Lowanda S. Young v. Michael J. Astrue, No. 2:2009cv09003 - Document 22 (C.D. Cal. 2010)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER by Magistrate Judge Ralph Zarefsky. (ib)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Lowanda S. Young v. Michael J. Astrue Doc. 22 O 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 LOWANDA S. YOUNG, 12 13 14 15 16 Plaintiff, vs. MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CASE NO. CV 09-09003 RZ MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER 17 18 Plaintiff Lowanda Young has a bad back. Since pain associated with disk 19 problems is common, the question not infrequently arises as to how much the pain 20 compromises a claimant s ability to work. In this Court, Plaintiff asserts that the 21 Administrative Law Judge did not comply with the applicable legal standards when he 22 found Plaintiff not to be fully credible. The Court agrees. 23 The Administrative Law Judge stated: 24 25 The [Administrative Law Judge] does not fully credit the 26 claimant s subjective complaints. The claimant alleges chronic 27 pain and significant functional limitation. 28 Dockets.Justia.com 1 [AR 18] The Administrative Law Judge went on to conclude that the Plaintiff has 2 exaggerated the extent of her pain, because she gave what he considered inconsistent 3 responses to two doctors whom she saw only a few months apart. [Id.] Elsewhere the 4 Administrative Law Judge also noted that, although Plaintiff had complained of significant 5 back and neck pain, treatment had been minimal and conservative, and further surgery had 6 not been recommended. [AR 17] 7 On this record, it is unclear whether the residual functional capacity the 8 Administrative Law Judge found can be sustained, because the record is not clear as to 9 Plaintiff s credibility. Conservative treatment is a factor that an Administrative Law Judge 10 can reference in questioning a claimant s credibility, for example, see Johnson v. Shalala, 11 60 F.3d 1428, 1433 (9th Cir. 1995), and so is a claimant s exaggeration of her symptoms. 12 Tonapetyan v. Halter, 242 F.3d 1144, 1148 (9th Cir. March 19, 2001). But the predicate 13 for such a determination is missing here: an administrative law judge must identify the 14 testimony that he finds suspect. Lester v. Chater, 81 F.3d 821, 834 (9th Cir. 1996); Dodrill 15 v. Shalala, 12 F.3d 915, 918 (9th Cir. 1993); Varney v. Secretary of Health and Human 16 Services, 846 F.2d 581, 584 (9th Cir. 1988). Without that beginning, it is hard to tell, in 17 this case, whether the Administrative Law Judge was justified in his conclusion. 18 Thus, the example that the Administrative Law Judge gave, of the 19 inconsistency in Plaintiff s reporting to the two doctors, may or may not have an impact, 20 depending on what testimony it relates to. The Administrative Law Judge emphasized, by 21 use of italics, that Plaintiff told the consultative examiner that she could perform a full 22 range of activities of daily living, including light exercise [AR 18, italics in original]; this 23 he contrasted with Plaintiff s statements to the consultative internist, that she alleged 24 significant physical debilitation. [Id.] In this Court, Plaintiff rightly points out that the 25 ability to perform light exercise may not translate to the ability to work a full week, 26 Vertigan v. Halter, 260 F.3d 1044, 1050 (9th Cir. 2001), and that the report of the 27 consultative examiner does not, in fact, show an ability to perform a full range of activities 28 of daily living. [AR 397] -2- 1 The question that remains, however, is what does Plaintiff s statement that she 2 can perform light exercise mean? What testimony of hers does it undermine, if any, and 3 how does that affect the determination of her residual functional capacity? On the other 4 hand, if the Administrative Law Judge thinks that Plaintiff told one doctor one thing that 5 she could exercise and another doctor a different thing, then he should specify what that 6 means. Does it mean he found her testimony untrustworthy and, if so, again, what 7 testimony? These are questions that might be answered once the suspect testimony, if any, 8 is identified. 9 Because the Administrative Law Judge did not follow the proper standards for 10 discrediting a Plaintiff s testimony, the decision is reversed, and the matter is remanded to 11 the Commissioner for further proceedings consistent with this Memorandum Opinion. 12 IT IS SO ORDERED. 13 14 DATED: July 27, 2010 15 16 17 18 RALPH ZAREFSKY UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 19 20 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.
