Mattie L Pruitt v. Michael J Astrue, No. 2:2011cv08158 - Document 18 (C.D. Cal. 2012)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION by Magistrate Judge Charles F. Eick. Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment is denied and Defendant's motion for summary judgment is granted. (sp)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 MATTIE L. PRUITT, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, COMMISSIONER ) OF SOCIAL SECURITY, ) ) Defendant. ) ___________________________________) NO. CV 11-8158-E MEMORANDUM OPINION 17 18 PROCEEDINGS 19 20 Plaintiff filed a Complaint on October 3, 2011, seeking review of 21 the Commissioner s denial of benefits. The parties filed a consent to 22 proceed before a United States Magistrate Judge on October 26, 2011. 23 24 Plaintiff filed a motion for summary judgment on May 1, 2012. 25 Defendant filed a cross-motion for summary judgment on May 31, 2012. 26 The Court has taken both motions under submission without oral 27 argument. 28 /// See L.R. 7-15; Order, filed October 4, 2011. 1 BACKGROUND 2 3 Plaintiff, a former custodian, asserted disability since June 18, 4 2008, based primarily on alleged pain (Administrative Record ( A.R. ) 5 26-35, 140-48). 6 record and heard testimony from Plaintiff and from a vocational expert 7 (A.R. 9-413). 8 of an ankle disorder and back disorder, but retains the residual 9 functional capacity to perform light work with certain restrictions The Administrative Law Judge ( ALJ ) reviewed the The ALJ found that Plaintiff has the severe impairments 10 (A.R. 15). Relying on the vocation expert s testimony, the ALJ 11 concluded that there exist significant numbers of jobs Plaintiff can 12 perform (A.R. 18-19, 36-37). 13 review.1 The Appeals Council apparently denied 14 15 STANDARD OF REVIEW 16 17 Under 42 U.S.C. section 405(g), this Court reviews the 18 Administration s decision to determine if: (1) the Administration s 19 findings are supported by substantial evidence; and (2) the 20 Administration used correct legal standards. 21 Commissioner, 533 F.3d 1155, 1159 (9th Cir. 2008); Hoopai v. Astrue, 22 499 F.3d 1071, 1074 (9th Cir. 2007). 23 relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to 24 support a conclusion. 25 (1971) (citation and quotations omitted); see also Widmark v. See Carmickle v. Substantial evidence is such Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389, 401 26 27 28 1 The Complaint alleges that the Appeals Council denied review on August 3, 2011 (Complaint at 2). Defendant s Answer admits the truth of this allegation (Answer at 1). 2 1 Barnhart, 454 F.3d 1063, 1067 (9th Cir. 2006). 2 3 This Court may not affirm [the Administration s] decision simply 4 by isolating a specific quantum of supporting evidence, but must also 5 consider evidence that detracts from [the Administration s] 6 conclusion. 7 (citation and quotations omitted); see Lingenfelter v. Astrue, 504 8 F.3d 1028 (9th Cir. 2007) (same). 9 findings supported by substantial evidence, even though there may Ray v. Bowen, 813 F.2d 914, 915 (9th Cir. 1987) However, the Court cannot disturb 10 exist other evidence supporting Plaintiff s claim. See Torske v. 11 Richardson, 484 F.2d 59, 60 (9th Cir. 1973), cert. denied, 417 U.S. 12 933 (1974); Harvey v. Richardson, 451 F.2d 589, 590 (9th Cir. 1971). 13 14 DISCUSSION 15 16 After consideration of the record as a whole, Defendant s motion 17 is granted and Plaintiff s motion is denied. The Administration s 18 findings are supported by substantial evidence and are free from 19 material2 legal error. 20 Plaintiff argues that the ALJ erred in finding Plaintiff s 21 22 subjective complaints not fully credible. 23 below, this argument lacks merit. 