Maria Heredia v. Michael J Astrue, No. 2:2012cv04113 - Document 19 (C.D. Cal. 2013)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER by Magistrate Judge Patrick J. Walsh. For the reasons set forth above, the Agency's decision is affirmed and the case is dismissed with prejudice. IT IS SO ORDERED. (See document for complete details) (ca)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 MARIA HEREDIA, Plaintiff, 11 12 13 14 15 v. CAROLYN W. COLVIN, ACTING COMMISSIONER OF THE SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No. CV 12-4113-PJW MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER 16 17 18 I. INTRODUCTION Plaintiff appeals a decision by Defendant Social Security 19 Administration ( the Agency ), denying her claims for Disability 20 Insurance Benefits ( DIB ) and Supplemental Security Income ( SSI ). 21 She claims that the Administrative Law Judge ( ALJ ) erred when he: 22 1) found that she was not credible; 2) rejected her treating doctors 23 opinions; and 3) determined her residual functional capacity. 24 reasons discussed below, the Court concludes that the ALJ did not err. 25 26 II. For the SUMMARY OF PROCEEDINGS In July 2008, Plaintiff applied for DIB and SSI, alleging that 27 she was disabled due to pain in her joints and muscles, diabetes, high 28 cholesterol, anxiety, and depression. (Administrative Record ( AR ) 1 119-25, 139-46, 173.) According to Plaintiff, she was so incapaci- 2 tated as a result of her ailments that she could not even walk. 3 146.) 4 She then requested and was granted a hearing before an ALJ. 5 September 28, 2010, she appeared with counsel and testified at the 6 hearing. 7 2010. 8 denied review. Her applications were denied initially and on reconsideration. (AR 25-39.) (AR 14-21.) Plaintiff appealed to the Appeals Council, which (AR 1-5.) This action followed. 11 III. A. On The ALJ denied the applications in November 9 10 (AR ANALYSIS The Credibility Finding The ALJ determined that Plaintiff was not credible. 12 contends that the ALJ erred in doing so. 13 Plaintiff the Court concludes that the ALJ did not err. 14 For the following reasons, The ALJ thoroughly explained why he found Plaintiff s testimony 15 incredible. (AR 17-20.) This explanation included the fact that: 16 Plaintiff s claim that she was almost totally incapacitated as a 17 result of pain was not supported by the medical record; Plaintiff s 18 treatment was conservative, consisting of mild pain relief medicine; 19 the consulting examiner found no evidence to support Plaintiff s 20 claimed disabling condition; and Plaintiff s work history suggested a 21 lack of motivation. 22 last basis, the others were clearly supported by the record and are 23 sufficient reasons for questioning Plaintiff s testimony. 24 v. Barnhart, 400 F.3d 676, 681 (9th Cir. 2005) (holding lack of 25 objective medical evidence to support claims is a factor ALJ can 26 consider in evaluating claimant s testimony); Meanel v. Apfel, 172 27 F.3d 1111, 1114 (9th Cir. 1999) (holding inconsistency between 28 allegations of severe pain and conservative treatment was proper basis (AR 17-20.) While the Court might question the 2 See Burch 1 for discounting credibility). 2 record does not support the extreme limitations claimed by Plaintiff 3 and the ALJ s questioning of her credibility as a result was not in 4 error. 5 B. 6 As explained in detail below, the As such, the ALJ s credibility finding will not be disturbed. The ALJ s Findings Regarding the Medical Providers Plaintiff s treating doctors, Dr. Moore, Dr. Khurana, and Dr. 7 Doan, determined that Plaintiff was disabled and would not be able to 8 complete a normal workday or workweek on a regular and continuing 9 basis. The ALJ rejected these opinions on the ground that they were 10 not supported by the medical record, including the doctors notes or 11 any objective tests. 12 affirms this finding. 13 For the reasons explained below, the Court Dr. Moore summarily concluded in a one-sentence disability 14 certificate that Plaintiff was totally incapacitated due to 15 coronary artery disease, high cholesterol, high blood pressure, 16 arthritis, carpal tunnel syndrome, and temporomandibular joint 17 disorder. 18 form supporting that claim. 19 specialty as internal medicine, also completed a mental health 20 questionnaire, concluding that Plaintiff was extremely limited -the 21 most severe designation on the form -in every one of 16 mental/ 22 emotional categories. 23 treatment record or chart note in the medical record from Dr. Moore, 24 never mind one that supports such extreme limitations. 