Teresse L. Podborny v. Michael J. Astrue, No. 2:2009cv09519 - Document 20 (C.D. Cal. 2011)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER by Magistrate Judge Alicia G. Rosenberg. Teresse L. Podborny filed a complaint on January 8, 2010. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), the parties consented to proceed before Magistrate Judge Rosenberg on January 28 and February 19, 2010. (Dkt. Nos. 8, 9.) On October 5, 2010, the parties filed a Joint Stipulation (JS) that addressed the disputed issues. The Court has taken the matter under submission without oral argument. Having reviewed the entire file, the Court affirms the decision of the Commissioner. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the decision of the Commissioner is affirmed. (See Order for details.) (mp)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 TERESSE L. PODBORNY 12 Plaintiff, v. 13 14 MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of Social Security 15 Defendant. 16 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No. CV 09-9519 AGR MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER 17 Teresse L. Podborny filed a complaint on January 8, 2010. Pursuant to 28 18 U.S.C. § 636(c), the parties consented to proceed before Magistrate Judge Rosenberg 19 on January 28 and February 19, 2010. (Dkt. Nos. 8, 9.) On October 5, 2010, the 20 parties filed a Joint Stipulation ( JS ) that addressed the disputed issues. The Court 21 has taken the matter under submission without oral argument. Having reviewed the entire file, the Court affirms the decision of the 22 23 Commissioner. 24 /// 25 /// 26 /// 27 /// 28 /// 1 I. 2 PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND 3 On June 17, 2005, Podborny filed an application for supplemental security 4 income benefits. Administrative Record ( AR ) 27. She alleged a disability onset date 5 of August 1, 2004. Id. The application was denied initially and on reconsideration. Id. 6 Podborny requested a hearing before an Administrative Law Judge ( ALJ ). AR 69. On 7 June 20, 2007, an ALJ conducted a hearing at which Podborny and a vocational expert 8 testified. AR 77-106. On August 31, 2007, the ALJ issued a decision denying benefits. 9 AR 27-33. On October 30, 2009, the Appeals Council denied Podborny s request for 10 review. AR 5-8. This action followed. 11 II. 12 STANDARD OF REVIEW Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), this Court reviews the Commissioner s decision 13 14 to deny benefits. The decision will be disturbed only if it is not supported by substantial 15 evidence, or if it is based upon the application of improper legal standards. Moncada v. 16 Chater, 60 F.3d 521, 523 (9th Cir. 1995); Drouin v. Sullivan, 966 F.2d 1255, 1257 (9th 17 Cir. 1992). In this context, substantial evidence means more than a mere scintilla but less 18 19 than a 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 adverse 23 as well as supporting evidence. Drouin, 966 F.2d at 1257. Where the evidence is 24 susceptible to more than one rational interpretation, the Court must defer to the decision 25 of the Commissioner. Moncada, 60 F.3d at 523. 26 /// 27 /// 28 /// 2 1 III. 2 DISCUSSION 3 A. Disability 4 A person qualifies as disabled and is eligible for benefits, "only if his physical or 5 mental impairment or impairments are of such severity that he is not only unable to do 6 his previous work but cannot, considering his age, education, and work experience, 7 engage in any other kind of substantial gainful work which exists in the national 8 economy." Barnhart v. Thomas, 540 U.S. 20, 21-22, 124 S. Ct. 376, 157 L. Ed. 2d 333 9 (2003). 10 B. The ALJ s Findings 11 The ALJ found that Podborny has the severe impairments of fibromyalgia and 12 depression. AR 29. She has the residual functional capacity ( RFC ) to perform light 13 work that would require occasional climbing, balancing, stooping, kneeling, crouching 14 and crawling and entail simple, repetitive tasks. Id. The ALJ found that Podborny has 15 no past relevant work, but there are jobs that exist in significant numbers in the national 16 economy that she can perform, such as small parts assembler, cleaner/housekeeper, 17 and sorter/grader. AR 32-33. 18 C. Examining Physician 19 Podborny s sole contention is that the ALJ failed to consider properly the opinion 20 of the consultative examining psychiatrist, Dr. Hirokawa. JS 4-7. Specifically, Podborny 21 argues that the ALJ impermissibly dismissed the portion of Dr. Hirokawa s opinion 22 regarding the moderate likelihood of Podborny emotionally deteriorating in a work 23 environment, and, therefore, the ALJ s finding she can perform simple repetitive tasks 24 lacks substantial evidence. 25 An examining physician's opinion constitutes substantial evidence when it is 26 based on independent clinical findings. Orn v. Astrue, 495 F.3d 625, 631 (9th Cir. 2007). 27 When an examining physician's opinion is contradicted, it may be rejected for specific 28 and legitimate reasons that are supported by substantial evidence in the record. 3 1 Carmickle v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 533 F.3d 1155, 1164 (9th Cir. 2008) (citation 2 omitted). Contrary to Podborny s contention, substantial evidence supports the ALJ s finding 3 4 that Podborny can perform simple, repetitive tasks. The ALJ considered Dr. Hirokawa s 5 opinion and gave it significant weight. AR 31. He noted that Dr. Hirokawa found that 6 [Podborny] has depression, but has a current Global Assessment of Functioning ( GAF ) 1 7 of 60 and a fair ability to function mentally. AR 31, 374. Dr. Hirokawa opined that 8 Podborny has a fair ability to understand and remember very short and simple 9 instructions, complete a normal workday and workweek without interruptions on a 10 consistent basis, and deal with various changes in the work setting. AR 31, 374-75. 11 The likelihood of her emotionally deteriorating in a work environment is moderate. AR 12 375. Podborny interprets Dr. Hirokawa s opinion that she is moderately likely to 13 14 experience emotional deterioration in a work environment as inconsistent with her fair 15 ability to deal with various changes in the work setting and complete a normal workday 16 and workweek without interruptions on a consistent basis. Therefore, Podborny argues 17 that the ALJ s RFC does not account for the moderate likelihood of emotional 18 deterioration. JS 6. It is the ALJ s province to interpret the medical evidence. When the evidence is 19 20 susceptible to more than one rational interpretation, a court must defer to the decision of 21 the Commissioner. Moncada, 60 F.3d at 523. Dr. Hirokawa assessed both a fair ability 22 to deal with changes in the work setting and complete a normal workday/workweek 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 A GAF between 51-60 is defined as [m]oderate symptoms (e.g., flat affect and circumstantial speech, occasional panic attacks) OR moderate difficulty in social, occupational, or school functioning (e.g., few friends, conflicts with peers or coworkers). American Psychiatric Association, Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 34 (4th ed. 2000). A GAF is not determinative of mental disability for Social Security purposes. See 65 Fed. Reg. 50746, 50765 (August 21, 2000) ( [The GAF scale] does not have a direct correlation to the severity requirements in our mental disorder listings. ). 4 1 without interruptions on a consistent basis, and a moderate likelihood of emotional 2 deterioration. AR 374-75. A reasonable inference is that these assessments are not 3 internally inconsistent. There is no indication the ALJ rejected Dr. Hirokawa s opinions. 4 To the extent Podborny argues the ALJ should have addressed each individual 5 sentence, the argument is rejected. An ALJ does not need to discuss every piece of 6 evidence. Howard v. Barnhart, 341 F.3d 1006, 1012 (9th Cir. 2003) (citation and 7 quotation marks omitted). 8 The ALJ also considered the opinions of non-examining physicians Dr. Bonner 9 and Dr. Garcia, who opined that Podborny was moderately limited in her ability to 10 complete a normal workday and workweek without interruptions from psychologically 11 based symptoms and to perform at a consistent pace without an unreasonable number 12 and length of rest periods. AR 31, 391. The ALJ gave greater weight to the opinion of 13 Dr. Hirokawa because he examined Podborny. AR 31. The ALJ did not err. 14 IV. 15 ORDER 16 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the decision of the Commissioner is affirmed. 17 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court serve copies of this Order 18 and the Judgment herein on all parties or their counsel. 19 20 DATED: April 14, 2011 ALICIA G. ROSENBERG United States Magistrate Judge 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 5
]]>
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.
