(SS) Usanovic v. Commissioner of Social Security

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: September 6, 2023
• Docket: 2:21-cv-01168
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 KELLY MARIE USANOVIC, No. 2:21-cv-1168 DB 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 KILOLO KIJAKAZI, Acting Commissioner of Social Security,1 15 16 Defendant. 17 18 This social security action was submitted to the court without oral argument for ruling on 19 plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and defendant’s cross-motion for summary judgment.2 20 Plaintiff’s motion asserts that the Administrative Law Judge’s treatment of plaintiff’s subjective 21 testimony was erroneous. 22 //// 23 24 1 After the filing of this action Kilolo Kijakazi was appointed Acting Commissioner of Social 25 Security and has, therefore, been substituted as the defendant. See 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) (referring to the “Commissioner’s Answer”); 20 C.F.R. § 422.210(d) (“the person holding the Office of the 26 Commissioner shall, in his official capacity, be the proper defendant”). 27 2 Both parties have previously consented to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction over this action 28 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). (See ECF No. 7.) 1 For the reasons explained below, plaintiff’s motion is granted, the decision of the 2 Commissioner of Social Security (“Commissioner”) is reversed, and the matter is remanded for 3 further proceedings. 4 PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND 5 In February of 2019, plaintiff filed an application for Disability Insurance Benefits 6 (“DIB”) under Title II of the Social Security Act (“the Act”), alleging disability beginning on 7 March 23, 2018. (Transcript (“Tr.”) at 13, 162-65.) Plaintiff’s alleged impairments included 8 PTSD, right knee strain, right foot fracture, and severe hearing loss. (Id. at 229.) Plaintiff’s 9 application was denied initially, (id. at 89-92), and upon reconsideration. (Id. at 96-100.) 10 Plaintiff requested an administrative hearing and a hearing was held before an 11 Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) on January 22, 2021. (Id. at 31-58.) Plaintiff was represented 12 by an attorney and testified at the administrative hearing. (Id. at 31-34.) In a decision issued on 13 February 2, 2021, the ALJ found that plaintiff was not disabled. (Id. at 26.) The ALJ entered the 14 following findings: 15 1. The claimant meets the insured status requirements of the Social Security Act through December 31, 2023. 16 2. The claimant has not engaged in substantial gainful activity 17 since March 23, 2018, the alleged onset date (20 CFR 404.1571 et seq.). 18 3. The claimant had the following severe impairments: PTSD, 19 depressive disorder, and obesity. (20 CFR 404.1520(c)). 20 4. The claimant did not have an impairment or combination of impairments that met or medically equaled the severity of one of 21 the listed impairments in 20 CFR Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1 (20 CFR 404.1520(d), 404.1525, and 404.1526). 22 5. After careful consideration of the entire record, I find that the 23 claimant had the residual functional capacity to perform light work as defined in 20 CFR 404.1567(b). She was able to lift and/or carry 24 twenty pounds occasionally, ten pounds frequently, stand and/or walk six hours in an 8-hour workday, sit six hours in an 8-hour 25 workday, and engage in occasional postural activity, except no climbing of ladders, ropes or scaffolds. She was limited to/capable 26 of simple, repetitive tasks, with a reasoning level of 2-3, occasional contact with supervisors and co-workers, but no contact with the 27 general public. 28 //// 1 6. The claimant was unable to perform any past relevant work (20 CFR 404.1565). 2 7. The claimant was born [in] 1982 and was 35 years old, which is 3 defined as a younger individual age 18-49, on the alleged disability onset date (20 CFR 404.1563). 4 8. The claimant had at least a high school education. (20 CFR 5 404.1564). 6 9. Transferability of job skills is not material to the determination of disability because using the Medical-Vocational Rules as a 7 framework supports a finding that the claimant is “not disabled,” whether or not the claimant has transferable job skills (See SSR 82- 8 41 and 20 CFR Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 2). 9 10. Considering the claimant’s age, education, work experience, and residual functional capacity, there were jobs that existed in 10 significant numbers in the national economy that the claimant could have performed. (20 CFR 404.1569 and 404.1569(a)). 11 11. The claimant has not been under a disability, as defined in the 12 Social Security Act, from March 23, 2018, through the date of this decision (20 CFR 404.1520(g)). 