Alfredo Galicia v. Michael J Astrue, No. 5:2008cv00970 - Document 16 (C.D. Cal. 2009)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER by Magistrate Judge Patrick J. Walsh. The Agency's decision is affirmed. (See Order for Details). (rp)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 ALFREDO GALICIA, Plaintiff, 11 12 13 v. 14 MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of the Social Security Administration, 15 Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No. ED CV 08-970 PJW MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER 16 17 Before the Court is Plaintiff s appeal of a decision by Defendant 18 Social Security Administration ( the Agency ), denying his application 19 for Disability Insurance benefits ( DIB ). 20 decision that Plaintiff was not disabled is supported by substantial 21 evidence, it is affirmed. 22 Because the Agency s In September 2005, Plaintiff applied for DIB. (Administrative 23 Record ( AR ) 90-94.) The Agency initially denied the application. 24 (AR 45-49.) 25 an Administrative Law Judge ( ALJ ). 26 hearing, the ALJ denied the application. 27 appealed to the Appeals Council, which denied Plaintiff s request for 28 review. Plaintiff then requested and was granted a hearing before (AR 6-9.) (AR 475-514.) Following the (AR 10-27.) He then commenced this action. Plaintiff 1 Plaintiff claims that the ALJ erred in: 1) failing to properly 2 consider treating psychiatrist Thomas Curtis s opinion; 3 2) failing to consider Dr. Curtis s significant treatment notes ; and 4 3) finding that Plaintiff s mental impairment was not severe at step 5 two of the sequential disability analysis. 6 12, 14.) 7 these claims merits remand or reversal. 8 9 (Joint Stip. at 3-9, 11- For the following reasons, the Court finds that none of In his first claim of error, Plaintiff contends that the ALJ did not properly consider Dr. Curtis s opinion. (Joint Stip. at 3-9.) 10 The thrust of Plaintiff s argument is that Dr. Curtis administered a 11 number of objective psychological tests and set forth in detail the 12 nature of the tests, the results of the tests, and his interpretation 13 of the results, but that the ALJ did not discuss these findings in her 14 decision. 15 For the following reasons, the Court disagrees. 16 (Joint Stip. at 8.) In Plaintiff s view, this was error. In support of his argument that the ALJ should have discussed the 17 test scores and Dr. Curtis s analysis of them, Plaintiff cites a 18 string of cases that support the general proposition that a treating 19 doctor s opinion is entitled to deference over the opinions of non- 20 treating doctors. 21 authority for the proposition that an ALJ is required to set forth in 22 detail in her decision the results of objective tests performed by the 23 treating physician and discuss those results. 24 any authority for such a proposition. (Joint Stip. at 8.) Plaintiff, however, cites no Nor has the Court found 25 Clearly, an ALJ is required to discuss a treating physician s 26 opinion and may only reject it for specific and legitimate reasons 27 that are supported by substantial evidence. 28 495 F.3d 625, 632 (9th Cir. 2007). See, e.g., Orn v. Astrue, But there is no requirement that 2 1 the ALJ discuss every aspect of a treating doctor s report. As this 2 case shows, that would be an impractical and unmanageable task in many 3 cases. 4 which one might expect an ALJ could set out and discuss in detail--he 5 administered a total of six tests on two occasions, including the Beck 6 Depression Inventory, the Beck Anxiety Inventory, the Beck Scale for 7 Suicidal Ideation, the Neuroticism Scale Questionnaire, the Minnesota 8 Multiphasic Personality Inventory, and the Personality Assessment 9 Inventory. Dr. Curtis did not simply conduct a test on one occasion-- (AR 259-264, 303-06.) His reports discussing these tests 10 are single-spaced and run 33 pages long. 11 decision, which is 15 pages long, would have had to have been 12 considerably longer if she had discussed the details of the tests 13 performed by Dr. Curtis. 14 Curtis s reports and the reports of two other psychiatrists who 15 examined Plaintiff in connection with this case. 16 Ultimately, the ALJ concluded that Plaintiff s psychiatric impairments 17 were not severe. 