Hughes v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration, No. 2:2021cv00541 - Document 27 (D. Ariz. 2022)
Court Description: ORDER denying Plaintiff Paula Hughes' Motion to Supplement. (Doc. 25 ) IT IS FURTHER ORDERED affirming the Administrative Law Judge's September 4, 2019 decision (R. at 2640), as upheld by the Appeals Council on February 11, 2021 (R. at 211). IT IS FINALLY ORDERED directing the Clerk of the Court to enter judgment consistent with this Order and close this case. See document for complete details. Signed by Judge Michael T Liburdi on 8/16/2022. (WLP)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 Paula Hughes, Plaintiff, 10 11 v. 12 Commissioner Administration, 13 No. CV-21-00541-PHX-MTL of ORDER Social Security Defendant. 14 15 Plaintiff Paula Hughes challenges the Social Security Administration’s (“SSA”) 16 determination that she does not qualify for disability insurance benefits or supplemental 17 income. Plaintiff filed a Complaint (Doc. 1) with this Court seeking judicial review of that 18 determination. The Court has reviewed the briefs (Doc. 22, “Pl. Br.”; Doc. 23 “Def. Br.”; 19 and Doc. 24, “Reply”) and the Administrative Record (Doc. 21, “R.”). Plaintiff also filed 20 a “Motion to Add Evidence.” (Doc. 25.) For the following reasons, the Court affirms the 21 Administrative Law Judge’s (“ALJ”) denial of Plaintiff’s benefits application and denies 22 Plaintiff’s motion to add evidence. (Doc. 25.) 23 I. BACKGROUND 24 Plaintiff filed an Application for Disability Insurance Benefits on February 7, 2017. 25 (R. at 271.) Plaintiff alleged the onset of disability was January 20, 2017. (R. at 279.) 26 Plaintiff’s claim was denied initially and again on reconsideration. (See R. at 28, 117, 134, 27 157.) Plaintiff appeared before the ALJ for a hearing regarding her claim on July 11, 2019. 28 (R. at 54.) The ALJ issued an unfavorable decision on September 4, 2019. (R. at 25.) On 1 February 11, 2021, the Appeals Council denied Plaintiff’s Request for Review and adopted 2 the ALJ’s decision as the agency’s final decision. (R. at 1–4.) The ALJ reviewed the entire 3 record, including Plaintiff’s medical records, Plaintiff’s own testimony, and the testimony 4 of a vocational expert. (R. at 28–30, 35.) Upon considering the medical records and 5 opinions, the ALJ evaluated the Plaintiff’s disability based on the following severe 6 impairments: degenerative disc disease of the cervical spine and lumbar spine, and obesity. 7 (R. at 31.) 8 At step three of the five-step sequential analysis, the ALJ determined that Plaintiff 9 “does not have an impairment or combination of impairments that meets or medically 10 equals the severity of one of the listed impairments in 20 CFR Part 404, Subpart P, 11 Appendix 1.” (R. at 33.) The ALJ then calculated Plaintiff’s residual functional capacity 12 (“RFC”): 13 [Plaintiff] has the [RFC] to perform medium work as defined in 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1567(C) and 416.967(c) except the [Plaintiff[ can lift and carry 50 pounds occasionally, 25 pounds frequently, stand and walk for 6 hours in an 8 hour day, and sit for 6 hours in an 8 hour day. The [Plaintiff] can frequently stoop, kneel, crouch, crawl, and climb ramps or stairs, and can occasionally climb ladders, ropes, or scaffolds. The [Plaintiff] can frequently handle with the left upper extremity, and she must avoid concentrated exposure to extreme temperatures, humidity, and vibration. 14 15 16 17 18 19 (R. at 35.) Based on the evidence, the ALJ found, at step five, that Plaintiff “is capable of 20 performing past relevant work as a certified nursing assistant, companion, spa room 21 attendant, child care provider, hair braider, and housekeeper” which does not require any 22 “work-related activities precluded by [Plaintiff’s RFC].” (R. at 39.) The ALJ therefore 23 concluded that Plaintiff was not disabled from the alleged disability onset date through the 24 date of the decision. (R. at 40.) 