Mia Reyes v. Andrew M. Saul

• Court: District Court, C.D. California
• Decided: September 28, 2022
• Docket: 2:20-cv-11199
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

Case 2:20-cv-11199-SP Document 26 Filed 09/28/22 Page 1 of 11 Page ID #:6529

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MIA R., ) Case No. 2:20-cv-11199-SP ) 12 Plaintiff, ) ) 13 v. ) MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ) ORDER 14 ) KILOLO KIJAKAZI, Acting ) 15 Commissioner of Social Security ) Administration, ) 16 ) ) 17 Defendant. ) ) 18 19 I. 20 INTRODUCTION 21 On December 10, 2020, plaintiff Mia R. filed a complaint against defendant, 22 the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration (“Commissioner”), 23 seeking review of a denial of supplemental security income (“SSI”). The court 24 deems the matter suitable for adjudication without oral argument. 25 Plaintiff presents one issue for decision: whether the Administrative Law 26 Judge (“ALJ”) properly considered plaintiff’s testimony. Memorandum in Support 27 of Plaintiff’s Complaint (“P. Mem.”) at 2-9; see Defendant’s Memorandum in 28 Support of Answer (“D. Mem.”) at 3-7. 1 Case 2:20-cv-11199-SP Document 26 Filed 09/28/22 Page 2 of 11 Page ID #:6530

1 Having carefully studied the parties’ memoranda, the Administrative Record 2 (“AR”), and the decision of the ALJ, the court concludes that, as detailed herein, 3 the ALJ properly evaluated plaintiff’s subjective symptom testimony. The court 4 therefore affirms the decision of the Commissioner denying SSI. 5 II. 6 FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND 7 Plaintiff, who was 21 years old on the application date, completed high 8 school and has attended some college. AR at 39, 57-58, 217. Plaintiff has no past 9 relevant work. AR at 44, 216. 10 On February 8, 2018, plaintiff filed an application for SSI, alleging an onset 11 date of February 8, 2018. AR at 57-58. Plaintiff claimed she suffered from bipolar 12 disorder and auditory processing disorder. AR at 58. Plaintiff’s application was 13 initially denied on April 16, 2018.1 AR at 78. 14 Plaintiff requested a hearing, which the assigned ALJ held on January 9, 15 2020. AR at 31, 84. Plaintiff, represented by counsel, appeared and testified at the 16 hearing. AR at 35-44. The ALJ also heard testimony from Diana L. Kizer, a 17 vocational expert. AR at 15, 44-46. The ALJ denied plaintiff’s claim for benefits 18 on February 4, 2020. AR at 15-25. 19 Applying the well-established five-step sequential evaluation process, the 20 ALJ found, at step one, that plaintiff had not engaged in substantial gainful activity 21 since February 8, 2018, the application date. AR at 17. 22 At step two, the ALJ found plaintiff suffered from the following severe 23 impairments: history of syncope, borderline personality disorder, bipolar disorder, 24 depression, anxiety, and mood disorder. Id. 25 26 1 This was plaintiff’s second SSI application. Plaintiff first filed an SSI 27 application on September 23, 2015 due to bipolar disorder, which was denied 28 March 24, 2016. AR at 48, 68. 2 Case 2:20-cv-11199-SP Document 26 Filed 09/28/22 Page 3 of 11 Page ID #:6531

