Rogers v. Commissioner, Social Security Administration, No. 6:2010cv00092 - Document 24 (D. Or. 2011)
Court Description: Order and Opinion. Decision is reversed and remanded for an award of benefits as to Plaintiff's alleged onset date of April 1, 2005. Signed on 04/22/0211 by Chief Judge Ann L. Aiken. (lg)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Rogers v. Commissioner, Social Security Administration Doc. 24 i IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON ANDREA M. ROGERS, Plaintiff, Civ. No. 10-92-AA OPINION AND ORDER v. MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant. David B. Lowry 9900 SW Greenburg Road Columbia Business Center, Suite 130 Portland, OR 97223 Attorney for plaintiff Dwight C. Holton United States Attorney District of Oregon Adrian L. Brown Assistant United States Attorney 1000 S.W. Third Avenue, Suite 600 Portland, Oregon 97204-2902 Thomas M. Elsberry Special Assistant United States Attorney Social Security Administration 701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2900 MIS 221A Seattle, Washington 98104-7075 Attorneys for <defendant 1 - OPINION AND ORDER Dockets.Justia.com AIKEN, Chief Judge: Plaintiff brings Act (the Act), final is action pursuant to the Social Se 42 U.S.C. decision § of 405(g), seeking judicial review of a Corrunissioner (Corrunissioner) aintiff's Insurance Benefits Corrunissioner's (DIB). of Social application Securi for 1 For the reasons set forth below, the is reversed and remanded for an award of s benefits. BACKGROUND On June 23, 2006, P for DIB, al s Tr. 8, 10, 97. ration. on recons hearing, pla iff, and testifi 2009. 8:-17. a Corruniss 2005 due to ment anxiety, and Her application was denied Tr. 48 51, 55-56. her father, re 2 ty After timely a and a vocational expert On August 14, 2009, the ALJ issued a Is the ALJ's Tr. 1-3. Tr. 22. sion Act. 1 denied plaintiff's request decision the final Plaintiff now seeks judi Pla - OPINION AND ORDER of Tr. 22, 35-36. t ew. 1 of the ALJ's f has a high-school education work as a school custodian. Tr. ew, decis iff was twenty-six years old at the t decision. ffi 1 iff not disabled within the meaning of The rendering y since April 1, an administrative law judge (ALJ) on May 19, Tr. 18 43. finding 1 schizophrenia, impairments, learning. intiff protectively filed an application t This court must af based on the p by substantial 498, 501 illa. Substantial evidence is 1989) . as adequate to support a conc v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389, 401 (1971) 305 U.S. 197, 229 (1938)). evidence 1986). a t means such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might s conclusions." ed 879 F.2d in the record. (9th Cir. mere s sion if it is 1 standards and the findings are s 1 r rm the Commissioner's de and Martinez v. Where t " (quot The court mUSL wei detracts Heckler, ssioner's] from 807 F.2d 771, 772 is susceptible to more interpretat the ~==~~~~~====, Commissioner's 694 F.2d 639, "both the one rational conclusion must 642 (9th Cir. be upheld. (9th Cir. 1982). COMMISSIONER'S DECISION The ial s establish Cir. 1986). Ii of any rests the ALJ claimant to Howard v. Heckler, 782 F.2d 1484, 1486 (9th in any substanti must demonstrate an gai activity by reason . to last for a cont than 12 months 3 proof ly determinable physical or mental can be pur of To meet this burden, a cla li ty to " burden " evaluated 42 U.S.C. § plaintiff's to the relevant five-step s - OPINION AND ORDER irment which of not less r 423{d) (1) (A). al ion of ial process. disability See Bowen v. Yuckert, step 482 U.S. one, the "substantial 137, ALJ (1987); act ty" Tr. 10; 20 C.F.R. At steps two and 20 C.F.R. plaintiff t gainful disability. 