13 14 (Id. at 15-25.) 15 On May 10, 2021, the Appeals Council denied plaintiff’s request for review of the ALJ’s 16 February 2, 2021 decision. (Id. at 1-5.) Plaintiff sought judicial review pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 17 405(g) by filing the complaint in this action on July 1, 2021. (ECF. No. 1.) 18 LEGAL STANDARD 19 “The district court reviews the Commissioner’s final decision for substantial evidence, 20 and the Commissioner’s decision will be disturbed only if it is not supported by substantial 21 evidence or is based on legal error.” Hill v. Astrue, 698 F.3d 1153, 1158-59 (9th Cir. 2012). 22 Substantial evidence is such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to 23 support a conclusion. Osenbrock v. Apfel, 240 F.3d 1157, 1162 (9th Cir. 2001); Sandgathe v. 24 Chater, 108 F.3d 978, 980 (9th Cir. 1997). 25 “[A] reviewing court must consider the entire record as a whole and may not affirm 26 simply by isolating a ‘specific quantum of supporting evidence.’” Robbins v. Soc. Sec. Admin., 27 466 F.3d 880, 882 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Hammock v. Bowen, 879 F.2d 498, 501 (9th Cir. 28 1989)). If, however, “the record considered as a whole can reasonably support either affirming or 1 reversing the Commissioner’s decision, we must affirm.” McCartey v. Massanari, 298 F.3d 1072, 2 1075 (9th Cir. 2002). 3 A five-step evaluation process is used to determine whether a claimant is disabled. 20 4 C.F.R. § 404.1520; see also Parra v. Astrue, 481 F.3d 742, 746 (9th Cir. 2007). The five-step 5 process has been summarized as follows: 6 Step one: Is the claimant engaging in substantial gainful activity? If so, the claimant is found not disabled. If not, proceed to step two. 7 Step two: Does the claimant have a “severe” impairment? If so, 8 proceed to step three. If not, then a finding of not disabled is appropriate. 9 Step three: Does the claimant’s impairment or combination of 10 impairments meet or equal an impairment listed in 20 C.F.R., Pt. 404, Subpt. P, App. 1? If so, the claimant is automatically determined 11 disabled. If not, proceed to step four. 12 Step four: Is the claimant capable of performing his past work? If so, the claimant is not disabled. If not, proceed to step five. 13 Step five: Does the claimant have the residual functional capacity to 14 perform any other work? If so, the claimant is not disabled. If not, the claimant is disabled. 15 16 Lester v. Chater, 81 F.3d 821, 828 n.5 (9th Cir. 1995). 17 The claimant bears the burden of proof in the first four steps of the sequential evaluation 18 process. Bowen v. Yuckert, 482 U.S. 137, 146 n. 5 (1987). The Commissioner bears the burden 19 if the sequential evaluation process proceeds to step five. Id.; Tackett v. Apfel, 180 F.3d 1094, 20 1098 (9th Cir. 1999). 21 APPLICATION 22 Plaintiff’s pending motion asserts that the ALJ failed to provide a clear and convincing 23 reason for rejecting plaintiff’s testimony regarding plaintiff’s mental impairments. (Pl.’s MSJ 24 (ECF No. 10) at 9-15.3) The Ninth Circuit has summarized the ALJ’s task with respect to 25 assessing a claimant’s credibility as follows: 26 //// 27 3 Page number citations such as this one are to the page number reflected on the court’s CM/ECF 28 system and not to page numbers assigned by the parties. 1 To determine whether a claimant’s testimony regarding subjective pain or symptoms is credible, an ALJ must engage in a two-step 2 analysis. First, the ALJ must determine whether the claimant has presented objective medical evidence of an underlying impairment 3 which could reasonably be expected to produce the pain or other symptoms alleged. The claimant, however, need not show that her 4 impairment could reasonably be expected to cause the severity of the symptom she has alleged; she need only show that it could 5 reasonably have caused some degree of the symptom. Thus, the ALJ may not reject subjective symptom testimony . . . simply because 6 there is no showing that the impairment can reasonably produce the degree of symptom alleged. 7 Second, if the claimant meets this first test, and there is no evidence 8 of malingering, the ALJ can reject the claimant’s testimony about the severity of her symptoms only by offering specific, clear and 9 convincing reasons for doing so[.] 10 Lingenfelter v. Astrue, 504 F.3d 1028, 1035-36 (9th Cir. 2007) (citations and quotation marks 11 omitted). “The clear and convincing standard is the most demanding required in Social Security 12 cases.” Moore v. Commissioner of Social Sec. Admin., 278 F.3d 920, 924 (9th Cir. 2002). “At 13 the same time, the ALJ is not required to believe every allegation of disabling pain, or else 14 disability benefits would be available for the asking[.]” Molina v. Astrue, 674 F.3d 1104, 1112 15 (9th Cir. 2012). 