Scott Boyer v. Michael J. Astrue, No. 2:2008cv06265 - Document 21 (C.D. Cal. 2009)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER by Magistrate Judge Alicia G. Rosenberg. Having reviewed the entire file, the Court affirms the Commissioner's decision. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Commissioner's decision is affirmed. (See Order for details) (mp)

Download PDF

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 SCOTT BOYER, 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. 14 15 MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant. 16 17 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) NO. CV 08-6265 AGR MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Dana Boyer filed this action on October 2, 2008. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 18 19 636(c), the parties consented to proceed before Magistrate Judge Rosenberg on 20 October 28 and November 13, 2008. (Dkt. Nos. 8-9.) On May 11 and 20, 2009, 21 the Commissioner filed the certified administrative record and supplemental 22 certified administrative record (collectively, AR ). (Dkt. Nos. 15-16.) On July 14, 23 2009, the parties filed a Joint Stipulation ( JS ) that addressed the disputed 24 issues. (Dkt. No. 20.) The Court has taken the matter under submission without 25 oral argument. Having reviewed the entire file, the Court affirms the Commissioner s 26 27 decision. 28 /// 1 I. 2 PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND 3 On September 29, 2006, Boyer filed an application for Supplemental 4 Security Income benefits alleging an amended disability onset date of September 5 29, 2006. AR 8, 34-35. The application was denied initially and upon 6 reconsideration. Id. An Administrative Law Judge ( ALJ ) conducted a hearing 7 on November 21, 2007, at which Boyer and a vocational expert testified. AR 13- 8 37. On November 30, 2007, the ALJ issued a decision denying benefits. AR 8- 9 12. On July 25, 2008, the Appeals Council denied Boyer s request for review. 10 AR 1-3. This lawsuit followed. 11 II. 12 STANDARD OF REVIEW 13 Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), this Court reviews the Commissioner s 14 decision to deny benefits. The decision will be disturbed only if it is not supported 15 by substantial evidence, or if it is based upon the application of improper legal 16 standards. Moncada v. Chater, 60 F.3d 521, 523 (9th Cir. 1995); Drouin v. 17 Sullivan, 966 F.2d 1255, 1257 (9th Cir. 1992). 18 Substantial evidence means more than a mere scintilla but less than a 19 preponderance it is such relevant evidence that a reasonable mind might 20 accept as adequate to support the conclusion. Moncada, 60 F.3d at 523. In 21 determining whether substantial evidence exists to support the Commissioner s 22 decision, the Court examines the administrative record as a whole, considering 23 adverse as well as supporting evidence. Drouin, 966 F.2d at 1257. When the 24 evidence is susceptible to more than one rational interpretation, the Court must 25 defer to the Commissioner s decision. Moncada, 60 F.3d at 523. 26 27 28 2 1 III. 2 DISCUSSION 3 A. 4 A person qualifies as disabled, and thereby eligible for such benefits, only 5 if his physical or mental impairment or impairments are of such severity that he is 6 not only unable to do his previous work but cannot, considering his age, 7 education, and work experience, engage in any other kind of substantial gainful 8 work which exists in the national economy. Barnhart v. Thomas, 540 U.S. 20, 9 21-22, 124 S. Ct. 376, 157 L. Ed. 2d 333 (2003). Disability 10 B. 11 Boyer has the following severe impairment: chronic pain. AR 11. He has The ALJ s Findings 12 the residual functional capacity to perform medium work with no climbing of 13 ropes/ladders/scaffolds and with avoidance of working at unprotected heights or 14 around dangerous moving machinery. AR 11-12. Boyer does not have a 15 medically determinable mental impairment. Boyer is unable to perform his past 16 relevant work. However, Boyer can perform jobs that exist in significant numbers 17 in the national economy, such as hand-packager, assembler, and sorter. AR 12. 18 C. 19 Boyer makes two related arguments, first that the ALJ erred at Step Two in Mental Impairment 20 his determination that Plaintiff does not have a severe mental impairment, and, 21 second, that the ALJ erred by failing to consider a psychological report from 22 2004. 