Gloria Ashby v. Michael J. Astrue, No. 5:2008cv00655 - Document 23 (C.D. Cal. 2009)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER by Magistrate Judge Marc L. Goldman: (See document for details.) For the reasons stated above, the decision of the Social Security Commissioner is AFFIRMED. (rla)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 EASTERN DIVISION 11 12 GLORIA ASHBY, 13 Plaintiff, 14 v. 15 MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of Social Security, 16 17 Defendant. 18 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No. EDCV 08-00655-MLG MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER 19 Plaintiff Gloria Ashby seeks judicial review of the Commissioner s 20 denial of her application for Social Security Disability Insurance 21 ( SSDI ) benefits and Supplemental Security Income ( SSI ) benefits 22 under the Social Security Act. For the reasons stated below, the 23 decision of the Social Security Commissioner is AFFIRMED. 24 25 I. Facts and Procedural History 26 Plaintiff was born on February 9, 1952. She has a high school 27 education. (Administrative Record ( AR ) 97, 120.) Plaintiff s work 28 history includes employment as a registration clerk, office manager, and 1 purchasing assistant/office helper. (AR 113.) Plaintiff has not been 2 gainfully employed since April 22, 2004, the alleged onset date of 3 disability. (AR 13.) Plaintiff claims to be disabled due to Hashimoto 4 thyroiditis, heart problems, forgetfulness, body aches, medication 5 sensitivity, hair loss. She was also diagnosed with and treated for 6 breast cancer, and she has been diagnosed as obese. 7 Plaintiff filed applications for SSDI and SSI benefits on September 8 21, 2005. (AR 11.) The Commissioner denied Plaintiff s application 9 initially on November 16, 2005, and again upon reconsideration, on 10 February 23, 2006. (Id.) Administrative Law Judge ( ALJ ) Thomas J. Gaye 11 held a hearing October 5, 2007, at which Plaintiff testified and was 12 represented by counsel. A vocational expert also testified. 13 The ALJ denied Plaintiff s applications on December 14, 2007. (AR 14 16.) The ALJ applied the five-step sequential analysis mandated by the 15 Social Security Regulations1 in reaching his decision. The ALJ found that 16 Plaintiff has several severe impairments, stating that she is status 17 post radioiodine ablation for Graves Disease (4/05), has hypothyroidism, 18 is status post left breast cancer surgery (3/07), chemotherapy and 19 radiation, has anxiety and depression. (AR 13.) After determining that 20 Plaintiff s 21 impairment, the ALJ found that Plaintiff had the residual functional 22 capacity ( RFC ) to perform light work with no climbing of ladders, severe impairments did not meet or equal any listed 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 The ALJ must consider the following questions in evaluating a claimant s disability: (1) whether the claimant is engaged in substantial gainful activity; (2) whether the claimant s impairment is severe ; (3) whether the impairment meets or equals one of the listings in 20 C.F.R. § 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1; (4) whether the claimant is able to return to past relevant work; and (5) whether the claimant can do other types of work. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4). These steps are cumulative, meaning that the ALJ need not consider further steps after finding that a step does not favor the claimant. 2 1 ropes, or 2 crouching, and crawling; and no concentrated exposure to extreme heat or 3 cold or hazards. (AR 14.) Additionally, the ALJ found that Plaintiff had 4 a 5 understanding 6 limitations 7 concluded that Plaintiff could return to her past relevant work as an 8 office helper and was not disabled as defined by the Social Security Act 9 at any time through the date of the decision. (AR 19.) mental scaffolds; residual in and occasional functional capacity remembering carrying out balancing, of detailed detailed stooping, moderate instructions instructions. kneeling, limitations and (Id.) in moderate The ALJ 10 The Social Security Appeals Council denied Plaintiff s request for 11 review of the ALJ s decision on April 25, 2008. (AR 4.) Plaintiff then 12 filed this action on May 20, 2008. Plaintiff alleges that the ALJ erred 13 by: (1) failing to properly consider Plaintiff s obesity and its impact 14 on her other impairments; (2) failing to properly consider the actual 15 physical and mental demands of Plaintiff s past relevant work; (3) 16 failing to pose a complete hypothetical to the vocational expert; and 17 (4) failing to properly consider the lay witness testimony. (Joint Stip. 18 2-3.) Plaintiff asks this Court to order an award of benefits, or, in 19 the alternative, to remand for a new administrative hearing. (Joint 20 Stip. 22.) 