1 At step three, the ALJ found that plaintiff’s impairments, whether 2 individually or in combination, did not meet or medically equal one of the listed 3 impairments set forth in 20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1. AR at 18. 4 The ALJ then assessed plaintiff’s residual functional capacity (“RFC”),2 and 5 determined she had the ability to perform: 6 a full range of work at all exertional levels but with the following 7 nonexertional limitations: She is to avoid unprotected heights and 8 dangerous moving machinery; she is able to understand remember and 9 apply simple routine instructions and concentrate and persist for 10 extended periods of time in order to complete simple routine work 11 tasks with routine supervision; she is able to respond appropriately to 12 others in the work place, however, she would need to avoid frequent 13 work related interaction with the general public; and she is able to 14 adapt to a routine work setting where changes are infrequent, well 15 explained and introduced gradually. 16 AR at 20. 17 At step four, the ALJ determined plaintiff had no past relevant work. AR at 18 24. 19 The ALJ found, at step five, that there are jobs that exist in significant 20 numbers in the national economy that plaintiff can perform. Id. The ALJ 21 accordingly concluded plaintiff was not under a disability, as defined in the Social 22 Security Act, at any time since February 8, 2018. AR at 25. 23 24 2 Residual functional capacity is what a claimant can do despite existing 25 exertional and nonexertional limitations. Cooper v. Sullivan, 880 F.2d 1152, 1155- 26 56 nn.5-7 (9th Cir. 1989) (citations omitted). “Between steps three and four of the five-step evaluation, the ALJ must proceed to an intermediate step in which the 27 ALJ assesses the claimant’s residual functional capacity.” Massachi v. Astrue, 486 28 F.3d 1149, 1151 n.2 (9th Cir. 2007) (citation omitted). 3 Case 2:20-cv-11199-SP Document 26 Filed 09/28/22 Page 4 of 11 Page ID #:6532

1 Plaintiff filed a timely request for review of the ALJ’s decision, but the 2 Appeals Council denied the request for review on October 8, 2020. AR at 1. 3 Accordingly, the ALJ’s decision stands as the final decision of the Commissioner. 4 III. 5 STANDARD OF REVIEW 6 This court is empowered to review decisions by the Commissioner to deny 7 benefits. 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). The findings and decision of the Social Security 8 Administration (“SSA”) must be upheld if they are free of legal error and 9 supported by substantial evidence. Mayes v. Massanari, 276 F.3d 453, 458-59 (9th 10 Cir. 2001) (as amended). But if the court determines the ALJ’s findings are based 11 on legal error or are not supported by substantial evidence in the record, the court 12 may reject the findings and set aside the decision to deny benefits. Aukland v. 13 Massanari, 257 F.3d 1033, 1035 (9th Cir. 2001); Tonapetyan v. Halter, 242 F.3d 14 1144, 1147 (9th Cir. 2001). 15 “Substantial evidence is more than a mere scintilla, but less than a 16 preponderance.” Aukland, 257 F.3d at 1035 (citation omitted). Substantial 17 evidence is such “relevant evidence which a reasonable person might accept as 18 adequate to support a conclusion.” Reddick v. Chater, 157 F.3d 715, 720 (9th Cir. 19 1998) (citations omitted); Mayes, 276 F.3d at 459. To determine whether 20 substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s finding, the reviewing court must review 21 the administrative record as a whole, “weighing both the evidence that supports 22 and the evidence that detracts from the ALJ’s conclusion.” Mayes, 276 F.3d at 23 459. The ALJ’s decision “cannot be affirmed simply by isolating a specific 24 quantum of supporting evidence.” Aukland, 257 F.3d at 1035 (cleaned up). If the 25 evidence can reasonably support either affirming or reversing the ALJ’s decision, 26 the reviewing court “may not substitute its judgment for that of the ALJ.” Id. 27 (cleaned up). 28 4 Case 2:20-cv-11199-SP Document 26 Filed 09/28/22 Page 5 of 11 Page ID #:6533