18 that this conclusion was not in error. 19 Plaintiff s first claim, the Court holds that the ALJ is not required 20 to set forth the results of tests performed by Plaintiff s treating 21 physician, or any other physician, in reaching her decision. 22 the Court find that the ALJ s failure to do so here was in error. 23 (AR 248-312.) The ALJ s Instead, what the ALJ did was summarize Dr. (AR 19-22.) (AR 19-22.) As discussed below, the Court finds But to the point raised in Nor does In his second claim of error, Plaintiff contends that the ALJ 24 erred in failing to consider Dr. Curtis s treatment notes in reaching 25 her conclusion that Plaintiff was not disabled. 26 12.) 27 which Dr. Curtis states, for example, that Plaintiff suffered from (Joint Stip. at 11- Plaintiff excerpts numerous notes from Dr. Curtis s records in 28 3 1 anxiety and depression and was temporarily unable to work. 2 12.) 3 (AR 11- The Court concludes that the ALJ did not err here. It is clear from reading the ALJ s decision that she considered 4 Dr. Curtis s records, including his progress notes. 5 ALJ discussed the fact that Plaintiff complained to his doctors that 6 he suffered from deficits of attention and concentration, but noted 7 that no such problems have been consistently reported or observed 8 among the various medical sources. 9 this observation and, more importantly, it demonstrates that the ALJ (AR 21.) For example, the The record supports 10 read and considered Dr. Curtis s progress notes. 11 Plaintiff s claims to the contrary are rejected. 12 (AR 242-47, 288-91.) Finally, Plaintiff complains that the ALJ erred in finding at 13 step two that his psychiatric impairment was not severe. 14 at 14.) 15 (Joint Stip. For the following reasons, this claim is rejected. Three psychiatrists and a psychologist offered opinions on 16 Plaintiff s condition: Dr. Marusak, Dr. Ritvo, Dr. Curtis, and Dr. 17 Bamgbose. 18 2004, in connection with his worker s compensation case. 19 Dr. Marusak found that Plaintiff s reported level of psychological 20 distress was genuine and that his anxiety level was moderate, but 21 reported that Plaintiff s scores on a battery of psychological tests 22 he administered to Plaintiff were within normal limits. 23 Dr. Marusak diagnosed Plaintiff with occupational problem with 24 employer, and rule out personality disorder, narcissistic traits. 25 (AR 421.) 26 from working. 27 28 Plaintiff went to see Dr. Gregory Marusak first, in May (AR 419-27.) (AR 418-20.) He found that Plaintiff had no limitations preventing him (AR 425.) On August 12, 2004, Dr. Curtis was designated Plaintiff s primary treating psychiatrist in connection with his worker s compensation 4 1 case, which covered the period February 1992 to March 2004. (AR 298- 2 99.) 3 evaluation report, which detailed the results of a mental status 4 examination and psychological testing. 5 opined that Plaintiff s psychological test results were extremely 6 abnormal. 7 specified, and psychological factors affecting medical condition. 8 (AR 306.) 9 totally disabled on a psychiatric basis. On August 31, 2004, Dr. Curtis authored a 15-page initial (AR 303.) (AR 298-312.) Dr. Curtis He diagnosed depressive disorder, not otherwise Dr. Curtis determined that Plaintiff was temporarily (AR 307.) As the ALJ 10 pointed out, however, Dr. Curtis did not find that Plaintiff had any 11 functional limitations. 12 (AR 19, 298-312.) Dr. Curtis also prepared a report in January 2005, following 13 another examination and evaluation of Plaintiff. 14 that report, he opined that Plaintiff had slight limitations in all 15 areas of workplace functioning, except for the area of relating to 16 other people, in which Dr. Curtis opined that Plaintiff had slight- 17 to-moderate limitations. 18 was capable of returning to work at that time, but recommended that it 19 be on a part-time basis, initially. 20 (AR 270-71.) (AR 248-75.) In He concluded that Plaintiff (AR 272, 247.) In February 2005, Dr. Curtis prepared a Return to Work form, 21 placing Plaintiff on medical leave for three months. 22 one-page form does not indicate the basis for the doctor s conclusion 23 that Plaintiff should be on medical leave. 