25 II. LEGAL STANDARD 26 In determining whether to reverse an ALJ’s decision, a district court reviews only 27 those issues raised by the party challenging the decision. See Lewis v. Apfel, 236 F.3d 503, 28 517 n.13 (9th Cir. 2001). The Court may set aside the Commissioner’s disability -2- 1 determination only if it is not supported by substantial evidence or is based on legal error. 2 Orn v. Astrue, 495 F.3d 625, 630 (9th Cir. 2007). Substantial evidence is relevant evidence 3 that a reasonable person might accept as adequate to support a conclusion considering the 4 record as a whole. Id. To determine whether substantial evidence supports a decision, a 5 court must consider the record as a whole and may not affirm simply by isolating a “specific 6 quantum of supporting evidence.” Id. (quoting Robbins v. Soc. Sec. Admin., 466 F.3d 880, 7 882 (9th Cir. 2006)). Generally, “[w]here the evidence is susceptible to more than one 8 rational interpretation, one of which supports the ALJ’s decision, the ALJ’s conclusion 9 must be upheld.” Thomas v. Barnhart, 278 F.3d 947, 954 (9th Cir. 2002). The reviewing 10 court should “review only the reasons provided by the ALJ in the disability determination 11 and may not affirm the ALJ on a ground upon which he [or she] did not rely.” Garrison v. 12 Colvin, 759 F.3d 995, 1010 (9th Cir. 2014). Even when the ALJ commits legal error, the 13 reviewing court must uphold the decision where the error is harmless. Treichler v. Comm’r 14 of Soc. Sec. Admin., 775 F.3d 1090, 1099 (9th Cir. 2014). “An error is harmless if it is 15 inconsequential to the ultimate nondisability determination, or if the agency’s path may 16 reasonably be discerned, even if the agency explains its decision with less than ideal 17 clarity.” Id. (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). 18 To determine whether a claimant is disabled, the ALJ follows a five-step process. 19 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a). The claimant bears the burden of proof on the first four steps, 20 but the burden shifts to the Commissioner at step five. Tackett v. Apfel, 180 F.3d 1094, 21 1098–99 (9th Cir. 1999). At the first step, the ALJ determines whether the claimant is 22 presently engaging in substantial gainful activity. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(i). If so, the 23 claimant is not disabled, and the inquiry ends. Id. If not, the ALJ proceeds. At step two, 24 the ALJ determines whether the claimant has a “severe” medically determinable physical 25 or mental impairment. Id. § 404.1520(a)(4)(ii). If not, the claimant is not disabled, and the 26 inquiry ends. Id. If so, the ALJ continues to step three. There, the ALJ considers whether 27 the claimant’s impairment or combination of impairments meets or medically equals an 28 impairment listed in Appendix 1 to Subpart P of 20 C.F.R. Part 404. Id. -3- 1 § 404.1520(a)(4)(iii). If so, the claimant is automatically found to be disabled. Id. If not, 2 the ALJ proceeds to step four, where she assesses the claimant’s RFC and determines 3 whether the claimant is still capable of performing past relevant work. Id. 4 § 404.1520(a)(4)(iv). If so, the claimant is not disabled, and the inquiry ends. Id. If not, 5 the ALJ proceeds to the fifth and final step. There, she determines whether the claimant 6 can perform any other work in the national economy based on the claimant’s RFC, age, 7 education, and work experience. Id. § 404.1520(a)(4)(v). If the claimant can perform such 8 work, she is not disabled. Id. If she cannot, she is disabled. Id. 9 III. DISCUSSION 10 Plaintiff brings eleven issues for this Court’s consideration. (Pl. Br. at 1–3.) She 11 alleges the ALJ erred in his determination that (1) she was not disabled; (2) she engaged in 12 substantial gainful activity during the impairment period; (3) she suffered from 13 degenerative disc disease of the cervical and lumbar spine and obesity; (4) she had 14 additional impairments; (5) the combination of impairments does not meet or medically 15 equal the severity of an impairment listed in 20 C.F.R. Part 404; (6) treatment for her left 16 wrist condition lasted five months; (7) Dr. James Huddleston found Plaintiff to be 17 moderately emotional; (8) Plaintiff has the RFC to perform medium work; (9) treating 18 physician Dr. Matthew Parker was given no weight; (10) Plaintiff is capable of performing 19 past relevant work; and (11) Plaintiff has not been under a disability during the relevant 20 time period. (Id.) In an effort to streamline, the Court will group some of Plaintiff’s 21 allegations together. 