Rudy P. Avalos v. Andrew Saul

• Court: District Court, C.D. California
• Decided: August 12, 2021
• Docket: 5:20-cv-00986
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RUDY P. A., Case No. CV 20-00986-RAO

12 Plaintiff,

13 v. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER 14 KILOLO KIJAKAZI,1 Acting Commissioner of Social 15 Security, Defendant. 16 17 18 I. INTRODUCTION 19 Plaintiff Rudy P. A.2 (“Plaintiff”) challenges the Commissioner’s denial of 20 his applications for disability insurance benefits (“DIB”) and supplemental security 21 income (“SSI”). For the reasons stated below, the decision of the Commissioner is 22 AFFIRMED. 23 24 25 1 Pursuant to Rule 25(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Kilolo Kijakazi, the Acting Commissioner of Social Security, is hereby substituted as the defendant. 26 2 Plaintiff’s name is partially redacted in compliance with Federal Rule of Civil 27 Procedure 5.2(c)(2)(B) and the recommendation of the Committee on Court Administration and Case Management of the Judicial Conference of the United 28 States. 1 II. SUMMARY OF PROCEEDINGS 2 On August 26, 2016 and May 15, 2017, respectively, Plaintiff applied for DIB 3 and SSI alleging disability beginning August 6, 2016, due to schizophrenia, nausea, 4 bipolar, anxiety, nerve damage (hands and elbows), and depression. (Administrative 5 Record (“AR”) 20, 197-206, 212-15, 220.) His applications were denied on February 6 14, 2017, and upon reconsideration on May 8, 2017. (AR 20, 94-114.) On June 11, 7 2017, Plaintiff requested a hearing by an Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”), and a 8 hearing was held on March 4, 2019. (AR 33-54, 129-30.) Plaintiff, represented by 9 counsel, appeared and testified, along with an impartial vocational expert. (AR 33- 10 54.) On March 19, 2019, the ALJ found that Plaintiff had not been under a disability, 11 pursuant to the Social Security Act,3 from August 6, 2016 through the date of the 12 decision. (AR 27.) The ALJ’s decision became the Commissioner’s final decision 13 when the Appeals Council denied Plaintiff’s request for review. (AR 1-7.) Plaintiff 14 filed this action on May 7, 2020. (Dkt. No. 1.) 15 The ALJ followed a five-step sequential evaluation process to assess whether 16 Plaintiff was disabled under the Social Security Act. Lester v. Chater, 81 F.3d 821, 17 828 n.5 (9th Cir. 1995). At step one, the ALJ found that Plaintiff had not engaged 18 in substantial gainful activity since August 6, 2016, the alleged onset date. (AR 22.) 19 At step two, the ALJ found that Plaintiff has the medically determinable impairments 20 of left foot bunion and schizoaffective disorder, bipolar type I, but he does not have 21 a severe impairment or combination of impairments because his impairments do not 22 significantly limit his ability to perform basic work-related activities for 12 23 consecutive months. (AR 22.) Accordingly, the ALJ found that Plaintiff “has not 24 been under a disability . . . from August 6, 2016, through the date of this decision.” 25 (AR 27.)

26 3 Persons are “disabled” for purposes of receiving Social Security benefits if they are 27 unable to engage in any substantial gainful activity owing to a physical or mental impairment expected to result in death, or which has lasted or is expected to last for 28 a continuous period of at least 12 months. 42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(1)(A). 1 III. STANDARD OF REVIEW 2 Under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), a district court may review the Commissioner’s 3 decision to deny benefits. A court must affirm an ALJ’s findings of fact if they are 4 supported by substantial evidence, and if the proper legal standards were applied. 5 Mayes v. Massanari, 276 F.3d 453, 458-59 (9th Cir. 2001). “Substantial evidence . 6 . . is ‘more than a mere scintilla[,]’ . . . [which] means—and means only—‘such 7 relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a 8 conclusion.’” Biestek v. Berryhill, —U.S. —, 139 S. Ct. 1148, 1154, 203 L. Ed. 2d 9 504 (2019) (citations omitted); Revels v. Berryhill, 874 F.3d 648, 654 (9th Cir. 2017). 10 An ALJ can satisfy the substantial evidence requirement “by setting out a detailed 11 and thorough summary of the facts and conflicting clinical evidence, stating his 12 interpretation thereof, and making findings.” Reddick v. Chater, 157 F.3d 715, 725 13 (9th Cir. 1998) (citation omitted). 