1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 11 12 AMY KATHERINE KLAAS, Case No.: 22-cv-460-L-BLM
13 Plaintiff, ORDER: 14 v. (1) ADOPTING REPORT AND 15 KILOLO KIJAKAZI, RECOMMENDATION [ECF No. 20] 16 Defendant. (2) DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 17 MOTION FOR SUMMARY 18 JUDGMENT [ECF No. 16]
19 (3) GRANTING DEFENDANT’S 20 MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT [ECF No. 17] 21 22 Pending before the Court is a motion for summary judgment filed by Plaintiff Amy 23 Katherine Klaas’s (“Plaintiff”), (ECF No. 16), a cross-motion for summary judgment and 24 opposition filed by Defendant Kilolo Kijakazi, Acting Commissioner of the Social Security 25 Administration’s (“Defendant”), (ECF No. 17), and Plaintiff’s reply to Defendant’s cross- 26 motion, (ECF No. 18). Also before the Court is Magistrate Judge Barbara L. Major’s 27 Report and Recommendation, (“R&R,” ECF No. 20), recommending the Court deny 28 Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, grant Defendant’s motion for summary 1 judgment, and enter judgment in favor of Defendant. Plaintiff filed an objection to the 2 R&R, (ECF No. 21), and Defendant responded, (ECF No. 22). For the reasons stated 3 below, the Court overrules Plaintiff’s objections, adopts the R&R, denies Plaintiff’s 4 motion, and grants Defendant’s motion. 5 I. BACKGROUND 6 On May 6, 2022, Plaintiff filed this social security appeal challenging the denial of 7 her application for disability insurance benefits pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). (ECF No. 8 1.) Plaintiff moved for summary judgment on the grounds that the Administrative Law 9 Judge’s (“ALJ”) functional capacity assessment lacked the support of substantial evidence. 10 (ECF No. 16.) Specifically, Plaintiff argued that the ALJ’s conclusion that the opinions of 11 two doctors—Dr. Bradshaw and Dr. Hall—were unpersuasive was unsupported by 12 substantial evidence. (Id.) Defendant filed a cross-motion contending that the ALJ’s 13 evaluation of the medical opinions and prior administrative medical findings was in fact 14 supported by substantial evidence. (ECF No. 17.) Judge Major found that the ALJ properly 15 evaluated the persuasiveness of Dr. Bradshaw’s and Dr. Hall’s opinions and ultimately 16 agreed with Defendant. (ECF No. 20.) Plaintiff now objects to Judge Major’s 17 determination that the ALJ properly evaluated Dr. Bradshaw’s and Dr. Hall’s opinions.1 18 (ECF No. 21.) 19 II. LEGAL STANDARD 20 In deciding a motion for summary judgment in connection with a Magistrate Judge’s 21 R&R, the district court must “make a de novo determination of those portions of the report 22 . . . to which objection is made,” and the court may “accept, reject, or modify, in whole or 23 in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 24 636(b)(1); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). 25 26 27 1 Judge Major’s R&R contains an accurate recitation of the relevant facts and procedural background to which neither party objects. (See ECF No. 20.) The Court therefore incorporates the background as set 28 1 “A decision by the Commissioner to deny disability benefits will not be overturned 2 unless it is either not supported by substantial evidence or is based upon legal error.”2 3 Luther v. Berryhill, 891 F.3d 872, 875 (9th Cir. 2018). Substantial evidence is “more than 4 a mere scintilla” but only “such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as 5 adequate to support a conclusion.” Biestek v. Berryhill, 139 S. Ct. 1148, 1154 (2019) 6 (quoting Consolidated Edison Co. v. NLRB, 305 U.S. 197, 229 (1938)). “Where evidence 7 is susceptible to more than one rational interpretation, it is the ALJ’s conclusion that must 8 be upheld.” Burch v. Barnhart, 400 F.3d 676, 679 (9th Cir. 2005). 9 Moreover, an ALJ “need not discuss all evidence presented to her,” but “she must 10 explain why significant probative evidence has been rejected.” Kilpatrick v. Kijakazi, 35 11 F.4th 1187, 1193 (9th Cir. 2022) (quoting Vincent ex rel. Vincent v. Heckler, 739 F.2d 12 1393, 1394–95 (9th Cir. 1984)). The ALJ must articulate “how persuasive” they “find all 13 of the medical opinions,” specifically addressing the most important factors the ALJ 14 considers in determining the persuasiveness of a medical opinion: supportability and 15 consistency. