged, and his signs and symptoms continue to be consistent with his 13 diagnosis.” Id. 14 The ALJ gave little weight to Dr. Jemsek’s opinions. AR 821. The ALJ reasoned 15 Dr. Jemsek’s treatment records did not support his opinions, as Plaintiff’s documented 16 presentation was generally normal. Id. 17 Plaintiff has failed to show the ALJ harmfully erred in rejecting Dr. Jemsek’s 18 opinions. See Ludwig v. Astrue, 681 F.3d 1047, 1054 (9th Cir. 2012) (citing Shinseki v. 19 Sanders, 556 U.S. 396, 407–09 (2009)) (holding the party challenging an administrative 20 decision bears the burden of proving harmful error). An ALJ may reject a treating 21 doctor’s opinions when they are unsupported by objective medical evidence. See 22 Tommasetti v. Astrue, 533 F.3d 1035, 1041 (9th Cir. 2008). The record indicates Dr. 23 1 Jemsek saw Plaintiff for in-person exams seven times, and had another four telephone 2 consultations. See AR 786–92, 1199–1216. In those records, the objective findings were 3 generally normal other than Plaintiff’s wearing of dark sunglasses in a dark room. See id. 4 Dr. Jemsek noted IgeneX and CDC tests supported a Lyme disease diagnosis, but did not 5 point to any objective findings supporting the symptoms and limitations to which he 6 opined. See AR 789, 791. The ALJ reasonably concluded this was not enough to support 7 Dr. Jemsek’s opinions indicating Plaintiff was unable to work. The ALJ thus did not 8 harmfully err in rejecting Dr. Jemsek’s opinions. 9 B. Dr. Marra’s Opinions 10 Dr. Marra signed the same questionnaire Dr. Jemsek signed. See AR 793–94. Just 11 12 like Dr. Jemsek, Dr. Marra opined Plaintiff was completely disabled, would have 13 required multiple unscheduled work breaks, and would be absent from work for three or 14 more days a month. Id. 15 The ALJ gave Dr. Marra’s opinions little weight. AR 821. The ALJ reasoned Dr. 16 Marra’s opinions were “inconsistent with the minimal physical examination findings 17 throughout the relevant period.” Id. 18 Dr. Marra, as a naturopathic doctor, is not an acceptable medical source under the 19 Commissioner’s regulations. See Bales v. Berryhill, 688 F. App’x 495, 497 (9th Cir. 20 2017); 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1502(a), 416.902(a). The ALJ therefore needed to provide 21 germane reasons for rejecting Dr. Marra’s opinions. See Dale v. Colvin, 823 F.3d 941, 22 943 (9th Cir. 2017) (citing Molina v. Astrue, 674 F.3d 1104, 1111 (9th Cir. 2012)). 23 1 Plaintiff has failed to show the ALJ harmfully erred in rejecting Dr. Marra’s 2 opinions. See Ludwig, 681 F.3d at 1054 (citing Shinseki, 556 U.S. at 407–09).
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 11 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 12 ERIC F., 13 Plaintiff, Case No. C20-0087 RAJ 14 v. ORDER AFFIRMING DENIAL 15 OF BENEFITS 16 COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, 17 Defendant. 18 Plaintiff seeks review of the denial of his applications for Supplemental Security 19 Income and Disability Insurance Benefits. Plaintiff contends the ALJ erred by (1) 20 rejecting the opinions of Joseph Jemsek, M.D., (2) rejecting the opinions of Susan Marra, 21 N.D., and (3) accepting the opinions of Steven Goldstein, M.D. Pl. Op. Br. (Dkt. 17), pp. 22 23 1–2. As discussed below, the Court AFFIRMS the Commissioner’s final decision and 1 DISMISSES the case with prejudice. 2 BACKGROUND 3 Plaintiff is 36 years old, has a high school education, and has worked as a 4 household appliances salesperson. Admin. Record (“AR”) (Dkt. 15) 64, 241, 824. On 5 August 14, 2013, Plaintiff applied for benefits, alleging disability as of February 10, 6 2012. AR 64–65, 193–216. Plaintiff’s applications were denied initially and on 7 reconsideration. AR 64–85, 88–111. After the ALJ conducted a hearing on February 4, 8 2015, the ALJ issued a decision finding Plaintiff not disabled. AR 12–21. 9 Plaintiff then sought review in this Court. See AR 949–50. On February 15, 2017, 10 Chief District Judge Ricardo Martinez entered an Order granting the parties’ stipulated 11 12 request for remand. AR 956–57. The Order provided Plaintiff would have the 13 opportunity to submit additional evidence and have a new hearing, the ALJ would 14 reconsider Plaintiff’s residual functional capacity (“RFC”), the ALJ would reevaluate the 15 opinions of Dr. Jemsek and Dr. Marra, and the ALJ would seek supplemental vocational 16 expert testimony as needed. Id. 17 On remand, the ALJ held a new hearing on Plaintiff’s claims in January 2019. See 18 AR 835–910.1 The ALJ issued a new decision on January 29, 2019, again finding 19 Plaintiff not disabled. See AR 809–26. In relevant part, the ALJ found Plaintiff had 20 severe impairments of Lyme disease, migraines, depressive disorder, anxiety disorder, 21 22
