Turner v. Kijakazi

Opinion

1 FILED IN THE U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 2 Oct 11, 2023 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SEAN F. MCAVOY, CLERK 4 EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 5 QUINN T.,1 No. 2:21-cv-00225-RHW 6 Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION TO 7 vs. DENY PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT 8 KILOLO KIJAKAZI, ACTING AND GRANT DEFENDANT’S COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL MOTION FOR SUMMARY 9 SECURITY, JUDGMENT 10 Defendant. ECF Nos. 14, 15, 19 Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation issued by Magistrate 11 Judge Alexander C. Ekstrom on August 29, 2023, ECF No. 19, recommending 12 Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 14, be denied and Defendant’s 13 Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 15, be granted. Plaintiff filed objections 14 to the Report and Recommendation. ECF No. 20. After reviewing the Report and 15 Recommendation, the Court finds the Magistrate Judge’s findings are correct. 16 Therefore, the Court adopts the Report and Recommendation in its entirety, albeit 17 18 1 To protect the privacy of plaintiffs in social security cases, the undersigned 19 identifies them by only their first names and the initial of their last names. See 20 LCivR 5.2(c). 1 with the following additional explanation. 2 Plaintiff’s objections reiterate the argument that the ALJ had a duty to

3 develop the record due to the “lack of medical evidence” explaining how 4 Plaintiff’s severe seizure disorder with cavernous angiomas of the brain impacted 5 Plaintiff’s ability to work. ECF No. 20 at 2. Plaintiff admits the record does not

6 reveal any additional limitations improperly omitted by the ALJ. ECF No. 20 at 3. 7 The ALJ has a duty to develop the record “when there is ambiguous evidence or 8 when the record is inadequate to allow for proper evaluation of the evidence,” but 9 neither of those circumstances are present here. Mayes v. Massanari, 276 F.3d

10 453, 459–60 (9th Cir. 2001) (citing Tonapetyan v. Halter, 242 F.3d 1144, 1150 11 (9th Cir. 2001)). Plaintiff contends the record was necessarily inadequate because 12 despite concluding Plaintiff has a severe seizure disorder involving the brain at

13 step two, the ALJ did not assess corresponding limitations in the RFC. ECF No. 14 20 at 4. However, a finding of a severe impairment does not necessarily warrant 15 any corresponding limitations in an individual’s ability to perform basic work 16 activities. See Bray v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 554 F.3d 1219, 1228–29 (9th

17 Cir. 2009). As noted in the Report and Recommendation, the ALJ’s evaluation of 18 the medical evidence, including the opinions of Dr. Mitchell and Dr. Winfrey, was 19 supported by substantial evidence. The ALJ adequately explained why Plaintiff’s

20 impairments did not call for additional limitations in the RFC. Tr. 23-25. 1 Plaintiff further argues that the duty to develop the record was triggered 2 because “Plaintiff’s brain injury was never examined.” ECF No. 20 at 4.

3 However, there are psychological and neurological assessments by medical 4 providers throughout the record, both before and after the date last insured. The 5 pre- and post-remand hearing evidence included medical and psychological expert

6 testimony concerning Plaintiff’s impairments and degree of limitation during the 7 adjudicatory period. Plaintiff's speculation that additional evidence might have 8 been obtained in a consultative examination, ECF No. 20 at 7, is insufficient to 9 warrant remand. See Reed v. Massanari, 270 F.3d 838, 842 (9th Cir. 2001)

10 (recognizing that the ALJ has broad latitude in ordering consultative 11 examinations). The Court overrules Plaintiff’s objections and concludes the record 12 was adequately developed for proper evaluation of the evidence.

13 Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED: 14 1. Plaintiff’s objections to the Report and Recommendation, ECF No. 20, 15 are OVERRULED. 16 2. The Report and Recommendation, ECF No. 19, is ADOPTED in its

17 entirety. 18 2. Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 14, is DENIED. 19 3. Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 15, is

20 GRANTED. 1 The District Court Executive is directed to enter this order, ENTER 2 JUDGMENT in favor of Defendant, forward copies to counsel and Magistrate

3 Judge Ekstrom, and CLOSE THE FILE. 4 DATED October 11, 2023. 5 s/Robert H. Whaley ROBERT H. WHALEY 6 Senior United States District Judge 7 8 9

10 11 12

13 14 15 16

17 18 19