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520c(b). “Supportability means the extent to which a 16 medical source supports the medical opinion by explaining the ‘relevant . . . objective 17 medical evidence,’ while “[c]onsistency means the extent to which a medical opinion is 18 ‘consistent . . . with the evidence from other medical sources and nonmedical sources in 19 the claim.’” Woods v. Kijakazi, 32 F.4th 785, 791–92 (9th Cir. 2022) (first quoting 20 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520c(c)(1); and then quoting id. § 404.1520c(c)(2)). 21 III. DISCUSSION 22 Dr. Bradshaw and Dr. Hall each found Plaintiff to have total occupational disability. 23 (ECF No. 13-12, at 30–34; ECF No. 13-15, at 3.) As to supportability, the ALJ found both 24 opinions to be unpersuasive because they were “not supported by the objective medical 25 evidence, discussed above.” (ECF No. 13-2, at 46–47.) The objective medical evidence 26 27 28 1 “discussed above” includes information that Plaintiff “reported struggling with depression 2 isolation, difficulty with interpersonal relationships, dropping college classes, and 3 frustration with getting denials from Social Security.” (Id. at 46.) But the ALJ also found 4 the following of Plaintiff: 5 she had infrequent nightmares and some hypervigilance; she was taking classes at school; she denied suicidal ideation; she was attending AA online; 6 she was sleeping good or okay with trazodone; she was getting groceries, 7 doing laundry, living with her parents, making meals for them, knitting, watching TV, and occasionally walking the dog with her mom; she was 8 spending time with her parents; she was generally staying busy, never bored, 9 was knitting, watched a movie, and was comfortable at home overall; when COVID restrictions were over, she wanted to volunteer at the VA or a pet 10 shelter, train to be a CASA for kids, get a class B license and RV, spend 11 summers in Santa Cruz, travel, and see figure skating; she was walking and drinking less Coke; she was planning on starting Weight Watchers with her 12 mom; she was hopeful she could start to get her life back by getting 13 manicures/pedicures, volunteering in person, and attending AA meetings; she was watching TV, doing the stepper while watching TV, and knitting; and, 14 she was stepping at least 1 hour a day. 15 (Id.) 16 Plaintiff, in her objection, cites to reports in the Administrative Record (“AR”) from 17 May of 2020 through April of 2021 in which Plaintiff reported various mental impairments 18 such as “struggling with depression and feeling isolated,” frustration and anger from 19 getting denied by Social Security, and “little motivation to do anything.” (ECF No. 21, at 20 4–5.) Plaintiff contends that these reports support Dr. Bradshaw’s and Dr.
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 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 11 12 AMY KATHERINE KLAAS, Case No.: 22-cv-460-L-BLM
13 Plaintiff, ORDER: 14 v. (1) ADOPTING REPORT AND 15 KILOLO KIJAKAZI, RECOMMENDATION [ECF No. 20] 16 Defendant. (2) DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 17 MOTION FOR SUMMARY 18 JUDGMENT [ECF No. 16]
19 (3) GRANTING DEFENDANT’S 20 MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT [ECF No. 17] 21 22 Pending before the Court is a motion for summary judgment filed by Plaintiff Amy 23 Katherine Klaas’s (“Plaintiff”), (ECF No. 16), a cross-motion for summary judgment and 24 opposition filed by Defendant Kilolo Kijakazi, Acting Commissioner of the Social Security 25 Administration’s (“Defendant”), (ECF No. 17), and Plaintiff’s reply to Defendant’s cross- 26 motion, (ECF No. 18). Also before the Court is Magistrate Judge Barbara L. Major’s 27 Report and Recommendation, (“R&R,” ECF No. 20), recommending the Court deny 28 Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, grant Defendant’s motion for summary 1 judgment, and enter judgment in favor of Defendant. Plaintiff filed an objection to the 2 R&R, (ECF No. 21), and Defendant responded, (ECF No. 22). For the reasons stated 3 below, the Court overrules Plaintiff’s objections, adopts the R&R, denies Plaintiff’s 4 motion, and grants Defendant’s motion. 5 I. BACKGROUND 6 On May 6, 2022, Plaintiff filed this social security appeal challenging the denial of 7 her application for disability insurance benefits pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). (ECF No. 8 1.) Plaintiff moved for summary judgment on the grounds that the Administrative Law 9 Judge’s (“ALJ”) functional capacity assessment lacked the support of substantial evidence. 