23 At Step Two of the sequential analysis, the claimant bears the burden of 24 demonstrating a severe, medically determinable impairment that meets the 25 duration requirement. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(ii); Bowen v. Yuckert, 482 U.S. 26 137, 146 n.5, 107 S. Ct. 2287, 96 L. Ed. 2d 119 (1987). To satisfy the duration 27 requirement, the severe impairment must have lasted or be expected to last for a 28 continuous period of not less than 12 months. Id. at 140. 3 1 Your impairment must result from anatomical, physiological, 2 or psychological abnormalities which can be shown by 3 medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic 4 techniques. A physical or mental impairment must be 5 established by medical evidence consisting of signs, 6 symptoms, and laboratory findings, not only by your 7 statement of symptoms. 8 20 C.F.R. § 404.1508; 20 C.F.R. § 416.908. [T]he impairment must be one that 9 significantly limits your physical or mental ability to do basic work activities. 1 10 Yuckert, 482 U.S. at 154 n.11 (quoting 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(c)); Smolen, 80 11 F.3d at 1290 ( [A]n impairment is not severe if it does not significantly limit [the 12 claimant s] physical ability to do basic work activities. ) (citation and internal 13 quotation marks omitted). 14 An impairment or combination of impairments may be found not severe 15 only if the evidence establishes a slight abnormality that has no more than a 16 minimal effect on an individual s ability to work. Webb v. Barnhart, 433 F.3d 17 683, 686-87 (9th Cir. 2005) (emphasis in original, citation omitted). Step Two is 18 a de minimis screening device [used] to dispose of groundless claims and the 19 ALJ s finding must be clearly established by medical evidence. Id. at 687 20 (citations and quotation marks omitted, emphasis added). 21 At Step Two, the ALJ found that Boyer did not have a severe mental 22 impairment based on Dr. Yang s psychiatric evaluation of January 17, 2007. AR 23 10. Boyer told Yang that he had been depressed since his work-related back 24 25 26 27 28 1 The ability to do basic work activities includes physical functions such as walking, standing, sitting, lifting, pushing, pulling, reaching, carrying, or handling, capacities for seeing, hearing, and speaking, understanding, carrying out, and remembering simple instructions, use of judgment, responding appropriately to supervision, co-workers, and usual work situations, and dealing with changes in a routine work setting. Yuckert, 482 U.S. at 168 n.6 (internal quotations omitted); Smolen v. Chater, 80 F.3d 1273, 1290 (9th Cir. 1996). 4 1 injury in 2002. AR 246. Boyer told Yang that he had never seen a psychiatrist, 2 been treated for a mental impairment, or taken any medications for a mental 3 impairment.2 AR 247. There were no psychiatric records for Yang to review. Id. 4 Boyer s mental status examination revealed no evidence of cognitive deficits, 5 perceptual disturbances or delusional disorders. AR 249; see AR 248. Yang 6 assessed no work limitations. Id. Yang diagnosed Boyer with adjustment 7 disorder, anxious. AR 248. 8 9 Dr. Dudley completed a Psychiatric Review Technique on February 1, 2007, apparently reviewing the findings of Dr. Yang. AR 251-62. Dudley 10 concluded that Boyer had no severe impairment. AR 251. Dudley found only 11 mild limitations in the three areas of activities of daily living, social functioning, 12 and concentration, persistence or pace, and no episodes of decompensation.. 13 AR 259. 14 The Yang and Dudley opinions support a finding that Boyer does not have 15 a severe mental impairment. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520a(d)(1). As an examining 16 physician s opinion based on independent clinical findings, Dr. Yang s opinion 17 constitutes substantial evidence. Orn v. Astrue, 495 F.3d 625, 632 (9th Cir. 18 2007). A non-examining physician s opinion constitutes substantial evidence 19 when, as here, it is supported by other evidence in the record and consistent with 20 it. Andrews v. Shalala, 53 F.3d 1035, 1041 (9th Cir. 1995). 21 Boyer contends that the ALJ failed to take into account a report from a 22 psychologist (Greenspan) dated January 7, 2004, based on Boyer s Self 23 Evaluation Questionnaire in connection with workers compensation proceedings. 