Vicky Bailey v. Kilolo Kijakazi

• Court: District Court, C.D. California
• Decided: February 11, 2025
• Docket: 2:23-cv-02684
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 VICKY B., Case No. 2:23-cv-02684-MEMF (JDE)

12 Plaintiff, ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS AND 13 v. RECOMMENDATIONS OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 14 KILOLO KIJAKAZI, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, 15 16 Defendant. 17

18 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, the Court has reviewed the pleadings, the 19 records on file, and the Report and Recommendation (“Report”) of the United 20 States Magistrate Judge. Further, the Court has engaged in a de novo review of 21 those portions of the Report to which objections have been made. 22 The Report recommends that the agency’s decision denying Plaintiff’s 23 application for disability benefits be affirmed. (ECF No. 16.) Specifically, the 24 Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) found that Plaintiff had not proven she had a 25 medically determinable impairment of Graves’ Disease or hyperthyroidism during 26 the period of alleged disability, from March 23, 1991, through September 30, 1996. 27 (Id. at 8-10.) The Report found that the ALJ’s finding for this period was supported 28 by substantial evidence and free of legal error. (Id. at 10.) 1 Plaintiff’s Objections to the Report (ECF No. 18) do not warrant a change to 2 the Magistrate Judge’s findings or recommendation, for the following reasons. 3 Plaintiff objects that she did present evidence of a medically determinable 4 impairment, in the form of Kaiser Permanente Disability Certifications and 5 California State disability payments with diagnoses of elevated thyroid and 6 hyperthyroidism. (ECF No. 16 at 2.) The Court has reviewed this evidence. (ECF 7 No. 7-6 at 19-24; ECF No. 7-9 at 180-86, 188, 190-92, 194, 196-97, 199, 201, 203, 8 205, 207, 209.) As the Report correctly found, a diagnosis is insufficient to 9 establish a medically determinable impairment under the agency’s rules. (ECF No. 10 15 at 8 (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1521)). And as the Report also correctly found, this 11 evidence did not document any medical signs or laboratory findings substantiating 12 the existence of Graves’ disease. (ECF No. 15 at 10.) 13 Plaintiff objects that the agency’s vocational expert testified that Plaintiff’s 14 medical condition prevented her return to any employment. (ECF No. 16 at 2.) 15 The Court has reviewed the transcript of the administrative hearing and found no 16 such testimony from the vocational expert. (ECF No. 7-3 at 65-78.) Moreover, as 17 the ALJ pointed out, the vocational expert had no medical training to testify about 18 the effects of Graves’ Disease and could testify only in response to hypothetical 19 questions posed in vocational terms. (Id. at 75.) The ALJ’s approach was 20 consistent with Ninth Circuit authority. See Sample v. Schweiker, 694 F.2d 639, 21 644 and n.6 (9th Cir. 1982) (recognizing that it is the vocational expert’s role to 22 translate factual scenarios into realistic job market probabilities, not to determine 23 the validity of medical opinions). 24 Plaintiff objects that the ALJ had an affirmative duty to develop the record. 25 (ECF No. 16 at 3.) But the ALJ did take affirmative steps to develop the record, by 26 continuing the hearing and leaving the record open. (ECF No. 7-3 at 90-92.) This 27 discharged the ALJ’s duty to develop the record. See Tonapetyan v. Halter, 242 28 F.3d 1144, 1150 (9th Cir. 2001) (“The ALJ may discharge this duty in several 1 || ways, including: subpoenaing the claimant’s physicians, submitting questions, to 2 || the claimant’s physicians, continuing the hearing, or keeping the record open after 3 || the hearing to allow supplementation of the record.”’) (citation omitted). 4 Finally, Plaintiff objects that the ALJ found her testimony to be compelling. 5 || (ECF No. 16 at 3.) The ALJ did find that Plaintiff's testimony about her symptoms 6 || was compelling. (ECF No. 7-3 at 20.) But as the Report reasonably found, 7 || Plaintiff's testimony was insufficient to establish a medically determinable 8 || impairment. (ECF No. 15 at 8 (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1521 and Social Security 39 | Ruling 16-3p, 2017 WL 5180304, at *2 (Oct. 25, 2017)). 10 In sum, Plaintiffs objections are overruled.! 11 IT IS ORDERED that (1) the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate 12 || Judge is accepted and adopted; and (2) the decision of the Commissioner is 13 || affirmed. 14 15 | DATED. February 11, 2025

17 18 MAAME EWUSI-MENSAH FRIMPONG UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 || | The Court notes two clerical errors in the Report, which do not affect this Court’s determination that the Report should be adopted. First, on page 2 at line 25, it appears that the Report was intended 2© |! to read “The ALJ found that Plaintiff did [not] have any medically determinable impairment... .” 27 (ECF No. 15 at 2.) Second, there was an error in footnote 2; the phrase “Error! Main Document Only.” appears to have been inadvertently included in the final Report. (ECF No. 15 at 6.) The Court adopts the Report with the exception of these two clerical errors.