Karen Coats v. Michael J. Astrue, No. 8:2008cv00276 - Document 17 (C.D. Cal. 2008)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER by Magistrate Judge Ralph Zarefsky. In accordance with the foregoing, the Commissioners decision is affirmed. (SEE ATTACHED ORDER FOR FURTHER DETAILS) (es)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
O 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 KAREN COATS, 12 13 14 15 16 Plaintiff, vs. MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CASE NO. SA CV 08-00276 (RZ) MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER 17 The Administrative Law Judge found that, although Plaintiff had a learning 18 disability, Plaintiff did not suffer a severe mental impairment, but she did have knee and 19 back discomfort. [AR 14] Finding, however, that Plaintiff nevertheless retained the 20 residual capacity to work, the Administrative Law Judge determined that she was not 21 disabled. In this Court, Plaintiff challenges the decision on four grounds. 22 Plaintiff first argues that the Administrative Law Judge did not identify 23 particular statements that he found questionable, and thus that his finding that Plaintiff was 24 not credible does not comport with cases requiring him to give specific and cogent reasons 25 for disbelieving Plaintiff. The Court disagrees. An administrative law judge may use 26 ordinary techniques for evaluating a witness credibility, Fair v. Bowen, 885 F.2d 597, 604 27 n.5 (1989), and the specific finding that Plaintiff was a malingerer [AR 17] is sufficient 28 reason to doubt Plaintiff s version of the facts. As Social Security cases indicate, a fact- 1 finder can disbelieve a witness based on the witness previous falsehoods. Fair, supra 2 ( For example, if a claimant has a reputation as a liar, or has made prior statements 3 inconsistent with his claim of pain, or is found to have been less than candid in other 4 aspects of his testimony, that may be properly taken into account in determining whether 5 or not his claim of disabling pain should be believed. ). Furthermore, the obligation under 6 Social Security cases to provide specific, clear and convincing reasons for rejecting a 7 claimant s testimony arises only if there has been no malingering, Vasquez v. Astrue, ___ 8 F.3d ___, 2008 WL 4791860, slip opinion, No. 06-16817 (9th Cir. November 5, 2008) 9 (citing Lingengelter v. Astrue, 508 F.3d 1028, 1035-36 (9th Cir. 2007)), and here the 10 Administrative Law Judge specifically found that Plaintiff had been malingering. [AR 17] 11 Plaintiff next argues that the Administrative Law Judge should have addressed 12 the comments of Plaintiff s mother. Plaintiff s mother testified that Plaintiff could not hold 13 a job because she could not fill out applications and would get frustrated, and could not 14 handle her own money. An administrative law judge, however, is not required to address 15 each piece of evidence. Howard ex rel. Wolff v. Barnhart, 343 F.3d 1006, 1012 (9th Cir. 16 2003). Even under the most stringent reading of the lay witness testimony cases, the failure 17 to discuss the testimony here was harmless error, because it could not have affected the 18 finding as to disability. See Stout v. Commissioner, 454 F.3d 1050, 1056 (9th Cir. 2006). 19 Plaintiff previously had performed housekeeping work, and the contention that she would 20 have gotten frustrated, particularly at filling out an application, could not gainsay that fact. 21 Moreover, Plaintiff s mother testified that she herself had helped Plaintiff fill out the 22 applications [AR 340], so the applications could have been prepared. This testimony 23 simply does not belie the Administrative Law Judge s non-disability finding. 24 Plaintiff s third argument is that the Administrative Law Judge should have 25 developed the record, and determined why Plaintiff had received Social Security benefits 26 in the past. Plaintiff evidently received Social Security benefits, and then lost them when 27 she went to prison. The obligation to develop the record further, however, only arises if 28 there is some ambiguity which makes further development appropriate. Tonapetyan v. -2- 1 Halter, 242 F.3d 1144, 1150 (9th Cir. 2001). Plaintiff identifies no ambiguity in the record 2 as presented, and makes no legal argument that the receipt of benefits in the past somehow 3 entitled her to receive benefits currently. 4 Plaintiff s last argument is that the Administrative Law Judge erred in finding 5 Plaintiff capable of performing her past relevant work as a housekeeper. 6 Administrative Law Judge s finding was quite sketchy, a mere three sentences. [AR 17-18] 7 However, the Administrative Law Judge did find that Plaintiff was capable of most light 8 work [AR 15] and the testimony of the vocational expert established that such work is light 9 and unskilled, and the vocational expert opined that a person with Plaintiff s profile could 10 perform such work. The Administrative Law Judge would have done better to elucidate 11 the specific duties involved, but his finding was that Plaintiff could perform the duties of 12 the position as it is generally performed, and Plaintiff gives no indication as to how that is 13 erroneous. Although the question on this point is close, the Court cannot find error 14 justifying a remand. 15 In accordance with the foregoing, the Commissioner s decision is affirmed. 16 17 DATED: November 13, 2008 18 19 20 The RALPH ZAREFSKY UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -3-
]]>
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.
