Elisa R. Castaneda v. Michael J. Astrue, No. 2:2008cv06219 - Document 22 (C.D. Cal. 2009)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER AFFIRMING DECISION OF COMMISSIONER by Magistrate Judge John E. McDermott. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Judgment be entered affirming the decision of the Commissioner of Social Security. LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY. (ca)

Download PDF

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 11 ELISA R. CASTANEDA, 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. 14 15 16 MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No. CV 08-6219-JEM MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER AFFIRMING DECISION OF COMMISSIONER 17 PROCEEDINGS 18 19 On September 25, 2008, Elisa R. Castaneda ( Plaintiff or Claimant ), filed a 20 complaint seeking review of the decision by the Commissioner of Social Security 21 ( Commissioner ) denying Plaintiff s application for both Social Security disability insurance 22 benefits and Supplemental Social Security income. The Commissioner filed an Answer on 23 February 2, 2009. On July 31, 2009, the parties filed a Joint Stipulation ( JS ). 24 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), both parties consented to proceed before the 25 Magistrate Judge. The matter is now ready for decision. After reviewing the pleadings, 26 transcripts, and administrative record ( AR ), the Court concludes that the Commissioner s 27 decision should be affirmed. 28 1 BACKGROUND 2 Plaintiff is a 50 year old female who was determined to suffer from the severe 3 impairment of lumbar spine impairment. (AR 13.) Plaintiff must establish an onset date of 4 December 31, 2006. (AR 8.) She has not engaged in substantial gainful activity since 5 December 31, 2006. (AR 13.) Plaintiffs claims were denied initially by the Social Security Administration ( SSA ). 6 7 (AR 34-38.) On March 10, 2008, Plaintiff appeared and testified at a hearing before an 8 Administrative Law Judge ( ALJ ). (AR 15-24.) The ALJ issued an unfavorable decision on April 24, 2008, denying Plaintiff s claim 9 10 for benefits. (AR 5-14.) The ALJ concluded that Plaintiff has severe lumbar spine 11 impairment but that she has residual functional capacity ( RFC ) to do medium or light work 12 and can perform past relevant or alternative work. (AR 13.) The ALJ determined that 13 Claimant has not been under a disability within the meaning of the Social Security Act at any 14 time through the date of the decision. (AR 12, 13.) Plaintiff filed a timely request for review of the ALJ s decision, which was denied by 15 16 the Appeals Council on August 26, 2008. (AR 1-3.) Of note is that the ALJ previously issued a decision on July 11, 2006, denying a prior 17 18 application for benefits from Plaintiff. (AR 9.) The ALJ determined in that decision that 19 Plaintiff had the residual capacity to perform light work and engage in substantial gainful 20 activity in jobs and occupations specified by the vocational expert. (Id.) The ALJ found no 21 new or material evidence to reopen the prior decision. (Id.) 22 DISPUTED ISSUES 23 As reflected in the Joint Stipulation, there is but one disputed issue: whether the ALJ 24 25 properly considered the testimony of Elisa Castaneda. 26 /// 27 /// 28 2 STANDARD OF REVIEW 1 2 Under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), this Court reviews the ALJ s decision to determine 3 whether the ALJ s findings are supported by substantial evidence and whether the proper 4 legal standards were applied. DeLorme v. Sullivan, 924 F.2d 841, 846 (9th Cir. 1991). 5 Substantial evidence means more than a mere scintilla but less than a preponderance. 6 Saelee v. Chater, 94 F.3d 520, 521-22 (9th Cir. 1996) (quoting Richardson v. Perales, 402 7 U.S. 389, 401 (1971)). 8 9 Substantial evidence is such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. Richardson, 402 U.S. at 401 (internal quotations and 10 citations omitted). This Court must review the record as a whole and consider adverse as 11 well as supporting evidence. Robbins v. Soc. Sec. Admin., 466 F.3d 880, 882 (9th Cir. 12 2006). Where evidence is susceptible to more than one rational interpretation, the ALJ s 13 decision must be upheld. Morgan v. Comm r, 169 F.3d 595, 599 (9th Cir. 1999). However, 14 a reviewing court must consider the entire record as a whole and may not affirm simply by 15 isolating a specific quantum of supporting evidence. Robbins, 466 F.3d at 882 (quoting 16 Hammock v. Bowen, 879 F.2d 498, 501 (9th Cir. 1989)); see also Orn v. Astrue, 495 F.3d 17 625, 630 (9th Cir. 2007). 