25 Moore s records consist entirely of check-the-box and fill-in-the 26 blank forms--apparently completed solely to further Plaintiff s social 27 security case--and prescription sheets, some of which prescribe 28 medication and others which simply contain notes to the Agency, (AR 236.) He also submitted a three-page, check-the-box (AR 237-39.) (AR 240-41.) 3 Dr. Moore, who lists his Yet, there is not a single Rather, Dr. 1 informing it that Dr. Moore has concluded that Plaintiff is disabled. 2 (AR 235-52.) 3 The ALJ properly disregarded Dr. Moore s unsupported and 4 unsubstantiated conclusions that Plaintiff was disabled cloaked as 5 medical opinions. 6 Cir. 2001) (rejecting treating physician s opinion because it was 7 conclusory and brief and unsupported by clinical findings ); 8 Magallanes v. Bowen, 881 F.2d 747, 751-54 (9th Cir. 1989) (upholding 9 ALJ s rejection of treating doctor s opinion that was contradicted by See Tonapetyan v. Halter, 242 F.3d 1144, 1149 (9th 10 evidence in the record). 11 asked to determine whether Plaintiff was disabled. 12 was to describe Plaintiff s ailments and explain how they limited her 13 ability to perform work-related functions so that the ALJ could then 14 determine whether Plaintiff was disabled, as that term is defined in 15 social security law. 16 ALJ s discounting of Dr. Moore s conclusions as a result was not in 17 error. 18 Dr. Moore was not charged with and was not Rather, his task Clearly, Dr. Moore overreached here. And the The Court reaches the same result with regard to the ALJ s 19 rejection of Dr. Khurana s opinion. Dr. Khurana, too, concluded that 20 Plaintiff was disabled, though not to the degree Dr. Moore did. 21 212-13, 223-24.) 22 was not supported by any treatment notes or the overall evidence in 23 the record and it was an opinion as to the ultimate issue of 24 disability, which is reserved to the ALJ. 25 supports these justifications for discounting Dr. Khurana s opinion. 26 There are no treatment notes in this record from Dr. Khurana. 27 Thus, it is unclear what he based his opinion on. 28 is no medical evidence in the record to support the degree of (AR The ALJ rejected Dr. Khurana s opinion because it 4 (AR 19.) The record None. In addition, there 1 disability set forth by Dr. Khurana. 2 primarily on Plaintiff s ankle and foot pain in concluding that 3 Plaintiff was unable to work because she could not stand and/or walk 4 for long periods of time. 5 Plaintiff at the behest of Plaintiff s doctors, including Dr. Khurana, 6 found that, though Plaintiff suffered from severe plantar fasciitis, 7 she was not limited by her ankle and foot pain. 8 podiatrist recommended that Plaintiff change her exercises to 9 swimming, cycling, water aerobics, pilates, or yoga. (AR 213.) For example, Dr. Khurana focused But the podiatrist who examined In fact, the (AR 211.) 10 Thus, the podiatrist s opinion was clearly inconsistent with Dr. 11 Khurana s view that Plaintiff was unable to stand and walk. 12 reasons, the Court finds that the ALJ did not err in discounting Dr. 13 Khurana s opinion.1 14 For these Moving now to Dr. Doan, the Court finds that the ALJ s rejection 15 of his opinion is also supported by the record. 16 Doan s opinion because it was not supported by his treatment notes or 17 any objective tests and because it was inconsistent with the record as 18 a whole. 19 Plaintiff s visits to Dr. Doan were for run-of-the-mill maladies, like 20 colds and flu, not muscle or skeletal complaints. 21 record supports this view. 22 (AR 18.) The ALJ rejected Dr. The ALJ noted, for example, that most of (AR 18.) The Dr. Doan s treatment notes are 13 pages long, covering a 21-month 23 period (January 2007 to September 2008), documenting two visits per 24 page, i.e., 26 in all. (AR 198-210.) Each time Plaintiff visited Dr. 25 26 27 28 1 The Court notes that even Plaintiff has questions about Dr. Khurana s opinion. (AR 67 ( [I]t is my firm belief that Dr. Krishan Khurana is only [] extending my treatment for financial gains instead of providing a clear distinction of my ailments. ).) 5 1 Doan, Dr. Doan listed the purpose(s) for the visit. As the ALJ found, 2 most of the visits were for routine complaints, like a sore throat, a 3 runny nose, or a headache. 4 during these visits that she was experiencing body aches, and though 5 some of her visits were triggered solely by body aches, the ALJ s 6 finding that most of the visits were for something other than body 7 aches is supported by the record. 