Stephen McInteer v. Michael J Astrue, No. 2:2012cv05515 - Document 13 (C.D. Cal. 2013)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER by Magistrate Judge Jay C. Gandhi, IT IS ORDERED THAT judgment shall be entered AFFIRMING the decision of the Commissioner denying benefits. (SEE ORDER FOR FURTHER DETAILS) (lmh)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 STEPHEN MCINTEER, 12 Plaintiff, 13 14 v. 15 CAROLYN W. COLVIN, ACTING COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL 1/ SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, 16 Defendant. 17 ) Case No. CV 12-5515 JCG ) ) ) ) MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ) ORDER ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 18 Stephen McInteer ( Plaintiff ) challenges the Social Security Commissioner s 19 20 decision denying his application for disability benefits. Specifically, Plaintiff 21 contends that the Administrative Law Judge ( ALJ ) improperly rejected the 22 February 8, 2010 opinion of his treating physician, Dr. Sherri Jia-Liang Lee. (Joint 23 Stip. at 4-6, 12-15; see AR at 337-41.) The Court disagrees with Plaintiff for the 24 reasons discussed below. 25 /// 26 /// 27 28 1/ Carolyn W. Colvin is substituted as the proper defendant herein. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 25(d). 1 A. An ALJ Must Provide Clear and Convincing Reasons to Reject the Uncontradicted Opinion of a Treating Physician 2 As a general rule, more weight should be given to the opinion of a treating 3 4 source than to the opinion of doctors who do not treat the claimant. Lester v. 5 Chater, 81 F.3d 821, 830 (9th Cir. 1995); accord Benton ex rel. Benton v. Barnhart, 6 331 F.3d 1030, 1036 (9th Cir. 2003). This is so because a treating physician is 7 employed to cure and has a greater opportunity to know and observe the patient as 8 an individual. Sprague v. Bowen, 812 F.2d 1226, 1230 (9th Cir. 1987). Where the 9 treating physician s opinion is not contradicted by another doctor, it may be 10 rejected only for clear and convincing reasons. Benton, 331 F.3d at 1036. B. 11 The ALJ Provided Clear and Convincing Reasons for Rejecting Dr. Lee s Treating Opinion 12 The ALJ rejected both the mental and physical aspects of Dr. Lee s February 13 14 8, 2010 treating opinion. (AR at 17, 20; see AR at 337-41.) The Court addresses 15 each in turn. 1. 16 Dr. Lee s Mental Health Assessment 17 The ALJ gave four reasons for discrediting Dr. Lee s mental assessment.2/ 18 First, the ALJ found Dr. Lee s February 2010 assessment to be inconsistent 19 with her other, earlier assessments in December 2007 and January 2009. (AR at 17.) 20 Despite apparently suffering from anxiety disorder and major depression, (AR at 21 337), Plaintiff was described in these earlier assessments as having a normal affect, 22 normal mood, and normal judgment. (Id.; see AR at 269 ( [m]ood, affect and 23 judgment normal ), 276 ( affect is normal, thoughts a little tangential, mood is 24 normal ).) 25 2/ As a preliminary matter, the Court notes that Dr. Lee indicated that her opinion regarding Plaintiff s mental symptoms may not be authoritative. (See AR at 27 337 (noting that Plaintiff s anxiety disorder and major depression will be addressed 28 separately by [Plaintiff s] psychiatrist ).) 26 2 1 Second, the ALJ found Dr. Lee s opinion to be inconsistent with the medical 2 record as a whole, which documented a stable mental condition and noted that 3 Plaintiff responded well to psychotropic medication, stated he was no longer 4 depressed, and was mentally normal. (AR at 17.) Without belaboring the ALJ s 5 discussion of the record spanning over two pages the Court will instead highlight 6 only select portions. (See generally AR at 15-17.) 7 On November 15, 2002, Plaintiff began treatment for major depression and 8 related mental conditions. (AR at 15; see AR at 256.) Over the following years, 9 Plaintiff was treated with medication, and exhibited an improved mental condition. 10 (AR at 15; see, e.g., AR at 239 (December 13, 2004 report, noting Plaintiff feeling 11 better and continuing prescription for Zoloft, an antidepressant), AR at 245 12 (noting better mood and reduced anxiety).) As a result of such treatment, from 13 2006 to early 2009, Plaintiff s mental condition appeared to stabilize. (AR at 17; 14 see, e.g., AR at 225 (February 8, 2007 report noting [m]oods have been good and 15 stable on . . . Zoloft ), AR at 219 (December 27, 2007 note indicating no 16 depression, some anxiety ).) Thus, in light of such documented improvements, the 17 ALJ properly rejected Dr. Lee s opinion as inconsistent with the medical record as a 18 whole. 19 Third, the ALJ properly found that Dr. Lee s opinion was brief, conclusory, 20 and inadequately supported by clinical findings. (AR at 17); see Batson v. Comm r 21 of Soc. Sec. Admin., 359 F.3d 1190, 1195 (9th Cir. 2004) (a treating physician s 22 opinion may be rejected if it is conclusory, brief, and unsupported). Specifically, the 23 ALJ correctly noted that Dr. Lee merely checked off depression and anxiety as 24 factors affecting Plaintiff s ability to work without any explanation as to why that is 25 so. (AR at 17; see AR at 338.) 