Emerson v. Colvin, No. 2:2013cv00139 - Document 20 (E.D. Wash. 2014)
Court Description: ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT. Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment ECF No. 12 is DENIED. Defendants Motion for Summary Judgment ECF No. 17 is GRANTED. The file is CLOSED. Signed by Judge Thomas O. Rice. (LLH, Courtroom Deputy)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Emerson v. Colvin Doc. 20 1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 6 7 DAVID RAY EMERSON, NO: 13-CV-0139-TOR Plaintiff, 8 v. 9 10 11 ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting Commissioner of Social Security Administration, Defendant. 12 13 14 BEFORE THE COURT are the parties’ cross motions for summary 15 judgment (ECF Nos. 12, 17). Plaintiff is represented by Dana C. Madsen. 16 Defendant is represented by Daphne Banay. The Court has reviewed the 17 administrative record and the parties’ completed briefing and is fully informed. 18 For the reasons discussed below, the Court grants Defendant’s motion and denies 19 Plaintiff’s motion. 20 /// ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ~ 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 2 3 4 5 JURISDICTION The Court has jurisdiction over this case pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 405(g); 1383(c)(3). STANDARD OF REVIEW A district court’s review of a final decision of the Commissioner of Social 6 Security is governed by 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). The scope of review under §405(g) is 7 limited: the Commissioner’s decision will be disturbed “only if it is not supported 8 by substantial evidence or is based on legal error.” Hill v. Astrue, 698 F.3d 1153, 9 1158 (9th Cir. 2012) (citing 42 U.S.C. § 405(g)). “Substantial evidence” means 10 relevant evidence that “a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a 11 conclusion.” Id., at 1159 (quotation and citation omitted). Stated differently, 12 substantial evidence equates to “more than a mere scintilla[,] but less than a 13 preponderance.” Id. (quotation and citation omitted). In determining whether this 14 standard has been satisfied, a reviewing court must consider the entire record as a 15 whole rather than searching for supporting evidence in isolation. Id. 16 In reviewing a denial of benefits, a district court may not substitute its 17 judgment for that of the Commissioner. If the evidence in the record “is 18 susceptible to more than one rational interpretation, [the court] must uphold the 19 ALJ’s findings if they are supported by inferences reasonably drawn from the 20 record.” Molina v. Astrue, 674 F.3d 1104, 1111 (9th Cir. 2012). Further, a district ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ~ 2 1 court “may not reverse an ALJ’s decision on account of an error that is harmless.” 2 Id. at 1111. An error is harmless “where it is inconsequential to the [ALJ’s] 3 ultimate nondisability determination.” Id. at 1115 (quotation and citation omitted). 4 The party appealing the ALJ’s decision generally bears the burden of establishing 5 that it was harmed. Shinseki v. Sanders, 556 U.S. 396, 409-10 (2009). 6 7 FIVE-STEP SEQUENTIAL EVALUATION PROCESS A claimant must satisfy two conditions to be considered “disabled” within 8 the meaning of the Social Security Act. First, the claimant must be “unable to 9 engage in any substantial gainful activity by reason of any medically determinable 10 physical or mental impairment which can be expected to result in death or which 11 has lasted or can be expected to last for a continuous period of not less than twelve 12 months.” 42 U.S.C. § 1382c(a)(3)(A). Second, the claimant’s impairment must be 13 “of such severity that he is not only unable to do his previous work[,] but cannot, 14 considering his age, education, and work experience, engage in any other kind of 15 substantial gainful work which exists in the national economy.” 42 U.S.C. 16 § 1382c(a)(3)(B). 17 The Commissioner has established a five-step sequential analysis to 18 determine whether a claimant satisfies the above criteria. See 20 C.F.R. 19 § 416.920(a)(4)(i)-(v). At step one, the Commissioner considers the claimant’s 20 work activity. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(a)(4)(i). If the claimant is engaged in ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ~ 3 1 “substantial gainful activity,” the Commissioner must find that the claimant is not 2 disabled. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(b). 