Stacy Bouldin v. Michel J Astrue, No. 2:2012cv10473 - Document 17 (C.D. Cal. 2014)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER by Magistrate Judge Frederick F. Mumm: (see attached) As the ALJ provided a clear, convincing, and record-supported reason for finding plaintiff less than credible, remand on this issue is not warranted. For the foregoing reasons, the Commissioner's decision is affirmed. (jm)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Stacy Bouldin v. Michel J Astrue Doc. 17 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 STACY BOULDIN, Plaintiff, 11 v. 12 13 CAROLYN W. COLVIN,1 Acting Commissioner of Social Security, 14 Defendant. 15 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No. CV 12-10473 FFM MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER Plaintiff brings this action seeking to overturn the decision of the Commissioner 16 17 of the Social Security Administration1 denying her application for a period of disability, 18 disability insurance benefits, and supplemental security income benefits. The parties 19 consented, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), to the jurisdiction of the undersigned United 20 States Magistrate Judge. Pursuant to the December 13, 2012, Case Management Order, 21 on September 6, 2013, the parties filed a Joint Stipulation (“JS”) detailing each party’s 22 arguments and authorities. The Court has reviewed the JS and the administrative record 23 (“AR”), filed by defendant on July 3, 2013. For the reasons stated below, the decision 24 of the Commissioner is affirmed. 25 26 1 27 28 Carolyn W. Colvin became Acting Commissioner of the Social Security Administration of February 14, 2013 and is hereby substituted as defendant pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 25(d). Dockets.Justia.com ISSUE 1 Plaintiff raises a single issue: 2 3 1. Whether the ALJ’s credibility determination is supported by substantial evidence. 4 (JS 5.) 5 STANDARD OF REVIEW 6 Under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), this Court reviews the Commissioner’s decision to 7 8 determine whether the Commissioner’s findings are supported by substantial evidence 9 and whether the proper legal standards were applied. DeLorme v. Sullivan, 924 F.2d 10 841, 846 (9th Cir. 1991). Substantial evidence means “more than a mere scintilla” but 11 less than a preponderance. Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389, 401, 91 S. Ct. 1420, 12 28 L. Ed. 2d 842 (1971); Desrosiers v. Secretary of Health & Human Servs., 846 F.2d 13 573, 575-76 (9th Cir. 1988). Substantial evidence is “such relevant evidence as a 14 reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.” Richardson, 402 15 U.S. at 401. This Court must review the record as a whole and consider adverse as well 16 as supporting evidence. Green v. Heckler, 803 F.2d 528, 929-30 (9th Cir. 1986). 17 Where evidence is susceptible to more than one rational interpretation, the 18 Commissioner’s decision must be upheld. Gallant v. Heckler, 753 F.2d 1450, 1452 (9th 19 Cir. 1984). 20 DISCUSSION 21 22 A. Plaintiff’s contention regarding the credibility determination. 23 Plaintiff contends that the ALJ did not properly consider plaintiff’s subjective 24 complaints. Plaintiff points out that this Court reversed the prior decision of the 25 Commissioner in this case because the ALJ had not provided a legally sufficient reason 26 for discounting plaintiff’s credibility. 27 /// 28 2 1 B. The ALJ’s decision. 2 After remand, the ALJ again found that plaintiff was less than credible in her 3 descriptions of her subjective symptoms. (AR 392.) The ALJ based his conclusion on 4 the medical evidence, which contains mild objective findings and demonstrates 5 conservative treatment. (Id.) The ALJ also found that plaintiff’s pain testimony was 6 exaggerated and embellished based on the little evidence in the record of plaintiff 7 complaining about and receiving treatment for her allegedly debilitating headaches and 8 nausea. This embellishment of her testimony negatively reflected on her credibility. 9 Plaintiff contends that once again the ALJ failed to provide legally-sufficient reasons 10 for finding plaintiff incredible. The Court finds that remand is not warranted on this 11 issue. 12 C. Analysis. 13 Once a claimant produces medical evidence of an underlying impairment that is 14 reasonably likely to cause the alleged symptoms, medical findings are not required to 15 support their alleged severity. Bunnell v. Sullivan, 947 F.2d 341, 345 (9th Cir. 1991). 16 However, an ALJ may reject a claimant’s allegations upon: (1) finding evidence of 17 malingering; or (2) providing clear and convincing reasons for so doing. Benton v. 18 Barnhart, 331 F.3d 1030, 1040 (9th Cir. 2003). 19 In the absence of evidence of malingering, an ALJ may consider, inter alia, the 20 following factors in weighing the claimant’s credibility: (1) inconsistencies in either 21 the claimant’s testimony or between the claimant’s testimony and his conduct; (2) his 22 work record; and (3) testimony from physicians and third parties concerning the nature, 23 severity, and effect of the symptoms of which he complains. Thomas v. Barnhart, 278 24 F.3d 947, 958-59 (9th Cir. 2002); see also 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c), 416.929(c); SSR 25 96-7p, 1996 WL 374186. The ALJ may also use “ordinary techniques of credibility 26 evaluation.” Thomas, 278 F.3d at 960. The ALJ’s credibility determination is entitled 27 to deference if his reasoning is supported by substantial evidence in the record and is 28 “sufficiently specific to allow a reviewing court to conclude the adjudicator rejected the 3 1 claimant’s testimony on permissible grounds and did not arbitrarily discredit a 2 claimant’s testimony . . . .” Bunnell, 947 F.2d at 345 (internal quotation marks 3 omitted). 4 As discussed in the ALJ’s decision, the objective evidence did not support 5 plaintiff’s claims of disabling pain, headaches and nausea. Plaintiff does not contest the 6 ALJ’s review of the medical evidence. Although an ALJ may not premise the rejection 7 of the claimant’s testimony regarding subjective symptoms solely on the lack of medical 8 support (Lester v. Chater, 81 F.3d 821, 834 (9th Cir. 1995), limited on other grounds, 9 Saelee v. Chater, 94 F.3d 520, 523 (9th Cir. 1996)), weak objective support does 10 undermine subjective complaints of disabling symptoms. See Tidwell v. Apfel, 161 F.3d 11 599, 601-02 (9th Cir. 1998); Regennitter v. Commissioner of Soc. Sec. Admin., 166 F.3d 12 1294, 1297 (9th Cir. 1999). The additional factor that the ALJ relied on here was the inconsistency between 13 14 plaintiff’s allegations of severe headache and nausea and the meager reporting and lack 15 of discussion of or treatment for headache and nausea. Inconsistencies in a plaintiff’s 16 testimony can undermine a plaintiff’s claims of disabling pain or other subjective 17 symptoms. Thomas, 278 F.3d at 958-59 (discounting credibility where plaintiff 18 presented “conflicting information” about her alcohol and drug use and engaged in 19 activities inconsistent with claim of disability). Plaintiff points out that the medical records show several instances of plaintiff 20 21 complaining of headaches. However, there is no suggestion in the record that plaintiff 22 ever indicated that the headaches were severe or that they were ever a factor in her 23 treatment. As the ALJ provided a clear, convincing, and record-supported reason for finding 24 25 plaintiff less than credible, remand on this issue is not warranted. 26 /// 27 /// 28 /// 4 ORDER 1 2 For the foregoing reasons, the Commissioner’s decision is affirmed. 3 IT IS SO ORDERED. 4 5 DATED: November 4, 2014 6 /S/ FREDERICK F. MUMM FREDERICK F. MUMM 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 5
]]>
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.