21 22 23 II. Standard of Review The Court must uphold the Social Security Administrations s 24 disability determination unless it is not supported by substantial 25 evidence or is based on legal error. Ryan v. Comm r of Soc. Sec., 528 26 F.3d 1194, 1198 (9th Cir. 2008)(citing Stout v. Comm r of Soc. Sec. 27 Admin., 454 F.3d 1050, 1052 (9th Cir. 2006)). Substantial evidence means 28 more than a scintilla, but less than a preponderance; it is evidence 3 1 that 2 conclusion. Lingenfelter v. Astrue, 504 F.3d 1028, 1035 (9th Cir. 3 2007)(citing Robbins v. Soc. Sec. Admin., 466 F.3d 880, 882 (9th Cir. 4 2006)). To determine whether substantial evidence supports a finding, 5 the reviewing court must review the administrative record as a whole, 6 weighing both the evidence that supports and the evidence that detracts 7 from the Commissioner s conclusion. Reddick v. Chater, 157 F.3d 715, 8 720 (9th Cir. 1996). If the evidence can support either affirming or 9 reversing the ALJ s conclusion, the reviewing court may not substitute 10 a reasonable person might accept as adequate to support a [its] judgment for that of the ALJ. Robbins, 466 F.3d at 882. 11 12 III. Analysis 13 A. 14 Whether the ALJ Properly Considered Plaintiff s Obesity and Its Impact on Her Impairments 15 Plaintiff contends that the ALJ erred by failing to consider the 16 impact of Plaintiff s obesity at each level of the five-step analysis. 17 Specifically, Plaintiff contends that the ALJ did not consider whether 18 Plaintiff s obesity was a severe impairment at step two, he did not 19 determine whether Plaintiff s obesity and other impairments combined to 20 meet a listed impairment at step three, and he did not incorporate 21 Plaintiff s 22 determination. Plaintiff s arguments are without merit. limitations stemming from obesity into the RFC 23 Obesity is a severe impairment at step two when, alone or in 24 combination with another medically determinable physical or mental 25 impairment(s), it significantly limits an individual s physical or 26 mental ability to do basic work activities. SSR 02-1P, 2000 WL 628049, 27 at *4 (S.S.A. Sept. 12, 2002). As discussed above, the ALJ concluded 28 Plaintiff had several severe impairments, stating that she is status 4 1 post radioiodine ablation for Graves Disease (4/05), has hypothyroidism, 2 is status post left breast cancer surgery (3/07), chemotherapy and 3 radiation, has anxiety and depression. (AR 13.) The ALJ did not find 4 that Plaintiff s obesity was severe. 5 Contrary to Plaintiff s contention that the ALJ totally failed to 6 consider plaintiff s obesity in his decision, (Joint Stip. 6), the ALJ 7 did consider Plaintiff s obesity, and he concluded that it did not have 8 a significant impact on her physical abilities or functioning. (AR 18.) 9 The ALJ stated, Claimant gained 20 pounds during this period and is 10 obese, 11 functional in terms of her physical abilities. (AR 18.) The ALJ noted 12 that Plaintiff provided in-home health care for her roommate, and that 13 she has been able to keep track of both her medications and [the 14 roommate s]...,[s]he can drive, keep medical appointments, cook, perform 15 all household chores and otherwise provide ongoing care for herself and 16 her roommate. (Id.) but [her roommate s] report indicates claimant is fully 17 In making her argument, Plaintiff relies on Celaya v. Halter, 332 18 F.3d 1177 (9th Cir. 2003). In that case, the Ninth Circuit reversed the 19 Commissioner s finding of nondisability because the ALJ failed to 20 consider to what extent the plaintiff s obesity negatively impacted her 21 other impairments, her ability to work, and her general health. Id. at 22 1182. The court concluded that the ALJ should have considered the 23 plaintiff s obesity, even though the plaintiff herself did not raise the 24 issue, for several reasons: 25 First, it [the obesity] was raised implicitly in Celaya s 26 report of symptoms. Second, it was clear from the record that 27 28 5 1 Celaya s obesity was at least close to the listing criterion,2 2 and 3 illnesses. Third, in light of Celaya s pro se status, the 4 ALJ s observation of Celaya and the information on record 5 should have alerted him to the need to develop the record in 6 respect to her obesity. was a condition that could exacerbate her reported 7 Id. The court noted that the ALJ did not consider the plaintiff s 8 obesity even implicitly in evaluating her impairments, and that an ALJ 9 has a heightened duty to develop the record when the claimant is not 10 represented by counsel. Id. 11 In a more recent case, Burch v. Barnhart, the Ninth Circuit 12 distinguished Celaya where the record did not demonstrate that the 13 plaintiff s obesity exacerbated her other impairments and because she 14 was represented by counsel. 