Maximo Hernandez v. Carolyn W. Colvin, No. 2:2014cv01879 - Document 16 (C.D. Cal. 2014)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM AND OPINION by Magistrate Judge Jay C. Gandhi. IT IS ORDERED THAT judgment shall be entered AFFIRMING the decision of the Commissioner denying benefits. (kh)

Download PDF

Maximo Hernandez v. Carolyn W. Colvin Doc. 16 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MAXIMO HERNANDEZ, JR., 12 13 14 Plaintiff, v. 15 CAROLYN W. COLVIN, ACTING COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, 16 Defendant. 17 ) Case No. CV 14-1879 JCG ) ) ) ) MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ) ORDER ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 18 19 Maximo Hernandez, Jr. (“Plaintiff”) challenges the Social Security 20 Commissioner’s decision denying his application for disability benefits. In 21 particular, Plaintiff alleges that the Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) erred in 22 concluding that he does not meet Listing 112.05C. (See Joint Stip. at 7-12.) The 23 Court addresses, and rejects, Plaintiff’s contention below. 24 As a rule, a claimant has the burden to prove that he has an impairment that 25 meets or equals a Listing. Burch v. Barnhart, 400 F.3d 676, 683 (9th Cir. 2005). 26 “[T]o show that his impairment matches a Listing, it must meet all of the specified 27 medical criteria. An impairment that manifests only some of those criteria, no matter 28 how severely, does not qualify.” Sullivan v. Zebley, 493 U.S. 521, 530 (1990) Dockets.Justia.com 1 (emphasis in original) (footnote omitted). 2 To prove functional equivalence, a claimant must present medical findings 3 related to his impairment that “are at least of equal medical significance to the 4 required criteria” of the listed impairment. 20 C.F.R. §§ 416.924(e), 416.926(a). 5 However, the ALJ is not required to state why a claimant fails to meet or equal every 6 section of the Listings, as long as the ALJ adequately summarizes and evaluates the 7 evidence. Gonzalez v. Sullivan, 914 F.2d 1197, 1200-01 (9th Cir. 1990). In this case, the ALJ committed no error in finding that Plaintiff does not meet 8 9 or equal a Listing. Two reasons support this determination. First, the ALJ properly relied on the opinion of the consultative examiner, Dr. 10 11 Avazeh Chehrazi, in finding that Plaintiff does not meet or equal Listing 112.05C. 12 (See Administrative Record (“AR”) at 23, 191-97); Allen v. Heckler, 749 F.2d 577, 13 579 (9th Cir. 1984) (“[T]o the extent that [the examining physician’s] opinion rests 14 on objective clinical tests, it must be viewed as substantial evidence . . . .”).1/ To 15 meet Listing 112.05C, a claimant must have a “valid verbal, performance, or full 16 scale IQ of 60 through 70 and a physical or other mental impairment imposing an 17 additional and significant work-related limitation of function.” 20 C.F.R. pt. 404 18 subpt. P, app. 1 § 112.05C. Here, although Dr. Chehrazi found that Plaintiff has a 19 full scale IQ score of 70,2/ she did not record findings equivalent in severity to the 20 criteria of any listed impairment, including Listing 112.05C. (AR at 23, 178-82.) In particular, Dr. Chehrazi opined that Plaintiff is not limited in his ability to 21 22 23 1/ 25 2/ Here, Dr. Chehrazi administered a complete psychological evaluation and 24 Wechsler Intelligence Scale. (AR at 193.) Plaintiff also argues that the ALJ erred by not rejecting the IQ score offered by 26 Dr. Chehrazi, but only insofar as it bears on Listing 112.05C. (See Joint Stip. at 35.) While the ALJ did not expressly reject the IQ score, his Listing analysis is 27 nevertheless supported by substantial evidence, as described below. Thus, this issue 28 need not be independently addressed. 2 1 understand, remember, and carry out simple instructions, and only mildly limited in 2 handling complex instructions. (Id. at 23, 197.) Further, Dr. Chehrazi found that 3 Plaintiff is socially appropriate, communicates clearly, and would be able to interact 4 appropriately with supervisors, co-workers, and peers on a consistent basis. (Id.) 5 Indeed, Dr. Chehrazi assigned Plaintiff a Global Assessment of Functioning 6 (“GAF”) score of 72, indicating only “transient” or “temporary” symptoms. (Id. at 7 23, 197); see Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (revised 4th ed. 8 2000) at 34 (GAF score of 72 reflects less than mild symptoms). Thus, despite 9 Plaintiff’s low IQ score, Plaintiff does not have “significant limitations,” let alone a 10 presumptively disabling impairment. See 20 C.F.R. pt. 404 subpt. P, app. 1 11 § 112.05C. While Plaintiff may disagree with the ALJ’s interpretation of Dr. 12 Chehrazi’s opinion, the ALJ’s interpretation was reasonable, and is thus entitled to 13 deference. See Burch, 400 F.3d at 679 (“Where evidence is susceptible to more than 14 one rational interpretation, it is the ALJ’s conclusion that must be upheld.”). 15 Second, the signatures of the two State agency reviewing physicians, Drs. L. 16 Limos and R. Tashjian, on Plaintiff’s Disability Determination Explanation and 17 Transmittal forms, provide additional evidence that Plaintiff does not meet or equal a 18 Listing. (See AR at 82, 84); Social Security Ruling (“SSR”) 96-6p, 1996 WL 19 374180 at *3 (July 2, 1996) (“The signature of a State agency medical or 20 psychological consultant on an SSA-831-U5 (Disability Determination and 21 Transmittal Form) . . . ensures that consideration by a physician (or psychologist) 22 designated by the Commissioner has been given to the question of medical 23 equivalence at the initial and reconsideration levels of administrative review.”). 24 Here, both Drs. Limos and Tashjian specifically considered Plaintiff’s symptoms 25 and IQ score, and found that he does not meet or equal Listing 112.05C. (Id.) 26 Accordingly, the Court finds that substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s 27 decision that Plaintiff is not disabled. See Mayes v. Massanari, 276 F.3d 453, 28 458-59 (9th Cir. 2001). 3 1 Based on the foregoing, IT IS ORDERED THAT judgment shall be entered 2 AFFIRMING the decision of the Commissioner denying benefits. 3 4 Dated: December 2, 2014 5 6 ____________________________________ 7 Hon. Jay C. Gandhi United States Magistrate Judge 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 4

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.