140 ing has the § 404.1520. not engaged period of all 404.1520(b). § the ALJ found that plaintiff "severe" impairment of schiz s ia but that this impairment not meet or equal "one of a number of listed impairments t [Commissioner] acknowl step the ALJ § t 1 404.1520(c), (d). found that plaintiff ret a (RFC) to perform a full residual functi a d s are so severe as to preclude gain activity." Tr. 10-12; 20 C.F.R. At At of work activity at all exertional levels, involving no more than simple instruct occasional, s no s, rficial Based on these f s, eraction with the general public, eraction with coworkers. the ALJ found that pia Tr. iff perform her past relevant work as a school custodian. C.F.R. § a inquiry p is unable to perform to step five, burden to es sts ~==~, Relying on t 4 Tr. 16; 20 st relevant work, the where the Commissioner bears the lish that the claimant is other work that pia not 404.1520{e). If economy. -15. in significant e of performing rs 482 U.S. at 141-42; 20 C.F.R. testimony of the vocational in the national § , the ALJ found iff was able to perform other work as a OPINION AND ORDER 404.1520(f). 1 product assembler and laundry wor that plaintiff was not r. Tr. 16-17. Therefore, the ALJ within the meaning s the Act. DISCUSSION Plaintiff asserts t the Commissioner's decision reversed and argues that the ALJ er three, because plaintiff's finding per IQ ALJ psychiatric of 70 and her testimony 2006, plaintiff treatment for was audi tory began r medication, 22, 255athletic c At t 5 s that a and rej ecting the r discharge therapy and treatment, alization, inc th Clackamas County MentalHea Eventually, plaintiff obta through a rehabilitation s - OPINION AND ORDER symptoms Iraq. from hosp administrative hearing, received Tr. 31, 196-207, 220. r brother was killed while se r s argument, suicide ly began experiencing such 374. step tional hal PIa inti 220, r hospitaliz r psychiatric symptoms. o at mental health providers. ideation, after i her not disabl I need not address t scounting May ts. with plaintiff's addit er opinions of treat In score a. e I a however, of bene irments meet or equal listing 12.05, g impairment of s the payment t 2004, Tr. 208, plaintiff psychotropic Center. a in Tr. 208 rt-time job at an ces program. Tr. 297. iff testified that she quit her previous janitorial job in 2005 because of psychiatric symptoms, including "voices" in her head, anxiety, and paranoia. Tr. 23-24, 26, 29, 96. Plaintiff also testified that she could not perform full-time work because of the stress and anxiety she would experience if around other people for an entire eight-hour workday. Tr. 25, 26. Plaintiff testified that she still has "strange thoughts" while working and could not tolerate having such thoughts if she worked full-time, because the resulting stress increases her symptoms and intrusive thoughts. The ALJ credible, found citing psychological that Tr. 30, 32. plaintiff's plaintiff's treatment prior complaints failure to seek to 2006, were her not fully medical improvement treatment and medication, and her daily activities. or with Tr. 13-15. When a plaintiff produces objective medical evidence of an impairment that reasonably could be expected to produce some degree of the symptoms testimony alleged, regarding the "the ALJ severity of may rej ect symptoms the only claimant's if he makes specific findings stating clear and convincing reasons for doing so." also Smolen v. Thomas (credibili ty court to v. Chater, 80 F.3d 1273, Barnhart, findings conclude 278 must that claimant's testimony"). the be F.3d 1284 947, (9th Cir. 958 (9th 1996); Cir. see 2002) "sufficiently specific to permit ALJ did not In making these arbitrarily findings, discredit the ALJ may consider objective medical evidence and the claimant's treatment 6 - OPINION AND ORDER history as well as any unexplai ilure to seek treatment or to follow a prescribed course of treatment. The ALJ may also consi observations k~owledge of the claimant's daily activities and rd physicians ,s about the c The ALJ discounted not ric hospitalization parti impairment. or once he had not 7 (SSR) involves a onset ps h Cir. 1996). problems r and rer or talizat Tr. 200, 208, 220, 239, symptoms plaintiff terminated in 2005 Tr. 84-85. c 83-20; see record reflects that plaintiff's employment, whi father, disability rience symptoms prior to her ho ps symptoms. the several treatment reports. In r is suggests that plaintiff is a mal as set forth noted re reason to discount an all Soc. Sec. Ruling that she did not 332. treatment r, the lack of medical arly when Here, no k of treatment prior to 2006. psychological 2006. 