400 F.3d 676, 682 (9th Cir. 2005). The 15 court, quoting the district court s opinion, explained, 16 There was no evidence before the ALJ, and none in the record, 17 which states that claimant s obesity limits her functioning. 18 Neither treatment notes nor any diagnoses addressed claimant s 19 limitations due to obesity. The medical record is silent as to 20 whether and how claimant s obesity might have exacerbated her 21 condition. Moreover, claimant did not present any testimony or 22 other evidence at her hearing that her obesity impaired her 23 ability to work. 24 Id. at 683. The court concluded that the ALJ had not erred by failing to 25 consider the impact of the plaintiff s obesity on her impairments or 26 general functioning. 27 2 28 At one point, obesity was a listed impairment. However, it was removed as a listed impairment in 1999. 6 1 The present case more closely resembles Burch than Celaya. As in 2 Burch, although Plaintiff s physicians noted her weight in treatment 3 notes, it does not appear that any physician indicated Plaintiff s 4 obesity either caused or exacerbated her impairments, or resulted in any 5 functional limitations whatsoever. Plaintiff has identified no medical 6 records 7 Additionally, Plaintiff did not raise her obesity as an impairment or 8 limitation in her application for benefits or in her hearing testimony, 9 focusing entirely on her other impairments. She had an attorney at the 10 hearing, and neither of them offered any evidence or explanation to show 11 how Plaintiff s obesity limited her ability to function. Even now, 12 Plaintiff has failed to identify any concrete limitations, stating only 13 that obesity s effect on the cardiovascular and respiratory systems in 14 general explain why ... Plaintiff is frequently fatigued and in pain. 15 (Joint Stip. 4.) Plaintiff has identified no physician who opined that 16 obesity caused her fatigue or pain. She simply argues that obesity is 17 hard on a person s body, and it might have had some impact on hers, 18 without referencing any support in the record that such was actually the 19 case. that the ALJ might have overlooked stating otherwise. 20 After describing in detail Plaintiff s medical record and the 21 various physicians opinions, along with the statement Plaintiff s 22 roommate submitted in support of her application, the ALJ determined 23 that Plaintiff s obesity had no significant impact on her ability to 24 work. It is clear from the ALJ s detailed discussion of Plaintiff s 25 medical record, including her obesity, that he considered all of her 26 impairments in evaluating the extent to which Plaintiff s impairments 27 limited her functioning. That the ALJ did not expressly state that 28 Plaintiff s obesity was not a severe impairment, or did not expressly 7 1 state that it had no effect on the RFC determination, does not warrant 2 remand. See Burch, 400 F.3d at 682, 684. 3 Plaintiff also argues that the ALJ should have determined whether 4 her obesity meets the requirements of a listing at step three. (Joint 5 Stip. 6.) The listings describe for each of the major body systems, 6 [those] impairments which are considered severe enough to prevent a 7 person from doing any gainful activity, regardless of his or her age, 8 education, or work experience. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1525(a). If the ALJ 9 determines that a claimant s impairment or combination of impairments 10 meets or medically equals a listed impairment, then the claimant is 11 considered disabled. An ALJ should consider the effects of obesity in 12 determining whether a claimant meets or equals a listed impairment. 13 S.S.R. 02-1P, 2000 WL 628049, at *1 (S.S.A. Sept. 12, 2002). 14 Plaintiff contends that the ALJ did not consider the Plaintiff s 15 obesity in combination with her other impairments to determine if she 16 meets 17 Plaintiff does not identify which listing she believes her impairments 18 meet. Instead, she simply describes the impact obesity might have on 19 various body functions. Quoting Social Security Ruling 02-1P, Plaintiff 20 notes that obesity affects the cardiovascular and respiratory systems 21 because of the increased workload the additional body mass places on 22 these systems.... Because the body is working harder at rest, its 23 ability to perform additional work is less than would otherwise be 24 expected. (Joint Stip. 4.) Plaintiff then states, These medical facts 25 regarding the cardiovascular and respiratory systems help to explain 26 why, in the present case, Plaintiff is frequently fatigued and in pain. 27 (Id.) Fatigue and pain are not a listed impairment. Plaintiff offers no 28 further explanation of how her impairments, including obesity, meet a the requirements of a separate 8 Listing. (Joint Stip. 6.) 