Adolfo Maldonado v. Michael J Astrue, No. 2:2007cv08305 - Document 16 (C.D. Cal. 2008)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM AND OPINION by Magistrate Judge Victor B. Kenton: For reasons set forth in this order, the decision of the ALJ will be affirmed. The Complaint will be dismissed with prejudice. (rh)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA WESTERN DIVISION 7 8 9 10 11 ADOLFO MALDONADO, 12 13 14 15 Plaintiff, v. MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of Social Security, 16 Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No. CV 07-08305-VBK MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER (Social Security Case) 17 18 This matter is before the Court for review of the decision by the 19 Commissioner of Social Security denying Plaintiff s application for 20 disability benefits. 21 consented that the case may be handled by the Magistrate Judge. 22 action arises under 42 U.S.C. §405(g), which authorizes the Court to 23 enter judgment upon the pleadings and transcript of the record before 24 the Commissioner. 25 ( JS ), and the Commissioner has filed the certified Administrative 26 Record ( AR ). 27 28 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §636(c), the parties have The The parties have filed the Joint Stipulation This Memorandum Opinion will constitute the Court s findings of fact and conclusions of law. After reviewing the matter, the Court 1 concludes that the decision of the Commissioner must be affirmed. 2 Plaintiff raises the following issues: 3 1. 4 5 accurately summarized all of the material medical evidence; 2. 6 7 Whether the Administrative Law Judge ( ALJ ) fairly and Whether the ALJ s finding of a non-severe mental impairment was supported by substantial evidence; 3. 8 Whether the ALJ fully summarized and weighed Plaintiff s testimony and made proper credibility findings. 9 10 I 11 THE ALJ FAIRLY AND ACCURATELY ANALYZED THE MATERIAL MEDICAL EVIDENCE 12 Plaintiff contends that the ALJ did not fairly and accurately 13 summarize all of the material medical evidence. 14 Plaintiff references the fact that on October 9, 2006, his attorney 15 submitted new medical evidence to the ALJ which consisted of records 16 from St. Joseph Heritage Medical Group for the period January 2005 17 through January 2006 (AR 529-538, 695-699), and in-patient records 18 from Rancho Los Amigos National Rehabilitation Center pertaining to a 19 July 2006 admission (AR 700-726). (JS 3.) 20 In particular, The above-referenced records were incorporated into the record 21 (see Exhibits [ Exs. ] 32-F and 33-F, at AR 691-699, 700-735.) 22 Appeals Council determined that these records did not provide any 23 basis for a change in the ALJ s decision. (AR 7.) 24 It is the obligation of the ALJ to consider all The material 25 evidence, but conversely, it is not required that every item of 26 evidence be discussed in the ALJ s decision. See Howard ex rel. Wolff 27 v. Barnhart, 341 F.3d 1006, 1012 (9th Cir. 2003.) 28 contention is that the evidence submitted after the hearing was 2 Here, Plaintiff s 1 material and probative on the issue of disability. 2 With regard to the evidence concerning treatment records from St. 3 Joseph Heritage Medical Group, from January 2005 through January 2006, 4 Plaintiff notes that these treatment records concern that Plaintiff s 5 hands had osteoarthritic (OA) changes and there was wasting of the 6 legs and calves. (JS at 5.) 7 the treating physician at St. Joseph Heritage Medical Group, diagnosed 8 diabetes mellitus with peripheral neuropathy. 9 2005 observation of Plaintiff also notes that Dr. Madrid, Plaintiff s phalangel Further, a December joints indicated an 10 enlargement, which Plaintiff states is consistent with a diagnosis of 11 rheumatoid arthritis. (Id.) 12 The ALJ s lengthy decision indicates that substantial 13 consideration was given to numerous medical opinions concerning the 14 very conditions referenced in the St. Joseph Heritage Medical Group s 15 records. 16 repeated, other than to note the ALJ s summary of these reports: The detailed discussion in the decision need not 17 They essentially report that the claimant has only 18 some restricted forward flexion of the lumbar spine with 19 tenderness upon palpation. 