Jose A Mancinas-Franco v. Michael J Astrue, No. 8:2012cv00843 - Document 16 (C.D. Cal. 2013)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER by Magistrate Judge Ralph Zarefsky. (ib)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
O 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JOSE A. MANCINAS-FRANCO, Plaintiff, 12 vs. 13 14 CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, 15 Defendant. 16 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CASE NO. SA CV 12-00843 RZ MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER 17 Plaintiff Jose A. Mancinas-Franco, a construction worker, tore the rotator cuff 18 in his left shoulder. The tear was repaired surgically, but Plaintiff was unable to return to 19 construction work. The Social Security Commissioner denied his application for Title II 20 disability benefits, and Plaintiff now brings this action seeking to overturn the 21 Commissioner s decision. Plaintiff asserts a single claim: that the Commissioner s 22 delegate, the Administrative Law Judge, improperly assessed his subjective symptom 23 testimony. 24 If a claimant alleges excess pain and produces medical evidence of an 25 impairment which reasonably could be expected to produce the pain alleged, then the 26 administrative law judge may reject the claims of pain only if he makes specific findings 27 stating clear and convincing reasons for doing so. Bunnell v. Sullivan, 947 F.2d 341 (9th 28 Cir. 1991) (en banc); Smolen v. Chater, 80 F.3d 1273 (9th Cir. 1996). Plaintiff references 1 this legal standard, as did the Administrative Law Judge. [AR 29-30] The Court perceives 2 no error in the Administrative Law Judge s statement of the applicable law. 3 Nor does the Court see any error in the application of that law. Plaintiff 4 identifies no testimony from the hearing that the Administrative Law Judge did not 5 consider. Plaintiff was represented by counsel at the hearing, yet Plaintiff s counsel 6 adduced no evidence of pain that was so obstructing that Plaintiff could not work. Plaintiff 7 does make mention, in his Memorandum in Support of Complaint, of a portion of his 8 questionnaire where he said that he had to work slowly and sometimes had to take breaks 9 frequently. While the Administrative Law Judge did not reference this specific portion of 10 the questionnaire, he was not required to address every piece of evidence in the record. 11 Howard ex rel. Wolff v. Barnhart, 341 F.3d 1006, 1012 (9th Cir. 2003). There was plenty 12 of evidence cited by the Administrative Law Judge that Plaintiff could work; the doctors 13 suggested limitations on work [AR 30, citing Dr. Yian], but no evidence from any of them 14 suggested that Plaintiff could not perform the kind of work identified by the vocational 15 expert, and adopted by the Administrative Law Judge. The Administrative Law Judge 16 noted several tasks that Plaintiff performed despite assertions of pain [AR 31], and some 17 of these, such as working on cars and performing yard chores, clearly were inconsistent 18 with the notion that Plaintiff could do no work at all. The Administrative Law Judge did, 19 of course, make accommodation for the fact that Plaintiff had had rotator cuff surgery, 20 limiting Plaintiff to jobs that did not involve overhead reaching with his left arm or any 21 kind of significant lifting with that arm. [AR 29] 22 23 24 There was no error of law, and substantial evidence supported the Administrative Law Judge s decision. The decision is affirmed. DATED: April 24, 2013 25 26 27 RALPH ZAREFSKY UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 28 -2-
]]>
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.