1 listed impairment. 2 In Burch, the court noted that the plaintiff bears the burden of 3 proving she has an impairment that meets or equals a listed impairment. 4 400 F.3d at 683. As in the present case, the plaintiff in Burch 5 presented no evidence showing that her obesity met or equaled a listed 6 impairment, nor did she even identify which listing she believed she met 7 or equaled. The court stated, An ALJ is not required to discuss the 8 combined effects of a claimant s impairments or compare them to any 9 listing in an equivalency determination, unless the claimant presents 10 evidence in an effort to establish equivalence. Id. Here, Plaintiff has 11 offered no evidence showing that her obesity, alone or in combination 12 with 13 impairment. The ALJ did not err by excluding reference to her obesity in 14 evaluating step three. her other impairments, met or equaled any specific listed 15 The ALJ properly considered Plaintiff s obesity in evaluating the 16 five steps of the disability analysis. Plaintiff is not entitled to 17 relief on this claim. 18 19 B. Whether the ALJ Properly Considered the Mental and Physical Demands of Plaintiff s Past Relevant Work 20 The ALJ concluded at step four that Plaintiff was capable of 21 performing her past relevant work as an office helper. In doing so, he 22 relied on the examining physician s opinion and the vocational expert s 23 testimony. (AR 18-19.) Plaintiff argues that the ALJ failed to provide 24 a sufficient rationale for concluding that Plaintiff was capable of 25 performing her past work as an office helper, in that the ALJ s opinion 26 did not include specific findings as to the mental and physical demands 27 of the work itself. (Joint Stip. 13.) Plaintiff also contends that the 28 ALJ s decision at step four was not supported by substantial evidence. 9 1 (Joint Stip. 16.) Plaintiff s arguments are not persuasive. 2 1. Plaintiff s Residual Functional Capacity 3 Before evaluating whether Plaintiff s impairments precluded her 4 from returning to her past relevant work as an office helper, the ALJ 5 was required to ascertain Plaintiff s residual functional capacity 6 ( RFC ). 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(iv). A claimant s RFC is what she is 7 capable of doing despite her physical and mental limitations. 20 C.F.R. 8 § 404.1545(a)(1); Cooper v. Sullivan, 880 F.2d 1152, 1155 n.5 (9th Cir. 9 1989). RFC is an assessment of an individual s ability to do sustained 10 work-related physical and mental activities in a work setting on a 11 regular and continuing basis. SSR 9608p, 1996 WL 374184, at *1 (S.S.A. 12 July 2, 1996). An RFC assessment is ultimately an administrative finding 13 reserved to the Commissioner, based on all of the relevant evidence, 14 including 15 medical sources, such as treating and examining physicians. 20 C.F.R. § 16 404.1527(e)(2). the diagnoses, treatment, observations, and opinions of 17 In the present case, the ALJ considered the medical records, 18 physicians opinions, hearing testimony, and a lay witness s statement 19 regarding Plaintiff s alleged limitations in determining her RFC, along 20 with Plaintiff s credibility in describing her symptoms and limitations. 21 The ALJ concluded that Plaintiff s statements as to her level of 22 impairment were not entirely credible and that the medical record did 23 not demonstrate an inability to work. (AR 18-19.) The ALJ noted that 24 Plaintiff has not pursued mental health treatment for depression or 25 anxiety, 26 complaints of severe pain, depression and other symptoms. (AR 18.) The 27 ALJ stated that Plaintiff appears to have recovered from breast cancer 28 after treatment, with no evidence of recurrence, and that the condition nor has she received regular 10 medical care despite her 1 would not be expected to last for at least twelve consecutive months. 2 The ALJ also noted that although Plaintiff claims she has difficulty 3 with her memory and concentration, she still managed to take care of 4 herself and provide in-home health care for her roommate. (Id.) The ALJ 5 concluded that Plaintiff failed to show her impairments have caused, or 6 can be expected to cause, the level of symptomology, pain and functional 7 restriction which she alleges renders her disabled. (Id.) Plaintiff 8 does not challenge the ALJ s credibility determination. 