10 (ECF No. 16.) Specifically, Plaintiff argued that the ALJ’s conclusion that the opinions of 11 two doctors—Dr. Bradshaw and Dr. Hall—were unpersuasive was unsupported by 12 substantial evidence. (Id.) Defendant filed a cross-motion contending that the ALJ’s 13 evaluation of the medical opinions and prior administrative medical findings was in fact 14 supported by substantial evidence. (ECF No. 17.) Judge Major found that the ALJ properly 15 evaluated the persuasiveness of Dr. Bradshaw’s and Dr. Hall’s opinions and ultimately 16 agreed with Defendant. (ECF No. 20.) Plaintiff now objects to Judge Major’s 17 determination that the ALJ properly evaluated Dr. Bradshaw’s and Dr. Hall’s opinions.1 18 (ECF No. 21.) 19 II. LEGAL STANDARD 20 In deciding a motion for summary judgment in connection with a Magistrate Judge’s 21 R&R, the district court must “make a de novo determination of those portions of the report 22 . . . to which objection is made,” and the court may “accept, reject, or modify, in whole or 23 in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 24 636(b)(1); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). 25 26 27 1 Judge Major’s R&R contains an accurate recitation of the relevant facts and procedural background to which neither party objects. (See ECF No. 20.) The Court therefore incorporates the background as set 28 1 “A decision by the Commissioner to deny disability benefits will not be overturned 2 unless it is either not supported by substantial evidence or is based upon legal error.”2 3 Luther v. Berryhill, 891 F.3d 872, 875 (9th Cir. 2018). Substantial evidence is “more than 4 a mere scintilla” but only “such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as 5 adequate to support a conclusion.” Biestek v. Berryhill, 139 S. Ct. 1148, 1154 (2019) 6 (quoting Consolidated Edison Co. v. NLRB, 305 U.S. 197, 229 (1938)). “Where evidence 7 is susceptible to more than one rational interpretation, it is the ALJ’s conclusion that must 8 be upheld.” Burch v. Barnhart, 400 F.3d 676, 679 (9th Cir. 2005). 9 Moreover, an ALJ “need not discuss all evidence presented to her,” but “she must 10 explain why significant probative evidence has been rejected.” Kilpatrick v. Kijakazi, 35 11 F.4th 1187, 1193 (9th Cir. 2022) (quoting Vincent ex rel. Vincent v. Heckler, 739 F.2d 12 1393, 1394–95 (9th Cir. 1984)). The ALJ must articulate “how persuasive” they “find all 13 of the medical opinions,” specifically addressing the most important factors the ALJ 14 considers in determining the persuasiveness of a medical opinion: supportability and 15 consistency. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520c(b). “Supportability means the extent to which a 16 medical source supports the medical opinion by explaining the ‘relevant . . . objective 17 medical evidence,’ while “[c]onsistency means the extent to which a medical opinion is 18 ‘consistent . . . with the evidence from other medical sources and nonmedical sources in 19 the claim.’” Woods v. Kijakazi, 32 F.4th 785, 791–92 (9th Cir. 2022) (first quoting 20 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520c(c)(1); and then quoting id. § 404.1520c(c)(2)). 21 III. DISCUSSION 22 Dr. Bradshaw and Dr. Hall each found Plaintiff to have total occupational disability. 23 (ECF No. 13-12, at 30–34; ECF No. 13-15, at 3.) As to supportability, the ALJ found both 24 opinions to be unpersuasive because they were “not supported by the objective medical 25 evidence, discussed above.” (ECF No. 13-2, at 46–47.) The objective medical evidence 26 27 28 1 “discussed above” includes information that Plaintiff “reported struggling with depression 2 isolation, difficulty with interpersonal relationships, dropping college classes, and 3 frustration with getting denials from Social Security.” (Id. at 46.) But the ALJ also found 4 the following of Plaintiff: 5 she had infrequent nightmares and some hypervigilance; she was taking classes at school; she denied suicidal ideation; she was attending AA online; 6 she was sleeping good or okay with trazodone; she was getting groceries, 7 doing laundry, living with her parents, making meals for them, knitting, watching TV, and occasionally walking the dog with her mom; she was 8 spending time with her parents; she was generally staying busy, never bored, 9 was knitting, watched a movie, and was comfortable at home overall; when COVID restrictions were over, she wanted to volunteer at the VA or a pet 10 shelter, train to be a CASA for