3 If the claimant is not engaged in substantial gainful activities, the analysis 4 proceeds to step two. At this step, the Commissioner considers the severity of the 5 claimant’s impairment. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(a)(4)(ii). If the claimant suffers from 6 “any impairment or combination of impairments which significantly limits [his or 7 her] physical or mental ability to do basic work activities,” the analysis proceeds to 8 step three. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(c). If the claimant’s impairment does not satisfy 9 this severity threshold, however, the Commissioner must find that the claimant is 10 11 not disabled. Id. At step three, the Commissioner compares the claimant’s impairment to 12 several impairments recognized by the Commissioner to be so severe as to 13 preclude a person from engaging in substantial gainful activity. 20 C.F.R. 14 § 416.920(a)(4)(iii). If the impairment is as severe or more severe than one of the 15 enumerated impairments, the Commissioner must find the claimant disabled and 16 award benefits. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(d). 17 If the severity of the claimant’s impairment does meet or exceed the severity 18 of the enumerated impairments, the Commissioner must pause to assess the 19 claimant’s “residual functional capacity.” Residual functional capacity (“RFC”), 20 defined generally as the claimant’s ability to perform physical and mental work ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ~ 4 1 activities on a sustained basis despite his or her limitations (20 C.F.R. 2 § 416.945(a)(1)), is relevant to both the fourth and fifth steps of the analysis. 3 At step four, the Commissioner considers whether, in view of the claimant’s 4 RFC, the claimant is capable of performing work that he or she has performed in 5 the past (“past relevant work”). 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(a)(4)(iv). If the claimant is 6 capable of performing past relevant work, the Commissioner must find that the 7 claimant is not disabled. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(f). If the claimant is incapable of 8 performing such work, the analysis proceeds to step five. 9 At step five, the Commissioner considers whether, in view of the claimant’s 10 RFC, the claimant is capable of performing other work in the national economy. 11 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(a)(4)(v). In making this determination, the Commissioner 12 must also consider vocational factors such as the claimant’s age, education and 13 work experience. Id. If the claimant is capable of adjusting to other work, the 14 Commissioner must find that the claimant is not disabled. 20 C.F.R. 15 § 416.920(g)(1). If the claimant is not capable of adjusting to other work, the 16 analysis concludes with a finding that the claimant is disabled and is therefore 17 entitled to benefits. Id. 18 The claimant bears the burden of proof at steps one through four above. 19 Lockwood v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 616 F.3d 1068, 1071 (9th Cir. 2010). If 20 the analysis proceeds to step five, the burden shifts to the Commissioner to ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ~ 5 1 establish that (1) the claimant is capable of performing other work; and (2) such 2 work “exists in significant numbers in the national economy.” 20 C.F.R. 3 § 416.960(c)(2); Beltran v. Astrue, 700 F.3d 386, 389 (9th Cir. 2012). 4 ALJ’S FINDINGS 5 Plaintiff applied for supplemental security income (SSI) benefits on July 9, 6 2010, alleging an onset date of June 1, 1986. 1 Tr. 132. His claim was denied 7 initially and on reconsideration. Tr. 93-96, 101-102. Plaintiff appeared at a 8 hearing before an administrative law judge on January 6, 2012. Tr. 45-72. The 9 ALJ issued a decision on January 26, 2012, finding that Plaintiff was not disabled 10 under the Act. Tr. 25-34. 11 At step one, the ALJ found that Plaintiff had not engaged in substantial 12 gainful activity since July 9, 2010, the application date. Tr. 27. At step two, the 13 ALJ found that Plaintiff had severe impairments, but at step three the ALJ found 14 that Plaintiff did not have an impairment or combination of impairments that met 15 or equaled the listing of impairment. Tr. 27-29. The ALJ determined Plaintiff had 16 the RFC to “perform the full range of medium work as defined in 20 C.F.R. 17 1 18 Irrespective, Plaintiff is not eligible for SSI disability benefits for any month prior 19 to the month following the month he protectively filed his SSI disability benefits 20 application. 