1 IV. 2 DISCUSSION 3 Plaintiff argues the ALJ failed to articulate legally sufficient reasons for 4 discounting her subjective symptom testimony regarding her mental condition. P. 5 Mem. at 3-9. Specifically, plaintiff argues the ALJ improperly discounted 6 plaintiff’s testimony by finding that her medical records demonstrate some level of 7 improvement in her symptoms and in light of her activities of daily living. P. 8 Mem. at 6. 9 The court looks to Social Security Ruling (“SSR”) 16-3p for guidance on 10 evaluating plaintiff’s alleged symptoms. SSR 16-3p rescinded and superseded 11 SSR 96-7p and applies to decisions made on or after March 28, 2016. SSR 16-3p, 12 2017 WL 5180304, at *1 (Oct. 25, 2017). “Although SSRs do not have the same 13 force and effect as statutes or regulations, they are binding on all components of 14 the Social Security Administration.” Id. (citing 20 C.F.R. § 402.35(b)(1)). 15 In adopting SSR 16-3p, the SSA sought to “clarify that subjective symptom 16 evaluation is not an examination of an individual’s character.” Id. at *2. 17 [SSR 16-3p] makes clear what our precedent already required: that 18 assessments of an individual’s testimony by an ALJ are designed to 19 evaluate the intensity and persistence of symptoms after the ALJ finds 20 that the individual has a medically determinable impairment(s) that 21 could reasonably be expected to produce those symptoms, and not to 22 delve into wide-ranging scrutiny of the claimant’s character and 23 apparent truthfulness. 24 Trevizo v. Berryhill, 871 F.3d 664, 678 n.5 (9th Cir. 2017) (cleaned up). 25 To evaluate a claimant’s symptom testimony, the ALJ engages in a two-step 26 analysis. Christine G. v. Saul, 402 F. Supp. 3d 913, 921 (C.D. Cal. 2019) (quoting 27 Trevizo, 871 F.3d at 678). First, the ALJ must determine whether the claimant 28 5 Case 2:20-cv-11199-SP Document 26 Filed 09/28/22 Page 6 of 11 Page ID #:6534

1 produced objective medical evidence of an underlying impairment that could 2 reasonably be expected to produce the symptoms alleged. Id. Second, if plaintiff 3 satisfies the first step, and there is no evidence of malingering, the ALJ must 4 evaluate the intensity and persistence of the claimant’s symptoms and determine 5 the extent to which they limit her ability to perform work-related activities. Id. 6 In assessing intensity and persistence, the ALJ may consider: the claimant’s 7 daily activities; the location, duration, frequency, and intensity of the symptoms; 8 precipitating and aggravating factors; the type, dosage, effectiveness, and side 9 effects of medication taken to alleviate the symptoms; other treatment received; 10 other measures used to relieve the symptoms; and other factors concerning the 11 claimant’s functional limitations and restrictions due to the symptoms. Id. (citing 12 20 C.F.R. § 416.929; SSR 16-3p, 2017 WL 5180304, at *4; Smolen v. Chater, 80 13 F.3d, 1273, 1284 (9th Cir. 1996). To reject the claimant’s subjective symptom 14 statements at step two, the ALJ must provide “specific, clear, and convincing” 15 reasons, supported by substantial evidence in the record, for doing so. Id. at 1283- 16 84. 17 Here, the ALJ summarized plaintiff’s symptom testimony as follows. 18 Plaintiff alleges that as of February 8, 2018, her bipolar disorder and auditory 19 processing disorder caused her difficulty with memory, completing tasks, 20 concentration, understanding, following instructions, getting along with others, 21 engaging in social activities, and handling stress and changes in her routine. AR at 22 20; see AR at 35-38, 41. She testified her depression prevents her from being able 23 to work or handle the mental demands of working. AR at 20-21; see AR at 35-37. 24 The people and different surroundings at work cause her to become overwhelmed 25 and isolate herself. AR at 21; see AR at 36-37. 26 At the first step for evaluating plaintiff’s symptom testimony, the ALJ found 27 her medically determinable impairments could reasonably be expected to cause the 28 6 Case 2:20-cv-11199-SP Document 26 Filed 09/28/22 Page 7 of 11 Page ID #:6535