22 A. 23 Plaintiff contends that her 2018 earnings were $23,634.96, which is below the 24 Windfall Elimination Provision threshold. (Pl. Br. at 8.) The ALJ determined that Plaintiff 25 worked after the alleged disability onset date. (R. at 32.) The ALJ evaluated Plaintiff’s 26 2018 earnings—$23,634.69—and determined that it was “well above the threshold to 27 presumptively qualify her work during 2018 as substantial gainful activity.” (R. at 30–31.) 28 If a claimant has engaged in substantial gainful activity since filing for benefits, then Issue Two -4- 1 claimant cannot be found to be disabled regardless of her medical condition. 20 C.F.R. 2 §§ 404.1520(b), 416.920(b). A claimant has the burden to prove she has not engaged in 3 substantial gainful activity “for a continuous period of not less than 12 months.” Batson v. 4 Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 359 F.3d 1190, 1194–95 (9th Cir. 2004) (citing 42 U.S.C. 5 § 423(d)(1)(A)). 6 presumption of substantial gainful employment. 7 404.1575(b)(2); Keyes v. Sullivan, 894 F.2d 1053, 1056 (9th Cir. 1990). 8 presumption may be rebutted if a claimant demonstrates an “inability to be self-employed 9 or to perform the job well, without special assistance, or for only brief periods of time.” 10 The existence of earnings over the statutory minimum creates a 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1574(b)(2), But the Id. 11 Holding a series of jobs constitutes substantial gainful activity when they are held 12 for a significant duration. Tylitzki v. Shalala, 999 F.2d 1411, 1415 (9th Cir. 1993) (finding 13 a claiming engaged in substantial gainful activity when he could maintain a series of jobs 14 each lasting almost a year). In contrast, a claimant is not engaged in substantial gainful 15 activity when he or she can work full-time “but is incapable of sustaining employment for 16 a period of longer than two months.” Gatliff v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 172 F.3d 690, 17 693 (9th Cir. 1999). Work activity is considered gainful when it is done for profit. 20 18 C.F.R. §§ 404.1572(b), 416.972(b). The SSA’s guidelines establish that earning more than 19 $1,180 per month in 2018 is considered engaging in substantial gainful activity.1 20 Plaintiff does not dispute that she earned $23,634.69 in 2018. (Pl. Br. at 8.) Using 21 this annual income, and averaging it over a twelve-month period as required by 20 C.F.R. 22 § 404.1574(b)(2), Plaintiff’s monthly income in 2018 was $1,969.55.2 Because Plaintiff’s 23 average monthly income of $1,969.55 exceeds the SSA’s guideline income of $1,180, the 24 ALJ did not err in determining Plaintiff was engaged in substantial gainful activity in 2018. 25 B. 26 Plaintiff challenges the ALJ’s decision at Step Two of his analysis, specifically, his 27 28 Issues Three, Four, and Five 1 See Social Security Administration, Substantial Gainful Activity, https://www.ssa.gov/oact/cola/sga.html (last visited April 29, 2022). 2 The Court calculated this number by dividing $23,634.69 (Plaintiff’s annual income) by 12 to arrive at an average monthly income. -5- 1 finding that Plaintiff has the severe impairments of degenerative disc disease of the cervical 2 spine and the lumbar spine and obesity, as well as diabetes mellitus, hypertension, a left 3 wrist contusion, a depressive disorder, and an anxiety disorder. (Pl. Br. at 2, R. at 31.) 4 Plaintiff likewise requests that the Court review a number of record citations for accuracy. 5 (Reply at 6.)3 The Court has reviewed the administrative record in its entirety. 