Melendrez v. Astrue, No. 2:2012cv00201 - Document 24 (E.D. Wash. 2013)
Court Description: ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S SUMMARY-JUDGMENT MOTION AND DENYING PLAINTIFF'S SUMMARY-JUDGMENT MOTION - denying 15 Motion for Summary Judgment; and granting 17 Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by Senior Judge Edward F. Shea. (CC, Case Administrator)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Melendrez v. Astrue Doc. 24 1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 5 6 7 8 CV-12-0201-EFS Plaintiff, 9 10 No. DAVID MELENDREZ, JR, ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S SUMMARY-JUDGMENT MOTION AND DENYING PLAINTIFF'S SUMMARYJUDGMENT MOTION v. MICHAEL ASTRUE, Commissioner of Social Security,1 11 Defendant. 12 13 Before 14 judgment motions. 15 appeals the Administrative Law Judge’s (ALJ) denial of benefits. 16 No. 5. 17 substantial 18 decision. 19 the Court to affirm the ALJ’s decision. 20 21 the Court, without oral ECF Nos. 15 & 17. argument, are cross-summary- Plaintiff David Melendrez Jr. ECF Mr. Melendrez contends the ALJ’s decision was not supported by evidence and asks the Court to set aside the ALJ’s The Commissioner of Social Security (“Commissioner”) asks After reviewing the record and relevant authority, the Court is fully informed. For the reasons set forth below, the Court affirms 22 23 24 25 1 Carolyn W. Colvin became Security on February 14, 2013. Acting Commissioner of Social Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 25(d), Ms. Colvin is substituted for Michael J. Astrue as the Defendant in this lawsuit. 26 the continue this lawsuit. No further action need be taken to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S SUMMARY-JUDGMENT MOTION AND DENYING PLAINTIFF'S SUMMARY-JUDGMENT MOTION- 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 the ALJ’s decision and therefore denies Mr. Melendrez’ motion and 2 grants the Commissioner’s motion. 3 A. Statement of Facts2 At the time of the administrative hearing, Mr. Melendrez was 20 4 5 years old. 6 hearings via video. 7 had a previous period of disability as a child, beginning May 2, 2006, 8 and ending April 1, 2009, one month before he filed the current claim 9 for benefits. was ECF No. 11 at 22. He appeared at both administrative Id. at 11. Id. Records indicated that Mr. Melendrez He has never worked in his lifetime, id. at 22, 10 and considered to have limited education, but had reported 11 education ranging from completion of the 10th grade to graduating high 12 school, id. at 21-22. 13 B. Procedural History In May 2009, Mr. Melendrez applied for Supplemental Security 14 15 Income benefits (hereinafter, 16 disability 17 disorder and history of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. 18 No. 11 at 11. 19 denied upon reconsideration on February 18, 2010. 20 then requested an administrative hearing, which was held on June 11, 21 2010, and January 4, 2011, before ALJ Caroline Siderius. 22 January 14, 2011, the ALJ denied Mr. Melendrez’ claim for benefits, 23 determining beginning June 2, “claim 1995, due for to benefits”), antisocial alleging personality ECF The claim was denied initially on August 5, 2009, and that notwithstanding Mr. Id. Melendrez’ Mr. Melendrez Id. On non-exertional 24 2 25 The facts contained 26 in are the only briefly summarized. administrative hearing Detailed transcript, facts the decision, and the parties’ briefs. ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S SUMMARY-JUDGMENT MOTION AND DENYING PLAINTIFF'S SUMMARY-JUDGMENT MOTION- 2 are ALJ’s 1 limitations he had the capacity to work as an auto detailer, janitor, 2 or hand packager. 3 denied Mr. Melendrez’ request for review. Id. at 22-23. The Appeals Council thereafter Id. at 1-3. On April 13, 2012, Mr. Melendrez filed this lawsuit, claiming 4 5 the ALJ’s decision is not supported by substantial evidence. ECF Nos. 6 1 & 5. 7 Summary 8 Commissioner filed her Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 17. 9 C. On October 19, 2012, Mr. Melendrez filed his Motion for Judgment, ECF No. 15, and on November 30, 2012, the Disability Determination 10 A "disability" is defined as the “inability to engage in any 11 substantial gainful activity by reason of any medically determinable 12 physical or mental impairment which can be expected to result in 13 death or which has lasted or can be expected to last for a continuous 14 period of not less than twelve months.” 15 1382c(a)(3)(A). 16 evaluation process to determine whether a claimant is disabled. 17 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520, 416.920. The decision-maker 42 U.S.C. §§ 423(d)(1)(A), uses a five-step sequential 20 Step one assesses whether the claimant is engaged in substantial 18 19 gainful activities. If he is, benefits are denied. 20 404.1520(b), 416.920(b). 