9 The ALJ adopted the examining physician s opinion that Plaintiff 10 had the RFC to perform light work with no climbing of ladders, ropes, or 11 scaffolds; occasional balancing, stooping, kneeling, crouching, and 12 crawling; no concentrated exposure to extreme heat or cold or hazards; 13 with moderate limitations in understanding and remembering detailed 14 instructions and in carrying out detailed instructions. (AR 14.) This 15 determination is supported by substantial evidence in the record. 16 17 2. Plaintiff s Past Relevant Work Plaintiff s past relevant work experience is a purchasing 18 assistant/office helper. The Dictionary of Occupational Titles ( DOT ) 19 defines purchasing assistant as follows: 20 Compiles information and records to prepare purchase orders 21 for procurement of material for industrial firm, governmental 22 agency, or other establishment. Verifies nomenclature and 23 specifications 24 records or warehouse to determine if material on hand is in 25 sufficient 26 suppliers to obtain prices and specifications. Types or writes 27 invitation-of-bid forms and mails forms to supplier firms or 28 for public posting. Writes or types purchase order and sends of purchase quantity. requests. Consults 11 Searches catalogs and inventory interviews 1 copy to supplier and department originating request. Compiles 2 records of items purchased or transferred between departments, 3 prices, deliveries, and inventories. Computes total cost of 4 items purchased, using calculator. Confers with suppliers 5 concerning 6 specifications, and delivery dates and award contract to 7 bidders or place orders with suppliers or mail order firms. 8 May verify bills from suppliers with bids and purchase orders 9 and 10 11 late approve bills deliveries. for May payment. May compare classify prices, priority regulations. DICOT 249.367-066. 12 The vocational expert, relying on the DOT definition of purchasing 13 assistant, testified at the hearing that a person with Plaintiff s 14 background, RFC, and additional limitations as described by the ALJ 15 would be able to work as a purchasing assistant. The vocational expert 16 explained that the position was sedentary and semi-skilled. (AR 472.) 17 Plaintiff 18 purchasing assistant, consisted of being an office helper, which meant 19 she answered phones, did filing, and did some research. (Id.) She 20 testified that the woman she worked for would not permit her to learn 21 the position during the three or four months that she worked there. 22 (Id.) The vocational expert noted that office assistant is an unskilled 23 position. (AR 473.) then clarified that her actual position, though titled 24 The ALJ accepted the vocational expert s opinion and determined 25 that Plaintiff would be able to perform her past relevant work as she 26 described it at the hearing. (AR 19.) He stated: 27 The vocational expert testified that claimant s past relevant 28 work was performed as that of an office helper, sedentary, 12 1 unskilled work, based upon her description of this job at the 2 hearing. In comparing the claimant s residual functional 3 capacity with the physical and mental demands of this work, 4 the undersigned finds that the claimant is able to perform it 5 as actually performed as the vocational expert testified. 6 (AR 19.) 7 Plaintiff contends that the ALJ should have been more specific in 8 his analysis of the interaction between Plaintiff s RFC and her past 9 relevant work. (Joint Stip. 14.) In assessing a claimant s ability to 10 perform past relevant work, an ALJ may consider the physical and mental 11 demands of the job either as actually performed or as usually performed 12 in the general economy. SSR 82-62, 1982 WL 31386, at *3 (S.S.A. 1982) 13 ( The RFC to meet the physical and mental demands of jobs a claimant has 14 performed in the past (either the specific job a claimant performed or 15 the same kind of work as it is customarily performed throughout the 16 economy) 17 disabled. ). 18 documentation, and statements by the claimant regarding past work are 19 generally sufficient for determining the skill level; exertional demands 20 and nonexertional demands of such work. Id. The ALJ was entitled to rely 21 on Plaintiff s description of her past relevant work as actually 22 performed in determining whether she could still perform such work. is generally The a sufficient claimant is the basis primary for a finding source for of not vocational 23 Plaintiff argues that the ALJ failed to provide a logical, orderly 24 rationale for concluding that Plaintiff could perform her past relevant 25 work. Relying on Social Security Ruling 82-62, Plaintiff contends that 26 the ALJ needed (and failed) to make a finding of fact as to her RFC, a 27 finding of fact as to the physical demands of the past work, and a 28 finding of fact that