Wilson v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration

D. Arizona

Wilson v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration

DecidedAugust 23, 2024

Docket2:23-cv-00622

StatusUnknown

This text of Wilson v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration (Wilson v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. Arizona primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Wilson v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration, (D. Ariz. 2024).

Pincite

Opinion

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

9 Valerie Wilson, No. CV-23-00622-PHX-KML

10 Plaintiff, ORDER

11 v.

12 Commissioner of Social Security Administration, 13 Defendant. 14 15 Plaintiff Valerie Wilson seeks review of the Social Security Commissioner’s final 16 decision denying her disability insurance benefits. Because the Administrative Law 17 Judge’s (“ALJ’s”) decision was supported by substantial evidence and not based on legal 18 error, it is affirmed. 19 I. Background 20 Wilson filed an application for disability insurance benefits on July 15, 2020, 21 alleging a disability beginning May 20, 2019. (Administrative Record (“AR”) 12, Doc. 8- 22 3 at 13.) Wilson alleged she was disabled and therefore unable to work in her previous 23 occupation as a kindergarten and preschool teacher because of medical conditions that 24 included valley fever and ulcerative colitis. (AR 167-68.) 25 After a hearing at which Wilson testified, the ALJ denied the application on May 26 26, 2022. (AR 25.) The ALJ found that both valley fever and ulcerative colitis could qualify 27 as severe impairments significantly limiting the ability to work. (AR 15.) But the ALJ 28 concluded that Wilson’s impairments did not meet or medically equal the severity 1 requirements of any listed impairment because the objective medical evidence showed that 2 the valley fever had largely resolved such that Wilson “no longer needed follow up” and 3 the ulcerative colitis was “well controlled” during the disability period. (AR 18-21.) As to 4 residual functional capacity, the ALJ found that Wilson could perform medium work with 5 additional limitations on climbing and being exposed to dust, fumes and smoke. (AT 18- 6 23.) Wilson’s past work as a teacher did not exceed her residual functional capacity and 7 additional jobs Wilson could perform—hand packager and laundry worker—also existed 8 in significant numbers the national economy. (AR 23-24.) 9 The ALJ therefore found that Wilson had not been under a disability through the 10 date of the decision. (AR 25.) The Appeals Council denied Wilson’s request for review. 11 (AR 1-3.) 12 II. Legal Standard 13 The Court may set aside the Commissioner’s disability determination only if it is 14 not supported by substantial evidence or is based on legal error. Orn v. Astrue, 495 F.3d 15 625, 630 (9th Cir. 2007). Substantial evidence is relevant evidence that a reasonable person 16 might accept as adequate to support a conclusion considering the record as a whole. Id. The 17 Court reviews only those issues raised by the party challenging the decision. See Lewis v. 18 Apfel, 236 F.3d 503, 517 n.13 (9th Cir. 2001). 