Denise L Lowry v. Michael J Astrue, No. 2:2012cv10498 - Document 18 (C.D. Cal. 2013)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER by Magistrate Judge Victor B. Kenton. The Court rejects Plaintiff's argument that the ALJ erred in determining her credibility. The decision of the ALJ will be affirmed. The Complaint will be dismissed with prejudice. 3 [SEE ORDER FOR FURTHER DETAILS] (gr)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA WESTERN DIVISION 7 8 9 10 11 DENISE L. LOWRY, 12 13 14 Plaintiff, v. 15 CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, 16 Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No. CV 12-10498-VBK MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER (Social Security Case) 17 18 This matter is before the Court for review of the decision by the 19 Commissioner of Social Security denying Plaintiff s application for 20 disability benefits. 21 consented that the case may be handled by the Magistrate Judge. 22 action arises under 42 U.S.C. §405(g), which authorizes the Court to 23 enter judgment upon the pleadings and transcript of the record before 24 the Commissioner. 25 ( JS ), and the Commissioner has filed the certified Administrative 26 Record ( AR ). Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §636(c), the parties have The The parties have filed the Joint Stipulation 27 Plaintiff raises the following issues: 28 1. Whether the Administrative Law Judge ( ALJ ) erred in the 1 assessment 2 capacity; 3 2. 4 of Plaintiff s physical residual functional Whether the ALJ erred in relying on the vocational expert s response to an incomplete hypothetical question; and 5 3. Whether the ALJ erred in the credibility findings. 6 (JS at 2-3.) 7 8 9 10 This Memorandum Opinion will constitute the Court s findings of fact and conclusions of law. After reviewing the matter, the Court concludes that the decision of the Commissioner must be affirmed. 11 12 I 13 THE ALJ CORRECTLY ASSESSED THE MEDICAL SOURCES IN THE RECORD TO 14 DETERMINE PLAINTIFF S PHYSICAL RESIDUAL FUNCTIONAL CAPACITY 15 Plaintiff asserts error in the ALJ s determination of her 16 physical residual functional capacity ( physical RFC ) because the ALJ 17 failed to incorporate many of the limitations assessed by consultative 18 examiner ( CE ) Steven Schwartz. 19 21), Plaintiff contends that the ALJ essentially adopted Dr. Schwartz 20 findings by assigning them enhanced weight, and for that reason, the 21 ALJ was mandated to accept all of the physical limitations assessed by 22 Dr. Schwartz. (JS at 3-4, citing AR 471.) Citing the ALJ s Decision (AR 10- 23 Plaintiff s argument fails in large part because she misconstrues 24 the language of the Decision, and thus, artificially limits the 25 medical evidence which the ALJ in fact did consider in reaching his 26 Decision. The ALJ made an assessment of Plaintiff s physical RFC, and 27 specifically stated the following: 28 The findings regarding 2 [Plaintiff s] residual 1 functional capacity are supported by the medical evidence of 2 record, including but not limited to, the reports of the 3 consultant 4 undersigned gives enhanced weight to these assessments, ... 5 examiner and the medical consultant. The (Emphasis added, AR 17.) 6 7 Thus, the ALJ did not give enhanced weight only to Dr. Schwartz 8 conclusions, but based his determination of Plaintiff s physical RFC 9 on all of the medical evidence of record. 10 The Commissioner points out that there is evidence in the record 11 from Agreed Medical Evaluator ( AME ) Dr. Edwin Haronian, who examined 12 Plaintiff before her date last insured ( DLI ). (See AR 284-298.) The 13 Commissioner points out that Dr. Haronian found that Plaintiff was 14 neurologically 15 sensation. (JS at 8, citing AR 295.) 16 Haronian was of the opinion that Plaintiff was only precluded from 17 heavy work. (AR 296.) 18 characterizing Dr. Haronian s report as irrelevant, because, she 19 claims, the ALJ does not even mention Dr. Haronian s report in his 20 decision. (JS at 10.) 21 Plaintiff s physical RFC, the ALJ in fact did review Dr. Haronian s 22 report, 23 references are made to Dr. Haronian s report, including a summary 24 contained in that report by medical evaluator Dr. David Field. (See Ar 25 at 14.) 26 including all of the limitations set forth in Dr. Schwartz report. 27 (See JS at 11.) 28 weigh conflicting evidence. as intact referenced and had full motor strength and normal The Commissioner notes that Dr. Plaintiff replies to this argument by This is not the case. directly in the Decision, In determining where several But Plaintiff persists in arguing that the ALJ erred by not Again, this is not true. It is the ALJ s function to See Tommasetti v. Astrue, 533 F.3d 1035, 3 1 1041-42 (9th Cir. 2008), Magallanes v. Bowen, 881 F.2d 747, 750 (9th 2 Cir. 1989). 3 the ALJ extensively discussed them in his Decision (AR 17), and as the 4 ALJ noted, these opinions were rendered three years after the DLI. 5 Thus, the ALJ adequately examined these opinions in light of the 6 weight he accorded them, and in light of all the medical evidence in 7 the record, which the ALJ clearly read and analyzed. 8 concludes that the ALJ adequately and sufficiently weighed conflicting 9 evidence and articulated sufficient reasons in his Decision for 10 With regard to the opinions of Dr. Schwartz and Dr. Rose, The Court arriving at Plaintiff s physical RFC. 11 The Court need not devote substantial attention to Issue No. 2, 12 which is controlled by the Court s determination of Plaintiff s first 13 issue. In Issue No. 2, Plaintiff asserts that the ALJ erred in 14 relying upon 15 vocational expert ( VE ), because the hypothetical omitted the work- 16 related limitations assessed by Dr. Schwartz. 17 indicated, the ALJ was not required to accept all of the limitations 18 assessed by Dr. Schwartz. 19 has no merit. an incomplete hypothetical question posed to the But as the Court has For that reason, Plaintiff s second issue 20 21 II 22 THE ALJ PROPERLY DEPRECIATED PLAINTIFF S CREDIBILITY 23 In Plaintiff s third issue, she contends that the ALJ failed to 24 provide any clear and convincing reasons based on substantial evidence 25 to 26 described them. (See JS at 14, citing Smolen v. Chater, 80 F.3d 1273, 27 1281 (9th Cir. 1996).) 28 the ALJ s Decision in fact does set forth the evidence on which the dismiss her alleged pain and functional limitations as she In response, the Commissioner contends that 4 1 ALJ relied in the 2 statements are set forth in the Decision at AR 17, immediately above 3 the ALJ s conclusion that Plaintiff s credibility does not extend to 4 acceptance of her own descriptions of her pain and limitations. 5 Plaintiff denies that the ALJ set forth any such basis in the 6 Decision, but clearly, the ALJ pointed out serious inconsistencies in 7 Plaintiff s history of daily methamphetamine use and consumption of 8 alcohol, and also her statements to a physician that she had never 9 used illegal drugs. (AR 17.) upon determination. In fact, these These are important and sufficient 10 credibility 11 Moreover, they are consistent with both Social Security Rulings (see 12 SSR 96-7p) and case law (see Thomas v. Barnhart, 278 F.3d 947, 958-59 13 (9th Cir. 2002). 14 factors credibility which the ALJ was entitled to rely. For the foregoing reasons, the Court rejects Plaintiff s argument 15 that the ALJ erred in determining her credibility. 16 The decision of the ALJ will be affirmed. 17 18 The Complaint will be dismissed with prejudice. IT IS SO ORDERED. 19 20 21 DATED: September 9, 2013 /s/ VICTOR B. KENTON UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 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.