kids, get a class B license and RV, spend 11 summers in Santa Cruz, travel, and see figure skating; she was walking and drinking less Coke; she was planning on starting Weight Watchers with her 12 mom; she was hopeful she could start to get her life back by getting 13 manicures/pedicures, volunteering in person, and attending AA meetings; she was watching TV, doing the stepper while watching TV, and knitting; and, 14 she was stepping at least 1 hour a day. 15 (Id.) 16 Plaintiff, in her objection, cites to reports in the Administrative Record (“AR”) from 17 May of 2020 through April of 2021 in which Plaintiff reported various mental impairments 18 such as “struggling with depression and feeling isolated,” frustration and anger from 19 getting denied by Social Security, and “little motivation to do anything.” (ECF No. 21, at 20 4–5.) Plaintiff contends that these reports support Dr. Bradshaw’s and Dr. Hall’s opinions 21 and thus it was improper for the ALJ to find the opinions unpersuasive for want of support. 22 (See id. at 7.) 23 The Court finds the ALJ’s supportability finding survives Plaintiff’s substantial- 24 evidence challenge. The ALJ acknowledged Plaintiff’s negative mental status reports but 25 adequately explained that a finding of total impairment was not supported by evidence that 26 Plaintiff was taking classes at school, attending AA online, getting groceries, and doing 27 28 1 laundry, among other things. Thus the ALJ’s supportability finding is supported by 2 substantial evidence. 3 Turning to consistency, the ALJ held that Dr. Bradshaw’s and Dr. Hall’s opinions 4 were unpersuasive because they were inconsistent with the mental status examination 5 findings “discussed above.” (ECF No. 13-2, at 46–47.) The mental examinations 6 “discussed above” are those of Dr. Gabriel, Dr. Amado, and Dr. Haroun. (Id. at 43–46.) 7 Plaintiff recognizes that all five physicians agree as to the presence of limitations but differ 8 as to the extent of those limitations and argues that the mere difference of opinion, without 9 more, does not constitute substantial evidence. (ECF No. 21, at 6.) 10 The ALJ referenced Plaintiff’s mental status examinations with Dr. Gabriel that 11 found: “depressed and anxious mood; broad, mood congruent, and tearful affect; normal, 12 linear, and goal oriented thought process; no abnormality of thought content; cooperative 13 and friendly behavior; normal eye contact; normal attention and concentration; normal 14 memory; and, good insight and judgment, discussed above.” (ECF No. 13-2, at 46.) The 15 ALJ noted that Dr. Amado’s and Dr. Haroun’s opinions were consistent with Dr. Gabriel’s 16 findings and that all three opinions were consistent with Plaintiff’s reported activities 17 discussed above that indicate less than total disability. (Id.) The ALJ also found Dr. 18 Amado’s and Dr. Haroun’s opinions to be supported by the objective medical evidence. 19 (Id.) It follows that in finding Dr. Bradshaw’s and Dr. Hall’s opinions inconsistent with 20 the opinions of three other doctors, the ALJ found that the opinions were in turn 21 inconsistent with the objective medical evidence. Thus, the ALJ’s consistency finding was 22 not merely the result of a difference of opinion but was supported by substantial evidence. 23 It is worth noting that the ALJ also found Dr. Bradshaw’s and Dr. Hall’s opinions 24 unpersuasive in part because the opinions were rendered before the alleged onset date. 25 (ECF No. 13-2, at 46–47.) Plaintiff argues that the opinions are nonetheless consistent 26 with and supported by the post onset medical record. (ECF No. 21, at 4.) As “[m]edical 27 opinions that predate the alleged onset of disability are of limited relevance,” Carmickle v. 28 Comm’r, Soc. Sec. Admin., 533 F.3d 1155, 1165 (9th Cir. 2008), the ALJ properly | discounted the opinions in part due to the time they were rendered, in addition to finding 2 them inconsistent and unsupported. 3 In sum, the Court finds the ALJ’s final decision is supported by substantial evidence 4 || and free of legal error. 5 ||IV. CONCLUSION 6 For the foregoing reasons, the Court OVERRULES Plaintiffs objections, 7 || ADOPTS Judge Major’s R&R, DENIES Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, and 8 || GRANTS Defendant’s motion for summary judgment. 9 IT IS SO ORDERED. 10 11 ||Dated: September 13, 2023 fee Soop 13 H . James Lorenz, 4 United States District Judge
15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28