20 C.F.R. §§ 416.330, 416.335. ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ~ 6 1 416.967(c).” Tr. 29-33. At step four, the ALJ found that Plaintiff had no past 2 relevant work. Tr. 33. At step five the ALJ found Plaintiff could perform jobs that 3 exist in significant numbers (more than one million) in the national economy at 4 each exertional level; sedentary, light and medium, according to the Medical- 5 Vocational Guidelines and the vocational expert’s testimony. Tr. 33-34. Since the 6 ALJ found that, considering Plaintiff’s age, education, work experience, and RFC, 7 the Plaintiff was capable of making a successful adjustment to other work that 8 exists in significant numbers in the national economy, a finding of not disabled 9 was made. Tr. 34 10 On February 6, 2012, Plaintiff requested review by the Appeals Council, Tr. 11 18-21, and submitted a letter brief in support of his argument, Tr. 192-94. On 12 February 6, 2013, the Appeals Council denied Plaintiff’s request for review, Tr. 1- 13 7, making the ALJ’s decision the Commissioner’s final decision that is subject to 14 judicial review. 42 U.S.C. §§ 405(g), 1383(c)(3); 20 C.F.R. §§ 416.1481, 15 422.210. 16 17 ISSUES Plaintiff seeks judicial review of the Commissioner’s final decision denying 18 him supplemental security income under Title XVI of the Social Security Act. 19 Plaintiff has essentially identified four issues for review. First, whether the ALJ 20 improperly relied on an incomplete examination and report from a consultative ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ~ 7 1 physician, Dr. Chandler. ECF No. 12 at 11-12. Second, whether the ALJ 2 improperly rejected the opinion of Plaintiff’s examining physician, Dr. Pollack. 3 Id., at 12-19. Third, whether the ALJ properly discounted Plaintiff’s credibility. 4 Id., at 15-19. And fourth, whether the ALJ properly rejected the examining 5 doctors’ opinions. Id., at 19-20. 6 7 DISCUSSION A. Opinion of Consultative Physician, Dr. Chandler 8 Plaintiff contends the consultative examination report of Samantha 9 Chandler, Psy.D., was incomplete and, therefore, Dr. Chandler’s report did not 10 provide evidence that served as an adequate basis for decision making. ECF No. 11 12 at 11-12. Without identifying any material records, Plaintiff now contends that 12 “[n]one of the pertinent medical records were provided to Dr. Chandler nor 13 considered by her for the purposes of the examination or report.” Plaintiff explains 14 that the ALJ is required to obtain “missing information” and decide whether the 15 report is adequate to assess the impairment at issue. 16 The Court observes that Dr. Chandler conducted a consultative 17 “psychological diagnostic evaluation” after reviewing the records of Dennis R. 18 Pollack, PhD, Tr. 232, and did not purport to conduct a complete medical review. 19 Furthermore, at the hearing before the ALJ, Plaintiff’s attorney affirmatively 20 represented that the administrative record was complete. Tr. 50. Critically, ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ~ 8 1 Plaintiff’s current argument does not identify any “missing information” or 2 demonstrate its significance, i.e., harmful error. In reply, Plaintiff clarifies that his 3 argument is that Dr. Chandler’s report is inadequate, not that the record is 4 incomplete. That distinction is lost on the Court because without a complete 5 record, how can harmful error be shown? Accordingly, this contention is rejected. 6 7 B. Opinion of Examining Physician, Dr. Pollack Plaintiff contends the ALJ failed to provide clear, convincing, specific or 8 legitimate reasons for rejecting the opinion of Dr. Pollack. ECF No. 12 at 12-19. 9 A treating physician’s opinions are entitled to substantial weight in social 10 security proceedings. Bray v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 554 F.3d 1219, 1228 11 (9th Cir. 2009). If a treating or examining physician’s opinion is uncontradicted, 12 an ALJ may reject it only by offering “clear and convincing reasons that are 13 supported by substantial evidence.” Bayliss v. Barnhart, 427 F.3d 1211, 1216 (9th 14 Cir. 2005). “However, the ALJ need not accept the opinion of any physician, 15 including a treating physician, if that opinion is brief, conclusory and inadequately 16 supported by clinical findings.” Bray, 554 F.3d at 1228 (quotation and citation 17 omitted). “If a treating or examining doctor's opinion is contradicted by another 18 doctor's opinion, an ALJ may only reject it by providing specific and legitimate 19 reasons that are supported by substantial evidence.” Bayliss v. Barnhart, 427 F.3d 20 at 1216 (citing Lester v. Chater, 81 F.3d 821, 830-831 (9th Cir. 1995)). ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ~ 9 1 Because Dr. Pollack’s opinion (Tr. 299-302) was contradicted by the 2 opinion of examining psychologist Dr. Chandler (Tr. 236), and nonexamining State 3 agency psychologists Mary A. Gentile, Ph.D. (Tr. 245), and Sean Mee, Ph.D. (Tr. 4 259), the ALJ was only required to provide specific and legitimate reasons 5 supported by substantial evidence in the record before discounting Dr. Pollack’s 6 opinion. The ALJ did so in this case. Tr. 28-29. 7 First, Plaintiff contends that Dr. Pollack’s opinion was improperly 8 discounted because the ALJ announced the evaluation was conducted at the request 9 of counsel. While the purpose for which a report is obtained does not itself 10 provide a legitimate basis for rejecting it, see Reddick v. Chater, 157 F.3d 715, 726 11 (9th Cir. 1998), here, the ALJ found Dr. Pollack’s evidence to be “certainly 12 legitimate and deserved due consideration.” Tr. 28. The ALJ also observed that 13 the context in which the evidence was produced cannot be entirely ignored (e.g., 14 not for treatment), but later observed that Plaintiff “did not take any prescribed 15 medications for physical or mental health symptoms because he did not have the 16 mon[ey] to pay for them, although he testified he was eligible for state medical 17 care. . . .[and] when he did take medications he found they helped.” Tr. 31. See 18 Reddick, 157 F.3d at 726 (“Evidence of the circumstances under which the report 19 was obtained and its consistency with other records, reports, or findings could, 20 however, form a legitimate basis for evaluating the reliability of the report.”). ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ~ 10 1 Thus, viewing the record as a whole, as this Court must, no error has been shown 2 by the ALJ’s observation that Dr. Pollack’s examination was not for the purpose of 3 prescribing medication that would be helpful. 4 Next, Plaintiff contends Dr. Pollack’s opinion was improperly rejected in 5 favor of Dr. Chandler’s because her consultative examination was incomplete. As 6 discussed above, there has been no showing that Dr. Chandler’s consultative 7 psychological examination was incomplete. 8 9 Next, Plaintiff contends the ALJ could not discount Dr. Pollack’s report for failing to opine that his limitations would last for twelve months or greater. 10 Plaintiff relies on Dr. Pollack’s 2008 reports consistently opining to his disability 11 for almost four years. However, the Commissioner correctly observes that Dr. 12 Pollack’s 2008 consistent reports were the subject of a prior ALJ decision denying 13 benefits which was affirmed by this Court. Accordingly, the ALJ correctly 14 observed that “there is no evidence since July 2010 the claimant's condition 15 worsened and the [ALJ] adopts the conclusion of the prior unfavorable 16 Administrative Law Judge decision.” Tr. 27. The Court rejects Plaintiff’s 17 suggestion that by allowing Dr. Chandler to review Dr. Pollack’s 2008 report, the 18 prior proceeding somehow became relevant or was reopened. No error has been 19 shown. 20 /// ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ~ 11 1 C. Plaintiff’s Credibility 2 Plaintiff contends that the ALJ improperly discredited his statements 3 concerning the intensity, persistence and limiting effects of his symptoms, thereby 4 affecting the treatment of his and Dr. Pollack’s opinion based in part on those 5 statements. 6 In social security proceedings, a claimant must prove the existence of 7 physical or mental impairment with “medical evidence consisting of signs, 8 symptoms, and laboratory findings.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1508. A claimant’s 9 statements about his or her symptoms alone will not suffice. 20 C.F.R. §§ 10 404.1508; 404.1527. Once an impairment has been proven to exist, the claimant 11 need not offer further medical evidence to substantiate the alleged severity of his or 12 her symptoms. Bunnell v. Sullivan, 947 F.2d 341, 345 (9th Cir. 1991) (en banc). 13 As long as the impairment “could reasonably be expected to produce [the] 14 symptoms,” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(b), the claimant may offer a subjective 15 evaluation as to the severity of the impairment. Id. This rule recognizes that the 16 severity of a claimant’s symptoms “cannot be objectively verified or measured.” 