24 For the reasons discussed /// 25 26 2 27 28 The harmless error rule applies to the review of administrative decisions regarding disability. See McLeod v. Astrue, 640 F.3d 881, 888 (9th Cir. 2011); Burch v. Barnhart, 400 F.3d 676, 679 (9th Cir. 2005). 3 1 An ALJ s assessment of a claimant s credibility is entitled to 2 great weight. Anderson v. Sullivan, 914 F.2d 1121, 1124 (9th Cir. 3 1990); Nyman v. Heckler, 779 F.2d 528, 531 (9th Cir. 1985). 4 discounting of a claimant s testimony regarding subjective complaints 5 must be supported by specific, cogent findings. 6 81 F.3d 821, 834 (9th Cir. 1995); see also Berry v. Astrue, 622 F.3d 7 1228, 1234 (9th Cir. 2010) (reaffirming same); Varney v. Secretary of 8 Health and Human Serv., 846 F.2d 581, 584 (9th Cir. 1988) (generally 9 discussing specificity requirement); but see Smolen v. Chater, 80 F.3d The See Lester v. Chater, 10 1273, 1282-84 (9th Cir. 1996) (indicating that ALJ must offer 11 specific, clear and convincing reasons to reject a claimant s 12 testimony where there is no evidence of malingering).3 13 Plaintiff s arguments, the ALJ stated sufficient reasons for deeming 14 Plaintiff s testimony less than fully credible. Contrary to 15 16 First, the ALJ stated that the objective medical evidence did not 17 support Plaintiff s complaints of constant, intense and debilitating 18 pain (A.R. 16-17). 19 rejected on the sole ground that it is not fully corroborated by 20 objective medical evidence, the medical evidence is still a relevant 21 factor. . . . Although a claimant s credibility cannot be Rollins v. Massanari, 261 F.3d 853, 857 (9th Cir. 22 3 23 24 25 26 27 28 In the absence of evidence of malingering, most recent Ninth Circuit cases have applied the clear and convincing standard. See, e.g., Molina v. Astrue, 674 F.3d 1104 (9th Cir. 2012); Taylor v. Commissioner, 659 F.3d 1228, 1234 (9th Cir. 2011); Valentine v. Commissioner, 574 F.3d 685, 693 (9th Cir. 2009); Carmickle v. Commissioner, 533 F.3d at 1160; Lingenfelter v. Astrue, 504 F.3d at 1036; Ballard v. Apfel, 2000 WL 1899797, at *2 n.1 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 19, 2000) (collecting cases). In the present case, the ALJ s findings are sufficient under either standard, so the distinction between the two standards (if any) is academic. 4 1 2001). 2 3 Second, the ALJ cited the nature of Plaintiff s medical treatment 4 (A.R. 17-18). Plaintiff s treatment consists of taking the 5 medications Motrin, Cyclobenzaprine (Flexeril)4 and Methocarbamol 6 (Robaxin)5 (A.R. 28). 7 her complaints of pain and did not undergo more aggressive treatment, 8 such as narcotic or steroidal medication, during the period of her 9 alleged disability6 (A.R. 17-18, 374-97). Plaintiff seldom received follow-up care for The ALJ properly 10 characterized Plaintiff s treatment as conservative. See, e.g., 11 Hernandez v. Astrue, 2008 WL 2705083, at *3 (C.D. Cal. 2008) (Motrin 12 is conservative treatment); Thomas v. Astrue, 2011 WL 4529599, at *4 13 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 30, 2011) (Motrin is conservative treatment); Scott 14 v. Perio, 2005 WL 711884, at *2 (W.D. N.Y. March 25, 2005) (Robaxin is 15 conservative treatment); Muro v. Astrue, 2008 WL 5076448, at *5 (C.D. 16 Cal. Nov. 28, 2008) (Flexeril is conservative treatment, as is 17 physical therapy). 18 claimant s allegations of disabling symptoms. 19 481 F.3d 742, 750-51 (9th Cir. 2007), cert. denied, 552 U.S. 1141 20 (2008) (treatment of ailments with over-the-counter pain medication is 21 conservative treatment sufficient to discount testimony); Meanel v. A conservative course of treatment may discredit a See Parra v. Astrue, 22 4 23 24 25 26 27 28 Flexeril (Cyclobenzaprine) is a muscle relaxant. Wilkinson v. Astrue, 2012 WL 1580993, at *5 n.27 (M.D. Pa. May 4, 2012). 