14 “[T]he Commissioner’s decision cannot be affirmed simply by isolating a 15 specific quantum of supporting evidence. Rather, a court must consider the record 16 as a whole, weighing both evidence that supports and evidence that detracts from the 17 Secretary’s conclusion.” Aukland v. Massanari, 257 F.3d 1033, 1035 (9th Cir. 2001) 18 (citations and internal quotations omitted). “‘Where evidence is susceptible to more 19 than one rational interpretation,’ the ALJ’s decision should be upheld.” Ryan v. 20 Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 528 F.3d 1194, 1198 (9th Cir. 2008) (citing Burch v. Barnhart, 21 400 F.3d 676, 679 (9th Cir. 2005)); see also Robbins v. Social Sec. Admin., 466 F.3d 22 880, 882 (9th Cir. 2006) (“If the evidence can support either affirming or reversing 23 the ALJ’s conclusion, we may not substitute our judgment for that of the ALJ.”). The 24 Court may review only “the reasons provided by the ALJ in the disability 25 determination and may not affirm the ALJ on a ground upon which he did not rely.” 26 Orn v. Astrue, 495 F.3d 625, 630 (9th Cir. 2007) (citing Connett v. Barnhart, 340 27 F.3d 871, 874 (9th Cir. 2003)). 28 /// 1 IV. DISCUSSION 2 Plaintiff’s sole contention is that the ALJ’s finding that his mental impairment 3 was not severe at step two of the five-step sequential evaluation process is not 4 supported by substantial evidence. (Joint Stipulation (“JS”) at 3-9.) The 5 Commissioner argues that the ALJ’s finding that Plaintiff’s mental impairment was 6 not severe is supported by substantial evidence. (JS at 9-13.) For the reasons below, 7 the Court affirms. 8 A. Applicable Legal Standards 9 The step two inquiry is meant to be a de minimis screening device. Smolen v. 10 Chater, 80 F.3d 1273, 1290 (9th Cir. 1996) (citing Bowen v. Yuckert, 482 U.S. 137, 11 153-54, 107 S. Ct. 2287, 96 L. Ed. 2d 119 (1987)). At step two, the ALJ identifies a 12 claimant’s severe impairments, i.e., impairments that significantly limit his or her 13 ability to do basic work activities.4 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1522(a), 416.922(a); Smolen, 14 80 F.3d at 1290. A determination that an impairment is not severe requires evaluation 15 of medical findings describing the impairment, and an informed judgment as to its 16 limiting effects on a claimant’s ability to do basic work activities. Social Security 17 Ruling (“SSR”) 85-28, 1985 WL 56856, at *4 (Jan. 1, 1985).5 If a claimant does not 18 have a severe mental impairment, then he or she is not eligible for disability 19 payments. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(c), 416.920(c). 20 The ALJ must take into account subjective symptoms in assessing severity, 21 Smolen, 80 F.3d at 1290, but “medical evidence alone is evaluated . . . to assess the 22 effects of the impairment(s) on ability to do basic work activities.” SSR 85-28 at *4. 23 An impairment or combination thereof may properly be found not severe if the 24 clearly established objective medical evidence shows only slight abnormalities that 25 minimally affect a claimant’s ability to do basic work activities. Webb v. Barnhart,

26 4 Basic work activities are “the abilities and aptitudes necessary to do most jobs[.]” 27 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1522(b), 416.922(b). 5 SSRs do not have the force of law, but a reviewing court generally accords them 28 some deference. Holohan v. Massanari, 246 F.3d 1195, 1202 n.1 (9th Cir. 2001). 1 433 F.3d 683, 687 (9th Cir. 2005); Smolen, 80 F.3d at 1290. 2 A “special technique” is used to evaluate the severity of mental impairments. 3 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520a(a), 416.920a(a). Generally, a mental impairment is not 4 severe if the degree of limitation in the four functional areas of understanding, 5 remembering or applying information; interacting with others; concentrating, 6 persisting, or maintaining pace; and adapting or managing oneself is rated as “none” 7 or “mild.” See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520a(c)(3) & (d)(1), 416.920a(c)(3) & (d)(1). 8 B. The ALJ’s Decision 9 At step two, the ALJ found that Plaintiff’s medically determinable mental 10 impairment of schizoaffective disorder, bipolar type I did not cause more than 11 minimal limitation in Plaintiff’s ability to perform basic mental work activities for 12 12 consecutive months, and was, therefore, nonsevere. (AR 22, 25.) 13 The ALJ considered the entire medical record and all of Plaintiff’s subjective 14 complaints and testimony. (AR 23-27.) The ALJ noted that Plaintiff asserted that 15 his mental impairment of schizoaffective disorder, bipolar type I caused anxiety; 16 auditory hallucinations; depression; paranoia; difficulty in interacting with others and 17 maintaining concentration, persistence, and pace; and lack of motivation. (AR 23.) 