Schwartz v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration

• Court: District Court, D. Arizona
• Decided: September 30, 2021
• Docket: 2:20-cv-01049
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

9 Pamela Kay Schwartz, No. CV-20-01049-PHX-JJT

10 Plaintiff, ORDER

11 v.

12 Commissioner of Social Security Administration, 13 Defendant. 14 15 At issue is the denial of Plaintiff Pamela Kay Schwartz’s Application for Disability 16 Insurance Benefits by the Social Security Administration under the Social Security Act. 17 Plaintiff filed a Complaint (Doc. 1) with this Court seeking judicial review of that denial, 18 and the Court now addresses Plaintiff’s Opening Brief (Doc. 22, Pl.’s Br.), Defendant 19 Social Security Administration Commissioner’s Response Brief (Doc. 29, Def.’s Br.), and 20 Plaintiff’s Reply Brief (Doc. 30, Reply). The Court has reviewed the briefs and 21 Administrative Record (Doc. 16, R.) and now reverses the Administrative Law Judge’s 22 (ALJ) decision (R. at 14–33) as upheld by the Appeals Council (R. at 1–4). 23 I. BACKGROUND 24 Plaintiff filed her application for Disability Insurance Benefits on January 13, 2016 25 for a period of disability beginning on January 10, 2012.1 (R. at 15, 376.) On February 6, 26 2019 ALJ Sheldon P. Zisook denied Plaintiff’s claims but the Appeals Council vacated his 27 decision and remanded Plaintiff’s case for a new hearing. (R. at 373-394.) On September 5,

28 1 Plaintiff was previously found not disabled in two final decisions by Administrative Law Judges (“ALJ”) dated February 9, 2012 and May 26, 2015. (R. at 15.) 1 2019, Plaintiff appeared before ALJ Patricia A. Bucci for a hearing regarding her claim. 2 (R. at 15.) On September 23, 2019, ALJ Bucci denied Plaintiff’s claims, and on March 31, 3 2020, the Appeals Council denied Plaintiff’s Request for Review of the ALJ’s decision. 4 (R. at 1.) 5 The Court has reviewed the medical evidence in its entirety and finds it unnecessary 6 to provide a complete summary here. The pertinent medical evidence will be discussed in 7 addressing the issues raised by the parties. Upon considering the medical records and 8 opinions, the ALJ evaluated Plaintiff’s disability based on the following severe 9 impairments: diabetes mellitus, obesity, degenerative disc disease, congenital anomaly of 10 the spine, mild arthritis of the hips and hands, liver cirrhosis, mood disorder, bipolar 11 disorder, personality disorder, and posttraumatic stress disorder. (R. at 18.) 12 After reviewing the medical evidence and testimony, the ALJ concluded that 13 Plaintiff is not disabled. Specifically, the ALJ determined that Plaintiff “does not have an 14 impairment or combination of impairments that meets or medically equals the severity of 15 one of the listed impairments in 20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1.” (R. at 20.) 16 The ALJ also determined Plaintiff has the residual functional capacity (“RFC”) to perform 17 light work as defined in 20 C.F.R. § 416.967(b). (R. at 22.) The ALJ found that Plaintiff 18 can perform “light work . . . specifically [she] can engage in lifting or carrying no more 19 than 20 pounds occasionally and 10 pounds frequently; standing or walking for six hours 20 in an eight-hour workday; and sitting for six hours in an eight-hour workday. [She] can 21 engage in occasional climbing ramps or stairs, balancing, stooping, crouching , kneeling, 22 and crawling… [and] can frequently handle bilaterally.” In addition, she can “have 23 occasional exposure to excessive vibration, pulmonary irritants… poorly ventilated areas, 24 dangerous machinery…. And unprotected heights.” Finally, she “can work with occasional 25 routine changes in the work environment; occasional in person interaction with the public; 26 and occasional interaction with coworkers; but no working in tandem with coworkers, or 27 sales work with the public.” (R. at 22.) The ALJ concluded that although Plaintiff cannot 28 1 perform her past relevant work, she can perform a significant number of jobs that exist in 2 the national economy. (R. at 32-33.) 