1 symptoms alleged. AR at 21. At the second step, the ALJ partially discounted 2 plaintiff’s testimony concerning the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of 3 her symptoms as not entirely consistent with the medical evidence and other 4 evidence in the record. Id. The ALJ summarized the evidence in the record that he 5 interpreted as restricting plaintiff to a full range of work subject to certain 6 nonexertional limitations. Id. Because plaintiff cleared step one and the ALJ 7 found no evidence of malingering, the ALJ’s reasons for discounting plaintiff’s 8 testimony, as summarized above, had to be specific, clear, convincing, and 9 supported by substantial evidence. 10 The ALJ here gave two primary reasons for discounting plaintiff’s testimony 11 regarding her mental condition: (1) her condition was improved and stabilized 12 during the relevant period; and (2) her daily activities are inconsistent with her 13 allegations. AR at 21-23. 14 Plaintiff first argues it was improper to discount her testimony based on 15 evidence she experienced improvement through treatment. P. Mem. at 6. The ALJ 16 found the record establishes “a longitudinal psychiatric treatment history for 17 bipolar I disorder, borderline personality disorder, depression, anxiety, and a mood 18 disorder.” AR at 21 (citing AR at 695, 3023, 3040, 3063, 3545, 3896, 4277, 4328, 19 4450-52, 6039). Plaintiff has been medicated for her mental condition since at 20 least 2014 (AR at 247-48), and experienced hospitalizations prior to the alleged 21 onset date. Id. (citing AR at 245, 257, 869). 22 Despite these findings, the ALJ pointed to other evidence in the record to 23 conclude that, with treatment, plaintiff remained stable overall. Id. At the time of 24 the alleged onset date, a follow-up visit showed she was doing “better” and 25 experienced a decrease in her depressive symptoms after changes to her 26 medication. Id. (citing AR at 692, 3023, 3061). She was able to attend both her 27 college classes and a martial arts class two times a week. Id. (citing AR at 692, 28 7 Case 2:20-cv-11199-SP Document 26 Filed 09/28/22 Page 8 of 11 Page ID #:6536

1 3023). Following that visit, she experienced increased energy and focus and 2 continued to be active in college. AR at 21-22 (citing AR at 692). While she did 3 have some exacerbations of depression marked by low energy and motivation, as 4 well as disturbed sleep patterns attributed to her menstrual cycle and family 5 conflicts (AR at 3061), she still engaged in extra-curricular activities and social 6 events without self-injury or suicidal ideation. AR at 22 (citing AR at 3023, 3040, 7 3063, 3543, 3989). 8 After a medication change in June 2018, the ALJ noted plaintiff reported 9 improvement in her symptoms, as evidenced by her statement that “the meds 10 work.” Id. (citing AR at 3543). While she subsequently experienced an increase 11 in symptoms attributed to family conflicts and school-related stress (AR at 3989), 12 she stabilized through the end of December 2018 after the completion of her 13 college exams. Id. (citing AR at 4441). At that point she was sleeping well and 14 occasionally using trazodone, which she reported helped “a lot.” Id. (citing AR at 15 4442). Her mental status examinations improved, and reported she had 16 “appropriate attire, grooming and hygiene with good mood and congruent affect 17 with normal speech and motor activity.” Id. (citing AR at 4450-51). She had 18 “coherent, relevant and logical thought process with no perceptual disturbances, 19 inappropriate thought content, psychosis, or suicidal ideations.” Id. (citing AR at 20 4450-51). She was cognitively alert “with intact immediate, recent, and remote 21 recall memory, normal concentration, good insight, normal judgment and impulse, 22 and good reliability.” Id. (citing AR at 4451). 23 The ALJ noted that plaintiff’s treatment records from January 2019 to 24 November 2019 document her self-reports of symptoms from stressors including 25 family, school, finances, and friendship troubles. Id. (citing AR at 4605, 4670, 26 4824, 4900, 4928). Clinical entries document “a flat affect, depression, fair 27 insight, moderately impaired judgment, avoidance of eye contact, and negativistic 28 8 Case 2:20-cv-11199-SP Document 26 Filed 09/28/22 Page 9 of 11 Page ID #:6537