18 DISCUSSION 19 20 21 The Court concludes that the ALJ s determination that Plaintiff is not disabled within the meaning of the Social Security Act is supported by substantial evidence. 22 A. The Sequential Evaluation 23 The Social Security Act defines disability as the inability to engage in any substantial 24 gainful activity by reason of any medically determinable physical or mental impairment 25 which can be expected to result in death or . . . can be expected to last for a continuous 26 period of not less than 12 months. 42 U.S.C. §§ 423(d)(1)(A), 1382c(a)(3)(A). The 27 28 3 1 Commissioner has established a five-step sequential process to determine whether a 2 claimant is disabled. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520, 416.920. 3 The first step is to determine whether the claimant is presently engaging in 4 substantially gainful activity. Parra v. Astrue, 481 F.3d 742, 746 (9th Cir. 2007). If the 5 claimant is engaging in substantially gainful activity, disability benefits will be denied. 6 Bowen v. Yuckert, 482 U.S. 137, 140 (1987). Second, the ALJ must determine whether the 7 claimant has a severe impairment or combination of impairments. Parra, 481 F.3d at 746. 8 An impairment is not severe if it does not significantly limit the claimant s ability to work. 9 Smolen v. Chater, 80 F.3d 1273, 1290 (9th Cir. 1996). The ALJ, however, must consider 10 the combined effect of all the claimant s impairments on his or her ability to function, 11 regardless of whether each alone is sufficiently severe. Id. Also, the ALJ must consider the 12 claimant s subjective symptoms in determining severity. Id. 13 Third, the ALJ must determine whether the impairment is listed, or equivalent to an 14 impairment listed, in Appendix I of the regulations. Parra, 481 F.3d at 746. If the 15 impediment meets or equals one of the listed impairments, the claimant is presumptively 16 disabled. Bowen, 482 U.S. at 141. 17 Fourth, the ALJ must determine whether the impairment prevents the claimant from 18 doing past relevant work. Pinto v. Massanari, 249 F.3d 840, 844-45 (9th Cir. 2001). If the 19 claimant cannot perform his or her past relevant work, the ALJ proceeds to the fifth step and 20 must determine whether the impairment prevents the claimant from performing any other 21 substantial gainful activity. Moore v. Apfel, 216 F.3d 864, 869 (9th Cir. 2000). 22 The claimant bears the burden of proving steps one through four, consistent with the 23 general rule that, at all times, the burden is on the claimant to establish his or her 24 entitlement to benefits. Parra, 481 F.3d at 746. Once this prima facie case is established 25 by the claimant, the burden shifts to the Commissioner to show that the claimant may 26 perform other gainful activity. Lounsburry v. Barnhart, 468 F.3d 1111, 1114 (9th Cir. 2006). 27 28 4 1 B. Substantial Evidence Supports The ALJ s Decision 2 The ALJ determined that Plaintiff has not engaged in substantial gainful activity since 3 December 31, 2006. (AR 13.) The ALJ also determined that Plaintiff had the severe 4 impairment of lumbar spine impairment. (Id.) Plaintiff s case, however, faltered at steps 5 four and five of the sequential evaluation. The ALJ concluded that Plaintiff had the RFC to 6 do medium or light work and to engage in substantial gainful activity in her past relevant 7 work or in alternative jobs. (Id.) The ALJ s conclusions were supported by the testimony of 8 vocational expert Lynn Tracey. (Id. at 24-31.) 9 Plaintiff did not present an RFC analysis from any treating or consulting physician. 10 Essentially, Plaintiff challenges the basis for the moderate restrictions posed by the ALJ to 11 the vocational expert, contending that the ALJ improperly assessed her subjective symptom 12 testimony in determining her limitations. (JS 4.) 13 Plaintiff asserts that the ALJ rejected her testimony because: (1) the objective 14 medical evidence did not support the restrictions that she claims, and (2) she was able to 15 perform some daily activities. (JS 6-7.) Plaintiff mischaracterizes the ALJ s decision. The 16 ALJ did not reject Ms. Castaneda s subjective symptom testimony solely for lack of objective 17 medical evidence but properly considered the medical evidence together with all other 18 evidence. In particular, the ALJ relied heavily on the RFC analysis conducted by the 19 consulting examiner Dr. Siciarz-Lambert ( Lambert ). Plaintiff does not address or even 20 mention Dr. Lambert s report. 