17 Id. at 347 (quotation and citation omitted). 18 Evaluating the credibility of a claimant's testimony regarding subjective pain 19 requires the ALJ to engage in a two-step analysis. Lingenfelter v. Astrue, 504 F.3d 20 1028, 1035–36 (9th Cir. 2007). “First, the ALJ must determine whether the ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ~ 12 1 claimant has presented objective medical evidence of an underlying impairment 2 which could reasonably be expected to produce the pain or other symptoms 3 alleged.” Id. at 1036 (internal citations and quotation marks omitted). The claimant 4 is not required to show that her impairment “could reasonably be expected to cause 5 the severity of the symptom she has alleged; she need only show that it could 6 reasonably have caused some degree of the symptom.” Id. (quoting Smolen v. 7 Chater, 80 F.3d 1273, 1282 (9th Cir. 1996)). Nor may the ALJ discredit the 8 subjective testimony as to the severity of the symptoms “merely because they are 9 unsupported by objective medical evidence.” Reddick v. Chater, 157 F.3d 715, 722 10 (9th Cir. 1998). If the claimant satisfies the first step and there is no evidence of 11 malingering, the ALJ may only reject the claimant's testimony about the severity of 12 the symptoms by providing “specific, clear and convincing reasons” for the 13 rejection. Vasquez v. Astrue, 572 F.3d 586, 591 (9th Cir. 2009). On the other hand, 14 “the medical evidence is still a relevant factor in determining the severity” of the 15 claimant's limitations. Rollins v. Massanari, 261 F.3d 853, 856 (9th Cir. 2001). 16 In the event that an ALJ finds the claimant’s subjective assessment 17 unreliable, however, “the ALJ must make a credibility determination with findings 18 sufficiently specific to permit [a reviewing] court to conclude that the ALJ did not 19 arbitrarily discredit claimant's testimony.” Thomas v. Barnhart, 278 F.3d 947, 958 20 (9th Cir. 2002). In making such a determination, the ALJ may consider, inter alia: ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ~ 13 1 (1) the claimant’s reputation for truthfulness; (2) inconsistencies in the claimant’s 2 testimony or between his testimony and his conduct; (3) the claimant’s daily living 3 activities; (4) the claimant’s work record; and (5) testimony from physicians or 4 third parties concerning the nature, severity, and effect of the claimant's condition. 5 Id. The ALJ may also consider a claimant’s “unexplained or inadequately 6 explained failure to seek treatment or to follow a prescribed course of treatment.” 7 Tommasetti v. Astrue, 533 F.3d 1035, 1039 (9th Cir. 2008). If there is no evidence 8 of malingering, the ALJ’s reasons for discrediting the claimant’s testimony must 9 be “specific, clear and convincing.” Chaudhry v. Astrue, 688 F.3d 661, 672 (9th 10 Cir. 2012) (quotation and citation omitted). The ALJ “must specifically identify 11 the testimony she or he finds not to be credible and must explain what evidence 12 undermines the testimony.” Holohan v. Massanari, 246 F.3d 1195, 1208 (9th Cir. 13 2001). 14 Here, the ALJ provided specific, clear and convincing reasons, supported by 15 substantial evidence in the record, for discounting Plaintiff’s complaints of total 16 disability. The ALJ found: 17 18 19 There is inconsistent information in the record and within the claimant's testimony weakening the claimant's credibility. Although the inconsistent information provided by the claimant may not be the result of a conscious intent to mislead, the inconsistencies suggest the information provided by the claimant generally may not be entirely reliable. 20 ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ~ 14 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 For example, consultative examiner, Samantha Chandler, Psy.D., made mention of inconsistencies in the claimant's reporting of alcohol and drug use. Furthermore, during Dr. Chandler's examination, the claimant was observed to have normal gait, no abnormal motor movements, and no pain behaviors. He expressed ideas appropriately and his thinking was opined to be organized, he was cooperative, logical, and coherent. The claimant also described activities of daily living inconsistent with his testimony at hearing. He described an ability to prepare sandwiches, use a computer, play video or computer games for 45 minutes to an hour, make phone calls, and watch TV. He described being able to do dishes and take out the trash twice a week. The claimant also assisted his father with grocery shopping each Saturday. More importantly, the claimant was able to play basketball two times a week in the summer and ride his bike short distances. The claimant's hobby was tearing apart, rebuilding computers and playing video games. The claimant denied job-related conflicts, which suggested he is capable of interacting appropriately with supervisors, co-workers and the public. 