16 “The ALJ must specifically identify what testimony is credible and what testimony 17 undermines the claimant’s complaints.”4 Valentine v. Commissioner Social Sec. Admin., 574 18 F.3d 685, 693 (9th Cir. 2009) (quoting Morgan v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 169 F.3d 595, 19 599 (9th Cir. 1999)). In weighing a claimant’s credibility, an ALJ may consider, among other 20 things, the “[claimant’s] reputation for truthfulness, inconsistencies either in [claimant’s] 21 testimony or between [her] testimony and [her] conduct, [claimant’s] daily activities, [her] work 22 record, and testimony from physicians and third parties concerning the nature, severity, and effect 23 of the symptoms of which [claimant] complains.” Thomas v. Barnhart, 278 F.3d 947, 958-59 24 4 In March 2016, Social Security Ruling (“SSR”) 16-3p went into effect. “This ruling makes 25 clear what our precedent already required: that assessments of an individual’s testimony by an ALJ are designed to ‘evaluate the intensity and persistence of symptoms after the ALJ finds that 26 the individual has a medically determinable impairment(s) that could reasonably be expected to 27 produce those symptoms,’ and not to delve into wide-ranging scrutiny of the claimant’s character and apparent truthfulness.” Trevizo v. Berryhill, 871 F.3d 664, 679 (9th Cir. 2017) (quoting SSR 28 16-3p) (alterations omitted). 1 (9th Cir. 2002) (modification in original) (quoting Light v. Soc. Sec. Admin., 119 F.3d 789, 792 2 (9th Cir. 1997)). If the ALJ’s credibility finding is supported by substantial evidence in the 3 record, the court “may not engage in second-guessing.” Id. 4 Here, the ALJ recounted plaintiff’s testimony concerning plaintiff’s mental impairments. 5 The ALJ noted that plaintiff “testified that she stopped working and cannot work due to anxiety.” 6 (Tr. at 18.) That plaintiff “gets very anxious in large groups of people.” (Id.) That plaintiff’s 7 anxiety results in rashes, loss of sleep, and rarely leaving home. (Id.) The ALJ found that 8 plaintiff’s medically determinable impairments could reasonably be expected to cause the 9 symptoms alleged, but that plaintiff’s statements concerning the intensity, persistence, and 10 limiting effects of those symptoms were “not entirely consistent with the medical evidence and 11 other evidence in the record for the reason explained in [the] decision.”5 (Id.) 12 To support this determination the ALJ asserted that plaintiff’s mental status examinations 13 “were unremarkable.” (Id. at 20.) However, “after a claimant produces objective medical 14 evidence of an underlying impairment, an ALJ may not reject a claimant’s subjective complaints 15 based solely on a lack of medical evidence to fully corroborate the alleged severity” of the 16 symptoms. Burch v. Barnhart, 400 F.3d 676, 680 (9th Cir. 2005); see also Putz v. Astrue, 371 17 Fed. Appx. 801, 802-03 (9th Cir. 2010) (“Putz need not present objective medical evidence to 18 demonstrate the severity of her fatigue.”); Perez v. Astrue, 247 Fed. Appx. 931, 936 (9th Cir. 19 2007) (“That the degree of Perez’s subjective complaints were not corroborated by the objective 20 clinical findings in the ALJ’s view was of no legal moment because pain is inherently an 21 individual phenomenon.”); Bunnell v. Sullivan, 947 F.2d 341, 347 (9th Cir. 1991) (“If an 22

23 5 “ALJs routinely include this statement in their written findings as an introduction to the ALJ’s credibility determination” before “identify[ing] what parts of the claimant’s testimony were not 24 credible and why.” Treichler v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 775 F.3d 1090, 1103 (9th Cir. 2014). “The use of this generic language is not itself reversible error . . . but it inverts the 25 responsibility of an ALJ, which is first to determine the medical impairments of a claimant based on the record and the claimant’s credible symptom testimony and only then to determine the 26 claimant’s RFC. By rejecting a claimant’s subjective symptoms ‘to the extent they are 27 inconsistent with the above residual functional capacity assessment,’ the agency indicates that it is failing properly to incorporate a claimant’s testimony regarding subjective symptoms and pain 28 into the RFC finding, as it is required to do.” Trevizo, 871 F.3d at 679 n.6. 1 adjudicator could reject a claim for disability simply because a claimant fails to produce medical 2 evidence supporting the severity of the pain, there would be no reason for an adjudicator to 3 consider anything other than medical findings.”). 