21 Additionally, the ALJ mentioned Plaintiff s daily activities as but one element of the 22 credibility analysis. The ALJ did not give much weight to that factor. Again, the ALJ gave 23 primary weight to the medical evidence and Dr. Lambert s report on both Plaintiff s 24 limitations and her credibility. 25 26 Upon consideration of the entire record, the ALJ s decision that Plaintiff is not disabled is supported by substantial evidence and free of legal error. 27 28 5 1 2 1. The Medical Evidence Was Not Improperly Considered The test for deciding whether to accept a claimant s subjective symptom testimony 3 turns on whether the claimant produces medical evidence of an impairment that reasonably 4 could be expected to produce the pain or other symptoms alleged. Bunnell v. Sullivan, 947 5 F.2d 341, 346 (9th Cir. 1991); Reddick v. Chater, 157 F.3d 715, 722 (9th Cir. 1998); Smolen 6 v. Chater, 80 F.3d 1273, 1281-82, esp. fn. 2 (9th Cir. 1995); Cotton v. Bowen, 799 F.2d 7 1403, 1407 (9th Cir. 1986). The Commissioner may not discredit a claimant s testimony on 8 the severity of symptoms merely because they are unsupported by objective medical 9 evidence. Reddick, 157 F.3d at 722; Bunnell, 947 F.2d at 343, 345. Unless there is 10 evidence of malingering, the ALJ can reject the claimant s testimony about the severity of 11 her symptoms only by offering specific, clear and convincing reasons for doing so. 12 Reddick, 157 F.3d at 722; Smolen, 80 F.3d at 1283-84. The ALJ must identify what 13 testimony is not credible and what evidence discredits the testimony. Reddick, 157 F.3d at 14 722; Smolen, 80 F.3d at 1284. 15 Plaintiff appears to contend that lack of objective medical evidence is irrelevant and 16 as a matter of law cannot be considered at all in assessing the severity of a claimant s 17 symptoms. To the contrary, the governing legal principle in the Ninth Circuit is that an ALJ 18 cannot reject subjective symptom testimony based solely on lack of objective medical 19 evidence. Bunnell, 947 F.2d at 345 ( once the claimant produces objective evidence of an 20 underlying impairment, an adjudicator may not reject a claimant s subjective complaints 21 based solely on a lack of objective medical evidence ) (emphasis added); Rollins v. 22 Massanari, 261 F.3d 853, 857 (9th Cir. 2001) (subjective testimony cannot be rejected on 23 sole ground that objective medical evidence is lacking). Even though not determinative of 24 the severity of pain in itself, medical evidence is nonetheless relevant to the ALJ s decision 25 on severity. Id. ( the medical evidence is still a relevant factor in determining the severity of 26 the claimant s pain and its disabling effects ); Smolen, 80 F.3d at 1285 (SSR 88-13 requires 27 the adjudicator to give full consideration to all of the available evidence, medical and other ) 28 6 1 (SSR 88-13 is now SSR 96-7p and also included in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3) and § 2 416.929(c)(3).) 3 In this case, the ALJ did not rely solely on the lack of medical evidence in rejecting 4 Plaintiff s subjective pain testimony. The ALJ property considered the medical evidence 5 together with all other factors and evidence, including and particularly the report of 6 Dr. Lambert in regard to Plaintiff s RFC and credibility. 7 The ALJ observed that the medical and diagnostic evidence was weak and 8 unimpressive as it relates to the severity of Plaintiff s symptoms and to her functioning. (AR 9 11.) There is substantial evidence in the record and cited in the decision to support the 10 ALJ s assessment of the medical evidence. Plaintiff does not dispute the ALJ s assessment 11 or contend that the medical evidence supports a finding of disability. 12 Her treating physicians at All for Health offered only generalized pain diagnoses such 13 as arthralgia, myalgia, and myositis but never assessed work function. (AR 11.) She was 14 prescribed only mild pain agents like Motrin and Flexeril. (AR 10.) There was never any 15 aggressive treatment or recommendation for same. (Id.) 16 Examinations repeatedly noted as to the spine no kyphosis or scoliosis. (AR 11, 17 189, 190, 234.) Lumbar spine X-rays by Dr. Lambert showed only mild degenerative lumbar 18 spondylosis and no significant degenerative arthritis. (AR 11, 251.) Musculoskeletal 19 examinations reported normal musculature and no skeletal tenderness or joint deformity. 