6 The Court may set aside the Commissioner’s disability determination only if it is 7 not supported by substantial evidence or is based on legal error. Orn v. Astrue, 495 F.3d 8 625, 630 (9th Cir. 2007). “To establish whether [s]he qualifies for benefits, [Plaintiff] has 9 the burden of proving an ‘inability to engage in any substantial gainful activity by reason 10 of any medically determinable physical or mental impairment which . . . has lasted or can 11 be expected to last for a continuous period of not less than 12 months.” Batson v. Comm'r 12 of Soc. Sec. Admin., 359 F.3d 1190, 1193–94 (9th Cir. 2004) (quoting 42 U.S.C. 13 § 423(d)(1)(A)). “A severe impairment is one that affects an individual’s ability to perform 14 basic work-related activities.” SSR 16-3p, 2017 WL 5180304, at *11. “At step 2 of the 15 sequential evaluation process, [SSA] determine[s] whether an individual has a severe 16 medically determinable physical or mental impairment or combination of impairments that 17 has lasted or can be expected to last for a continuous period of at least 12 months.” Id. It 18 is the claimant’s burden to prove disability at this step. See Burch v. Barnhart, 400 F.3d 19 676, 679 (9th Cir. 2005). “The mere existence of an impairment is insufficient proof of a 20 disability.” Matthews v. Shalala, 10 F.3d 678, 680 (9th Cir. 1993). 21 Here, the ALJ found sufficient objective evidence that Plaintiff’s degenerative disc 22 disease of the cervical spine and lumbar spine and obesity “significantly limit her ability 23 to perform basic work activities.” (R. at 31.) The ALJ also considered Plaintiff’s alleged 24 diabetes mellitus, hypertension, left wrist contusion, depressive disorder, and anxiety 25 disorder. (Id.) As to these impairments, the ALJ found that “the objective evidence shows 26 that these conditions and their symptoms are mild in degree and intermittent in duration.” 27 3 28 A number of the record citations that Plaintiff asks the Court to review are from Defendant’s summary of medical evidence in its response brief. (See R. at 2–5.) In the current procedural posture, this Court does not assess the accuracy of Defendant’s brief; rather, the role of this Court is to assess the accuracy of the ALJ’s decision. -6- 1 (Id.) 2 Substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s categorization Plaintiff’s severe and non- 3 severe impairments. Plaintiff fails to carry her burden of showing that the non-severe 4 impairments were disabling. (See Pl. Br. at 5–7.) First, as to the diabetes mellitus, the ALJ 5 noted that “[p]roviders found the [Plaintiff’s] diabetes was ‘without complication’” and did 6 not require use of insulin. (R. at 31, quoting R. at 861, 875.) Plaintiff contends that this 7 record evidence was from “The Pain Center where [she] went to receive [her] pain 8 injections and have no medical dealings with diabetes.” (Reply at 3, 5.) While it is true 9 that some records from The Pain Center reference Plaintiff’s diabetes (see R. at 786 10 (indicating Plaintiff is not being treated for diabetes)), the Plaintiff’s other medical records 11 show the exact same information. For example, Plaintiff’s office treatment records from 12 Adelante Healthcare twice report that Plaintiff has “Type 2 diabetes mellitus without 13 complication, without a long-term current use of insulin.” (R. at 861, 875.) 14 Second, the ALJ found Plaintiff “had no complications related to her high blood 15 pressure, including chest pain, claudication, dyspnea, fatigue, or irregular heartbeat or 16 palpitations.” (R. at 31.) Plaintiff challenges the ALJ’s reliance on an Adelante Healthcare 17 record from February 27, 2017 (R. at 657) as not “supportive evidence” and “there is 18 nothing in [the] evidence used [that] states [Plaintiff’s] cardiovascular findings were 19 otherwise normal.” (Reply at 3.) To the contrary, the record Plaintiff herself cites indicates 20 her respiratory system was negative for “chest pain, claudication, edema, and irregular 21 heartbeat/palpitations,” and though her hypertension “is currently getting worse,” she 22 “stopped taking her medication.” (R. at 658.) See Social Security Ruling (“SSR”) 16-3p, 23 2017 WL 5180304, *9 (“[I]f the individual fails to follow prescribed treatment that might 24 improve symptoms, we may find the alleged intensity and persistence of an individual’s 25 symptoms are inconsistent with the overall evidence of record.”). Moreover, Plaintiff’s 26 heart rate and rhythm were regular with no murmurs, extra sounds, or edema. (R. at 659.) 