20 basically normal, showing no fractures, dislocation, etc. 21 MRIs of the lumbar show only some degenerative changes with 22 mild bulge at L4-L5. 23 Studies show only mild to moderate peripheral neuropathy. 24 However, this finding is equivocal, because it has been 25 noted by Dr. Glatstein that the studies are not complete due 26 to the claimant being somewhat sensitive to the testing. 27 X-rays of the lumbar spine are His most recent Nerve Conduction (AR 23-24.) 28 3 be 1 Plaintiff s brief fails to highlight for the Court in what manner 2 the treatment records of Dr. Madrid materially contradicted the other 3 records concerning the same conditions which were considered by both 4 the ALJ and the Appeals Council. 5 not 6 inconsistent with those provided by other medical sources. (See 7 decision at AR 21-24.) contain any functional Moreover, the additional records do limitations which are materially 8 With regard to the Rancho Los Amigos records of July 2006, this 9 would appear to reflect a new situation in which Plaintiff sustained 10 an extremity infection in his left first toe area, which required 11 resection. (AR 703.) 12 indicated that he would be right weightbearing as tolerated, and left 13 lower extremity heel weightbearing; however, the evaluation indicated 14 that he would have four months of total disability after discharge. 15 (AR 704.) 16 limited to sedentary rather than light exertion. (JS 5.) 17 further indicates that he was using a cane or walker to ambulate when 18 he developed the foot ulcer and had surgery. 19 noted in the medical records which were considered by the ALJ. As Plaintiff notes, upon discharge, it was Plaintiff argues that this indicates that he would be Plaintiff This fact, however, was 20 It is Plaintiff s burden to demonstrate that the toe infection 21 and subsequent surgical resection of July 2006 created an inability to 22 engage in substantial gainful activity for a period of 12 continuous 23 months. 24 1271 (2002). 25 this conclusion, nor is there any basis to infer that the surgical 26 procedure resulted in a decrease in Plaintiff s residual functional 27 capacity ( RFC ), or a limitation to sedentary work, which appears to 28 be a conclusion only drawn by Plaintiff s counsel. See Barnhart v. Walton, 535 U.S. 212, 122 S.Ct. 1265, 1268The medical records cited by Plaintiff do not support 4 1 For the foregoing reasons, the Court determines that the 2 additional medical evidence provided by Plaintiff s counsel was not 3 material on the issue of disability, and did not, therefore, affect 4 the ALJ s summary of and consideration of the material medical 5 evidence in the record. 6 7 II 8 THE ALJ DID NOT ERR IN FINDING A NON-SEVERE MENTAL IMPAIRMENT 9 The ALJ determined that, the medical evidence establishes that 10 [Plaintiff] has the medically determinable impairment of a depressive 11 disorder, NOS. 12 result in any mental limitations. (AR 20.) 13 this 14 concerning the threshold inquiry at Step Two of the sequential 15 evaluation analysis as a de minimus screening device to dispose of 16 groundless claims. (JS at 7, citations.) is an However, this impairment is not severe and does not erroneous conclusion, citing Plaintiff asserts that applicable precedent 17 In making the aforesaid determination, the ALJ considered the 18 relevant evidence in the record regarding Plaintiff s mental status. 19 Thus, he noted treatment by Dr. Nelson J. Flores, a psychologist, from 20 February 2003 through January 2004. (JS 24, AR 385-421.) The ALJ also 21 considered a consultative psychiatric evaluation of May 3, 2003 by Dr. 22 Robert McDaniel. (AR 24-25, 654-690.) 23 psychiatrists opinion that Plaintiff does not have a severe mental 24 impairment. (AR 25, 206-208.) 25 consultative psychiatric evaluation ( CE ) of psychiatrist Dr. Yang of 26 December 17, 2004. (AR 25, 194-198.) The ALJ cited the State Agency Finally, the ALJ relied upon the 27 The ALJ s discussion of Dr. McDaniel s opinion is questioned by 28 Plaintiff, based upon his counsel s interpretation that Dr. McDaniel 5 1 was a defense physician in a workers compensation case. The Court 2 fails to see how this conclusion impacts the consideration of Dr. 3 McDaniel s report. (See Reddick v. Chater, 157 F.3d 715, 721 (9th Cir. 4 1998).) 