18 First, the ALJ found that Plaintiff’s subjective statements were not entirely consistent 19 with the medical evidence and other evidence in the record. (AR 24.) Specifically, 20 the ALJ found that Plaintiff’s daily activities of going to the store with his wife and 21 transporting his children to and from school were inconsistent with his allegation that 22 auditory hallucinations, paranoia, anxiety, and impaired thought process and thought 23 content impaired his ability to adapt and manage himself. (AR 24.) 24 Second, the ALJ found that Plaintiff’s subjective statements regarding 25 hallucinations, paranoia and depression that reduced his ability to perform work were 26 inconsistent with the “minimal and unremarkable” objective medical evidence. (AR 27 24, 326-27.) For example, in August 2016, Plaintiff’s mental status examination 28 indicated mostly normal findings, including orientation, although he did have 1 abnormal thought process, delusions, and tactile (but not auditory) hallucinations. 2 (AR 25, 313-14.) Plaintiff was noted as “actively smok[ing] marijuana.” (AR 25, 3 313.) In September 2016, Plaintiff’s mental status examination showed intact 4 memory, judgment and insight, normal mood and affect, normal speech, and normal 5 rate and tone. (AR 24-25, 326.) Plaintiff’s November 2016 medical records indicate 6 that Plaintiff denied audio hallucinations, paranoia, and suicidal and homicidal 7 ideation. (AR 24-25, 339.) Plaintiff reported in January 2017 that he felt stable and 8 he quit his job as a tree climber because he had difficulty showing up on time, not 9 because of any mental or physical impairment. (AR 25, 343.) In 2018, he reported 10 doing “good” most of the time, with no medication side effects. (AR 25, 367, 376.) 11 Third, the ALJ found that Plaintiff’s subjective statements were inconsistent 12 with the frequency and extent of treatment sought by Plaintiff. (AR 24.) Plaintiff 13 saw a psychiatrist in 2016, but his visits were irregular and sporadic. (AR 24, 310- 14 22.) Plaintiff’s medical records total 85 pages, which includes treatment for his 15 physical impairments, with no psychiatric hospitalizations. (AR 24, 309-93.) 16 Fourth, the ALJ found Plaintiff’s subjective statements inconsistent with the 17 ALJ’s personal observations of Plaintiff at the hearing. (AR 24.) The ALJ noted 18 Plaintiff was shaking throughout the hearing, but found Plaintiff’s “evidence of 19 record supports or explains [Plaintiff’s] shaking at the hearing.” (AR 24.) 20 The ALJ considered the four broad areas of mental functioning and found that 21 Plaintiff had mild limitations in all four areas. (AR 25-26.) The ALJ noted the 22 absence of significant positive findings or evidence sufficient to establish that 23 Plaintiff’s abilities in the four functional areas were fairly limited. (AR 25-26, 313, 24 326, 343, 367, 376.) 25 The ALJ gave great weight to the State Agency psychological consultants’ 26 assessments that Plaintiff did not have a severe mental impairment. (AR 27, 95-104, 27 106-14.) The ALJ found that the assessments were consistent with the other evidence 28 of record as a whole, including the medical evidence demonstrating Plaintiff’s 1 persistent symptoms remained generally stable at no worse than a mild level with 2 appropriate conservative treatment and the absence of more significant positive 3 objective clinical or diagnostic findings pertaining to a mental impairment. (AR 27, 4 313-14, 326, 339.) 5 C. Discussion 6 The overall treatment record supports the ALJ’s finding at step two. Plaintiff 7 presents a different interpretation of the objective medical evidence, treatment, and 8 diagnosis. (JS at 5-7.) Plaintiff argues that he complained of depression, anxiety, 9 overwhelming stress and paranoia; a mental status examination revealed rambling 10 speech, tactile hallucinations, loose and disorganized thought process, paranoid 11 thought content, fair insight, and fair judgment; his medication was increased; he was 12 diagnosed with unspecified mood disorder and schizoaffective disorder, bipolar type; 13 and he had good days and bad days. (JS at 5-7.) He argues that he received consistent 14 monthly treatment by a psychiatrist since 2016. (JS at 7.) He argues that the medical 15 evidence belies the ALJ’s findings, particularly with respect to bipolar disorder, 16 “which a reasonable person understands has periods of stability versus periods of no 17 stability.” (JS at 5, 7.) While Plaintiff’s interpretation of the evidence is not 18 unreasonable, neither is the ALJ’s interpretation. See Burch, 400 F.3d at 679 19 (“Where evidence is susceptible to more than one rational interpretation, it is the 20 ALJ’s conclusion that must be upheld.”). The ALJ gave specific examples of the 21 “minimal and unremarkable” objective evidence, citing mental status examinations 22 and treatment records. (AR 24-27.) The ALJ noted the irregular