27 The ALJ did not err in finding Plaintiff’s hypertension to be a nonsevere impairment.4 28 4 Though the ALJ references a treatment record from 2014 (R. at 489), sufficient evidence nonetheless supports the assertion that Plaintiff’s hypertension was a nonsevere -7- 1 Similarly, Plaintiff fails to carry her burden of proving that her mental impairments 2 caused an “inability to engage in any substantial gainful activity by reason of any medically 3 determinable physical or mental impairment which . . . has lasted or can be expected to last 4 for a continuous period of not less than 12 months.” Batson v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 5 359 F.3d 1190, 1193–94 (9th Cir. 2004) (quoting 42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(1)(A)). The ALJ 6 found that though Plaintiff “was moderately emotional, mildly labile, and tearful, with a 7 depressed mood,” she “consistently denied experiencing suicidal ideation, has no history 8 of longitudinal mental or behavioral health counseling, and no instances of admission to 9 any psychiatric facilities.” (R. at 32.) Moreover, Plaintiff “demonstrated no difficulty 10 getting along with others.” (Id.) Sufficient record evidence supports the determination. 11 For example, Dr. James Huddleston, Psychologist, reported in May 2017 that Plaintiff was 12 “moderately emotional” with a “friendly” attitude, and she had “good” concentration and 13 attention. (R. at 730–31.) Dr. Huddleston diagnosed Plaintiff as suffering from “persistent 14 depressive and somatic symptom disorders, of mild to moderate severity.” (R. at 732.) But 15 “[t]he mere existence of an impairment is insufficient proof of a disability.” Matthews, 10 16 F.3d at 680. And the SSA “will not use . . . a diagnosis[] or a medical opinion to establish 17 the existence of an impairment.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1521. Instead, “a physical or mental 18 impairment must be established by objective medical evidence from an acceptable medical 19 source.” Id. Plaintiff received normal results on multiple mini mental state examinations. 20 (R. at 731, 788.) Also, Dr. Huddleston found Plaintiff’s speech to be “logical and goal- 21 directed,” and she was “cooperative” with “direct and steady” eye contact. (R. at 730.) 22 Accordingly, Plaintiff does not carry her burden of proof. Moreover, the ALJ did consider 23 Plaintiff’s mental and physical limitations in the RFC, so the Court finds any error—if it 24 exists—is harmless. 25 Additionally, the Plaintiff contends that the ALJ “contradicted himself” by finding 26 she “does not have an impairment or combination of impairments that meets or medically 27 equals the severity of one of the listed impairments in 20 C.F.R. Part 404.” (R. at 33.) 28 impairment. (R. at 657–59.) -8- 1 While it is true that the ALJ considered her severe impairments of degenerative disc disease 2 of the cervical spine and lumbar spine and obesity, as well as the nonsevere impairments 3 of diabetes, hypertension, left wrist contusion, the ALJ properly found her impairments did 4 not meet the criteria of listings 1.04, 12.04, or 12.06, or any of the other medical listings. 5 To meet one of the listings, Plaintiff must meet all the medical criteria. Ford v. Saul, 950 6 F.3d 1141, 1148 (9th Cir. 2020). Plaintiff here fails to carry her burden of showing she 7 meets the medical criteria. Accordingly, the Court detects no error. 8 Plaintiff also challenges a number of medical records as “not supportive evidence” 9 and “not within the onset dates.” (Reply at 2–3.) But that is not the standard. The Court 10 must only determine whether sufficient evidence supported the ALJ’s determinations. Orn, 11 495 F.3d at 630. Substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s decision here and as such, the 12 Court will not set it aside. Finally, Plaintiff’s general challenge to the ALJ’s finding that 13 “the combination of impairments does not meet or medically equal the severity of an 14 impairment listed in 20 C.F.R. Part 404” also fails. For the reasons explained herein, 15 substantial evidence supports the ALJ decision. 