5 Robaxin (Methocarbamol) is a muscle relaxant. See James v. Murphy, 2012 WL 487040, at *7 n.6 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 24, 2012), adopted, 2012 WL 487036 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 15, 2012). 6 Plaintiff claimed at the hearing that, although she had not undergone physical therapy, she was on a list for such therapy (A.R. 32-33). 5 1 Apfel, 172 F.3d 1111, 1114 (9th Cir. 1999) (failure to request any 2 serious medical treatment for [claimant s] supposedly excruciating 3 pain was adequate reason to reject claimant s pain testimony); 4 Johnson v. Shalala, 60 F.3d 1428, 1434 (9th Cir. 1995) (conservative 5 treatment can suggest a lower level of both pain and functional 6 limitation, justifying adverse credibility determination); see also 7 Bunnell v. Sullivan, 947 F.2d 341, 346 (9th Cir. 1991) (failure to 8 seek medical treatment can justify an adverse credibility 9 determination); Fair v. Bowen, 885 F.2d 597, 603-04 (9th Cir. 1989) 10 (same). 11 12 Third, the ALJ noted certain inconsistencies between Plaintiff s 13 subjective complaints and the observations of medical examiners (A.R. 14 16) ( Treating notes in December 2008 show that the claimant has full 15 range of motion in her extremities. 16 the consultative exam, the claimant had normal gait and is able to 17 squat, heel walk, and toe walk (Exhibit C4F). 18 assistive device to ambulate, is able to sit in a chair comfortably, 19 and is able to rise from sitting and supine position with no 20 difficulty ; see also A.R. 378, 397-400). 21 claimant s representations and the observations of medical examiners 22 properly impeach a claimant s credibility. 23 Bowen, 861 F.2d 536, 541 (9th Cir. 1988). (Exhibit C3F/6). According to She does not require an Disparity between a See, e.g., Copeland v. 24 25 Fourth, the ALJ also noted an incongruity between Plaintiff s 26 testimony regarding allegedly constant, debilitating pain and the lack 27 of severe disuse muscle atrophy that would be compatible with her 28 alleged inactivity and inability to function (A.R. 17). 6 A lack of 1 disuse muscle atrophy can be a clear and convincing reason for 2 rejecting the credibility of a claimant who testifies to debilitating 3 pain. 4 see also Stiles v. Astrue, 256 Fed. App x 994, 997-98 (9th Cir. 2007); 5 Meanel v. Apfel, 172 F.3d at 1114. See Osenbrock v. Apfel, 240 F.3d 1157, 1165-66 (9th Cir. 2001); 6 7 Because the ALJ s credibility findings were sufficiently specific 8 to allow this Court to conclude that the ALJ rejected Plaintiff s 9 testimony on permissible grounds, Moisa v. Barnhart, 367 F.3d 882, 885 10 (9th Cir. 2004), the Court defers to the ALJ s credibility findings. 11 See Lasich v. Astrue, 252 Fed. App x 823, 825 (9th Cir. 2007) (court 12 will defer to ALJ s credibility determination when the proper process 13 is used and proper reasons for the decision are provided); accord 14 Flaten v. Secretary of Health & Human Services, 44 F.3d 1453, 1464 15 (9th Cir. 1995). 16 affirmance of the administrative decision in the present case. Deference to the ALJ s credibility findings requires 17 18 CONCLUSION 19 20 For all of the reasons discussed herein, Plaintiff s motion for 21 summary judgment is denied and Defendant s motion for summary judgment 22 is granted.7 23 /// 24 25 26 27 28 7 The Court has considered and rejected each of Plaintiff s arguments. Neither Plaintiff s arguments nor the circumstances of this case show any substantial likelihood of prejudice resulting from any error allegedly committed by the Administration. See generally McLeod v. Astrue, 640 F.3d at 888 (discussing the standards applicable to evaluating prejudice). 7 1 LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY. 2 3 DATED: June 5, 2012. 4 5 6 ______________/S/_________________ CHARLES F. EICK UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 8
]]>
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.