20 (AR 11, 189, 190, 234.) Extremities on examination appeared normal with no edema or 21 cyanosis. (AR 11, 189, 190, 234.) There was full range of motion in both elbows (AR 11, 22 235), no joint swelling (AR 11, 229) and no acute or apparent distress (AR 11, 229.)1 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 The ALJ s decision notes [T]here is little, if any, medical data correlating with headaches or blurred vision - and the claimant did not mention either at the hearing. She did testify to right arm pain and swelling but, as stated above, the ALJ does not find that she has established a limitation in the use of the upper extremities. (AR 10.) The ALJ noted that Claimant attaches severity only to lumbar disc disease and, although Dr. Lambert found mild tendinitis in the right arm, it was not found to limit work functions. (AR 9.) Plaintiff does not take issue in the JS that the only severe impairment is the lumbar spine condition. 7 1 The ALJ decision nowhere indicates sole reliance on this medical evidence in 2 assessing the severity of Claimant s symptoms. The decision describes and evaluates the 3 medical evidence to determine whether it establishes disability and to indicate that it is not 4 contrary to Dr. Lambert s functional assessment. There was no legal error in the ALJ s 5 consideration of the medical evidence together with all other evidence bearing on severity 6 and functioning. 7 2. Plaintiff Has The Residual Functional Capacity To Engage In Substantial Gainful Activity 8 The ALJ s determination of Plaintiff s limitations relies heavily but not entirely on 9 Dr. Lambert s RFC assessment and the vocational expert s testimony. Dr. Lambert s RFC 10 assessment is the only function-by-function assessment by an examining source. (AR 11.) 11 Plaintiff does not address or even mention this important evidence. 12 Dr. Lambert s report was summarized by the ALJ: 13 As discussed above, Dr. Siciarz-Lambert reported discrepancies 14 between the claimant s responses on formal examination (and her 15 allegations) and her observed movements. In further regard to the right 16 upper extremity, she reported normal range of motion and no evidence of 17 swelling (in any joint). She reported that the claimant 30 pound grip 18 strength with the right hand (60 pounds with the left hand). She did 19 report slight prominence of the muscle/tendon in the right wrist-and slight 20 difference between it and the left wrist, but no tenderness to palpation or 21 warmth. As previously discussed, Dr. Siciarz-lambert described a major 22 contrast between the results of formal examination of the lumbar spine 23 and the claimant s functioning when being discreetly observed. The 24 examination also related normal motor strength, reflexes, sensation, 25 coordination and gait and station. 26 Dr. Siciarz-Lambert concluded that the claimant may have a mild 27 case of right wrist tendinitis. She assessed that the claimant is limited to 28 8 1 lifting, carrying, pushing and pulling 50 pounds occasionally and 25 2 pounds frequently, but is otherwise not restricted, included for sitting, 3 standing, walking, postural maneuvers and gross and fine manipulation. 4 (Ex. 2F). Her assessment, which effectively captures both the medical 5 and lay evidence, comports with a capacity for a full range of medium 6 work (20 CFR 404.1567, 416.927). 7 (AR 11, 213-19.) Dr. Lambert s report presents medical and diagnostic evidence, a 8 functional assessment and relevant information on Claimant s credibility. (AR 10-11.) 9 Based on the moderate limitations reported by Dr. Lambert, the ALJ posed 10 hypothetical questions to vocational expert Lynn Tracy to determine Claimant s ability to 11 work. (AR 24-30.) Ms. Tracy testified that Plaintiff had the residual functional capacity to do 12 medium or light work and could perform her past relevant work or alternative jobs. (AR 12.) 13 An RFC is not a medical determination but an administrative finding or legal decision 14 reserved to the Commissioner based on consideration of all the relevant evidence, including 15 medical evidence, lay witnesses and subjective symptoms. See SSR 96-5p; 20 C.F.R. 16 § 1527(e)(2). There was no legal error in this case or other reason to disturb the ALJ s RFC 17 determination, which properly was based on all relevant evidence, medical and other. 