16 C. 17 Next, Plaintiff asserts the ALJ erred in determining that her “left wrist condition 18 appears to have lasted only four or five months in 2018.” (Pl. Br. at 2.) Plaintiff asserts 19 that “the ALJ showed no evidence [that her] contusion lasted only four or five months.” 20 (Pl. Br. at 8.) Instead, Plaintiff asserts that her “medical records show[] that [her] 21 impairment of [her] left wrist worsened and lasted over 12 months.” (Id.) The ALJ noted 22 that Plaintiff had “a contusion of the left wrist in March 2017,” which “caused only mild 23 tenosynovitis, and a contemporaneous X-ray imaging scan of the left wrist was normal.” 24 (R. at 31–32.) The ALJ also found that “treatment for the left wrist condition appears to 25 have lasted only four or five months in 2017.” (R. at 32.) To dispute this evidence, Plaintiff 26 cites a record from June 2017, four months after the alleged onset. (See Doc. 22-1, citing 27 R. 757.) The remaining records that Plaintiff cites are not persuasive. (Id.) Plaintiff cites 28 a record from 2019 where she reported “having pain in the left wrist” and “sometimes Issue Six -9- 1 having trouble holding things and even dropping things at times,” but “[u]sing the TENS 2 unit . . . is helping.” (R. at 845.) Additionally, Plaintiff cites a record from 2018 showing 3 she was diagnosed with De Quervain’s syndrome. (R. at 876.) Even assuming that 4 Plaintiff’s wrist condition persisted into 2019, the Plaintiff has not carried her burden of 5 proving that it affected her “inability to engage in any substantial gainful activity.” Batson, 6 359 F.3d at1193–94; see also 42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(1)(A). To the contrary, Plaintiff engaged 7 in substantial gainful activity and had “flexion and extension without pain.” (R. at 878.) 8 Dr. Paul Guider also found “no swelling,” “no tenderness,” and “full active extension.” (R. 9 at 801.) Accordingly, the Court finds no error in the ALJ’s determination that Plaintiff’s 10 left wrist contusion was nonsevere. 11 D. 12 Plaintiff challenges the ALJ’s consideration of the opinions of Dr. James 13 Issues Seven and Nine Huddleston and Dr. Matthew Parker. (Pl. Br. at 9.) 14 While “[t]he ALJ must consider all medical opinion evidence,” for claims filed 15 before March 27, 2017, such as this one, there is a hierarchy among the sources of medical 16 opinions. Tommasetti v. Astrue, 533 F.3d 1035, 1041 (9th Cir. 2008); see also Garrison v. 17 Colvin, 759 F.3d 995, 1012 (9th Cir. 2014). Those who have treated a claimant are treating 18 physicians, those who examined but did not treat the claimant are examining physicians, 19 and those who neither examined nor treated the claimant are nonexamining physicians. 20 Lester v. Chater, 81 F.3d 821, 830 (9th Cir. 1995). “As a general rule, more weight should 21 be given to the opinion of a treating source than to the opinion of doctors who did not treat 22 the claimant.” Id. This is so because treating physicians have the advantage of in-person 23 interaction and typically a longer history of treatment than a claimant’s other doctors, and 24 their “subjective judgments . . . are important, and properly play a part in their medical 25 evaluations.” Embrey v. Bowen, 849 F.2d 418, 422 (9th Cir. 1988); see also Winans v. 26 Bowen, 853 F.2d 643, 647 (9th Cir. 1987). 27 An ALJ “may only reject a treating or examining physician’s uncontradicted 28 medical opinion based on ‘clear and convincing reasons.’” Carmickle v. Comm’r of Soc. - 10 - 1 Sec. Admin., 533 F.3d 1155, 1164 (9th Cir. 2008) (citing Lester, 81 F.3d at 830–31). 2 “Where such an opinion is contradicted, however, it may be rejected for specific and 3 legitimate reasons that are supported by substantial evidence in the record.” Id. An ALJ 4 meets this standard by “setting out a detailed and thorough summary of the facts and 5 conflicting medical evidence, stating his interpretation thereof, and making findings.” 6 Magallanes v. Bowen, 881 F.2d 747, 751 (9th Cir. 1989). 