Margaret Mada v. Michael J Astrue, No. 2:2011cv10019 - Document 16 (C.D. Cal. 2012)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER by Magistrate Judge Oswald Parada: (see document image for further details). Based on the foregoing, IT THEREFORE IS ORDERED that Judgment be entered affirming the decision of the Commissioner, and dismissing this action with prejudice. (ad)
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 MARGARET MADA, ) Case No. CV 11-10019-OP ) Plaintiff, ) v. ) MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ) ORDER MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, ) Commissioner of Social Security, ) ) Defendant. ) ) 17 The Court1 now rules as follows with respect to the disputed 18 issue raised in the Joint Stipulation ( JS ).2 19 / / / 20 / / / 21 / / / 22 / / / 23 24 1 26 2 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), the parties consented to proceed before the 25 United States Magistrate Judge in the current action. (ECF Nos. 8, 9.) As the Court advised the parties in its Case Management Order, the 27 decision in this case is being made on the basis of the pleadings, the Administrative Record ( AR ), and the JS filed by the parties. In accordance with 28 Rule 12(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Court has determined which party is entitled to judgment under the standards set forth in 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). (ECF No. 6 at 3.) 1 I. 2 DISPUTED ISSUES 3 As reflected in the Joint Stipulation, the disputed issue raised by Plaintiff as 4 the ground for reversal and/or remand is whether the Administrative Law Judge 5 ( ALJ ) complied with this Court s remand orders regarding the evaluation of Dr. 6 Hirsch s opinions. (JS at 3.) 7 II. 8 STANDARD OF REVIEW 9 Under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), this Court reviews the Commissioner s decision 10 to determine whether the Commissioner s findings are supported by substantial 11 evidence and whether the proper legal standards were applied. DeLorme v. 12 Sullivan, 924 F.2d 841, 846 (9th Cir. 1991). Substantial evidence means more 13 than a mere scintilla but less than a preponderance. Richardson v. Perales, 402 14 U.S. 389, 401, 91 S. Ct. 1420, 28 L. Ed. 2d 842 (1971); Desrosiers v. Sec y of 15 Health & Human Servs., 846 F.2d 573, 575-76 (9th Cir. 1988). Substantial 16 evidence is such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate 17 to support a conclusion. Richardson, 402 U.S. at 401 (citation omitted). The 18 Court must review the record as a whole and consider adverse as well as 19 supporting evidence. Green v. Heckler, 803 F.2d 528, 529-30 (9th Cir. 1986). 20 Where evidence is susceptible of more than one rational interpretation, the 21 Commissioner s decision must be upheld. Gallant v. Heckler, 753 F.2d 1450, 22 1452 (9th Cir. 1984). 23 III. 24 DISCUSSION 25 A. Summary of the Case. 26 On December 2, 2004, Plaintiff filed an application for a period of 27 disability, disability insurance benefits, and Supplemental Security Income 28 benefits, alleging the onset of disability commencing March 20, 2002. (AR at 622 1 64, 65-67.) 2 On March 15, 2005, the Commissioner denied the applications for benefits. 3 (Id. at 39-42, 43-47.) Plaintiff sought reconsideration of that determination. (Id. 4 at 54.) On May 26, 2005, the Commissioner denied the request for 5 reconsideration. (Id. at 55-59.) Plaintiff then filed a request for a hearing before 6 an ALJ. (Id. at 60.) 7 On February 6, 2007, the ALJ presided over the hearing, and took testimony 8 from Plaintiff and a vocational expert ( VE ). (Id. at 484-526.) On February 27, 9 2007, the ALJ issued a decision to deny benefits.3 (Id. at 11-24.) Plaintiff 10 requested review of that decision. (Id. at 9.) On May 16, 2007, the Appeals 11 Council denied the request for review. (Id. at 5-8.) Plaintiff then filed a civil 12 action, seeking review of the Commissioner s final decision. On July 9, 2008, this 13 Court reversed and remanded this matter for further administrative proceedings. 14 (Id. at 661-71.) 15 On February 18, 2010, the ALJ presided over the hearing for the second 16 time and took testimony from Plaintiff and a VE. (Id. at 689-707.) On March 11, 17 2010, the ALJ issued a decision to deny benefits. (Id. at 575-92.) 18 Plaintiff requested review of that unfavorable decision. (Id. at 571-74.) On 19 October 19, 2011, the Appeals Council denied the request for review. (Id. at 52720 29.) 21 22 3 23 24 25 26 27 28 The ALJ found that Plaintiff had the medically determinable impairments of a back disorder (discogenic disease of the cervical and lumbar spines); mental depression (depressive disorder, not otherwise specified); and an anxiety disorder (adjustment disorder). (AR at 16.) He found that her mental impairments did not qualify as a severe impairment. (Id. at 21.) He concluded that she had the residual functional capacity ( RFC ) for light work without additional limitations, and that she was capable of performing her past relevant work as a transcribing machine operator (sedentary exertion); administrative assistant (sedentary exertion); and medical secretary (sedentary exertion). (Id. at 23.) 3 1 B. Discussion. 2 In its July 9, 2008, Memorandum and Order ( Order ) remanding the 3 matter, the Court noted that the ALJ concluded that the Plaintiff s mental 4 impairments of an anxiety disorder and mental depression have not caused any 5 restriction on the [Plaintiff s] activities of daily living, and have provided only 6 mild limitations on her social functioning and ability to maintain concentration, 7 persistence and pace. (Id. (citing id. at 22).) The Court found that although the 8 ALJ s decision cited as medical evidence the Permanent and Stationary 9 Psychological Evaluation findings conducted by Dr. Hirsch for the purposes of 10 Plaintiff s workers compensation claim, the ALJ failed to adequately translate 11 Dr. Hirsch s use of workers compensation terminology for the purposes of 12 analyzing Plaintiff s social security disability claim as to her mental impairments. 