Wright v. Commissioner of Social Security

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 7 AMY W., 8 Plaintiff, Case No. C22-5026 RSM 9 v. ORDER GRANTING IN PART 10 DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, AMEND JUDGMENT 11 Defendant. 12

13 This matter is before the Court on Defendant’s Motion to Amend Judgment pursuant to 14 Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). For the reasons set forth below, the Court finds the motion should be 15 granted in part and denied in part. 16 BACKGROUND 17 On June 14, 2022, the Court entered an order reversing and remanding the Social 18 Security Administration’s denial of benefits. Dkt. 14. On July 11, 2022, Defendant filed the 19 present motion, arguing that the Court erred in finding that the ALJ improperly evaluated the 20 medical opinion evidence and Plaintiff’s symptom testimony. Dkt. 15. 21 DISCUSSION 22 Rule 59(e) “offers an extraordinary remedy, to be used sparingly in the interest of finality 23 and conservation of judicial resources.” Carroll v. Nakatani, 342 F.3d 934, 945 (9th Cir. 2003) ORDER GRANTING IN PART 1 (internal citations and quotation marks omitted). “Indeed, ‘a motion for reconsideration [under 2 Rule 59(e)] should not be granted, absent highly unusual circumstances, unless the district court 3 is presented with newly discovered evidence, committed clear error, or if there is an intervening 4 change in the controlling law.’” Id. (quoting Kona Enters., Inc. v. Estate of Bishop, 229 F.3d 5 877, 890 (9th Cir. 2000)). Rule 59(e) “may not be used to relitigate old matters, or to raise 6 arguments or present evidence that could have been made prior to the entry of judgment.” Exxon 7 Shipping Co. v. Baker, 554 U.S. 471, 485 n.5 (2008) (citation omitted). The Court has 8 “considerable discretion when considering a motion to amend a judgment under Rule 59(e).” 9 Turner v. Burlington N. Santa Fe R. Co., 338 F.3d 1058, 1063 (9th Cir. 2003). 10 1. Medical Opinion Evidence

11 The Commissioner contends that in considering whether the ALJ properly evaluated the 12 medical opinions of Mr. Grills and Dr. McCaw, the Court was required to use the new 13 regulations set forth in Woods v. Kijakazi, 32 F.4th 785, 791 (9th Cir. 2022). Dkt. 15 at 2–9. 14 The Court agrees that because Plaintiff submitted her applications after March 27, 2017, 15 the ALJ’s findings with all of the medical opinion evidence should have been reviewed using the 16 supportability and consistency factors under 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.152c(c), 416.920c(c). The Court 17 also agrees that under the supportability factor, the ALJ could reasonably find that the medical 18 opinions of Mr. Grills and Dr. McCaw lacked in persuasiveness based on their very own 19 treatment notes. See Dkt. 15 at 2–9; 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.152c(c)(1), 416.920c(c)(1). In Mr. Grills’ 20 medical treatment notes, though Plaintiff’s mood was found to be sad, depressed, and anxious,

21 her memory, insight, and judgment were normal, and her fund of knowledge was excellent. AR 22 643. Similarly, during Dr. McCaw’s evaluation of Plaintiff, he found Plaintiff to have linear 23 thought process and orientation, perception, memory, fund of knowledge, abstract thought, and ORDER GRANTING IN PART 1 insight and judgment within normal limits. AR 638. Under the supportability factor, a medical 2 opinion’s persuasiveness is based on the relevance of “the objective medical evidence and 3 supporting explanations presented by the medical source.” See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520c(c)(1); 4 416.920c(c)(1). As the content of Mr. Grills’ and Dr. McCaw’s treatment notes undermine their 5 opinions that Plaintiff was markedly limited in several areas, the Court finds the ALJ properly 6 evaluated their opinions. 7 2. Plaintiff’s Testimony 8 The Commissioner contends the Court should affirm the ALJ’s finding that Plaintiff’s 9 symptom testimony was undermined by her medical records and activities of daily living. See 10 Dkt. 15 at 9–12.

11 In its order, the Court found that treatment notes cited by the ALJ, which showed 12 Plaintiff often presented with normal or intact thought processes, orientation, perception, 13 memory, and judgment within normal limits, did not necessarily undermine Plaintiff’s statements 14 about her anxiety. Dkt. 13 at 4–6. The Commissioner again recites the findings from these 15 treatment notes, but does not explain how Plaintiff’s presentations during her appointments 16 clearly and convincingly contradict Plaintiff’s statements about how her anxiety prevents her 17 from interacting with others for long periods of time and engaging in the activities she found 18 overwhelming. See Dkt. 15 at 10. 19 The Commissioner also disputes the Court’s finding that Plaintiff’s activities did not 20 necessarily contradict her testimony and points to case law where the Ninth Circuit found “that

21 even routine activities can undermine a claimant’s subjective complaints.” Dkt. 15 at 11. 22 Specifically, the Commissioner argues that Plaintiff’s ability to participate in a book club once 23 every two weeks, use social media, visit friends and family, and shop in stores is inconsistent ORDER GRANTING IN PART 1 with her statements about how her anxiety leaves her “nearly housebound.” See id. But as the 2 Court previously stated in its order, these activities do not negate Plaintiff’s statements because 3 Plaintiff herself testified to being able to do these activities, though with difficulty because of her 4 anxiety. See Dkt. 13 at 5. She explained that she attended book clubs virtually once a month and 5 that she does not necessarily participate. See AR 54. Plaintiff explained that she leaves the 6 house to go grocery shopping, though it has become “harder than it used to be.” AR 60. 7 Plaintiff also explained that she visits friends and family, but only those who live five to ten 8 minutes away, so she is able to leave immediately if she has to. See AR 60–61. Plaintiff’s 9 ability to engage in these activities does not clearly and convincingly contradict her testimony 10 because Plaintiff herself testified to being able to do them. Accordingly, the Court adequately

11 addressed the ALJ’s evaluation of Plaintiff’s symptom testimony. 12 CONCLUSION 13 Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, defendant's motion to amend is GRANTED to 14 the extent that the ALJ did not err in evaluating Mr. Grills’ and Dr. McCaw’s opinions, but 15 DENIED on the basis that the ALJ improperly rejected Plaintiff’s testimony. Remand and 16 reversal on the former is therefore warranted, and the Court’s Order reversing and remanding 17 this matter remains in force to that effect. 18 DATED this 26th day of September, 2022.

19 A 20 21 RICARDO S. MARTINEZ UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 22

23 ORDER GRANTING IN PART