21 20 C.F.R. §§ to step two. If he is not, the decision-maker proceeds Step two assesses whether the claimant has a medically severe 22 23 impairment or combination of impairments. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(c), 24 416.920(c). the 25 denied. 26 step. If the claimant does not, disability claim is If the claimant does, the evaluation proceeds to the third ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S SUMMARY-JUDGMENT MOTION AND DENYING PLAINTIFF'S SUMMARY-JUDGMENT MOTION- 3 1 Step three compares the claimant's impairment with a number of 2 listed impairments acknowledged by the Commissioner to be so severe 3 as 4 404.1520(d), 404 Subpt. P App. 1, 416.920(d). 5 meets 6 conclusively presumed to be disabled. 7 the evaluation proceeds to the fourth step. to preclude or equals substantial one of the gainful listed activity. 20 C.F.R. §§ If the impairment impairments, the claimant is If the impairment does not, 8 Step four assesses whether the impairment prevents the claimant 9 from performing work he has performed in the past by examining the 10 claimant’s residual functional capacity. 11 416.920(e). 12 is not disabled. 13 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(e), evaluation proceeds to the fifth step. If the claimant is able to perform his previous work, he If the claimant cannot perform this work, the Step five, the final step, assesses whether the claimant can 14 15 perform other 16 education, and work 17 416.920(f); see Bowen 18 claimant 19 cannot, the disability claim is granted. can, work the in the national economy experience. v. 20 Yuckert, disability 482 claim is in C.F.R. U.S. 137 denied. view §§ of his 404.1520(f), (1987). If age, the If the claimant The burden of proof shifts during this sequential disability 20 21 analysis. The claimant has the initial burden of establishing a prima 22 facie case of entitlement to disability benefits. 23 438 F.2d 920, 921 (9th Cir. 1971). 24 Commissioner to show 1) the claimant can perform other substantial 25 gainful activity, and 2) that a "significant number of jobs exist in 26 the national economy," which the Rhinehart v. Finch, The burden then shifts to the claimant can perform. ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S SUMMARY-JUDGMENT MOTION AND DENYING PLAINTIFF'S SUMMARY-JUDGMENT MOTION- 4 Kail v. 1 Heckler, 722 F.2d 1496, 1498 (9th Cir. 1984). 2 only if his impairments are of such severity that he is not only 3 unable 4 education, 5 gainful work which exists in the national economy. 6 423(d)(2)(A), 1382c(a)(3)(B). 7 D. 8 9 to do and his previous work work experiences, but A claimant is disabled cannot, engage in considering any other his age, substantial 42 U.S.C. §§ Standard of Review On review, the Court considers the record as a whole, not just the evidence supporting the ALJ’s decision. See Weetman v. Sullivan, 10 877 F.2d 20, 22 (9th Cir. 1989) (quoting Kornock v. Harris, 648 F.2d 11 525, 526 (9th Cir. 1980)). 12 that the claimant is not disabled if the ALJ applied the proper legal 13 standards and there is substantial evidence in the record as a whole 14 to support the decision. 15 Cir. 1983) (citing 42 U.S.C. § 405(g)); Brawner v. Sec’y of Health & 16 Human Servs., 839 F.2d 432, 433 (9th Cir. 1987) (recognizing that a 17 decision supported by substantial evidence will be set aside if the 18 proper legal standards were not applied in weighing the evidence and 19 making 20 scintilla, Sorenson v. Weinberger, 514 F.2d 1112, 1119 n.10 (9th Cir. 21 1975), but less than a preponderance, McAllister v. Sullivan, 888 F.2d 22 599, 601-02 (9th Cir. 1989); Desrosiers v. Sec’y of Health & Human 23 Servs., 846 F.2d 573, 576 (9th Cir. 1988). 24 evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a 25 conclusion." 26 (citations omitted). the decision). The Court upholds the ALJ’s determination Delgado v. Heckler, 722 F.2d 570, 572 (9th Substantial Richardson v. evidence Perales, 402 is more than a mere "It means such relevant U.S. 389, 401 (1971) "[S]uch inferences and conclusions as the [ALJ] ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S SUMMARY-JUDGMENT MOTION AND DENYING PLAINTIFF'S SUMMARY-JUDGMENT MOTION- 5 1 may reasonably draw from the evidence" will also be upheld. 2 Celebrezze, 348 3 supports more than one rational interpretation, the Court must uphold 4 the ALJ’s decision. 5 1984). 6 E. 1965). If the evidence Allen v. Heckler, 749 F.2d 577, 579 (9th Cir. Analysis Mr. 7 F.2d 289, 293 (9th Cir. Mark v. Melendrez raises five main arguments in support of his 8 contention that the ALJ’s findings were not supported by substantial 9 evidence. First, he argues the ALJ failed to properly evaluate mental 10 impairment; second, he contends the ALJ failed to properly assess his 11 residual functional capacity (RFC); third, he states the ALJ failed to 12 make a proper credibility finding; fourth, the ALJ failed to address 13 opinions of state agency non-examining medical consultants; and fifth, 14 he 15 testimony. 