7 The ALJ gave little weight to the opinions of Dr. Huddleston because “[t]here is no 8 corroborating evidence” of moderate limitations. (R. at 38.) The ALJ explained that Dr. 9 Huddleston assigned Plaintiff moderate limitations for her mental health impairments. (Id.) 10 But the Plaintiff informed Dr. Huddleston that she took care of housework, fixed simple 11 meals, and played board games with her son, in addition to working one to three days per 12 week as a housekeeper. (Id., R. at 728.) The ALJ found that the evidence actually 13 supported no more than mild limitations. (R. at 38.) The Court agrees with the ALJ. 14 Plaintiff’s medical records show Plaintiff has “never been hospitalized for psychiatric 15 treatment or treated with psychotropic medications.” (R. at 730.) She also had “good” 16 attention and concentration, “no difficulty understanding questions and requests,” her 17 speech was “logical and goal-directed,” and she “denied history of sensory/perceptual 18 disturbance” and “delusional/paranoid thought.” (Id.) Most importantly, she scored in the 19 normal range on a Mini Mental State Examination. (R. at 731.) Accordingly, these specific 20 and legitimate reasons adequately support the ALJ’s decision that Plaintiff’s mental 21 impairments were not moderate. 22 The Plaintiff also challenges the ALJ’s rejection of the opinion of treating physician 23 Dr. Parker, a doctor at The Disability Help Center. (Pl. Br. at 6–7.) The ALJ gave no 24 weight to Dr. Parker’s opinion because he provided his opinion in March 2016, which was 25 before the Plaintiff’s alleged onset date in January 2017. (Id.; see R. at 636–43.) Therefore, 26 the ALJ rejected his opinion because it “does not consider the [Plaintiff’s] objective 27 treatment evidence since the alleged onset date.” (Id.) 28 The Plaintiff contends that Dr. Parker is her primary care doctor, and he performed - 11 - 1 another assessment of her in October 2019. (Pl. Br. at 6.) This second assessment was 2 also outside the relevant time period. (See R. at 38.) The ALJ’s decision was made in 3 September 2019, the month prior to Dr. Parker’s second opinion. The relevant time period 4 for the ALJ to consider is between the Plaintiff’s claimed onset date and the date of last 5 insured. See Lair-Del Rio v. Astrue, 380 Fed. App’x 694, 695–96 (9th Cir. 2010). The 6 ALJ does not need to consider medical opinion evidence from outside the relevant time 7 period. See id. (affirming an ALJ’s decision to not consider a letters written from doctors 8 written after the relevant time period). Plaintiff provides no support for her contention that 9 Dr. Parker should have been greater weight beyond the fact that he was listed on her 10 medical records as her primary medical care provider. (Pl. Br. at 7.) But the fact that Dr. 11 Parker was listed on Plaintiff’s other records does not change the weight of his opinion, 12 and the ALJ adequately discussed specific reasons for rejecting Dr. Parker’s opinion. 13 E. 14 Next, Plaintiff challenges the ALJ’s finding that she has an RFC to perform medium 15 work and she is capable of performing her past relevant work. (Pl. Br. at 3.) Specifically, 16 Plaintiff asserts that “there is no supporting evidence” of this conclusion and “there is no 17 way [she] can perform any of [her] past work with lumbar stenosis and [a] left wrist 18 contusion and [] arthritis.” (Pl. Br. at 9.) To the contrary, sufficient evidence supports the 19 ALJ’s decision and the Court finds no error. Issues Eight and Ten 20 The ALJ considered the entire longitudinal treatment record for the relevant time 21 period, the testimony of a vocational expert, and Plaintiff’s subjective symptom testimony. 22 (R. at 30–39.) The Court finds that adequate evidence supports the ALJ’s determination, 23 such as Plaintiff’s normal functioning during physical examinations, no difficulty walking, 24 and her activities of daily living. (See R. at 36.) 