3 II. LEGAL STANDARD 4 In determining whether to reverse an ALJ’s decision, the district court reviews only 5 those issues raised by the party challenging the decision. See Lewis v. Apfel, 236 F.3d 503, 6 517 n.13 (9th Cir. 2001). The Court may set aside the Commissioner’s disability 7 determination only if the determination is not supported by substantial evidence or is based 8 on legal error. Orn v. Astrue, 495 F.3d 625, 630 (9th Cir. 2007). Substantial evidence is 9 more than a scintilla, but less than a preponderance; it is relevant evidence that a reasonable 10 person might accept as adequate to support a conclusion considering the record as a whole. 11 Id. To determine whether substantial evidence supports a decision, the Court must consider 12 the record as a whole and may not affirm simply by isolating a “specific quantum of 13 supporting evidence.” Id. Generally, “[w]here the evidence is susceptible to more than one 14 rational interpretation, one of which supports the ALJ’s decision, the ALJ’s conclusion 15 must be upheld.” Thomas v. Barnhart, 278 F.3d 947, 954 (9th Cir. 2002) (citations 16 omitted). 17 To determine whether a claimant is disabled for purposes of the Act, the ALJ 18 follows a five-step process. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a). The claimant bears the burden of 19 proof on the first four steps, but the burden shifts to the Commissioner at step five. Tackett 20 v. Apfel, 180 F.3d 1094, 1098 (9th Cir. 1999). At the first step, the ALJ determines whether 21 the claimant is presently engaging in substantial gainful activity. 20 C.F.R. 22 § 404.1520(a)(4)(i). If so, the claimant is not disabled, and the inquiry ends. Id. At step 23 two, the ALJ determines whether the claimant has a “severe” medically determinable 24 physical or mental impairment. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(ii). If not, the claimant is not 25 disabled, and the inquiry ends. Id. At step three, the ALJ considers whether the claimant’s 26 impairment or combination of impairments meets or medically equals an impairment listed 27 in Appendix 1 to Subpart P of 20 C.F.R. Part 404. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(iii). If so, 28 the claimant is automatically found to be disabled. Id. If not, the ALJ proceeds to step four. 1 Id. At step four, the ALJ assesses the claimant’s residual functional capacity (RFC) and 2 determines whether the claimant is still capable of performing past relevant work. 3 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(iv). If so, the claimant is not disabled, and the inquiry ends. Id. 4 If not, the ALJ proceeds to the fifth and final step, where she determines whether the 5 claimant can perform any other work in the national economy based on the claimant’s RFC, 6 age, education, and work experience. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(v). If so, the claimant is 7 not disabled. Id. If not, the claimant is disabled. Id. 8 III. ANALYSIS 9 Plaintiff raises three arguments for the Court’s consideration. (Pl.’s Br. at 16-29.) 10 First, Plaintiff argues that the ALJ erred by giving little weight to the opinions of Dr. 11 Manzanares and Nurse Practitioner (“NP”) Moore, Plaintiff’s treating physician and 12 treating Nurse Practitioner. (Pl.’s Br. at 18.) Second, Plaintiff argues that the ALJ erred by 13 improperly rejecting her symptom testimony. (Pl. Br. at 22.) Finally, Plaintiff argues that 14 the ALJ erred by not considering whether Plaintiff is disabled per se under Listing 1.04 15 (disorders of the spine). (Pl. Br. at 28.) 16 A. The ALJ Erred in Giving Little Weight to Treating Physician Dr. Manzanares’s and NP Moore’s Opinions. 17 1. Dr. Manzanares 18 19 Plaintiff argues that the ALJ erred in assigning little weight to Dr. Manzanares’s 20 opinion. (Pl.’s Br. at 18.) The Court agrees. 