and sporadic 23 psychiatric visits in 2016, which was a reasonable interpretation of the evidence 24 showing a psychiatric assessment on August 9, 2016, and medication visits on 25 August 23, 2016, October 6, 2016 and November 29, 2016, indicating a similar 26 medication treatment regimen since 2012. (AR 24, 111, 310-22, 360.) Likewise, 27 although Plaintiff sought monthly treatment in 2017 and 2018 from Inland 28 Psychiatric Medical Group, the ALJ could reasonably find that the progress notes did 1 not support Plaintiff’s subjective statements. (AR 24, 309-93.) Further, mere 2 diagnosis of an impairment, or even treatment for it, is insufficient to establish 3 severity at step two, especially when the objective medical evidence in the record 4 fails to show any work-related limitations connected to the impairment. See Harvey 5 v. Colvin, 2013 WL 3899282, at *5 (C.D. Cal. July 29, 2013) (citing Matthews v. 6 Shalala, 10 F.3d 678, 680 (9th Cir. 1993)); see also Febach v. Colvin, 580 F. App’x 7 530, 531 (9th Cir. 2014) (“[D]iagnosis alone is insufficient for finding a ‘severe’ 8 impairment, as required by the social security regulations.”). Substantial evidence 9 supports the ALJ’s step two finding. 10 Plaintiff argues that the State Agency assessments were made without the 11 benefit of the entire medical record and thus were not based on a complete medical 12 assumption. (JS at 8.) To the extent Plaintiff contends that the ALJ erred in assigning 13 great weight to the State Agency assessments because the State Agency consultants 14 did not review “the entire medical record,” his contention is rejected. The ALJ 15 reviewed the entire record, specifically discussed evidence that post-dated the State 16 Agency assessments, and concluded that the later evidence was consistent with the 17 medical evidence as a whole showing no objective evidence of a severe mental 18 impairment. (AR 22, 25, 367, 376.) See Sportsman v. Colvin, 637 F. App’x 992, 19 995 (9th Cir. 2016) (stating that it is not error for a state agency consultant to fail to 20 review subsequent medical records, if the ALJ reviews the entire record and 21 concludes that the later-dated medical records are consistent with the overall medical 22 evidence); see also Meadows v. Saul, 807 F. App’x 643, 647 (9th Cir. 2020) 23 (“[A]lthough the non-examining state agency physicians did not review any evidence 24 beyond August 2014, the ALJ did not err in giving great weight to the physicians’ 25 opinions.”). Further, Plaintiff has not identified any later mental health evidence that 26 would have likely changed the State Agency assessments or ALJ’s decision. See 27 Morin v. Saul, 840 F. App’x 77, 79 (9th Cir. 2020) (“While the state agency 28 consultants did not review evidence that post-dated their reports, [plaintiff] has not 1 shown that this process resulted in any harmful error, especially as the ALJ had the 2 opportunity to review the entire record.”) (citing Brown-Hunter v. Colvin, 806 F.3d 3 487, 492 (9th Cir. 2015)). 4 To the extent Plaintiff argues that the ALJ failed to fully and fairly develop the 5 record, his argument fails. “[T]he ALJ has a special duty to develop the record fully 6 and fairly and to ensure that the claimant’s interests are considered, even when the 7 claimant is represented by counsel.” Mayes v. Massanari, 276 F.3d 453, 459 (9th 8 Cir. 2001); Laura G. v. Berryhill, 357 F. Supp. 3d 1023, 1029 (C.D. Cal. 2019). “The 9 ALJ’s duty to develop the record further is triggered only when there is ambiguous 10 evidence or when the record is inadequate to allow for proper evaluation.” Mayes, 11 276 F.3d at 459. Here, there is no indication that there was any ambiguity or that the 12 record was inadequate, and Plaintiff does not point to any ambiguity or inadequacy, 13 but instead merely argues that the ALJ should have further developed the record “[i]f 14 the ALJ had an issue with the inconsistencies or the periods of improvements.” (JS 15 at 8-9.) Because the medical evidence regarding Plaintiff’s impairments is neither 16 ambiguous nor inadequate, the ALJ had no duty to develop the record further. 17 For the foregoing reasons, remand is not warranted. 18 V. CONCLUSION 19 IT IS ORDERED that Judgment shall be entered AFFIRMING the decision of 20 the Commissioner denying benefits. 21 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court serve copies of this 22 Order and the Judgment on counsel for both parties. 23 24 25 DATED: August 12, 2021 /s/ ROZELLA A. OLIVER 26 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 27

28 1 NOT ICE 2 THIS DECISION IS NOT INTENDED FOR PUBLICATION IN WESTLAW, LEXIS/NEXIS, OR ANY OTHER LEGAL DATABASE. 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28