13 (Id. (citing id. at 18)); see also Booth v. Barnhart, 181 F. Supp. 2d 1099, 1109 14 (C.D. Cal. 2002). The Court concluded that the ALJ failed to consider the 15 definitional differences between the workers compensation system and the Social 16 Security Act when he determined that the Plaintiff s mental impairments did not 17 qualify as a severe impairment, and remanded the matter for further consideration 18 of this issue. 19 On remand, the ALJ again found that Plaintiff had the medically 20 determinable impairment of mental depression (depressive disorder, not 21 otherwise specified) and an anxiety disorder (adjustment disorder), but that these 22 impairments did not qualify as a severe impairment. (Id. at 582, 588.) 23 In compliance with this Court s Order, the ALJ thoroughly discussed the 24 differences between the definitions of slight, slight-to-moderate, and 25 moderate as used by the California Workers Compensation system and the 26 Social Security disability evaluation process. (Id. at 584-85 n.4.) He concluded 27 that even giving Plaintiff the benefit of the doubt and construing the workers 28 compensation definitions liberally, none of Dr. Hirsch s findings corresponded to 4 1 a markedly limited finding with regard to Plaintiff s mental limitations. (Id.) 2 With respect to Dr. Hirsch s evaluation, the ALJ specifically stated: 3 I have considered Dr. Hirsch s evaluation of the claimant s mental 4 impairments under the California workers compensation scheme. 5 However, I give no significant weight to his assessment because: (1) 6 There is no indication of a treating (as opposed to evaluating) 7 relationship. Although the claimant testified that she received Paxil 8 from Dr. Hirsch, which would indicate a treating relationship, Dr. Hirsch 9 could not have prescribed Paxil since, under California law, 10 psychologists do not have the right to prescribe medication. Dr. 11 Hirsch s records indicate evaluation, but no treatment. Consequently 12 Dr. Hirsch s assessment is not entitled to special evidentiary weight as 13 a treating medical source. (2) Dr. Hirsch s assessment is inconsistent 14 with the weight of the evidence of record, which reveals no limitation 15 secondary to the claimant s alleged mental impairments. (3) Dr. Hirsch 16 has himself questioned the veracity of the claimant s presentation and 17 has indicated that the results of some psychodiagnostic tests completed 18 by [her] are questionable. However, he appears to have ignored his own 19 doubts in assessing her mental capacity. Consequently, for these 20 reasons, I have concluded that Dr. Hirsch s assessment is not entitled to 21 significant evidentiary weight.[4] 22 (Id. at 589.) 23 The ALJ thoroughly reviewed the medical evidence of record regarding 24 Plaintiff s mental impairment, including Dr. Hirsch s report, and concluded: 25 The claimant has experienced some depressive symptoms, 26 including insomnia, appetite disturbance, and occasionally feelings of 27 28 4 In his February 27, 2007, decision, the ALJ did not specifically address the weight given to Dr. Hirsch s assessment. 5 1 hopelessness and helplessness. However, there is no evidence of record 2 of significant cognitive impairment. Although the claimant alleges 3 occasional irritability, there is no indication that [she] cannot interact 4 appropriately with supervisors, co-workers, and the general public. 5 Indeed, [she] was able to interact appropriately with all medical 6 professionals of record. There is no indication that the claimant s 7 feelings of depression in any way limit her ability to carry out her work 8 activities or adjust to routine changes in the workplace. [Her] activities 9 of daily living have not changed due to her mental impairments. There 10 are no documented side effects of psychotropic medication. [She] has 11 not been psychiatrically hospitalized nor are there . . . documented 12 episodes of psychotic or severely disorganized behavior that have lasted 13 for an extended period of time. The consultative psychiatric examiner 14 gave [her] a GAF score of 65, indicating mild severity to her mental 15 impairment. One of her treating psychiatrists also gave [her] a GAF 16 score of 65. The State Agency medical consultant opined that [her] 17 mental impairment was not a severe impairment and did not provide any 18 limitations in her activities of daily living, social functioning or ability 19 to maintain concentration, persistence and pace. He also found there 20 was no evidence that the impairment caused any episodes of 21 decompensation of extended duration. 22 (Id. at 588-89.) 23 Based on the above, the Court finds that the ALJ has substantially complied 24 with the Court s remand order regarding consideration of the definitional terms 25 used by Dr. Hirsch. Moreover, on remand, the ALJ clearly and properly 26 discounted Dr. Hirsch s opinion based on substantial evidence of record, giving 27 greater weight to the opinions of the consultative psychiatric examiner and the 28 State Agency medical consultant. (Id.) Thus, there was no legal error in the ALJ s 6 1 finding that Plaintiff s mental impairments were not severe. 2 IV. 3 ORDER 4 Based on the foregoing, IT THEREFORE IS ORDERED that Judgment be 5 entered affirming the decision of the Commissioner, and dismissing this action 6 with prejudice. 7 8 9 DATED: July 11, 2012 HONORABLE OSWALD PARADA United States Magistrate Judge 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 7
]]>
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.