25 In calculating Plaintiff’s RFC specifically, the ALJ considered Plaintiff’s alleged 26 symptoms, her spine condition, and obesity, and appropriately limited the RFC to medium 27 work to account for her conditions. For example, the ALJ limited the Plaintiff to sit for 28 six hours in an eight hour day, and only occasionally climbing ladders, ropes, or scaffolds. - 12 - 1 (R. at 36.) Plaintiff’s argument—that she cannot work and cannot perform any past work— 2 is not persuasive. “It is clear that it is the responsibility of the ALJ, not the claimant’s 3 physician [or the claimant herself], to determine residual functional capacity.” Vertigan v. 4 Halter, 260 F.3d 1044, 1049 (9th Cir. 2001). Here, the ALJ properly determined Plaintiff’s 5 RFC and the Court finds no error. 6 F. 7 Finally, Plaintiff challenges the ALJ’s finding that she is not disabled and that she 8 has not been under a disability during the relevant time period. (R. at 2–3.) The Court 9 may set aside the Commissioner’s disability determination only if it is not supported by 10 substantial evidence or is based on legal error. Orn, 495 F.3d at 630. Substantial evidence 11 is relevant evidence that a reasonable person might accept as adequate to support a 12 conclusion considering the record as a whole. Id. As explained above, substantial 13 evidence supports the Commissioner’s disability determination at each step in the process. 14 Id. Accordingly, the Court finds that the ALJ did not err in finding Plaintiff not disabled 15 and not under a disability during the relevant time period. The ALJ’s decision is affirmed. Issues One and Eleven 16 G. 17 In addition to her opening brief and reply brief, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Add 18 Evidence, which the Court construes as a motion to supplement the record. (Doc. 25.) 19 Plaintiff seeks to supplement the record with a secondary SSA determination, where she 20 was found disabled in July 2021. (Doc. 25 at 4.) This secondary SSA determination found 21 that Plaintiff was disabled on September 5, 2019, the day after the ALJ’s decision pending 22 before this Court. (Id.) Motion to Supplement 23 A district court may only base its judicial review of an ALJ’s decision “upon the 24 pleadings and transcript of the record.” 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). In a social security case, an 25 ALJ has an independent “duty to fully and fairly develop the record and assure that the 26 claimant’s interests are considered.” Tonapetyan v. Halter, 242 F.3d 1144, 1150 (9th Cir. 27 2001) (internal citation and quotations omitted). The ALJ’s duty to develop the record is 28 “triggered only when there is ambiguous evidence or when the record is inadequate to - 13 - 1 allow for proper evaluation of the evidence.” Ford, 950 F.3d at 1156 (quoting Mayes v. 2 Massanari, 276 F.3d 453, 459–60 (9th Cir. 2001)). The ALJ may discharge this duty in 3 several ways, including keeping the record open to allow a plaintiff to supplement the 4 record. See Smolen v. Chater, 80 F.3d 1273, 1288 (9th Cir. 1996). 5 Here, the record is neither ambiguous nor inadequate to allow for this Court’s proper 6 evaluation of the evidence before the ALJ at the time of his decision. Plaintiff’s requested 7 supplement covers a period of time not relevant to the current case and is not subject to this 8 Court’s review. Moreover, Plaintiff fails to fulfill her burden of showing “there is new 9 evidence which is material and that there is good cause for [the ALJ’s failure] to 10 incorporate such evidence into the record in a prior proceeding.” 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). Here, 11 Plaintiff fails to show that the evidence is “material” to the disability determination before 12 the ALJ in this case, with distinct factual circumstances and the prior SSA guidelines in 13 place at the time of the ALJ’s determination. See 85 Fed. Reg. 78164. Accordingly, 14 Plaintiff’s motion to supplement is denied. (Doc. 25.) 15 IV. IT IS ORDERED denying Plaintiff Paula Hughes’ Motion to Supplement. (Doc. 16 17 CONCLUSION 25.) 18 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED affirming the Administrative Law Judge’s 19 September 4, 2019 decision (R. at 26–40), as upheld by the Appeals Council on February 20 11, 2021 (R. at 2–11). 21 22 23 IT IS FINALLY ORDERED directing the Clerk of the Court to enter judgment consistent with this Order and close this case. Dated this 16th day of August, 2022. 24 25 26 27 28 - 14 -
]]>
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.