her RFC would permit a return to this work. (Joint 13 1 Stip. 14.) However, the ALJ made all of these findings: he made a 2 finding of fact as to Plaintiff s RFC, as described above, he adopted 3 the physical and mental demands of Plaintiff s past relevant work as she 4 described it, and he specifically stated that comparing the claimant s 5 residual functional capacity with the physical and mental demands of 6 this work, Plaintiff could still perform that job. (AR 19.) In making 7 these findings, the ALJ relied on the vocational expert s testimony that 8 Plaintiff could perform her past relevant work. The ALJ was entitled to 9 rely on the vocational expert s opinion in reaching the disability 10 determination. 11 vocational expert s expertise and knowledge concerning the physical and 12 mental demands of a claimant s past relevant work, either as the 13 claimant actually performed it or as generally performed ). The ALJ 14 applied the correct legal standard and his decision is supported by 15 substantial evidence in the record. 16 17 18 C. See Whether 20 the C.F.R. ALJ § 416.960(b)(2) Posed a the ALJ Complete (ALJ may rely Hypothetical to on a the Vocational Expert Plaintiff argues that failed to pose a complete 19 hypothetical to the vocational expert because he did not include 20 Plaintiff s obesity as a limitation. (Joint Stip. 18.) A hypothetical 21 posed to a vocational expert must contain all the limitations of a 22 particular claimant. DeLorme v. Sullivan, 924 F.2d 841, 850 (9th Cir. 23 1991)(citations omitted). However, the ALJ need only include in the 24 hypothetical 25 evidence in the record. Osenbrock v. Apfel, 240 F.3d 1157, 1164-65 (9th 26 Cir. 2001). Having determined that Plaintiff s obesity was not a 27 significant limitation to her functioning, the ALJ appropriately omitted 28 reference to her obesity in posing the hypothetical to the vocational those limitations that 14 are supported by substantial 1 expert. Plaintiff is not entitled to relief on this claim. 2 D. Whether the ALJ Properly Considered the Lay Witness Testimony 3 Plaintiff contends that the ALJ failed to incorporate a function 4 report submitted by Plaintiff s roommate, in which he offered his 5 observations of her limitations. (Joint Stip. 19; AR 79-86.) The ALJ 6 summarized Woods statement as follows: 7 Oliver Woods, claimant s friend, completed a functional report 8 on February 3, 2006[]. He reported that claimant dressed him, 9 made his meals, watered and fed the dogs, washing laundry, 10 watered plants, took him to appointments and gave him his 11 medications, monitored his blood level and bathed him. 12 Woods 13 compared to before her illness. He stated that she was a 14 grouch and tired and hurt all the time. He reported that 15 claimant s pain level was very high and that her joints and 16 muscles were stiff and painful. noted that claimant s personal care had Mr. decreased 17 (AR 16.) Plaintiff contends that the ALJ erred because he merely 18 summarized the testimony and failed to explain whether [he] accepted or 19 rejected the lay witness testimony. (Joint Stip. 20.) 20 A lay witness can provide testimony about a plaintiff s symptoms 21 and limitations. See Nguyen v. Chater, 100 F.3d 1462, 1467 (9th Cir. 22 1996). Lay testimony as to a claimant s symptoms is competent evidence 23 that 24 determines to disregard such testimony and give reasons germane to each 25 witness for doing so. Lewis v. Apfel, 236 F.3d 503, 511 (9th Cir. 26 2001); see also Dodrill v. Shalala, 12 F.3d 915, 918-19 (9th Cir. 1993). 27 Appropriate reasons include testimony unsupported by the medical record 28 or other evidence and inconsistent testimony. Lewis, 236 F.3d at 512. an ALJ must take into account, 15 unless he or she expressly 1 The record demonstrates that the ALJ did consider and give proper 2 weight to the evidence from Plaintiff s roommate. The ALJ specifically 3 cited the function report, noting that despite the statements of 4 constant pain and significant limitations, Plaintiff managed to take 5 care of herself, her roommate, the house, and the pets. (AR 18.) The ALJ 6 concluded that the report indicated that Plaintiff was fully functional 7 in terms of her physical abilities. (Id.) The ALJ s conclusion is 8 supported 9 Plaintiff is not entitled to relief on this claim. by the report and substantial evidence in the record. 10 11 12 13 IV. Conclusion For the reasons stated above, the decision of the Social Security Commissioner is AFFIRMED. 14 15 DATED: August 17, 2009 16 17 18 19 ______________________________ MARC L. GOLDMAN United States Magistrate Judge 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 16
]]>
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.