16 claims and finds the ALJ’s determination that Mr. Melendrez is not 17 disabled is supported by substantial evidence. argues the ALJ failed to obtain relevant vocational expert Upon review of the entire record, the Court rejects these First, substantial evidence supported the ALJ’s evaluation of 18 19 Mr. Melendrez’ mental 20 MacLennan’s conclusions were consistent with her examination results, 21 and should not have been discredited by the ALJ. 22 Melendrez offers a reasonable interpretation of the record, the Court 23 finds the ALJ’s interpretation was also reasonable, and therefore 24 upholds the ALJ’s decision. 25 reasonably found that Dr. MacLennan placed an undue reliance upon Mr. 26 Melendrez’ statements, impairment. Mr. Melendrez argues However, while Mr. See Heckler, 749 F.2d at 579. acknowledged that his Dr. test The ALJ results ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S SUMMARY-JUDGMENT MOTION AND DENYING PLAINTIFF'S SUMMARY-JUDGMENT MOTION- 6 were 1 unreliable and 2 opinion 3 Underwood. 4 reasons for rejecting Dr. MacLennan’s conclusions, and are therefore 5 upheld. was Second, 6 suggestive inconsistent of symptom with opinions ECF No. 11 at 21. the ALJ exaggeration, of Dr. and that her and Dr. Layton These are specific and legitimate properly assessed Mr. Melendrez’ residual 7 functional capacity. In assessing residual functional capacity, the 8 ALJ Layton’s 9 assessments considered and Dr. incorporated and Dr. their Underwood’s opinions testimony into the and residual 10 functional capacity by finding Mr. Melendrez was “capable of simple, 11 repetitive 1-3 step tasks, but not detailed work. 12 occasional social interaction with the public and coworkers.” 13 11 14 translated their conclusions into a residual functional capacity that 15 was consistent with their opinions, and therefore upholds the ALJ’s 16 decision. 17 at 19, 22. Accordingly, the Court finds He is capable of the ALJ ECF No. properly Third, the ALJ offered clear and convincing reasons for finding 18 Mr. Melendrez’ statements not credible. 19 the ALJ improperly rejected his testimony, the ALJ offered numerous 20 reasons 21 allegations were not supported by objective medical findings, his 22 failure to work was in part volitional, evidence showed inconsistent 23 and exaggerated claims, and Mr. Melendrez had lied about his substance 24 abuse. 25 clear, 26 therefore upholds the ALJ’s credibility determination. for finding his statements ECF No. 11 at 20-21. convincing, and While Mr. Melendrez maintains not credible including: the The Court finds these reasons were supported by substantial evidence, ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S SUMMARY-JUDGMENT MOTION AND DENYING PLAINTIFF'S SUMMARY-JUDGMENT MOTION- 7 and 1 Fourth, while Mr. Melendrez maintains that the ALJ failed to 2 address opinions of the state agency non-examining medical consultant, 3 Dr. Underwood, as noted above, the ALJ did incorporate Dr. Underwood’s 4 testimony and 5 capacity. Accordingly, Mr. Melendrez’ fourth reason for reversal is 6 denied. opinion into the finding on residual functional Finally, as to relevant vocation expert testimony, Mr. Melendrez 7 8 contends the 9 MacLennan’s ALJ or committed Dr. reversible Underwood’s as by restrictions addressed above, not in the including the ALJ Dr. vocational 10 hypothetical. 11 determinations regarding the credibility of each doctor and properly 12 assessed the medical record. 13 supported by substantial evidence, and does not justify reversal. 14 F. made proper Accordingly, the hypothetical given was Conclusion In 15 However, error summary, the Court finds the record contains substantial 16 evidence from which the ALJ properly concluded, when applying the 17 correct 18 benefits. legal standards, that Mr. Melendrez 19 1. not qualify for Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 20 does Mr. Melendrez’ Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 15, is DENIED. 21 2. 22 The Commissioner’s Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 17, is GRANTED. 23 24 3. JUDGMENT is to be entered in the Commissioner’s favor. 25 4. The case shall be CLOSED. 26 /// ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S SUMMARY-JUDGMENT MOTION AND DENYING PLAINTIFF'S SUMMARY-JUDGMENT MOTION- 8 1 2 3 IT IS SO ORDERED. The Clerk’s Office is directed to enter this Order and provide copies to all counsel. DATED this 27th day of November 2013. 4 5 s/ Edward F. Shea EDWARD F. SHEA Senior United States District Judge 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Q:\EFS\Civil\2012\0201.socsec.sj.grant.close.lc2.docx ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S SUMMARY-JUDGMENT MOTION AND DENYING PLAINTIFF'S SUMMARY-JUDGMENT MOTION- 9
]]>
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.
