Deanna Chapman v. Michael J Astrue, No. 2:2012cv01250 - Document 24 (C.D. Cal. 2013)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER by Magistrate Judge Ralph Zarefsky. (ib)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
O 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DEANNA CHAPMAN, Plaintiff, 12 vs. 13 14 MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of Social Security, 15 Defendant. 16 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CASE NO. CV 12-01250 RZ MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER 17 Plaintiff, legally blind in her right eye and with a cataract in her left eye, 18 makes two challenges to the Commissioner s decision denying her application for disability 19 benefits. 20 First, Plaintiff asserts that the Administrative Law Judge wrongly determined 21 that she could perform her past relevant work as a worker at a delicatessen, because that 22 work requires depth perception, which Plaintiff lacks, and the implicit view that the work 23 does not require depth perception is contrary to the description in the Dictionary of 24 Occupational Titles. Whatever the value of this argument, however, it is irrelevant because 25 the Administrative Law Judge made alternative findings that there was other work that 26 Plaintiff could perform. He found that she also could work as a cleaner or laundry worker 27 [AR 27], and Plaintiff does not challenge these alternative findings. 28 1 Second, Plaintiff asserts that the Administrative Law Judge gave insufficient 2 reasons to reject her testimony. Plaintiff argues that the Administrative Law Judge failed 3 to apply the standard of Bunnell v. Sullivan, 947 F.2d 341 (9th Cir. 1991) (en banc). That 4 case and its progeny hold that the Commissioner may not reject testimony about subjective 5 symptoms without giving specific and legitimate reasons for doing so. 6 But Plaintiff does not point to any subjective symptom testimony that the 7 Administrative Law Judge rejected improperly. In fact, Plaintiff does not point to any 8 particular testimony at all, simply referencing the entirety of the two hearing transcripts, 9 Plaintiff s Memorandum in Support of Complaint at 17:20-21, and mixes the argument 10 (and law) about subjective symptoms with an argument about whether Plaintiff can work 11 a full-time job. The Administrative Law Judge focused on objective symptoms what 12 was Plaintiff s eyesight and found that Plaintiff was blind in the right eye, but had 13 correctable vision in the left. [AR22, 24-25] He even adjourned the first hearing so that 14 Plaintiff could have a consultative eye examination which would produce current 15 information as to Plaintiff s eyesight. [AR 80] He then fashioned a residual functional 16 capacity that took into account the results of the eye examination, including various 17 limitations to account for the right eye blindness and left eye cataract. This was not a 18 situation where a claimant testified about symptoms that were not measurable. 19 Substantial evidence supported the Administrative Law Judge in the findings 20 he made as to Plaintiff s residual functional capacity and Plaintiff s ability to perform jobs 21 in the national economy. Accordingly, the Commissioner s decision is affirmed. 22 23 DATED: January 14, 2013 24 25 26 RALPH ZAREFSKY UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 27 28 -2-
]]>
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.