21 While “[t]he ALJ must consider all medical opinion evidence,” there is a hierarchy 22 among the sources of medical opinions. Tommasetti v. Astrue, 533 F.3d 1035, 1041 (9th 23 Cir. 2008). Those who have treated a claimant are treating physicians, those who examined 24 but did not treat the claimant are examining physicians, and those who neither examined 25 nor treated the claimant are nonexamining physicians. Lester v. Chater, 81 F.3d 821, 830 26 (9th Cir. 1995). “As a general rule, more weight should be given to the opinion of a treating 27 source than to the opinion of doctors who did not treat the claimant.” Id. 28 1 Given this hierarchy and a treating physician’s position at the top if it, if the treating 2 physician’s evidence is controverted by a nontreating or nonexamining physician, the ALJ 3 may disregard it only after “setting forth specific, legitimate reasons for doing so that are 4 based on substantial evidence in the record.” Murray v. Heckler, 722 F.2d 499, 502 (9th 5 Cir. 1983). “The ALJ can meet this burden only by setting out a detailed and thorough 6 summary of the facts and conflicting clinical evidence, stating his interpretation thereof, 7 and making findings.” Magallanes v. Bowen, 881 F.2d 747, 751 (9th Cir. 1989); see also 8 Embrey v. Bowen, 849 F.2d 418, 421–22 (9th Cir. 1988) (“The ALJ must do more than 9 offer his conclusions. He must set forth his own interpretations and explain why they, rather 10 than the doctors’, are correct.”). Normally, “[t]he opinion of a nonexamining physician 11 cannot by itself constitute substantial evidence that justifies the rejection of the opinion of 12 . . . a treating physician.” Lester, 81 F.3d at 831. 13 Dr. Manzanares found that Plaintiff can rarely lift any weight up to and above 5 14 pounds and only can sit for up to 2 hours in thirty-minute intervals in an 8-hour workday. 15 (R. at 29, 1523.) Dr. Manzanares further opined that Plaintiff could stand and walk for up 16 to 2 hours in fifteen-minute intervals throughout an 8-hour workday. (R. at 29, 1523.) 17 Finally, he found that Plaintiff was severely limited in her ability to stoop, squat, push, 18 pull, and perform other similar movements as well as completely restricted from 19 unprotected heights, marked changes in temperature, and exposure to dust, fumes, and gas. 20 (R. at 29, 1524.) 21 The ALJ assigned little weight to Dr. Manzanares’s opinion because it was “simply 22 unsupported by the objective evidence.” (R. at 28.) However, the ALJ failed to support this 23 finding with any specific evidence from the Record. Instead, she provided one combined 24 citation to 24 exhibits – Exhibits C5F, C6F, C9F, C11F through C13F, C16F, and C18F- 25 34F – that she had summarized earlier in the opinion. The exhibits total over one thousand 26 pages. (R. at 29.) Such citation lacks the required specificity to allow the Court to determine 27 what evidence the ALJ relied upon for her decision to give little weight to Dr. Manzanares’s 28 opinion. See Garrison v. Colvin, 759 F.3d 995, 1012 (9th Cir. 2014) (finding the ALJ “errs 1 when he rejects a medical opinion or assigns it little weight [by] criticizing it with 2 boilerplate language that fails to offer a substantive basis for his conclusion.”); Rohrbach 3 v. Commissioner of the Social Security Administration, No. 17-CV-08119-JJT, 2019 WL 4 668351, at *3 (D. Ariz. Feb. 19, 2019) (finding remand necessary where it was unclear 5 what evidence the ALJ relied on because the ALJ cited generally to “the evidence of record, 6 as discussed herein,” and “the record overall.”); Padilla v. Comm’r. of Soc. Sec., No. CV- 7 17-02737-PHX-BSB, 2018 WL 4770807 at *6 (D. Ariz. Oct. 3, 2018) (finding that “[e]ven 8 if the record includes limited objective evidence and treatment evidence, the ALJ still failed 9 to connect that evidence, or lack of evidence, to her rejection of any particular limitation 10 that [the treating physician] identified”). Defendant argues that the ALJ properly cited 11 specific evidence that contradicted Dr. Manzanares’s opinion. (Def. Resp. at 24-25.) 12 However, Defendant cites to the over thousand pages of exhibits previously referenced. 