8 presentation, here. 9 pain that she cannot walk without a walker and cannot sit for more Though Plaintiff sometimes also complained This contradicts Plaintiff s According to Plaintiff, she is so stricken with 10 than 30 minutes. 11 suffering from this type of pain would not only include that pain in 12 the list of reasons for seeking medical advice but would put it first 13 on the list. 14 opinion that she was totally disabled due to this pain. 15 (AR 30-31.) One would think that a patient Plaintiff s failure to do so undercuts Dr. Doan s The ALJ s finding that Dr. Doan s opinion is not supported by 16 clinical and laboratory tests is also borne out by the record. 17 is little if any objective support in this record for Dr. Doan s 18 opinion. 19 they constitute objective evidence of her ailments. 20 not interpret the x-rays the way Plaintiff does. 21 mild degenerative changes or degenerative changes with no 22 evidence of acute trauma. 23 the ALJ s view of the evidence, not Plaintiff s. 24 There Plaintiff points to x-rays she had taken and argues that (AR 216-20.) The Court does The x-rays revealed Thus, they seem to support Plaintiff argues that, if the doctors records did not support 25 their opinions, the ALJ should have recontacted them and obtained the 26 missing records. 27 Plaintiff, who was represented by counsel at the hearing and is 28 represented by counsel now, had the burden of establishing disability. This argument is rejected. 6 To begin with, 1 That burden included the obligation to submit medical records to 2 support her claims. 3 issued his decision, Plaintiff has not produced any missing medical 4 records to bolster her case. 5 records either do not exist or that they do exist but that they do not 6 support Plaintiff s case. 7 the Agency to add the records would be futile. 8 9 Second, in the two-and-a-half years since the ALJ This suggests to the Court that the In either situation, remanding the case to In the end, the Court agrees with the ALJ that the treating doctors opinions are not supported by the medical records. Though it 10 is clear that Plaintiff suffers from pain as a result of certain 11 musculoskeletal maladies, the doctors opinions that Plaintiff is 12 rendered, essentially, bed-ridden as a result is not supported by any 13 of the evidence and seems to be merely an accommodation for Plaintiff. 14 This is particularly true regarding Dr. Moore s opinion. 15 reason, the ALJ s decision to reject the treating doctors opinions 16 and rely, instead, on the examining doctor s opinion is affirmed. 17 C. 18 For that The Residual Functional Capacity Finding Plaintiff complains that the ALJ erred when he failed to include 19 the limitations found by her treating doctors in formulating the 20 residual functional capacity. 21 treating doctors opinions, including their limitations, and, 22 therefore, was not required to include those limitations in the 23 residual functional capacity finding. 24 F.3d 1157, 1164-65 (9th Cir. 2001) ( It is, however, proper for an ALJ 25 to limit a hypothetical to those impairments that are supported by 26 substantial evidence in the record. ) 27 28 But the ALJ rejected Plaintiff s See Osenbrock v. Apfel, 240 Plaintiff also takes exception to the ALJ s failure to include a limitation for language because she does not speak English. 7 Though it 1 is not entirely clear whether an ALJ is required to address a 2 claimant s language limitations at step four, see Pinto v. Massanari, 3 249 F.3d 840, 847 (9th Cir. 2001), the Court will side with the Agency 4 on this issue in the context of this case as it was Plaintiff s burden 5 at step four to establish that she was unable to return to her past 6 relevant work and she never argued that language was a barrier to her 7 employment nor did she claim that she was disabled based on her 8 inability to speak English. 9 able to work between 2005 and 2008 as a cook in a retail store and in Further, the record shows that she was 10 a school without any apparent difficulty in communicating. 11 152.) 12 hearing, at which Plaintiff testified through a translator, and, thus, 13 presumably she took Plaintiff s language ability into account when 14 determining that she could perform her past relevant work. 15 IV. 16 17 (AR 147, Finally, the vocational expert was present throughout the (AR 38.) CONCLUSION For the reasons set forth above, the Agency s decision is affirmed and the case is dismissed with prejudice. 18 IT IS SO ORDERED. 19 DATED: June 25, 2013. 20 21 PATRICK J. WALSH UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 S:\PJW\Cases-Social Security\HEREDIA, 4113\opinion and order.wpd 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.