10 * * * 11 12 13 14 The records revealed the claimant was sent for physical therapy in 2008 and it appears he did not continue the treatment from the first visit, which suggests to the undersigned the symptoms were not as severe as alleged. Moreover, in June 2010, Hrair Garabedian, M.D. opined the claimant had no restrictions based on a “cardiac standpoint.” There were no treatment records from Dr. Garabedian after June 2010. 15 * * * 16 17 Dr. Leonard opined surgery was not necessary because his sternum appeared to be “very stable.” If the claimant's conditions worsened the objective medical evidence failed to reveal it to the undersigned. 18 * * * 19 20 ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ~ 15 1 The claimant reported no use of narcotic medications, including medical marijuana, he denied smoking, and denied alcohol use. However, in a prior visit in December 2010, he reported tobacco use, it was recommended he quit smoking and he did not disclose his use of marijuana. The claimant continued to smoke marijuana and cigarettes while alleging asthmatic symptoms, which is a contradiction in itself. There was no indication on either of these visits the claimant had asthma or asthma symptoms, as evaluation records showed his lungs were clear to auscultation bilaterally with normal respiratory effort. 2 3 4 5 6 7 Tr. 31-32 (citations to the evidence omitted). 8 The Court has reviewed the underlying evidence and concludes these 9 specific, clear and convincing reasons for discounting Plaintiff’s subjective 10 complaints and alleged disabling limitations are supported by substantial evidence 11 in the record. 12 D. Examining Doctors’ Opinions 13 Plaintiff asserts that the ALJ erred in his decision because both Dr. Pollack 14 and Dr. Chandler diagnosed Plaintiff with a pain disorder with both psychological 15 factors and general medical condition; attention deficit hyperactivity disorder; and 16 personality disorder, not otherwise specified. ECF No. 12 at 19- 20. The ALJ 17 found that Plaintiff had medically determinable impairments of attention deficit 18 hyperactivity disorder, personality disorder, and pain disorder, but the ALJ also 19 found that these impairments were not severe. Tr. 28. 20 /// ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ~ 16 1 Plaintiff contends Dr. Chandler found Plaintiff functionally disabled as 2 evidenced by her concluding statement that “[a] payee may be in his best interest.” 3 Tr. 236. This qualified statement is neither conclusive nor binding on the ALJ. See 4 Vincent v. Heckler, 739 F.2d 1393, 1394-95 (9th Cir. 1984) (the ALJ need not 5 discuss all evidence presented to him; rather, he must explain why “significant 6 probative evidence has been rejected.”) 7 A district court may not substitute its judgment for that of the 8 Commissioner. If the evidence “is susceptible to more than one rational 9 interpretation, [the court] must uphold the ALJ’s findings if they are supported by 10 inferences reasonably drawn from the record.” Molina, 674 F.3d at 1111. 11 Plaintiff’s citation to other evidence and inferences contrary to the ALJ’s findings 12 are not otherwise persuasive. 13 Here, the ALJ provided specific and legitimate reasons that are supported by 14 substantial evidence in the record for rejecting Dr. Pollack’s opinion of disability, 15 as well as discounting Plaintiff’s subjective complaints and alleged disabling 16 limitations. The ALJ’s findings are supported by substantial evidence in the 17 record. 18 /// 19 /// 20 /// ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ~ 17 1 ACCORDINGLY, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 2 1. Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 12) is DENIED. 3 2. Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 17) is 4 5 6 7 GRANTED. The District Court Executive is hereby directed to file this Order, enter Judgment for Defendant, provide copies to counsel, and CLOSE the file. DATED May 7, 2014. 8 9 THOMAS O. RICE United States District Judge 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ~ 18
]]>
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.
