Hardin v. Commissioner of Social Security

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT AT TACOMA 7 CAROLYNN L. H., 8 Plaintiff, Case No. C23-5439 RSM 9 v. ORDER AFFIRMING AND COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, 11 Defendant. 12

13 Plaintiff seeks review of the denial of her application for Supplemental Security Income 14 (SSI). Plaintiff contends the ALJ erred by rejecting her symptom testimony. Dkt. 8. As 15 discussed below, the Court AFFIRMS the Commissioner’s final decision and DISMISSES the 16 case with prejudice. 18 This is the second time Plaintiff seeks judicial review of her application for SSI. In 2019, 19 the ALJ issued an unfavorable decision. AR 12–29. In 2021, this Court reversed the ALJ’s 20 decision. AR 1189–97. On remand, the ALJ held a hearing in December 2022. AR 1109–44. 21 During the hearing, Plaintiff requested a closed period of disability. AR 1116–18. In March 22 2023, the ALJ issued a decision finding Plaintiff not disabled from March 2, 2018, through May 23 9, 2022. 2 The Court may reverse the ALJ’s decision only if it is legally erroneous or not supported 3 by substantial evidence of record. Ford v. Saul, 950 F.3d 1141, 1154 (9th Cir. 2020). The Court 4 must examine the record but cannot reweigh the evidence or substitute its judgment for the 5 ALJ’s. Thomas v. Barnhart, 278 F.3d 947, 954 (9th Cir. 2002). When evidence is susceptible to 6 more than one interpretation, the Court must uphold the ALJ’s interpretation if rational. Ford, 7 950 F.3d at 1154. Also, the Court “may not reverse an ALJ’s decision on account of an error 8 that is harmless.” Molina v. Astrue, 674 F.3d 1104, 1111 (9th Cir. 2012). 9 Plaintiff’s only assignment of error is with the ALJ’s evaluation of her symptom 10 testimony. Dkt. 8 at 2–4. Plaintiff testified that during the relevant period, she experienced night

11 terrors and hallucinations. AR 100, 121, 1131, 1139. She testified she was not able to go out in 12 public because being around others triggered her anxiety. AR 101–02, 118. She explained that 13 because of her depression, she spent most of her time in bed or on the couch, she often felt 14 overwhelmed, and she was unreliable. AR 105–06, 109–10. She stated she easily forgot what 15 she was supposed to do, she could not maintain her attention, and she could not interact with her 16 family members. AR 101, 123–25, 1139. 17 Where, as here, an ALJ determines a claimant has presented objective medical evidence 18 establishing underlying impairments that could cause the symptoms alleged, and there is no 19 affirmative evidence of malingering, the ALJ can only discount the claimant’s testimony as to 20 symptom severity by providing “specific, clear, and convincing” reasons supported by

21 substantial evidence. Trevizo v. Berryhill, 871 F.3d 664, 678 (9th Cir. 2017). “The standard 22 isn’t whether our court is convinced, but instead whether the ALJ’s rationale is clear enough that 23 it has the power to convince.” Smartt v. Kijakazi, 53 F.4th 489, 499 (9th Cir. 2022). 1 The ALJ rejected Plaintiff’s testimony for several reasons, including its inconsistency 2 with objective medical evidence and Plaintiff’s treatment records. AR 1096–98. “When 3 objective medical evidence in the record is inconsistent with the claimant’s subjective testimony, 4 the ALJ may indeed weigh it as undercutting such testimony.” Smartt, 53 F.4th at 498. And 5 how a claimant’s symptoms respond to treatment is “an important indicator of the intensity and 6 persistence of [the claimant’s] symptoms.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(3), 416.929(3); see also 7 Warre ex rel. E.T. IV v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 439 F.3d 1001, 1006 (9th Cir. 2006) 8 (holding that “[i]mpairments that can be controlled effectively with medication are not disabling 9 for the purpose of determining eligibility for [social security disability] benefits”). 10 Plaintiff’s therapy notes from late 2019 show Plaintiff made “minimal” progress with her

11 ability to deal with stressors. AR 1473–74. Her mental status examination around that time also 12 reveal findings that were not within normal limits. AR 1487–88. The following year, Plaintiff 13 started attending therapy. See AR 1594–1640. Plaintiff’s therapy notes show her mood varied, 14 and she reported night terrors, hallucinations, and post-traumatic stress disorder-related 15 symptoms. See AR 1596, 1600, 1604, 1608, 1612, 1620, 1632, 1636. However, despite these 16 reported symptoms, Plaintiff’s mental status examinations show she was alert, had euthymic 17 mood, and logical, linear, and coherent thought process. AR 1081, 1595, 1599, 1603, 1607, 18 1611, 1619, 1631, 1635, 1657, 1660, 1663. Plaintiff’s counselors also continuously noted she 19 was engaged and responded positively during her counseling sessions. AR 1596, 1600, 1604, 20 1608, 1612, 1620, 1632, 1636. Plaintiff also reported her medication was helpful. AR 1612.

21 Later therapy notes show Plaintiff no longer reported hallucinations, she had normal memory, 22 insight, and judgment, though she still had night terrors and reported depression. See AR 1657– 23 64, 2088. Plaintiff’s mental status examination and reports of engagement and improvement 1 from treatment undermine her testimony about the limiting effects of her mental health 2 symptoms. 3 The ALJ also rejected Plaintiff’s testimony because it was inconsistent with her reported 4 activities. AR 1096–98. An ALJ may consider whether a claimant’s activities are inconsistent 5 with his or her alleged symptoms. Smartt, 53 F.4th at 499. A claimant’s “daily activities ‘may 6 be grounds for discrediting the claimant’s testimony to the extent that they contradict claims of a 7 totally debilitating impairment.’” Id. (quoting Molina, 674 F.3d at 1113). The record shows 8 Plaintiff interacted with her family, cleaned her sister’s house as a way to “pay rent,” made gem 9 art, and regularly attended her substance treatment meetings. AR 895, 1600, 1620, 1664. The 10 record also shows Plaintiff attempted to apply for jobs but stopped because of the COVID-19

11 pandemic. AR 1612, 2070. Plaintiff’s ability to engage in these activities contradicts her 12 statements about how she spent most of her time in bed with almost no interaction with others. 13 Plaintiff argues the ALJ impermissibly disregarded the evidence showing she 14 experienced symptoms throughout the relevant period and cites various treatment notes in the 15 record. See Dkt. 8 at 3–4. Plaintiff misunderstands the ALJ’s reasoning. The ALJ did not 16 dispute the presence of Plaintiff’s mental health symptoms—the ALJ noted that Plaintiff has 17 impairments which could reasonably produce the symptoms she testified to and discussed her 18 diagnoses. See AR 1094–95. However, the ALJ found that her statements about the “intensity, 19 persistence, and limiting effects” of those symptoms were not as severe as alleged, given her 20 mental status examinations, reports of improvement, and ability to partake in activities during the

21 closed period. See AR 1094–98. “The court will uphold the ALJ’s conclusion when the 22 evidence is susceptible to more than one rational interpretation.” Tommasetti v. Astrue, 533 F.3d 23 1035, 1038 (9th Cir. 2008). The ALJ’s assessment of Plaintiff’s record is a rational one, 1 therefore in rejecting Plaintiff’s testimony, the ALJ did not err. 3 For the foregoing reasons, the Commissioner’s final decision is AFFIRMED and this 4 case is DISMISSED with prejudice. 5 DATED this 3rd day of November, 2023.

6 A 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 9

11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23