David Cabrera v. Michael J Astrue, No. 5:2010cv01362 - Document 18 (C.D. Cal. 2011)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM DECISION by Magistrate Judge Stephen J. Hillman, The decision of the Commissioner is affirmed and the Complaint is dismissed. (SEE ORDER FOR FURTHER DETAILS) (lmh)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA-WESTERN DIVISION 11 12 13 14 15 DAVID CABRERA, 16 17 Plaintiff, v. 18 19 20 21 MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Comm. Social Security Administration, Defendant. ) EDCV 10-01362-SH ) ) MEMORANDUM DECISION ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 22 This matter is before the Court for review of the decision by the 23 Commissioner of Social Security denying plaintiff s application for Disability 24 Insurance Benefits under Sections 216(i) and 223 of the Social Security Act. 25 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §636(c), the parties have consented that the case may be 26 handled by the undersigned. The action arises under 42 U.S.C. §405(g), which 27 authorizes the Court to enter judgment upon the pleadings and the transcript of the 28 record before the Commissioner. The plaintiff and the defendant have filed their 1 1 pleadings (Plaintiff s Complaint; Defendant s Answer; Memorandum in Support of 2 Plaintiff s Complaint; Defendant s Brief; Reply Memorandum in Support of 3 Plaintiff s Complaint) and the certified transcript of record. After reviewing the 4 matter, the Court concludes that the decision of the Commissioner should be 5 affirmed. 6 On May 1, 2008, plaintiff David Cabrera filed a timely application for a 7 period of Disability Insurance Benefits, alleging an inability to work since June 22, 8 2007 due to schizophrenia, hearing loss and obesity. (Administrative Record 9 ( AR ) 54-62, 114-122). On October 5, 2009 an Administrative Law Judge 10 ( ALJ ) determined that plaintiff had severe impairments of schizophrenia, hearing 11 loss and obesity but was not disabled within the meaning of the Social Security Act. 12 (AR 5-18). 13 14 Following the Appeals Council s denial of plaintiff s request for a review of the hearing decision (AR 1-4), plaintiff filed an action in this Court. 15 Plaintiff challenges one aspect of the ALJ s Decision denying benefits. 16 Plaintiff alleges that the ALJ failed to properly determine plaintiff s residual 17 functional capacity by declining to limit plaintiff to non-stressful jobs. 18 19 For the reasons discussed below, the Court finds that plaintiff s claim of error does not have merit. 20 Plaintiff asserts the ALJ failed to properly determine plaintiff s residual 21 functional capacity ( RFC ). Specifically, plaintiff claims the ALJ should have 22 limited plaintiff s RFC to non-stressful jobs based on plaintiff s own testimony (see 23 AR 44-45 [plaintiff testified that the stress of being back at work would cause his 24 hallucinations to return]). Defendant replies that the ALJ properly assessed 25 plaintiff s RFC. 26 The ALJ found that plaintiff had an RFC to perform less than a full range of 27 light work. (AR 11). The RFC finding precluded plaintiff from work requiring 28 hypervigilance [sic], work with deadlines, and fast-paced work like rapid assembly 2 1 lines. (AR 11-12). However, the RFC did not otherwise limit plaintiff to non- 2 stressful jobs. 3 Here, the ALJ properly based the RFC finding on the testimony of Dr. Kania, 4 a psychologist. (AR 15-16). See Saelee v. Chater, 94 F.3d 520, 522 (9th Cir. 1996) 5 (holding that the findings of a non-treating, non-examining physician are substantial 6 medical evidence when supported in the record). Dr. Kania reviewed the medical 7 records, questioned plaintiff and heard his testimony. Dr. Kania testified that 8 plaintiff should work in a non-public environment, have limited contact with 9 supervisors and should not work in dangerous situations requiring hyper-vigilance. 10 (AR 30). But Dr. Kania noted that the record showed medication had controlled 11 hallucination symptoms and they had not returned since June 2007. Thus, Dr. Kania 12 maintained that limiting plaintiff to jobs without time pressure would suffice to 13 avoid the recurrence of stress and accompanying problematic symptoms. (See AR 14 30-33). 15 Moreover, the ALJ noted there were no medical records supporting an 16 additional functional limitation sought by plaintiff. (AR 16). See Matthews v. 17 Shalala, 10 F.3d 678, 680-81 (9th Cir. 1993) (finding substantial evidence supported 18 the ALJ s RFC determination where no doctor who examined claimant supported 19 a finding of disability). Despite treatment records showing plaintiff is stable and 20 experiencing no hallucinations, plaintiff feared those symptoms could return if he 21 was exposed to stressful situations, like work with deadlines at his last job. (AR 16 22 [citing AR 44-45]). Though the ALJ does not fully credit this testimony, the RFC 23 accommodates it by precluding work at plaintiff s former job and similar jobs with 24 deadlines. 25 Contrary to plaintiff s assertion, (see Plaintiff s Brief at 3) the ALJ made a 26 proper credibility assessment of plaintiff. The ALJ explicitly found claimant s 27 statements . . . concerning the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of these 28 symptoms are not credible to the extent those statements are inconsistent with the 3 1 above residual functional capacity assessment. (AR 14). In making his credibility 2 determination, the ALJ properly concluded that plaintiff was not fully credible 3 based on inconsistencies and attempts to exaggerate the severity of his symptoms 4 in his testimony. (See AR 13-14 [citing AR 232-51 and 255-62 (where plaintiff 5 denied experiencing hallucinations even without medication since 2008, despite 6 present claims to the contrary)]); see Thomas v. Barnhart, 278 F.3d 947, 958 (9th 7 Cir. 2002) (finding that inconsistencies in the plaintiff s testimony concerning the 8 nature, severity, and effect of the symptoms of which the plaintiff complains are 9 factors for weighing plaintiff s credibility). 10 ORDER 11 12 For the foregoing reasons, the decision of the Commissioner is affirmed and 13 the Complaint is dismissed. 14 DATED: August 11, 2011 15 16 17 18 __________________________________ STEPHEN J. HILLMAN UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 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.