26 Fourth, and last, the ALJ properly observed that Plaintiff s activities of daily 27 living undermine the functional limitations stated in Dr. Lee s assessment. Indeed, 28 Plaintiff s hobbies, including antiquing, racing cars, working at a machine shop, 3 1 and gunsmithing, all require a measure of strength and concentration that Dr. Lee 2 had indicated was prohibitive. (Compare AR at AR at 221 (listing hobbies) with AR 3 at 337 (noting pain worsens with physical . . . tasks involving hands ), 338 4 (medication causes significant sleepiness/grogginess ).) To survive critique, Dr. 5 Lee s opinion should have addressed this apparent inconsistency. 6 Accordingly, for the reasons stated above, the ALJ properly rejected Dr. Lee s 7 assessment of Plaintiff s mental health. 8 9 2. Dr. Lee s Physical Health Assessment Next, the ALJ provided five reasons for rejecting Dr. Lee s assessment of 10 Plaintiff s physical health. 11 First, the ALJ properly gave no weight to Dr. Lee s opinion on the issue of 12 disability, which is a legal determination to be made only by the ALJ. Morgan v. 13 Comm r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 169 F.3d 595, 600 (9th Cir. 1999). 14 Second, the ALJ again found Dr. Lee s opinion to be brief, conclusory, and 15 inadequately supported by clinical findings. (AR at 20.) In support, the ALJ noted 16 that the opinion found severe limitations amounting to a narrow range of sedentary 17 work without any supporting explanation. (AR at 337-41.) Granted, some clinical 18 findings were offered (e.g., mild diffuse swelling, and enlargement of phalangeal 19 joints) and some symptoms were listed (e.g., constant daily pain and stiffness ), but 20 notably absent is any discussion as to how these impairments result in the stated 21 limitations. (See id.) 22 Third, the ALJ noted Dr. Lee s minimal treatment history, having only seen 23 Plaintiff a few times per year. (AR at 20; see generally AR at 212-321.) 24 Fourth, the ALJ observed that the opinion failed to provide any supporting 25 objective clinical findings, relying instead on Plaintiff s subjective complaints, 26 diagnoses, and treatment. (AR at 20.) Specifically, the ALJ found no evidence of 27 diffuse swelling, or enlargement of the claimant s phalangeal joints in the record. 28 (Id.) And, indeed, the record supports this finding. (See, e.g., AR at 276 (noting no 4 1 joint swelling), 298 (absence of swelling generally), 323 (no joint swelling).) 2 Notably, other than pointing to proof of her pain medication, Plaintiff has failed to 3 provide any contrary evidence. (See Joint Stip. at 4-6, 12-15.) 4 Fifth, the ALJ found Dr. Lee s opinion to be inconsistent with the objective 5 evidence of the record. (AR at 20.) Again, without regurgitating the ALJ s 6 discussion on this topics, the Court underscores, for instance, that the ALJ properly 7 found that the treatment records documented no severe physical impairment. (See, 8 e.g., AR at 264 (assessing only a strained neck and muscle spasms).) Similarly, 9 Plaintiff s June 20, 2009 x-ray of his cervical spine only revealed evidence of 10 degenerative discs, and was otherwise benign. (AR at 266.) Were Plaintiff s 11 impairments as severe as alleged, one would expect, for instance, more alarming 12 reports by physicians. (See AR at 337.) 13 Thus, for the reasons stated above, the Court determines that the ALJ properly 14 rejected the opinion of Dr. Lee.3/ Accordingly, the Court finds that substantial evidence supported the ALJ s 15 16 decision that Plaintiff was not disabled. See Mayes v. Massanari, 276 F.3d 453, 17 458-59 (9th Cir. 2001). 18 /// 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3/ At the same time, Plaintiff, somewhat confusingly, appears to take issue with the ALJ s rejection of the opinion of the non-examining medical expert. (Joint Stip. at 5-6.) In particular, Plaintiff contends that the ALJ improperly disregarded the expert s finding of knee pain, which was supported by the record. (Id.) Even so, other reasons support the ALJ s credibility determination. Batson, 359 F.3d at 1197. For instance, the expert plainly admitted that his suggested limitations on handling and fingering were based solely on Plaintiff s subjective complaints, and not on objective evidence. (AR at 20; see AR at 49-51.) Not surprisingly, this is a valid ground to discredit any medical opinion, much less a non-examining one. See Morgan v. Commissioner, 169 F.3d 595, 602 (9th Cir.1999) (where ALJ properly rejected claimant s credibility, ALJ may reject opinions premised to a large extent upon the claimant s subjective complaints). 5 1 Based on the foregoing, IT IS ORDERED THAT judgment shall be entered 2 AFFIRMING the decision of the Commissioner denying benefits. 3 4 5 Dated: March 29, 2013 6 ____________________________________ 7 Hon. Jay C. Gandhi 8 United States Magistrate Judge 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 6
]]>
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.