23 1 The ALJ held an earlier hearing on January 10, 2018, but did not take testimony at that time. See AR 911–24. 1 and substance addiction/abuse disorders. AR 812. The ALJ found Plaintiff’s 2 impairments, including the substance use disorders, would meet a listing, but that 3 Plaintiff would not meet a listing if he stopped substance use. See AR 813–16. The ALJ 4 found, if Plaintiff stopped substance use, Plaintiff would have the RFC to perform work 5 at the medium exertional level, but must be allowed to wear shaded lenses or sunglasses. 6 AR 816. Plaintiff had mental limitations such as restriction to understanding, 7 remembering, and carrying out simple instructions, and performing work in which little 8 specific vocational preparation was needed. See id. Plaintiff had social limitations, such 9 as no teamwork, and no public contact. See id. 10 The Appeals Council considered Plaintiff’s exceptions to the ALJ’s decision, but 11 12 found no reason to assume jurisdiction. See AR 799–802. 13 DISCUSSION 14 This Court may set aside the Commissioner’s denial of Social Security benefits 15 only if the ALJ’s decision is based on legal error or not supported by substantial evidence 16 in the record as a whole. Ford v. Saul, 950 F.3d 1141, 1153–54 (9th Cir. 2020). 17 A. Dr. Jemsek’s Opinions 18 Dr. Jemsek submitted two statements of opinion. AR 793–94, 798. On January 5, 19 2015, Dr. Jemsek signed a completed questionnaire prepared by Plaintiff’s counsel. AR 20 793–94. Dr. Jemsek opined Plaintiff was “100% disabled due to chronic Lyme 21 [disease].” AR 793. Dr. Jemsek agreed Plaintiff had exhibited symptoms and limitations 22 from Lyme disease including frequent severe fatigue, eye pain, eye pressure, 23 1 photophobia, ear pressure, ear pain, migraine headaches, impaired concentration and 2 attention, throat swelling, low grade fevers, night sweats, polydipsia, dizziness, 3 lightheadedness, motion sensitivity, and altered depth perception. AR 794. Dr. Jemsek 4 agreed Plaintiff would have required multiple unscheduled work breaks of 15–30 minutes 5 in addition to the standard three breaks employers provide. Id. Dr. Jemsek opined 6 Plaintiff would be absent from work for three or more days a month. Id. 7 In a letter dated April 22, 2015, Dr. Jemsek wrote that “appropriate diagnosis [of 8 Lyme disease] may be challenging for those in the medical community unfamiliar with 9 the signs and symptoms of the illness, and misdiagnosis or inadequate treatment can be 10 common.” AR 798. Dr. Jemsek added Plaintiff’s “symptomatology has remained 11 12 essentially unchanged, and his signs and symptoms continue to be consistent with his 13 diagnosis.” Id. 14 The ALJ gave little weight to Dr. Jemsek’s opinions. AR 821. The ALJ reasoned 15 Dr. Jemsek’s treatment records did not support his opinions, as Plaintiff’s documented 16 presentation was generally normal. Id. 17 Plaintiff has failed to show the ALJ harmfully erred in rejecting Dr. Jemsek’s 18 opinions. See Ludwig v. Astrue, 681 F.3d 1047, 1054 (9th Cir. 2012) (citing Shinseki v. 19 Sanders, 556 U.S. 396, 407–09 (2009)) (holding the party challenging an administrative 20 decision bears the burden of proving harmful error). An ALJ may reject a treating 21 doctor’s opinions when they are unsupported by objective medical evidence. See 22 Tommasetti v. Astrue, 533 F.3d 1035, 1041 (9th Cir. 2008). The record indicates Dr. 23 1 Jemsek saw Plaintiff for in-person exams seven times, and had another four telephone 2 consultations. See AR 786–92, 1199–1216. In those records, the objective findings were 3 generally normal other than Plaintiff’s wearing of dark sunglasses in a dark room. See id. 4 Dr. Jemsek noted IgeneX and CDC tests supported a Lyme disease diagnosis, but did not 5 point to any objective findings supporting the symptoms and limitations to which he 6 opined. See AR 789, 791. The ALJ reasonably concluded this was not enough to support 7 Dr. Jemsek’s opinions indicating Plaintiff was unable to work. The ALJ thus did not 8 harmfully err in rejecting Dr. Jemsek’s opinions. 