13 (Def. Resp. at 24-25.) Defendant does eventually point to specific portions of the Record 14 that support the ALJ’s findings, but the ALJ did not provide many these specific citations 15 in her opinion. (Def. Resp. at 25-26.) Such post hoc rationalizations of the ALJ’s 16 conclusion are improper. Bray v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 554 F.3d 1219, 1225-26 17 (9th. Cir. 2009.) (Court review is limited to “the reasoning and factual findings offered by 18 the ALJ—not post hoc rationalizations that attempt to intuit what the adjudicator may have 19 been thinking.”) 20 The ALJ’s additional reasons for giving little weight to Dr. Manzanares’s opinion 21 fail as well. The ALJ cited Plaintiff’s “own purported activities of daily living, including 22 involvement in her church.” (R. at 29.) While the ALJ does specify “church” as one of the 23 daily activities, she provides no explanation as to why attending church once per week is 24 inconsistent with Dr. Manzanares’s findings. The ALJ further based her decision on 25 Dr. Manzanares’s opinion being a checklist opinion that was an accommodation to 26 Plaintiff. (R. at 29.) However, as acknowledged by Defendant, this basis for giving less 27 weight to Dr. Manzanares’s opinion necessarily relied upon the ALJ’s deficient reasoning 28 regarding the medical evidence. (Def. Br. at 25.) 1 For the same reason, the ALJ erred giving little weight to Dr. Manzanares’s opinion 2 on Plaintiff’s mental health. Dr. Manzanares opined that Plaintiff has “certain limitations 3 regarding paranoia, depression, and coping with daily stressors…” (R. at 30.) The ALJ 4 again gives the opinion little weight, finding that the “opinion is not consistent with or 5 supported by the objective medical evidence in the record as a whole” but merely provides 6 one combined citation of 5 exhibits in support. The ALJ correctly asserts that 7 Mr. Manzanares is not a mental health professional. (R. at 30.) But without specific 8 medical evidence, the Court finds that this is not enough to warrant giving his opinion less 9 weight. 10 2. NP Moore 11 Likewise, the ALJ erred giving little weight to NP Moore’s opinion. NP Moore 12 found that Plaintiff has “moderate-to-extreme mental limitations” causing her to be off task 13 more than 30% of the day and perform full time less than 50% of the time. (R. at 30.) The 14 ALJ once again supports her finding of inconsistency with the medical evidence with a 15 bulk citation to six exhibits. (R. at 30.) Defendant provides an improper post hoc 16 rationalization by pointing to specific evidence in the Record, but such effort is futile where 17 the ALJ did not cite the evidence herself. (Def. Resp. at 27-28.) Bray, 554 F.3d at 1225- 18 26. Therefore, the ALJ erred giving little weight to NP Moore’s opinion. Accordingly, the 19 Court shall remand to allow the ALJ to properly consider Dr. Manzanares’s and 20 NP Moore’s opinions. 21 B. The ALJ Erred Rejecting Plaintiff’s Symptom Testimony. 22 23 Plaintiff argues that the ALJ erred in her consideration of Plaintiff’s symptom 24 testimony (Pl.’s Br. at 19-25), and the Court agrees. At the hearing, Plaintiff testified to 25 various functional limitations due to her physical and mental impairments as well as 26 intermittent homelessness. (R. at 23-24.) Plaintiff testified regarding her hip and nerve 27 damage, lower back pain and weakness extending from the middle of her spine to her toes, 28 hernia issues, daily stomach pain, and hand pain due to her fingers locking. She also 1 testified to PTSD, depression, as well as memory loss and concentration difficulties that 2 cause her to be confused and not know her whereabouts. (R. at 23-24.) Plaintiff further 3 testified that these ailments prevent her from starting and finishing tasks as well as make 4 her irritable and difficult to be around. Finally, Plaintiff testified that she cannot stand 5 without a walker for more than 3 minutes or walk without one for more than twenty 6 minutes. (R. at 24.) 7 An ALJ performs a two-step analysis to evaluate a claimant’s testimony regarding 8 pain and symptoms. Garrison v. Colvin, 759 F.3d 995, 1014 (9th Cir. 2014). First, the ALJ 9 evaluates whether the claimant has presented objective medical evidence of an impairment 10 “which could reasonably be expected to produce the pain or symptoms alleged.” 