100 F.3d 1462, 1465 ( personal ALJ did not ask plaintiff why she did not necessarily a suffic date, with ional limitations. on her However, seek parties iff's testimony regarding the onset ,of her disability bas Tr. 13-14, 257. Smolen, 80 F.3d at 1284. rmer employer during her prior to her increased The record also reflects that plaintiff's plaintiff, initiated ment aware of her auditory 1 logical symptoms prior to OPINION AND ORDER health treatment , and that he hospitalization. Tr. 34, 198. Therefore, I do not that the ALJ provided clear ncing reasons to discount onset t aintiff's testimony disability. As to plaintiff's ability to work full-time, iff's testimony not c pIa ties, such as ventur ry store and the library, Tr. 13-14. plaintiff occasionally the bus to a book ies act pIa store or her home s other people would lib~ary, and she Tr. ly see necessary wi and stress she rs when not olerable during an ei 1 , nor do such activities reflect an ability to per t work on a sustained basis. 722 Reddick v. Chater, 157 F.3d 715, r. 1998). kewise, the fact that pIa t a 1 to alleviate iff's testimony that the anx wor The record reflects However, the fact that plaintiff occas outside and s to the local grocery store or occasionally takes the bus to a 342, 375, 379. to rforming household chores, utilizing public transportation. takes to her improved e treatment and her daily act wi the ALJ iff's condition has improved to extent that she no longer wi r pIa current situation 's limitations no 1 employment. ires hospitalization s r not· warrant the can cope finding affect her ability to sustain Holohan v. Massanari, 246 F.3d 1195, 1205 (9th r. 2001). 8 OPINION AND ORDER Importantly, no treating, examinin~, or medical source stions whe causes stress and with other r plaintiff's psychiatric impairment reased symptoms when she interacts Tr. 239, 723-24. r, of an 265, 298, 379; Reddick, 157 F.3d at aintiff's testimony is supported by the opinion 1 ps ist who noted that plaintiff "could likely e" or suffer a "significant schizophrenic process" under conditions of" stress." i and health pre opine employment. Thus, al the condition a er record her 1 Tr. 379. that Plaintiff's mental plaintiff's Tr. 192, 254-69, 288-90, 298 300. reflects improvement hospitalization, in iff's pia a consi to cia results 's enhanc~ ility. testimony y to work full-time is supported by treatment improvement treatment, iff's a plaintiff's ychological sources of record. re limitations from compliance rather Tonapetyan v. than her with extent cooperation treatment detract Halter, To from is a lly' ,s cl 242 F.3d 1144, 1148 (9th Cir. 2001). In suff B. sum, I find that the ALJ iled reasons to discredit plaintiff's test Treating and Examining Mental Health Providers P intiff also maintains that the ALJ of treating mental health ions of an examining psychologist. 9 legally to - OPINION AND ORDER ly rejected the rs and certain Two treating mental rs rendered opinions that p plaintiff currently was ng i because of her mental condition 192, 254-69, her psychiatric symptoms. scounted these 298-300. finding them inconsistent her reported act For many plaintiff's ties. of opinions, iff's noted improvement and Tr. 15. reasons credibil work detrimental effect that work-related stressors have on Tr. full-time y, set forth that f above the with ALJ did respect not to provide legally sufficient reasons to scount the opinions of plaintiff's treatment providers. As P iff notes, even though her ment heal th providers are a mental licensed clini al wor s health r nurse practitioner and a and not considered "acceptable medical sources," t treated plaintiff since 2006 and opinions are "important should be evaluated on key issues as impairment severity ional effects, along with the relevant evidence in that it may be a medical t is s of 89 (8th Cir. 2007) PIa file." SSR 06-3p; see also id. i 10 empl (explaining not "acceptable" depending on the case); Sloan v. Astrue, 499 F.3d 883, 887 scussing SSR 06-3p) . 