9 B. Dr. Marra’s Opinions 10 Dr. Marra signed the same questionnaire Dr. Jemsek signed. See AR 793–94. Just 11 12 like Dr. Jemsek, Dr. Marra opined Plaintiff was completely disabled, would have 13 required multiple unscheduled work breaks, and would be absent from work for three or 14 more days a month. Id. 15 The ALJ gave Dr. Marra’s opinions little weight. AR 821. The ALJ reasoned Dr. 16 Marra’s opinions were “inconsistent with the minimal physical examination findings 17 throughout the relevant period.” Id. 18 Dr. Marra, as a naturopathic doctor, is not an acceptable medical source under the 19 Commissioner’s regulations. See Bales v. Berryhill, 688 F. App’x 495, 497 (9th Cir. 20 2017); 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1502(a), 416.902(a). The ALJ therefore needed to provide 21 germane reasons for rejecting Dr. Marra’s opinions. See Dale v. Colvin, 823 F.3d 941, 22 943 (9th Cir. 2017) (citing Molina v. Astrue, 674 F.3d 1104, 1111 (9th Cir. 2012)). 23 1 Plaintiff has failed to show the ALJ harmfully erred in rejecting Dr. Marra’s 2 opinions. See Ludwig, 681 F.3d at 1054 (citing Shinseki, 556 U.S. at 407–09). An ALJ 3 may reasonably reject a doctor’s opinions when they are inconsistent with or contradicted 4 by the medical evidence. See Batson v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 359 F.3d 1190, 5 1195 (9th Cir. 2004). The ALJ reasonably determined Dr. Marra’s opinions were 6 inconsistent with the minimal physical exam findings throughout the relevant period. See 7 AR 681, 686, 693, 696, 700, 749–51, 770, 788, 1207, 1209, 1211, 1213–16, 1666, 1697. 8 The only obviously abnormal findings in the record are Plaintiff’s sensitivity to light, but 9 his ophthalmology results were negative. See AR 409, 452, 492, 507, 533, 562, 659, 677. 10 The ALJ therefore did not harmfully err in rejecting Dr. Marra’s opinions. 11 12 C. Dr. Goldstein’s Opinions 13 Plaintiff argues the ALJ erred by accepting Dr. Goldstein’s opinions. Pl. Op. Br., 14 pp. 6–8. Plaintiff argues Dr. Goldstein was not qualified to testify as an expert on 15 Plaintiff’s Lyme disease. Id. Plaintiff further argues the ALJ erred in giving great weight 16 to Dr. Goldstein’s opinions over those of Dr. Jemsek, who Plaintiff avers “is a leading 17 specialist in the treatment of Lyme disease.” Pl. Op. Br., pp. 6–7. 18 Dr. Goldstein testified as an impartial expert at the January 2019 hearing. See AR 19 844–57. Dr. Goldstein opined Plaintiff could not maintain a job due to his drug and 20 alcohol addiction. AR 846. He opined Plaintiff may have chronic Lyme disease, but 21 opined nothing in the record supported a functional limitation due to this diagnosis. See 22 AR 847, 851–52. Dr. Goldstein admitted, however, that he had not treated a case of 23 1 Lyme disease, as it is not prevalent in the area in which he lives. 2 The ALJ gave Dr. Goldstein’s opinions significant weight, except to the extent Dr. 3 Goldstein opined Plaintiff had no physical limitations in the absence of substance use. 4 AR 820–21. As noted above, the ALJ found Plaintiff was limited to medium exertional 5 work. AR 816. 6 Plaintiff has again failed to show harmful error. See Ludwig, 681 F.3d at 1054 7 (citing Shinseki, 556 U.S. at 407–09). First, Plaintiff points to no authority establishing 8 that a doctor must have treated a disease to qualify as an expert on it. Dr. Goldstein is a 9 board-certified neurologist who completed residencies in neurology and internal 10 medicine. AR 809–10, 1731. The ALJ reasonably concluded this training covered “a 11 12 wide variety of diagnoses, including Lyme disease.” AR 810. 13 Second, the ALJ was not required to accept Dr. Jemsek’s opinions over Dr. 14 Goldstein’s simply because Plaintiff alleges Dr. Jemsek was a leading specialist in the 15 treatment of Lyme disease. The ALJ reasonably rejected Dr. Jemsek’s opinions, as 16 discussed above. The ALJ was therefore free to accept Dr. Goldstein’s opinions. See 17 Turner v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 613 F.3d 1217, 1223 (9th Cir. 2010). 18 Plaintiff further argues new and material evidence shows that rejection of Dr. 19 Jemsek’s opinions in favor of Dr. Goldstein’s opinions was improper. Pl. Op. Br., p. 2. 20 But Plaintiff points to no new and material evidence, and the record reveals none. See Pl. 21 Op. Br., pp. 7–8; AR 827–834. Plaintiff has thus waived any argument regarding new 22 and material evidence. See Independent Towers of Wash. v. Wash., 350 F.3d 925, 929 23 1 (9th Cir. 2003). Plaintiff has thus failed to show the ALJ harmfully erred in accepting 2 Dr. Goldstein’s opinions. 3 CONCLUSION 4 For the foregoing reasons, the Commissioner’s final decision is AFFIRMED and 5 the case is DISMISSED with prejudice. 6
7 DATED this 23rd day of September, 2020.
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