11 Lingenfelter, 504 F.3d 1028, 1035–36 (9th Cir. 2007) (quoting Bunnell v. Sullivan, 947 12 F.2d 341, 344 (9th Cir. 1991) (en banc) (internal quotation marks omitted)). If the claimant 13 presents such evidence then “the ALJ can reject the claimant’s testimony about the severity 14 of her symptoms only by offering specific, clear and convincing reasons for doing so.” 15 Garrison, 759 F.3d at 1014–15 (citing Smolen v. Chater, 80 F.3d 1273, 1281 (9th Cir. 16 1996)). 17 “In evaluating the credibility of pain testimony after a claimant produces objective 18 medical evidence of an underlying impairment, an ALJ may not reject a claimant’s 19 subjective complaints based solely on a lack of medical evidence to fully corroborate the 20 alleged severity of pain.” Burch v. Barnhart, 400 F.3d 676, 680 (9th Cir. 2005). But the 21 ALJ may properly consider that the medical record lacks evidence to support certain 22 symptom testimony. Id. at 681. Additionally, if the ALJ rejects a Plaintiff’s symptom 23 testimony for a single permissible purpose, then the ALJ’s errant rejection of the testimony 24 for other additional reasons is harmless. See Carmickle v. Comm’r Soc. Sec. Admin., 533 25 F.3d 1155, 1162 (9th Cir. 2008). 26 The ALJ found that Plaintiff’s testimony satisfied the first step but at the second 27 step, her “statements concerning the intensity, persistence and limiting effects of [her] 28 symptoms are not entirely consistent with the medical evidence and other evidence in the 1 record.” (R. at 24.) Specifically, the ALJ rejected Plaintiff’s symptom testimony because 2 (1) the objective medical findings were “largely unremarkable” and (2) her symptoms 3 improved or were controlled with conservative treatment modalities. (R. at 24.) 4 Here, the ALJ erred by not specifying the portions of Plaintiff’s testimony that were 5 inconsistent with the medical evidence. With one exception, the ALJ merely summarized 6 Plaintiff’s testimony on her symptoms and then summarized the medical evidence without 7 making any express connection to Plaintiff’s testimony. This is both insufficient and 8 contrary to the Ninth Circuit’s instructions. See Smolen, 80 F.3d at 1284 (9th Cir. 1996) 9 (“The ALJ must state specifically which symptom testimony is not credible and what facts 10 in the record lead to that conclusion.”); Garrison, 759 F.3d at 1014; see also Burrell v. 11 Colvin, 775 F.3d 1133, 1137 (9th Cir. 2014) (ALJ erred where it “did not elaborate on 12 which daily activities conflicted with which part of claimant’s testimony.”). Simply stating 13 that the medical findings were “largely unremarkable” without connecting them to specific 14 testimony is not a clear and convincing reason to discount Plaintiff’s symptom testimony. 15 The ALJ proffered significant medical evidence. In certain instances – such as the 16 ALJ’s summary of evidence showing treatment helped Plaintiff’s PTSD – it is clear what 17 testimony the ALJ found lacking without a need for the ALJ to specify. But otherwise, it 18 was unclear what testimony the ALJ found contrary to the medical evidence. Notably, a 19 significant portion of the ALJ’s summary of the medical evidence supports Plaintiff’s 20 testimony. Defendant correctly argues that it is the ALJ’s province to weigh such 21 contradictory evidence and determine whether it supports Plaintiff’s testimony. (Def.’s Br. 22 at 22.) But after weighing the evidence, the ALJ must specify the testimony that she rejects. 23 See Nelson v. Commr. of Soc. Sec. Admin., No. CV-19-08027-PCT-JZB, 2020 WL 24 1510332, at *3 (D. Ariz. Mar. 30, 2020) (“Indeed, this Court has repeatedly rejected ALJ 25 rationale that discussed medical evidence but provided no connection between that 26 discussion and rejection of claimants’ symptom testimony.”) Because the ALJ failed to 27 take this step, the Court must remand this matter for further administrative proceedings. 28 1 C. The ALJ Erred by Not Considering Whether Plaintiff was Disabled per se due to Degenerative Disc Disease Under Listing 1.04. 