18 19 3. The ALJ Did Not Improperly Consider Plaintiff s Daily Activities Plaintiff devotes five pages to the ALJ s reference to daily activities, arguing that 20 sporadic and unrestrained activities do not relate to the ability to perform gainful work. (JS 21 7-11.) Plaintiff overstates the ALJ s reliance on Plaintiff s daily activities. The ALJ makes 22 only this limited observation on the subject: 23 While the claimant asserts in SSA documents that she has 24 problems with some aspects of personal hygiene and carrying out 25 activities, she also reports driving and leaving her residence daily. Given 26 the claimant s credibility problems, as well as the weak medical data, the 27 28 9 1 ALJ does not believe that the claimant s functional difficulties are as 2 limited as she reports. 3 (AR 11.) 4 The ALJ s reference to daily activities was descriptive, undisputed and a minor 5 aspect of the ALJ s decision. The ALJ s RFC is not based solely or even primarily on 6 Claimant s daily activities. The ALJ based the RFC conclusion primarily on the medical 7 evidence, Dr. Lambert s RFC, the vocational expert s testimony and Plaintiff s credibility or 8 lack thereof. 9 4. The ALJ Did Not Improperly Consider Ms. Castaneda s Subjective Symptom Testimony In Assessing Functional Capacity 10 The ALJ determined that Plaintiff has a medical impairment, i.e., lumber spine 11 impairment, that can reasonably cause her pain symptoms in her back and upper 12 extremities. (AR 10.) The ALJ did not make a finding that Plaintiff is a malingerer or even 13 mention malingering. Thus, the ALJ must come forward with specific, clear and convincing 14 reasons based on substantial evidence to sustain the finding that Claimant s allegations lack 15 credibility concerning her work capacity. (AR 10, 11, 13.) 16 The ALJ has met that burden in this case: 17 The ALJ finds that the claimant s overall credibility and reliability, 18 including as to the degree of her functional limitations, is seriously 19 compromised by her poor efforts on presentation to consultative 20 physician Dr. Siciarz-lambert s February 2007, as well as by her 21 demonstrated functioning on observation (Ex. B-2F). Dr. Siciarz-Lambert 22 reported that whereas the claimant s forward flexion of the lumbar spine 23 was limited to 20 degrees on formal examination, with discreet 24 observation, she was noted to bend forward and attempt to pull out a 25 stool from under the examining table, then stopping when bending to 26 about 45 degrees and looking at the examiner. Dr. Siciarz-Lambert 27 further related that the claimant extended minimal efforts on straight leg 28 raising and other maneuvers. In further reflecting on the claimant actual 10 1 capacities, Dr. Siciarz-Lambert noted that the claimant moved normally, 2 sat comfortably without shifting in the chair and stood up from the sitting 3 position and sat up from the supine position without difficulty. 4 Additionally, although the claimant complained [of] pain in the dominant 5 right arm, Dr. Siciarz-Lambert observed that she did not limit use of the 6 right hand. She added that when climbing on examining table, the 7 claimant put full pressure on the right hand and used it to stabilize 8 herself. 9 10 (AR 10.) These conclusions are also supported by Dr. Lambert s RFC discussed in Section 2 above and by the lack of objective medical evidence.2 The ALJ properly relied on Dr. Lambert s RFC which incorporated an assessment of 11 12 Plaintiff s credibility, the weak medical data and Plaintiff s daily activities in discounting her 13 credibility. 5. 14 Summary The ALJ properly concluded that Plaintiff has not been under a disability within the 15 16 meaning of the Social Security Act at any time through the date of the ALJ s decision. 17 /// 18 /// 19 /// 20 /// 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2 The ALJ concluded that Dr. Lambert s report undermined an observation by a SSA employee that Plaintiff had difficulty walking and writing (AR 10, 81). A subsequent Disability Report found no problems of that sort. (AR 140.) 11 ORDER 1 2 3 4 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Judgment be entered affirming the decision of the Commissioner of Social Security. LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY. 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 DATED: December 15, 2009 /s/ John E. McDermott JOHN E. MCDERMOTT UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

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.