24 Dr. Curtis prepared a report in which he documented that he had read 25 and considered the reports from the other medical providers regarding 26 Plaintiff s physical condition and found that none of those reports 27 changed his opinion regarding Plaintiff s condition. 28 About this same time, Dr. Curtis signed off on another medical leave 5 (AR 241.) (AR 241.) The In April 2005, (AR 235-38.) 1 form, placing Plaintiff on medical leave for three more months. 2 233.) 3 finding that Plaintiff should be on medical leave. 4 are no records from Dr. Curtis after April 2005. 5 (AR Again, there is no explanation as to the basis for Dr. Curtis s (AR 233.) There The ALJ also discussed the opinion of state agency psychiatrist 6 Edward Ritvo. 7 diagnosed him with dysthymic reaction, finding that he was not 8 impaired in any area of workplace related mental functioning. 9 428-32.) 10 Dr. Ritvo examined Plaintiff in October 2005, and (AR The ALJ also considered the testimony of the medical expert, Dr. 11 Olujimi Bamgbose, a psychologist. 12 testified that, though Plaintiff had experienced psychiatric ailments 13 in the past, by January 2008, the time of the hearing, those problems 14 had resolved and Plaintiff had no limitations. 15 (AR 21, 478.) Dr. Bamgbose (AR 21, 506-07.) Plaintiff argues that the ALJ erred by not finding that his 16 psychological impairment was severe in February 2008, when the ALJ 17 issued her decision. 18 alone, there was sufficient evidence to find that Plaintiff s 19 impairment was severe. 20 not support this contention. 21 three years earlier, in January 2005, that Plaintiff could return to 22 work. 23 report setting forth his opinion. 24 on leave forms in February and April 2005 so that Plaintiff could be 25 on medical leave, he provided no explanation on these forms as to the 26 basis for his finding that Plaintiff was temporarily disabled. 27 233, 241.) 28 was nearly three years before the ALJ s decision. (AR 248-75.) He contends that, based on Dr. Curtis s reports (Joint Stip. at 14.) The record simply does Dr. Curtis had determined more than That was the last time that Dr. Curtis provided a Though he subsequently signed-off (AR Further, even if he had, the last entry from Dr. Curtis 6 The most liberal of 1 interpretations of Dr. Curtis s reports would still not support a 2 finding that Plaintiff s impairment continued for three years after 3 Dr. Curtis reported that Plaintiff was capable of returning to work in 4 January 2005. 5 A fair reading of this record reveals that Plaintiff had 6 difficulty with a supervisor at work. 7 place where he could no longer work for that supervisor at that job. 8 Though Dr. Curtis supported Plaintiff s request to stop working from 9 August 2004 to June 2005, nothing in this record supports Plaintiff s From there, he spiraled into a 10 argument that Dr. Curtis s reports can be read to substantiate 11 Plaintiff s claim that he was severely impaired almost three years 12 later, when the ALJ issued her decision. 13 intended to be a de minimis screening test, see Smolen v. Chater, 80 14 F.3d 1273, 1290 (9th Cir. 1996), the Court concludes that the ALJ did 15 not err in finding that Plaintiff did not meet it. 16 Mindful that step two is The Court also notes that the ALJ provided an alternative basis 17 for her finding that Plaintiff was not disabled. 18 even had she determined at step two that Plaintiff s psychiatric 19 impairment was severe, she would have concluded at step five that 20 Plaintiff was not disabled. 21 was also supported by substantial evidence in the record. 22 it, any error committed by the ALJ at step two was harmless. 23 Stout v. Comm r, Soc. Sec. Admin., 454 F.3d 1050, 1055-56 (9th Cir. (AR 26 n.5.) 24 25 26 27 28 7 She explained that, This alternative finding In light of See 1 2006) (defining harmless error in the context of social security cases 2 as one not affecting the ultimate determination of disability). 3 these reasons, the Agency s decision is affirmed. 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. 5 DATED: October 30, 2009 6 7 8 PATRICK J. WALSH UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 S:\PJW\Cases-Soc Sec\GALICIA, A 970\Memo_Opinion.wpd 8 For
]]>
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.
