Norris Lamarr Colquitt v. Michael J. Astrue, No. 5:2012cv01234 - Document 17 (C.D. Cal. 2013)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER by Magistrate Judge Victor B. Kenton. The decision of the ALJ will be affirmed. The Complaint will be dismissed with prejudice. IT IS SO ORDERED. 1 [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 NORRIS LAMARR COLQUITT, 12 13 14 15 Plaintiff, v. MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of Social Security, 16 Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No. ED CV 12-01234-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 issue: 28 1. Whether the Administrative Law Judge ( ALJ ) properly 1 2 considered Plaintiff s testimony. (JS at 4.) 3 4 This Memorandum Opinion will constitute the Court s findings of 5 fact and conclusions of law. After reviewing the matter, the Court 6 concludes that the decision of the Commissioner must be affirmed. 7 8 I 9 THE ALJ PROPERLY EVALUATED THE SUBJECTIVE SYMPTOM 10 TESTIMONY PROVIDED BY PLAINTIFF 11 Following administrative denials of his application for 12 Supplemental Social Security Insurance benefits ( SSI ) (AR 124-130), 13 Plaintiff asked for and received a hearing before an ALJ on January 14 27, 2011. (AR 32-69.) 15 counsel, and provided testimony. 16 medical expert ( ME ) and a vocational expert ( VE ). The ALJ 17 thereafter issued an unfavorable Decision. (AR 19-28.) In that 18 Decision, the ALJ considered Plaintiff s testimony regarding his 19 symptoms, but found that the evidence in the record detracted from his 20 credibility. (AR 24.) 21 depreciated his credibility. 22 At that hearing, Plaintiff was represented by Testimony was also obtained from a Plaintiff contends that the ALJ improperly Plaintiff does not dispute the ALJ s summary of Plaintiff s 23 testimony, 24 Decision: 25 which is [Plaintiff] contained in testified the that following he hears portion voices, of has 26 paranoid thoughts, has difficulty getting along with others 27 and following rules. 28 attacks. He also testified that he has panic He testified that he saw bad things in prison 2 the 1 (e.g. fights everyday) and that, now, he does not like 2 people walking behind him and he is triggered if he hears a 3 commotion. ... [Plaintiff] is unsure if he could do a simple 4 repetitive job with not a lot of public contact. 5 (AR 24.) 6 7 Plaintiff correctly asserts that it was the ALJ s obligation to 8 articulate specific and legitimate reasons to reject his subjective 9 testimony, and that in the absence of malingering, the burden 10 increases to clear and convincing. See Smolen v. Chater, 80 F.3d 11 1273, 1281 (9th Cir. 1996); Dodrill v. Shalala, 12 F.3d 915, 918 (9th 12 Cir. 1993). 13 his explanation for contradictions between some of his statements and 14 other evidence in the record. 15 before the ALJ, he asserted he feels intimidated during sessions with 16 a doctor with whom he is required to meet as a condition of his 17 parole. 18 keeps telling me don t trust him, don t talk to him. 19 while I m there I just do it -- I just listen. (AR 44.) 20 asked Plaintiff whether he had asked his parole officer to assign 21 another doctor to his case. 22 because he felt intimidated to even do that. (AR 44-45.) Plaintiff contends that the ALJ did not properly credit As Plaintiff notes, at the hearing In Plaintiff s words, And there s something in my head that So basically, The ALJ Plaintiff indicated he had not done so, 23 The principal problem with Plaintiff s argument is that the ALJ s 24 determination as to credibility does not substantially rely upon 25 Plaintiff s statements; rather, 26 independent evidence discredit 27 subjective symptoms. 28 for example, to the ALJ largely Plaintiff s relied claims as to upon his As noted in the Decision, the ALJ considered, statements of Plaintiff s 3 brother which indicate 1 Plaintiff is able to provide for his personal care, do household 2 chores, and use public transportation. (AR 23.) 3 claim in this litigation that the ALJ inaccurately summarized that 4 part of his brother s testimony. 5 In addition, the ALJ relied upon her Plaintiff does not own observations The A L J of 6 Plaintiff s demeanor and behavior at the hearing. t h u s 7 observed that Plaintiff was able to talk, hear, see, follow the 8 course of the hearing, understand questions, concentrate, and had 9 adequate recall of historical events. (AR 24.) Again, Plaintiff does 10 not dispute the accuracy of the ALJ s observations, or the fact that 11 the ALJ is legally within her bounds to consider a claimant s demeanor 12 at a hearing in evaluating subjective testimony. 13 Apfel, 188 F.3d 1087, 1090 (9th Cir. 1999); Nyman v. Heckler, 779 F.2d 14 528, 531 (9th Cir. 1985). See Verduzco v. 15 While noting Plaintiff s own assessment that he was paranoid, 16 heard voices, and could not get along with people (AR 24), the ALJ 17 considered 18 contradicted. 19 Plaintiff underwent a mental health evaluation in association with his 20 parole, and at that time, there was no objective evidence of gross 21 impairments in concentration, 22 judgment. As the 23 Plaintiff s behavior appeared organized and his speech was clear, 24 logical, linear, and coherent. (AR 24, citing AR 279.) 25 ALJ reviewed a substantial chronological period of reports documenting 26 Plaintiff s attendance at group sessions in connection with his 27 parole. (AR 24, citing Exhibit 15F.) 28 the observer noted that Plaintiff exhibited no distress; continued to the objective record and found these claims to be For example, the ALJ noted that on July 13, 2009, ALJ attention, further noted, 4 memory, during abstraction that or examination, Indeed, the In a report from March 29, 2008, 1 attend anger management classes and reflected on some of the topics 2 learned; 3 indicators were noted; no suicidal ideations; Plaintiff did not 4 present as an imminent threat to himself or others; and no problems 5 were observed with Plaintiff s mood or thinking. In sum, the observer 6 found that Plaintiff made a stable presentation. (AR 271.) Plaintiff 7 does not assert that the ALJ was foreclosed from evaluating such 8 objective evidence as a relevant factor in determining the severity of 9 claimed subjective pain and disabling effects. 10 was alert and fully oriented; no psychiatric See acuity Rollins v. Massanari, 261 F.3d 853, 857 (9th Cir. 2001). 11 The ALJ cited additional evidence to support her credibility 12 evaluation. 13 Plaintiff was found to have intellect in the average range; received 14 good grades in high school despite not being enrolled in special 15 education except for possibly mathematics; that he earned a GED; and 16 that 17 observations of Plaintiff at the hearing, the ALJ observed that he was 18 well 19 understanding. (AR 25.) 20 he In the July 13, 2009 mental health report, the ALJ noted is spoken All in of average with no intelligence. obvious all, it seems the credibility Referring defects abundantly speech, clear hearing the ALJ or only 22 considering a plethora of evidence in the record which is relevant to 23 the credibility determination. Certainly, the ALJ was not required to 24 believe Plaintiff s allegations. Otherwise, it would be the case that 25 an individual could obtain benefits simply by making disability 26 claims, even if they are contradicted by evidence in the record. 27 While 28 inconsistencies falls short of the clear and convincing standard, the that the 5 ALJ s statements her depreciated asserts Plaintiff s that to 21 Plaintiff of in again reliance on after these 1 2 3 4 Court does not agree. The decision of the ALJ will be affirmed. The Complaint will be dismissed with prejudice. IT IS SO ORDERED. 5 6 7 DATED: April 19, 2013 /s/ VICTOR B. KENTON 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 6
]]>
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.
