Curtis Richardson v. Michael J. Astrue, No. 2:2009cv06314 - Document 15 (C.D. Cal. 2010)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER by Magistrate Judge Ralph Zarefsky. (ib)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Curtis Richardson v. Michael J. Astrue Doc. 15 O 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CURTIS RICHARDSON, 12 13 14 15 Plaintiff, vs. MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant. 16 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CASE NO. CV 09-06314 RZ MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER 17 Petitioner Curtis Richardson asserts that the Administrative Law Judge got it 18 wrong when he found that Plaintiff could return to his past relevant work as a painter s 19 helper. He says that the Commissioner wrongly ignored a statement in the report of one 20 of the consultants, and that the vocational expert compounded this error by relying on the 21 consultant s report, and hence his opinion too was flawed. Plaintiff also argues that the 22 Administrative Law Judge wrongly made credibility assessments. 23 The Court disagrees. 24 The Consultant, psychiatrist Jason H. Yang, actually gave quite a favorable 25 report of his examination of Plaintiff. He rated Plaintiff as having a General Assessment 26 of Functioning score of 66, which means, among other things, that Plaintiff was 27 functioning pretty well. 28 STATISTICAL MANUAL OF MENTAL DISORDERS (DSM-IV) at 32(4th ed. 1994). He found AMERICAN PSYCHIATRIC ASSOCIATION, DIAGNOSTIC AND Dockets.Justia.com 1 that Plaintiff had no evidence of cognitive deficits, perceptual disturbances or delusional 2 disorders; that Plaintiff could focus adequately; that Plaintiff can tolerate the stress inherent 3 in the work environment; that he could maintain attendance and work without supervision; 4 and the consultant imagined that Plaintiff would be able to interact appropriately with 5 supervisors, coworkers, and the public in the workplace. [AR 178] Despite this favorable report, Plaintiff extracts two sentences that he finds 6 7 problematic: 8 9 10 He is able to follow one and two part instructions. He can adequately remember and complete simple tasks. 11 12 [Id.] In his memorandum to this Court, Plaintiff takes this statement, transforms it to a 13 finding that Plaintiff can only follow one and two part instructions, asserts that a 14 painter/painter s helper requires a higher reasoning level, and therefore concludes that the 15 Administrative Law Judge erred in not considering the opinion of Dr. Yang. 16 The Court does not accept Plaintiff s argument. To state that Plaintiff can 17 follow one and two part instructions is not to state that Plaintiff can do no more. Nor is it 18 appropriate to extract these two sentences from the overall context of the evaluation, which 19 is overwhelmingly positive. And that positive evaluation is consistent with the evaluation 20 of the state agency consultant and the medical expert, both of whom the Administrative 21 Law Judge referenced, in addition to his citation of Dr. Yang s report for its diagnosis and 22 GAF. [AR 12] The Court finds no error here and, correspondingly, no error in the 23 determination by the vocational expert. 24 The Court also finds no error in the Administrative Law Judge s credibility 25 determinations. When a mental impairment is involved, the statements of the claimant 26 necessarily must be evaluated against the medical assessments; these are not pain 27 symptoms deriving from physical injuries. Here, the Administrative Law Judge relied on 28 the medical evidence, noting that no physician had suggested a more stringent residual -2- 1 functional capacity; reliance on the medical evidence is justified. Cf. Rollins v. Massanari, 2 261 F. 3d 853, 857 (9th Cir. 2001). In addition, the Administrative Law Judge noted the 3 conservative nature of the treatment, another factor he was entitled to consider. Ordinary 4 techniques of assessing credibility are sufficient in this context. Johnson v. Shalala, 60 5 F.3d 1428, 1433 (9th Cir. 1995). Plaintiff also complains that the Administrative Law Judge did not consider 6 7 his mother s written statement. That statement, however, added nothing. 8 important detail that Plaintiff himself had not testified to and, for the most part, consisted 9 of very brief, unelaborated responses to a questionnaire. [AR 106-13] Accepting the 10 statements as true adds virtually nothing to what already was in the record, and therefore 11 consideration of the evidence would not appreciably have changed the result. Stout v. 12 Commissioner, 454 F.3d 1050 (9th Cir. 2006). In accordance with the foregoing, the decision of the Commissioner is 13 14 It gave no affirmed. 15 16 DATED: July 12, 2010 17 18 19 20 RALPH ZAREFSKY UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -3-
]]>
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.