24 JS 3 (citing AR 215); AR 204.3 Greenspan diagnosed Boyer with major 25 26 2 27 3 28 Boyer smokes marijuana for his physical pain. AR 10, 247. The pages of Greenspan s report are scattered in Exhibit 1F. The pagination may indicate that the report is not complete. It starts on page 7. AR 204. Pages 10, 19, and 22-24 appear to be missing. 5 1 depressive disorder - single severe episode with anxiety features, and assessed 2 a Global Assessment of Functioning (GAF) rating of 45. AR 215-216. 3 Greenspan did not assess work limitations. 4 The ALJ did not err in failing to discuss a report prepared two and a half 5 years before the alleged onset date of September 29, 2006. See Howard v. 6 Barnhart, 341 F.3d 1006, 1012 (9th Cir. 2003) (finding that ALJ failure to discuss 7 report was not error because ALJ is not required to discuss evidence that is 8 neither significant nor probative ); Burkhart v. Bowen, 856 F.2d 1335, 1339 n.1 9 (9th Cir. 1988) (evidence prior to alleged onset date is properly rejected). Nor did 10 the ALJ err in not discussing Greenspan s GAF score of 45. A GAF is not 11 determinative of mental disability for social security purposes. See 65 Fed. Reg. 12 50746, 50764-50765 (August 21, 2000) ( [The GAF scale] does not have a direct 13 correlation to the severity requirements in our mental disorder listings. ). A failure 14 to reference a GAF score, standing alone, does not undermine the ALJ s findings. 15 See Howard v. Comm r of Soc. Sec., 276 F.3d 235, 241 (6th Cir. 2002) (rejecting 16 argument that ALJ erred in failing to mention GAF score).4 17 Moreover, Greenspan s report is based entirely on Boyer s Self Evaluation 18 Questionnaire. AR 204-217. The ALJ found Boyer not credible (a finding that 19 Boyer does not challenge), and did not give weight to his testimony. AR 10. 20 Therefore, it is not surprising that the ALJ disregarded a report based entirely on 21 Boyer s own accounts of his symptoms.5 Flaten v. Secretary of Health & Human 22 Services, 44 F.3d 1453, 1464 (9th Cir. 1995). Any error is harmless as no 23 reasonable ALJ would have concluded that Boyer has a severe mental 24 25 26 27 28 4 See also McFarland v. Astrue, 288 Fed. Appx. 357, 359 (9th Cir. 2008). 5 Boyer s argument that Greenspan s report is probative . . . because it indicates a longitudinal history of Plaintiff s mental impairment is not supported by any medical records. JS 6 (emphasis added); see Holohan v. Massanari, 246 F.3d 1195, 1203 n.2 (9th Cir. 2001); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2)(i). There are no medical records prior to or after Greenspan s report on January 7, 2004, until Dr. Yang s report in 2007. 6 1 impairment based on Greenspan s report. See Stout v. Commissioner, 454 F.3d 2 1050, 1055-56 (9th Cir. 2006). 3 D. 4 An opinion of a treating physician is given more weight than the opinion of Dr. Granados Opinion 5 non-treating physicians. Orn, 495 F.3d at 631. When, as here, a treating 6 physician s opinion is contradicted by another doctor, the ALJ may not reject this 7 opinion without providing specific and legitimate reasons supported by substantial 8 evidence in the record. This can be done by setting out a detailed and thorough 9 summary of the facts and conflicting clinical evidence, stating his interpretation 10 thereof, and making findings. Id. at 632 (citations and quotations omitted). 11 When there is conflicting medical evidence, the Secretary must determine 12 credibility and resolve the conflict. Thomas v. Barnhart, 278 F.3d 947, 956-57 13 (9th Cir. 2002) (citation and quotation marks omitted). 14 On August 10, 2007, in a Disability Statement form, Dr. Granados 15 diagnosed Boyer with lumbar strain, spondylolisthesis, and radiculopathy. AR 16 276. Granados checked the statement: Patient is disabled greater than one (1) 17 year. Id. There is nothing else of substance on the form. There are no reasons 18 for the diagnosis or the disability finding. There are no records of treatment. 19 20 21 Boyer s argument that the ALJ failed to provide specific and legitimate reasons for rejecting Granados report is without merit.6 JS 11. The ALJ gave no weight to Granados report because (1) it was 22 unsupported by any objective findings, (2) Granados saw Boyer only once, and 23 (3) it appears that he merely repeated claims made by the claimant without any 24 independent judgment. AR 10. 