Elvia Heredia v. Michael J Astrue, No. 2:2011cv08103 - Document 16 (C.D. Cal. 2012)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM AND OPINION AND ORDER (Social Security Case) by Magistrate Judge Victor B. Kenton. For the foregoing reasons, the Commissioner's decision will be affirmed. The case will be dismissed with prejudice. IT IS SO ORDERED. [SEE ORDER FOR FURTHER DETAILS] 3 (gr)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA WESTERN DIVISION 7 8 9 10 11 ELVIA HEREDIA, 12 13 14 15 Plaintiff, v. MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of Social Security, 16 Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No. CV 11-08103-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 ) gave proper 1 2 weight to the opinions of Plaintiff s treating physician. (JS at 3.) 3 4 This Memorandum Opinion will constitute the Court s findings of 5 fact and conclusions of law. After reviewing the matter, the Court 6 concludes that the decision of the Commissioner must be affirmed. 7 8 I 9 THE ALJ DID NOT IMPROPERLY DISCOUNT THE WEIGHT 10 TO BE ACCORDED TO THE OPINION OF DR. TAW 11 12 13 In Plaintiff s first issue, she asserts the ALJ did not give proper weight to the opinions of her treating physician, Dr. Taw. Initially, the question to be determined is whether Dr. Taw was 14 a treating, examining, or non-examining physician. Plaintiff asserts 15 that Dr. Taw should be characterized as a treating physician based on 16 a letter that he wrote addressed to whom it may concern, described 17 as a Disability letter for [Plaintiff], dated March 23, 2009, which 18 is accompanied by a check the box form entitled Physical Capacities 19 Evaluation that provides Dr. Taw s opinion, as of March 30, 2009, 20 concerning Plaintiff s physical functional abilities. (AR 658-659.) 21 While Plaintiff makes reference to Dr. Taw s own physical examination 22 of Plaintiff, which she asserts can be inferred from his letter, this 23 simply reads too much into it. 24 medical records from the facility with which he is associated, but 25 none of those medical records are included in the AR and Dr. Taw s 26 check the box form is not supported by any apparent objective 27 testing. 28 conclusory or otherwise seemingly unsupported conclusions are to be Dr. Taw would seem to be summarizing It is quite fundamental in Social Security law that such 2 1 given little weight in the disability evaluation. 2 Sullivan, 981 F.2d 1016, 1019 (9th Cir. 1992)(citing Magallanes v. 3 Bowen, 881 F.2d 747, 751 (9th Cir. 1989)). 4 See Matney v. The ALJ instead largely relied upon the testimony of Medical 5 Expert ( ME ), Dr. Nafoosi. As the Commissioner notes, the ALJ s 6 decision sets forth a detailed analysis of the existing medical 7 evidence of record, and the reasons for the ALJ s reliance on Dr. 8 Nafoosi s interpretation of those records. 9 are consistent with this evidence in the record, and as such, the ALJ 10 could properly rely upon them. 11 Dr. Nafoosi s conclusions See Thomas v Barnhart, 278 F.3d 947, 956-957 (9th Cir. 2002). 12 More importantly, the Court notes that the ALJ did not contradict 13 Dr. Taw s conclusion that Plaintiff suffers from fibromyalgia, indeed 14 finding that it one of Plaintiff s severe impairments as of January 1, 15 2006. (AR 16.) Moreover, based on medical evidence of record, the ALJ 16 did assess functional restrictions in determining Plaintiff s Residual 17 Functional Capacity ( RFC ) which resulted in a conclusion that 18 Plaintiff is capable of a very limited range of light work. (AR 20.) 19 The Court also notes that Plaintiff does not claim error in the 20 ALJ s evaluation of the opinions of other physicians, including 21 Plaintiff s treating physician Dr. Khan, which was evaluated in detail 22 by 23 Commissioner s 24 generalities which are not specifically applicable to Plaintiff, but, 25 instead, 26 fibromyalgia can be very debilitating, ... [AR 658]). 27 of Dr. Taw s report, which Plaintiff argues are consistent with the 28 medical evidence of record, do not lead to a contrary conclusion. For the ALJ. to (AR 23-24.) Finally, interpretation some people who that the Dr. suffer 3 Court agrees Taw s letter from with fibromyalgia the contains (e.g., Other parts 1 example, 2 Plaintiff suffers from sleep apnea, which is referenced in Dr. Taw s 3 letter. 4 agreed that Plaintiff has sleep apnea as of January 1, 2006. (AR 16.) 5 The issue is the extent to which Plaintiff s severe impairments 6 contribute 7 analysis. 8 analysis, which is supported by substantial evidence in the record. 9 10 11 Plaintiff argues that other physicians diagnosed This does not change the Court s conclusion, because the ALJ to functional limitations relevant to the disability In this regard, the Court can find no error in the ALJ s For the foregoing reasons, the Commissioner s decision will be affirmed. The case will be dismissed with prejudice. IT IS SO ORDERED. 12 13 14 that DATED: June 12, 2012 /s/ VICTOR B. KENTON UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 4

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.