2 3 Plaintiff argues that the ALJ erred by failing to consider whether lumbar 4 degenerative disc disease qualified as a listed impairment under Listing 1.04. (Pl.’s Br. at 5 28.) When the Appeals Council remanded the case to ALJ Bucci, it stated that “the 6 [previous ALJ] did not adequately address the nature and severity of the claimant’s lumbar 7 degenerative disc disease” and specifically instructed that “further evaluation of the nature 8 and severity of the claimant’s degenerative disc disease is warranted at step 3.” (R. at 396.) 9 At Plaintiff’s hearing, her counsel requested the ALJ consider whether Plaintiffs’ lumbar 10 degenerative disease satisfied the requirements of a listed impairment pursuant to Listing 11 1.04. (R. at 733-34.) Defendant argues that the ALJ properly considered all medical 12 impairments under Listing 1.04 and the Appeals Council Order did not require the ALJ to 13 discuss the specific requirements of Listing 1.04. (Def.’s Br. at 12-13.) The Court 14 disagrees. To comply with the Appeals Council’s instruction, the ALJ needed to explain 15 her reasoning for finding Plaintiff’s disc disease did not qualify. Otherwise, it is unknown 16 whether the ALJ followed the Appeals Council’s instructions on remand. 17 In the alternative, Defendant cites evidence to show that Plaintiff does not qualify 18 under 1.04. (Def.’s Br. at 13-14.) But where the ALJ did not cite such evidence, Defendant 19 may not do so. Bray, 554 F.3d at 1225-26. Defendant additionally argues that any error is 20 harmless because Plaintiff did not cite any evidence that her impairments met listing 1.04. 21 (Def.’s Br. at 13.) This illustrates the problem with the ALJ’s opinion. It does not 22 specifically address whether Plaintiff proffered sufficient evidence that her lumbar 23 degenerative disease qualifies her as disabled per se under Listing 1.04, so the Court cannot 24 evaluate the issue on appeal. The ALJ’s failure to properly consider whether Plaintiff’s 25 lumbar degenerative disc disease qualified under Listing 1.04 warrants remand. 26 D. The Credit-as-True Does Not Apply 27 Plaintiff asks that the Court apply the “credit-as-true” rule, which would result in 28 remand of Plaintiff’s case for payment of benefits rather than for further proceedings. (PVs Br. at 29-30.) The credit-as-true rule only applies in cases that raise “rare 2|| circumstances” which permit the Court to depart from the ordinary remand rule under 3|| which the case is remanded for additional investigation or explanation. Treichler v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 775 F.3d 1090, 1099-1102 (9th Cir. 2014). These rare 5 || circumstances arise when three elements are present. First, the ALJ must have failed to 6|| provide legally sufficient reasons for rejecting medical evidence. /d. at 1100. Second, the record must be fully developed, there must be no outstanding issues that must be resolved 8 || before a determination of disability can be made, and the Court must find that further 9|| administrative proceedings would not be useful. /d. at 1101. Further proceedings are 10 || considered useful when there are conflicts and ambiguities that must be resolved. /d. Third, 11 || if the above elements are met, the Court may “find[] the relevant testimony credible as a 12|| matter of law... and then determine whether the record, taken as a whole, leaves ‘not the 13 || slightest uncertainty as to the outcome of [the] proceeding.’” /d. (citations omitted). 14 In this case, the ordinary remand rule, not the credit-as-true rule applies. There is 15 || sufficient evidence in the record to create evidentiary conflicts regarding □□□□□□□□□□□ disability that cause uncertainty as to the outcome of the proceeding. 17 Accordingly, the Court will remand this matter to the ALJ for further development 18 || of the record and a disability determination. 19 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED remanding this matter to the Social Security 20 Administration for further proceedings consistent with this Order. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED directing the Clerk of the Court to enter judgment accordingly and close this case.

Dated this 30th day of September, 2021. CN ‘ ‘wala = hlee— 6 Unifga State#District Judge 27 28

-ll-