25 26 27 28 6 Based on the absence of any treating records, it is not clear whether Granados treated Boyer or even examined him. See 20 C.F.R. § 416.927(d)(2)(i). 7 1 The ALJ may properly discount a treating physician s opinion that is not 2 supported by treatment records. See Bayliss v. Barnhart, 427 F.3d 1211, 1216 3 (9th Cir. 2005); Thomas, 278 F.3d at 957 (ALJ need not accept treating 4 physician s opinion that is conclusory and inadequately supported by clinical 5 findings). The ALJ noted that there is absolutely no record of any treatment 6 [other than Granados report]. 7 AR 9. 7 In the Disability Statement, Granados does not cite any objective tests to 8 support his assessment. See Batson v. Comm r of the SSA, 359 F.3d 1190, 9 1195 (9th Cir. 2004) (ALJ did not err in rejecting treating physician opinion 10 unsupported by objective medical findings); Crane v. Shalala, 76 F.3d 251, 253 11 (9th Cir. 1996) (ALJ may reject check-off reports that did not contain explanation 12 of bases of the conclusions). [T]he mere existence of an impairment is 13 insufficient proof of a disability. Matthews v. Shalala, 10 F.3d 678, 680 (9th Cir 14 1993). A claimant must show that he is precluded from engaging in substantial 15 gainful activity by reason of his impairments. Id. (citing 42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(1)(A)). 16 In addition, the ALJ noted that Granados saw Boyer only once, a legitimate 17 reason for discounting a physician s report. AR 10; see 20 C.F.R. § 18 416.927(d)(2)(i); see Murray v. Heckler, 722 F.2d 499, 501-02 (9th Cir. 1983) 19 (ALJ erred by giving greater weight to a physician who saw claimant only once 20 rather than a physician who treated claimant multiple times). The justification for 21 giving a treating physician more weight based on having the opportunity to know 22 and observe the patient as an individual is significantly reduced when the treating 23 physician has seen the patient only once. 24 25 26 27 28 7 The Court assumes the ALJ meant any treatment since the disability onset date. 8 1 The ALJ did not err in rejecting Granados report.8 2 E. 3 The ALJ may rely on testimony a vocational expert gives in response to a 4 hypothetical that describes all of the limitations that the ALJ found credible and 5 supported by substantial evidence in the record. Bayliss, 427 F.3d at 1217-18. 6 The ALJ is not required to include limitations that are not in his findings. Rollins 7 v. Massanari, 261 F.3d 853, 857 (9th Cir. 2001); Osenbrock v. Apfel, 240 F.3d 8 1157, 1165 (9th Cir. 2001). 9 Incomplete Hypothetical Boyer s argument that the ALJ should have included his mental impairment 10 diagnosis, symptoms, and limitations in the hypothetical posed to the VE is 11 without merit. The ALJ was not required to include limitations that were not part 12 of his findings. 13 ORDER 14 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Commissioner s decision is affirmed. 15 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court serve copies of this 16 Order and the Judgment herein on all parties or their counsel. 17 18 DATED: September 3, 2009 ALICIA G. ROSENBERG United States Magistrate Judge 19 20 21 8 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Dr. Feeley, an orthopedist, examined Boyer on January 13, 2007. AR 279-82. Feeley diagnosed cervical strain/sprain. AR 281. Boyer had normal posture in static stance, he was able to rise on his toes or heels without difficulty, had a normal gait pattern, and had no limp. AR 280. Feeley was unable to provide a functional assessment because of Boyer s noncompliance. AR 281. Boyer s range of motion was globally limited. AR 281. Boyer refused a thoracolumbar spine examination. Id. Boyer refused a straight leg raise examination. Id. He refused extremities and joints examination. Id. Overall, Feeley found that it was difficult to obtain any sort of physical examination, as he was noncompliant secondary to pain. AR 280. Feeley found that Boyer s pain was out of proportion to any common physical examination findings. AR 281. The ALJ relied on the functional assessment by medical consultants in February 2007, which stated Boyer could perform medium exertion. AR 9, 26368. 9

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.