's mental that they beli time r ate to give greater weight to the opinion of source particular ir lth providers indicated several t iff to be incapable of sustaini te - OPINION AND ORDER her improvement, given cont s 1 auditory hallucinat likelihood r that iff's worked full-time. anxiety around others, the if condition would dete Tr. 256-57, 265, 288, 290, 298-300, 309 10. opinions of plaintiff's mental health providers are bas treatment findings relationsh of wi th the plaintiff and psychologist, continuing symptoms on t consistent who stress. iff's not sate Tr. 371-75, 379. Plaintiff's treatment providers also noted her slow lack of a 1 1 inherently rejected by tat assessment. Tr. rding 12, formally diagnosed wi no testing in t s 335, pace or While 346. pl and a iff psychological psychologist identified abilities in non-verbal reasoning learning op relatively s is replete abilities; of rformance psychologist also IQ score of th 10. Tr. 11 not RFC been reflects by the below average with 376 77. a The ed low abilities in areas of memory and e instructions. references Tr. to 379-80. to master Moreover, the record plaintiff's even an SSA reviewer noted that s a being a "slow learner" was "apparent" during an int plaintiff has memory, that plaintiff required with his evaluat plaintiff "borderline" the ALJ persistence examining areas ssing a learning disability, the area r with opined that plaintiff could under conditions of abilities, she " simp 1 e . OPINION AND ORDER If processing iff's claim of , and that T r . 9 4, 2 64, 2 68 , 3 61 , 37 6 61. opinions of In sum, I find that the ALJ erred in reject plaintiff's treating mental health discounting rs and aspects of the examining psycho on. C. Remand Plaintiff maintains the ALJ's errors warrant reversal and remand for an award of benefits. I A district court should rly rejected evidence t and remand for an award of bene s (1) the ALJ has failed to legally sufficient reasons for rej ecting s (2) there are no outstanding issues resolved before a determination of disability can made, and (3) it is clear from the record ALJ would be required to find the cIa s were such evidence credited. Smolen, 80 F.3d testimony and credited, no at the 1292 (citation opinions outstanding proceedings would only of issues lay to I plaintiff's I others, F.3d persistence, plaintiff's health providers and remand of benefits. for are further McAllister h Cir. 1989). lth providers, the ALJ's assessment ALJ tat 1174 claimant 12 the persistence, 1169, rema I f r rejection of plaintiff's testimony and opinions of her mental hypothet mental rece v. Sullivan, 888 F.2d 599, 603 Given the r ted) . and (9 pace to adequately account for with respect to stress, interactions with Stubbs-Danielson v. r. ely or failed 2008) ("[A]n ALJ's Astrue, assessment 539 of s restrictions related to concentrat where - OPINION AND ORDER the assessment is consistent wi a restrictions identified in the medical testimony."). The ALJ's RFC assessment limiting plaintiff to short and simple instructions and limi ted interaction with coworkers does not adequately address plaintiff's limitations in persistence or pace or the effect of plaintiff's continued around others. psychological symptoms and anxiety when The vocational expert testified that a claimant with plaintiff's RFC as set forth by the ALJ and with additional deficiencies in attendance, performance, and concentration resulting from stress and anxiety, and deficiencies In persistence or pace, could not sustain full-time work. Thus, providers, Tr. 38-40. I find that the opinions of plaintiff's mental health along with plaintiff's testimony and that of the vocational expert, support an award of benefits. CONCLUSION The ALJ's finding that plaintiff is not disabled within the meaning of the Act is not supported by substantial evidence in the record. Accordingly, the decision of the Commissioner is REVERSED and REMANDED for an award of benefits as of plaintiff's alleged onset date of April 1, 2005. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated this ~~ day of April, 2011. Ann Aiken United States District Judge 13 - OPINION AND ORDER
]]>
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.