19 III. Discussion 20 Wilson argues the ALJ erred by rejecting her subjective complaints about the 21 severity of her fatigue. When a claimant has presented objective medical evidence of an 22 underlying impairment which could reasonably be expected to cause the severity of the 23 symptom alleged and there is no evidence of malingering, an ALJ may only reject 24 subjective testimony about the severity of the symptom in the claimant’s particular case by 25 offering “specific, clear and convincing reasons for doing so.” See Revels v. Berryhill, 874 26 F.3d 648, 655 (9th Cir. 2017) (quoting Garrison v. Colvin, 759 F.3d 995, 1014-15 (9th Cir. 27 2014)). 28 Wilson’s argument fails because the ALJ did not reject her fatigue testimony. The 1 ALJ found certain disability symptoms Wilson alleged—difficulty breathing, pain in her 2 lungs, an inability to walk far due to dyspnea, dizziness and groin pain, nausea, constipation 3 and diarrhea—to be inconsistent with the objective medical evidence. (AR 19-21, 167.) 4 But the ALJ generally “took into consideration [Wilson’s] subjective complaints.” (AR 5 23.) And as to fatigue specifically, the ALJ: (1) credited Wilson’s fatigue complaints to 6 reject in part the state’s medical consultant’s prior administrative finding that Wilson had 7 no severe impairments; and (2) found that the consultative examiner’s opinion on 8 limitations failed to sufficiently take fatigue into account. (AR 21-22.) The ALJ was not 9 required to offer clear and convincing reasons when she credited rather than rejected 10 Wilson’s fatigue symptoms. 11 Even if the ALJ had implicitly discounted Wilson’s fatigue testimony, such a 12 decision would have been supported by a conflict with the objective medical records. An 13 ALJ need not make “specific findings” when analyzing symptoms of underlying medical 14 conditions that have “come under control.” See Celaya v. Halter, 332 F.3d 1177, 1181 (9th 15 Cir. 2003). Wilson’s own treating physicians doubted that her ongoing fatigue stemmed 16 from the resolving valley fever; instead, they recommended testing for sleep apnea. (AR 17 544, 549, 572-73.) This case is therefore unlike Revels, 874 F.3d at 655, on which Wilson 18 relies. 19 Wilson also challenges the specificity of the ALJ’s findings discounting her 20 testimony as to other symptoms. Findings are sufficiently specific when they permit a 21 reviewing court to conclude that the ALJ “did not arbitrarily discredit claimant’s 22 testimony.” Tommasetti v. Astrue, 533 F.3d 1035, 1039 (9th Cir. 2008) (simplified). The 23 ALJ cited specific portions of the objective medical records that were inconsistent with 24 Wilson’s statements as to her shortness of breath, groin pain, pain in the lower right 25 abdomen, fever, nausea, constipation, and diarrhea. (AR 19-21.) The treating providers’ 26 medical records included “overwhelmingly” normal respiratory exams, the discontinuation 27 of pulmonary follow-up, the lack of gait disturbance or acute distress on physical 28 examinations, and colitis symptoms that were “well controlled” with diet, water, and || exercise. (AR 20-21.) This record reflects that the ALJ did not arbitrarily discredit Wilson’s 2|| testimony. Jd. at 1039-40. Because substantial evidence supports the Commissioner’s || disability determination, 4 IT IS ORDERED affirming the May 26, 2022 decision of the ALJ, as upheld by || the Appeals Council. 6 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED directing the Clerk to enter final judgment consistent with this Order and close this case. 8 Dated this 23rd day of August, 2024. 9 10 4 {ff Vo ’ Vy f \ G. / ,