1 and resistant behavior.” Id. (citing AR at 4869). During that time period, plaintiff 2 visited the emergency room once for suicidal ideation and self-harm, but did not 3 require hospitalization and was released in stable condition. Id. (citing AR at 5264, 4 5746). Overall, plaintiff’s mental health showed improvement – she adjusted to 5 school and passed her classes, she balanced academic and social commitments, and 6 she made progress in therapy. AR at 22-23 (citing AR at 4703-04, 4824-25, 4867- 7 68, 4928, 4948). The ALJ cited plaintiff’s own testimony in noting she has 8 sufficient attention to remain in college with passing grades and is able to engage 9 in hobbies of drawing and writing. AR at 23 (citing AR at 36, 39-40). 10 Plaintiff’s generally improved and stable condition with medication, which 11 the ALJ found and supported by citing the numerous locations in the record that 12 indicate her symptoms were controlled, was a clear and convincing reason for 13 discounting plaintiff’s symptom testimony. See Celaya v. Halter, 332 F.3d 1177, 14 1181 (9th Cir. 2003) (ALJ’s finding that symptoms were controlled was clear and 15 convincing reason to reject plaintiff’s testimony). This is not a case of relying on a 16 few isolated instances of improvement; rather, the ALJ considered the entire 17 record, noting both plaintiff’s improvements and setbacks. Plaintiff argues the 18 ALJ cannot discount her testimony about being unable to work merely because she 19 “experienced some level of improvement” (P. Mem. at 6); however, that is not 20 what the ALJ did here. Rather, the ALJ determined that with therapy and 21 medication, plaintiff had reached a level of overall stability that would allow her to 22 work subject to the nonexertional limitations listed. AR at 21; see Warre v. 23 Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 439 F.3d 1001, 1006 (9th Cir. 2006) (“Impairments 24 that can be controlled effectively with medication are not disabling for the purpose 25 of determining eligibility for SSI benefits.”). The court will not second-guess the 26 ALJ’s determination that, taking all of the objective medical evidence into account, 27 plaintiff’s overall condition contradicted her claims of incapacity. See Burch v. 28 9 Case 2:20-cv-11199-SP Document 26 Filed 09/28/22 Page 10 of 11 Page ID #:6538

1 Barnhart, 400 F.3d 676, 679 (9th Cir. 2005) (“Where evidence is susceptible to 2 more than one rational interpretation, it is the ALJ’s conclusion that must be 3 upheld.” (citation omitted)). 4 Plaintiff also argues that the ALJ may not discount her testimony due to her 5 activities of daily living, especially her school attendance. P. Mem. 7. But the 6 ALJ may consider evidence of plaintiff’s daily activities in weighing the credibility 7 of her symptom testimony. Tommasetti v. Astrue, 533 F.3d 1035, 1039 (9th Cir. 8 2008) (“The ALJ may consider many factors in weighing a claimant's credibility, 9 including ‘ . . . the claimant’s daily activities”) (quoting Smolen, F.3d at 1284). 10 Here, the ALJ discounted plaintiff’s testimony because the overall nature of 11 plaintiff’s daily activities, especially her ability to participate in and pass her 12 college courses, suggested that contrary to her testimony, she has the capacity to 13 engage in substantial gainful activity. AR at 21-23. 14 Plaintiff argues that her part-time school attendance does not contradict her 15 testimony that she is unable to work full-time. P. Mem. at 7. But even where a 16 plaintiff’s “activities suggest some difficulty functioning, they may be grounds for 17 discrediting [her] testimony to the extent that they contradict claims of a totally 18 debilitating impairment.” Molina v. Astrue, 674 F.3d 1104, 1113 (9th Cir. 2012). 19 While plaintiff testified she attends school for only four to six hours a week, the 20 vocational expert who testified at her hearing accounted for consistent missed days 21 of work and a 30% reduction in daily productivity. AR at 38, 46. Despite 22 plaintiff’s arguments to the contrary, “the ALJ was not required to find [plaintiff’s 23 daily] activities were comparable to activities performed during full-time working” 24 in order to discount her testimony. Chipman v. Berryhill, 765 Fed. Appx. 264, 265 25 (9th Cir. 2019). For these reasons, the ALJ did not err in finding that plaintiff’s 26 testimony was inconsistent with her activities of daily living. 27 Viewing the evidence as a whole, the court concludes the ALJ provided 28 10 Case 2:20-cv-11199-SP Document 26 Filed 09/28/22 Page 11of11 Page ID #:6539

1 || specific, clear, and convincing reasons supported by substantial evidence in the 2 || record to discount plaintiff’s testimony to the extent he did. 3 V. 4 CONCLUSION 5 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Judgment shall be entered 6 || AFFIRMING the decision of the Commissioner denying benefits, and dismissing 7 || this action with prejudice. : Prey 10 | DATED: September 28, 2022 SHERI PYM 11 United States Magistrate Judge 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 11