5 support of the ALJ s rejection of a Step Two finding of severe mental 6 impairment. 7 a fair reading of Dr. McDaniel s report; rather, he attacks Dr. 8 McDaniel based upon his role in Plaintiff s workers compensation case. 9 Further, Plaintiff attacks Dr. Yang s CE report because Dr. Yang is Dr. McDaniel s report provides substantial evidence in Plaintiff does not apparently dispute that this would be 10 not board-certified in psychiatry; however, Social Security 11 regulations do not support any depreciation of the value of such a 12 report, and Plaintiff does not cite any law to support this argument. 13 Dr. Yang did perform an independent clinical examination and reported 14 his findings which, as with Dr. Flores, support the ALJ s conclusion 15 of a non-severe mental impairment. 16 Finally, the ALJ s essential rejection of the opinion of Dr. 17 Jones, who wrote a very brief letter in March 2005, is not incorrect 18 because, as the ALJ noted, there is very little in the way of 19 objective evidence to support Dr. Jones diagnoses. (AR 25, 502.) See 20 Thomas v. Barnhart, 278 F.3d 947, 957 (9th Cir. 2002). 21 22 For the foregoing reasons, the Court concludes that the ALJ did not err in finding a non-severe mental impairment. 23 24 III 25 THE ALJ DID NOT ERR IN DETERMINING PLAINTIFF S CREDIBILITY 26 Plaintiff contends that the ALJ failed to accurately determine 27 his credibility, and points out that the ALJ erred in noting that 28 Plaintiff had never been hospitalized for any reason. (JS at 18-19, AR 6 1 25.) 2 he allegedly made to Dr. Yang that he was doing well and had not seen 3 any mental health professionals or been on any psychiatric medication 4 for a year. (JS at 19, AR 26, 194.) 5 of the record would have shown that Plaintiff was still treating with 6 Dr. Flores in 2004 and was using mood medications. (Id.) 7 Plaintiff further notes the ALJ s citation to a statement that Plaintiff asserts that a review The legal standards pertaining to credibility are well known and 8 need not be extensively cited. 9 specific, clear and convincing reasons to reject allegations of 10 subjectively disabling symptoms. 11 Simply put, the ALJ must give 947, 959-960 (9th Cir. 2002). 12 See Thomas v. Barnhart, 278 F.3d Here, the ALJ used ordinary techniques of credibility evaluation, 13 including 14 activities, and information regarding the nature, severity and effect 15 of symptoms about which he complains. (See Thomas, 278 F.3d at 958- 16 959; 20 C.F.R. §§404.1529, 416.929(c).) 17 noted that Plaintiff had not been forthright about being terminated 18 from his job with the City of Yorba Linda (AR 26); that there were 19 inconsistencies between Plaintiff s December 2004 report to Dr. Yang 20 that 21 professionals or had been on psychotropic medications, and a later 22 letter from Dr. Jones in March 2005 stating that Plaintiff had in fact 23 been on antidepressants for over a year. (AR 26, 194, 502.) 24 also cited Plaintiff s activities of daily living, which included 25 taking walks, shopping, attending an exercise club, running errands, 26 driving a car, and doing some cooking. (AR 26, 196, 551.) 27 the ALJ noted that Plaintiff s medical records, such as an MRI scan 28 and x-rays of the lumbar spine, had been somewhat unremarkable. (AR he inconsistencies had been doing in well Plaintiff s and 7 was testimony, his daily In the decision, the ALJ not seeing mental health The ALJ Finally, 1 23, 25; 202-203, 271-272.) 2 While there were conflicts in the evidence regarding credibility, 3 the ALJ performed his function of reasonably resolving such conflicts 4 based on analysis of the evidence. Further, even though the ALJ erred 5 with regard to the fact that Plaintiff had never been hospitalized, 6 the July 2006 hospitalization resulted in only a temporary disability 7 for four months, and the Court finds no reason to disturb the 8 credibility finding on this basis. 9 10 11 For the foregoing reasons, the decision of the ALJ will be affirmed. The Complaint will be dismissed with prejudice. IT IS SO ORDERED. 12 13 14 DATED: October 7, 2008 /s/ VICTOR B. KENTON UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 8

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.