Honorable Krissa M. Lanham 12 United States District Judge 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

-4-

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

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

9 Valerie Wilson, No. CV-23-00622-PHX-KML

10 Plaintiff, ORDER

11 v.

12 Commissioner of Social Security Administration, 13 Defendant. 14 15 Plaintiff Valerie Wilson seeks review of the Social Security Commissioner’s final 16 decision denying her disability insurance benefits. Because the Administrative Law 17 Judge’s (“ALJ’s”) decision was supported by substantial evidence and not based on legal 18 error, it is affirmed. 19 I. Background 20 Wilson filed an application for disability insurance benefits on July 15, 2020, 21 alleging a disability beginning May 20, 2019. (Administrative Record (“AR”) 12, Doc. 8- 22 3 at 13.) Wilson alleged she was disabled and therefore unable to work in her previous 23 occupation as a kindergarten and preschool teacher because of medical conditions that 24 included valley fever and ulcerative colitis. (AR 167-68.) 25 After a hearing at which Wilson testified, the ALJ denied the application on May 26 26, 2022. (AR 25.) The ALJ found that both valley fever and ulcerative colitis could qualify 27 as severe impairments significantly limiting the ability to work. (AR 15.) But the ALJ 28 concluded that Wilson’s impairments did not meet or medically equal the severity 1 requirements of any listed impairment because the objective medical evidence showed that 2 the valley fever had largely resolved such that Wilson “no longer needed follow up” and 3 the ulcerative colitis was “well controlled” during the disability period. (AR 18-21.) As to 4 residual functional capacity, the ALJ found that Wilson could perform medium work with 5 additional limitations on climbing and being exposed to dust, fumes and smoke. (AT 18- 6 23.) Wilson’s past work as a teacher did not exceed her residual functional capacity and 7 additional jobs Wilson could perform—hand packager and laundry worker—also existed 8 in significant numbers the national economy. (AR 23-24.) 9 The ALJ therefore found that Wilson had not been under a disability through the 10 date of the decision. (AR 25.) The Appeals Council denied Wilson’s request for review. 11 (AR 1-3.) 12 II. Legal Standard 13 The Court may set aside the Commissioner’s disability determination only if it is 14 not supported by substantial evidence or is based on legal error. Orn v. Astrue, 495 F.3d 15 625, 630 (9th Cir. 2007). Substantial evidence is relevant evidence that a reasonable person 16 might accept as adequate to support a conclusion considering the record as a whole. Id. The 17 Court reviews only those issues raised by the party challenging the decision. See Lewis v. 18 Apfel, 236 F.3d 503, 517 n.13 (9th Cir. 2001). 19 III. Discussion 20 Wilson argues the ALJ erred by rejecting her subjective complaints about the 21 severity of her fatigue. When a claimant has presented objective medical evidence of an 22 underlying impairment which could reasonably be expected to cause the severity of the 23 symptom alleged and there is no evidence of malingering, an ALJ may only reject 24 subjective testimony about the severity of the symptom in the claimant’s particular case by 25 offering “specific, clear and convincing reasons for doing so.” See Revels v. Berryhill, 874 26 F.3d 648, 655 (9th Cir. 2017) (quoting Garrison v. Colvin, 759 F.3d 995, 1014-15 (9th Cir. 27 2014)). 28 Wilson’s argument fails because the ALJ did not reject her fatigue testimony. The 1 ALJ found certain disability symptoms Wilson alleged—difficulty breathing, pain in her 2 lungs, an inability to walk far due to dyspnea, dizziness and groin pain, nausea, constipation 3 and diarrhea—to be inconsistent with the objective medical evidence. (AR 19-21, 167.) 4 But the ALJ generally “took into consideration [Wilson’s] subjective complaints.” (AR 5 23.) And as to fatigue specifically, the ALJ: (1) credited Wilson’s fatigue complaints to 6 reject in part the state’s medical consultant’s prior administrative finding that Wilson had 7 no severe impairments; and (2) found that the consultative examiner’s opinion on 8 limitations failed to sufficiently take fatigue into account. (AR 21-22.) The ALJ was not 9 required to offer clear and convincing reasons when she credited rather than rejected 10 Wilson’s fatigue symptoms. 11 Even if the ALJ had implicitly discounted Wilson’s fatigue testimony, such a 12 decision would have been supported by a conflict with the objective medical records. An 13 ALJ need not make “specific findings” when analyzing symptoms of underlying medical 14 conditions that have “come under control.” See Celaya v. Halter, 332 F.3d 1177, 1181 (9th 15 Cir. 2003). Wilson’s own treating physicians doubted that her ongoing fatigue stemmed 16 from the resolving valley fever; instead, they recommended testing for sleep apnea. (AR 17 544, 549, 572-73.) This case is therefore unlike Revels, 874 F.3d at 655, on which Wilson 18 relies. 19 Wilson also challenges the specificity of the ALJ’s findings discounting her 20 testimony as to other symptoms. Findings are sufficiently specific when they permit a 21 reviewing court to conclude that the ALJ “did not arbitrarily discredit claimant’s 22 testimony.” Tommasetti v. Astrue, 533 F.3d 1035, 1039 (9th Cir. 2008) (simplified). The 23 ALJ cited specific portions of the objective medical records that were inconsistent with 24 Wilson’s statements as to her shortness of breath, groin pain, pain in the lower right 25 abdomen, fever, nausea, constipation, and diarrhea. (AR 19-21.) The treating providers’ 26 medical records included “overwhelmingly” normal respiratory exams, the discontinuation 27 of pulmonary follow-up, the lack of gait disturbance or acute distress on physical 28 examinations, and colitis symptoms that were “well controlled” with diet, water, and || exercise. (AR 20-21.) This record reflects that the ALJ did not arbitrarily discredit Wilson’s 2|| testimony. Jd. at 1039-40. Because substantial evidence supports the Commissioner’s || disability determination, 4 IT IS ORDERED affirming the May 26, 2022 decision of the ALJ, as upheld by || the Appeals Council. 6 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED directing the Clerk to enter final judgment consistent with this Order and close this case. 8 Dated this 23rd day of August, 2024. 9 10 4 {ff Vo ’ Vy f \ G. / ,

Honorable Krissa M. Lanham 12 United States District Judge 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

-4-

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Wilson v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wilson-v-commissioner-of-social-security-administration-azd-2024.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack