Sheila Hurt v. Michael J. Astrue, No. 2:2011cv00001 - Document 19 (C.D. Cal. 2011)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER by Magistrate Judge Victor B. Kenton, The decision of the ALJ will be affirmed. The Complaint will be dismissed with prejudice. (SEE ORDER FOR FURTHER DETAILS) (lmh)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA WESTERN DIVISION 7 8 9 10 11 SHEILA HURT, 12 13 14 15 Plaintiff, v. MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of Social Security, 16 Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No. CV 11-00001-VBK MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER (Social Security Case) 17 18 This matter is before the Court for review of the decision by the 19 Commissioner of Social Security denying Plaintiff s application for 20 disability benefits. 21 consented that the case may be handled by the Magistrate Judge. 22 action arises under 42 U.S.C. §405(g), which authorizes the Court to 23 enter judgment upon the pleadings and transcript of the record before 24 the Commissioner. 25 ( JS ), and the Commissioner has filed the certified Administrative 26 Record ( AR ). Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §636(c), the parties have The The parties have filed the Joint Stipulation 27 Plaintiff raises the following issues: 28 1. Whether the Administrative Law Judge ( ALJ ) properly 1 2 considered the consultative examiner s opinion; 2. Whether the ALJ properly assessed Plaintiff s residual 3 4 functional capacity; and 3. Whether the ALJ posed an incomplete hypothetical question to 5 6 the vocational expert. (JS at 3.) 7 8 9 10 This Memorandum Opinion will constitute the Court s findings of fact and conclusions of law. After reviewing the matter, the Court concludes that the decision of the Commissioner must be affirmed. 11 12 I 13 THE ALJ PROPERLY CONSIDERED PLAINTIFF S 14 MENTAL RESIDUAL FUNCTIONAL CAPACITY AS OF 1982 15 Plaintiff identifies three issues in this litigation, all of 16 which are interconnected. 17 evaluation of the Complete Psychiatric Evaluation ( CE ) of Plaintiff 18 performed on January 14, 2009 by psychiatrist Dr. Bagner. (See Report 19 at AR 529-535.) In her second issue, she asserts that Plaintiff s 20 mental functional 21 evaluated because the ALJ did not properly factor in Dr. Bagner s 22 evaluation. 23 incomplete hypothetical question of the vocational expert ( VE ) 24 because the hypothetical omitted Dr. Bagner s limitations. 25 26 residual In her first issue, she contests the ALJ s capacity ( MFRC ) was not properly In the third issue, she asserts that the ALJ posed an Because of their interrelationship, the Court will address these issues together. 27 Dr. Bagner performed a psychiatric CE on January 14, 2009, and 28 determined Plaintiff s mental functional limitations, including an 2 1 assessment 2 completing a normal work week without interruption. (See AR at 532.) 3 Dr. Bagner concluded that Plaintiff is moderately to markedly limited 4 in her ability to respond appropriately to usual work situations and 5 to changes in a routine work setting. (AR 534.) 6 that she would have moderate to marked limitations Plaintiff s matter had been previously heard by the ALJ, who 7 issued an unfavorable decision on April 15, 2008. 8 granted review by the Appeals Council, which sent the matter back to 9 the ALJ, based on the fact that diagnostic and treatment records for 10 Plaintiff which went back to 1984 had been lost. 11 Plaintiff was Thus, the Appeals Council ordered that, 12 In light of this evidence and the fact that the 13 medical record was lost, ... a medical expert is necessary 14 to assist the Administrative Law Judge in evaluating the 15 severity of claimant s mental impairments during the remote 16 relevant period. 17 (AR 37.) 18 19 Consequently, the ALJ was ordered to obtain evidence from a 20 medical expert regarding the nature and severity of Plaintiff s mental 21 impairments. (AR 38.) 22 evaluation from Dr. Glassmire. (AR 536-537.) 23 incorporated into the ALJ s decision. (AR 14-23.) The ALJ gave great 24 consideration to the mental functional limitations described by Dr. 25 Bagner. 26 as to Plaintiff s mental functional limitations as of 1982, while Dr. The ALJ did this by obtaining a written This evaluation is But the ALJ noted that Dr. Glassmire had rendered an opinion 27 28 3 1 Bagner had not done this. (AR 20.)1 2 With regard to the continuous nature of her asserted mental 3 disability, the ALJ did note that Plaintiff had engaged in substantial 4 gainful activity in 1985, when she earned over $6,000 working as a 5 certified nursing assistant in a nursing home. (AR 17, 90, 541-542.) 6 But even if the issue of continuous disability was not thereby 7 resolved, the principal problem with Plaintiff s argument is that Dr. 8 Bagner did not render a longitudinal opinion, but only one that 9 assessed Plaintiff s mental functional condition as of the time of his 10 examination in 2009. To the contrary, Dr. Glassmire did review 11 relevant mental records going back to 1985, and his written report 12 indicated that Plaintiff scored in the moderate level in the areas of 13 social functioning, concentration, persistence and pace, and had no 14 episodes of decompensation. Further, the records indicate a worsening 15 of symptoms beginning in 1985, and in fact, Dr. Glassmire indicated 16 that her mental condition has progressively worsened over time, and 17 that her functioning was higher in 1982 than it is today. (AR 536.) 18 All of these conclusions were fully considered by the ALJ in his 19 decision. Plaintiff has provided no answer to the question of whether 20 there is any basis in the record to conclude that Dr. Bagner s 21 assessment of Plaintiff in 2009 would be at all consistent with her 22 mental condition in 1982, or thereafter. In fact, the only evidence 23 1 24 25 26 27 28 The importance of the 1982 date is that this case concerns whether Plaintiff is entitled to disabled adult child s benefits based her father s earnings record. The regulations (see 20 C.F.R. § 404.350(a)) require, among other things, that a claimant is entitled to child s benefits based on the earnings record of an insured person if the claimant became disabled before the age of 22. Therefore, as the ALJ observed, Plaintiff had the burden to demonstrate her mental disability as of 1982, when she became 22, and continuously thereafter. See Smolen v. Chater, 80 F.3d 1273, 1280 (9th Cir. 1996). 4 1 in the record from a mental health professional concerning Plaintiff s 2 mental 3 contrast, there is nothing in Dr. Bagner s report which can even 4 support reasonable inferences as to Plaintiff s mental condition in 5 the past. 6 mental functional limitations, Dr. Bagner s report would be of more 7 significance. 8 9 functional level in 1982 comes from Dr. Glassmire. In Clearly, if this case concerned only Plaintiff s present For these reasons, Plaintiff s argument as to each of the three issues must fail. The ALJ properly complied with the order of the 10 Appeals Council by obtaining the opinion of a medical expert who could 11 provide evidence concerning Plaintiff s mental functional capacity as 12 of the relevant start date. 13 decision. 14 15 16 Thus, the Court must affirm the ALJ s The decision of the ALJ will be affirmed. The Complaint will be dismissed with prejudice. IT IS SO ORDERED. 17 18 DATED: October 13, 2011 /s/ VICTOR B. KENTON UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 19 20 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.