4 Moreover, 5 [c]ourts have recognized that a psychiatric impairment is not as readily amenable to substantiation by objective laboratory testing as 6 is a medical impairment and that consequently, the diagnostic techniques employed in the field of psychiatry may be somewhat less 7 tangible than those in the field of medicine. In general, mental disorders cannot be ascertained and verified as are most physical 8 illnesses, for the mind cannot be probed by mechanical devices in order to obtain objective clinical manifestations of mental illness . . . 9 [W]hen mental illness is the basis of a disability claim, clinical and laboratory data may consist of the diagnoses and observations of 10 professionals trained in the field of psychopathology. 11 Averbach v. Astrue, 731 F.Supp.2d 977, 986 (C.D. Cal. 2010) (quoting Sanchez v. Apfel, 85 12 F.Supp.2d 986, 992 (C.D. Cal. 2000)). Here, there is no dispute that plaintiff suffered from 13 diagnosed PTSD. (Tr. at 20.) 14 The ALJ also attempted to support the rejection of plaintiff’s testimony by asserting that 15 plaintiff’s treatment had been “routine and conservative.” (Id.) The ALJ acknowledged, 16 however, that plaintiff’s treatment included medication, individual therapy, and treatment from “a 17 psychiatrist/psychotherapist.” (Id. at 20-21.) It is entirely unclear how plaintiff’s treatment was 18 conservative. 19 Finally, the ALJ also criticized plaintiff for reporting “no treatment from April 2018 20 through December 2019.” (Id. at 20.) However, the Ninth Circuit has 21 . . . particularly criticized the use of a lack of treatment to reject mental complaints both because mental illness is notoriously 22 underreported and because ‘it is a questionable practice to chastise one with a mental impairment for the exercise of poor judgment in 23 seeking rehabilitation.’ 24 Regennitter v. Commissioner of Social Sec. Admin., 166 F.3d 1294, 1299-300 (9th Cir. 1999) 25 (quoting Nguyen v. Chater, 100 F.3d 1462, 1465 (9th Cir. 1996)). 26 For the reasons stated above, the court finds that the ALJ failed to offer a specific, clear, 27 and convincing reason for rejecting plaintiff’s testimony. Accordingly, plaintiff is entitled to 28 //// 1 summary judgment on the claim that the ALJ’s treatment of plaintiff’s subjective testimony 2 constituted error. 3 CONCLUSION 4 After having found error, “‘[t]he decision whether to remand a case for additional 5 evidence, or simply to award benefits[,] is within the discretion of the court.’” Trevizo v. 6 Berryhill, 871 F.3d 664, 682 (9th Cir. 2017) (quoting Sprague v. Bowen, 812 F.2d 1226, 1232 7 (9th Cir. 1987)). A case may be remanded under the “credit-as-true” rule for an award of benefits 8 where: 9 (1) the record has been fully developed and further administrative proceedings would serve no useful purpose; (2) the ALJ has failed to 10 provide legally sufficient reasons for rejecting evidence, whether claimant testimony or medical opinion; and (3) if the improperly 11 discredited evidence were credited as true, the ALJ would be required to find the claimant disabled on remand. 12 13 Garrison v. Colvin, 759 F.3d 995, 1020 (9th Cir. 2014). 14 Even where all the conditions for the “credit-as-true” rule are met, the court retains 15 “flexibility to remand for further proceedings when the record as a whole creates serious doubt as 16 to whether the claimant is, in fact, disabled within the meaning of the Social Security Act.” Id. at 17 1021; see also Dominguez v. Colvin, 808 F.3d 403, 407 (9th Cir. 2015) (“Unless the district court 18 concludes that further administrative proceedings would serve no useful purpose, it may not 19 remand with a direction to provide benefits.”); Treichler v. Commissioner of Social Sec. Admin., 20 775 F.3d 1090, 1105 (9th Cir. 2014) (“Where . . . an ALJ makes a legal error, but the record is 21 uncertain and ambiguous, the proper approach is to remand the case to the agency.”). 22 Here, plaintiff argues that this matter should be remanded “for proper consideration of 23 Usanovic’s testimony about the severity of her symptoms and limitations caused by her mental 24 impairments.” (Pl.’s MSJ (ECF No. 10) at 15.) The court agrees. 25 //// 26 //// 27 //// 28 //// 1 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 2 1. Plaintiffs motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 10) is granted; 3 2. Defendant’s cross-motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 16) is denied; 4 3. The Commissioner’s decision is reversed; 5 4. This matter is remanded for further proceedings consistent with the order; and 6 5. The Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment for plaintiff and close this case. 7 | Dated: September 5, 2023 8 9 10 ORAH BARNES UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 11 12 13 DLB:6 14 || DB\orders\orders.soc sec\usnovicl 168.ord 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28