Michael Rodriguez v. Michael J. Astrue, No. 2:2010cv03261 - Document 31 (C.D. Cal. 2011)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER by Magistrate Judge Patrick J. Walsh: The Court concludes that the Agency's findings are supported by substantial evidence and are free from material legal error. As such, the decision is affirmed.IT IS SO ORDERED. **PLEASE REVIEW DOCUMENT FOR FULL AND COMPLETE DETAILS** (ca)

Download PDF

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 MICHAEL RODRIGUEZ, Plaintiff, 11 12 13 14 15 v. MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of the Social Security Administration, Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No. CV 10-3261 PJW MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER 16 17 I. INTRODUCTION 18 Before the Court is Plaintiff s appeal of a decision by 19 Defendant Social Security Administration ( the Agency ), denying his 20 application for Supplemental Security Income ( SSI ). 21 claims that the Administrative Law Judge ( ALJ ) erred when he found 22 that Plaintiff failed to prove that he had established that there were 23 changed circumstances, supporting his bid to overcome the presumption 24 of continuing nondisability following an earlier decision that he was 25 not disabled. 26 that the ALJ did not err. 27 28 Plaintiff For the reasons explained below, the Court concludes 1 II. BACKGROUND 2 Plaintiff began receiving SSI when he was a child, but became 3 ineligible for benefits in 2002 because he was imprisoned. 4 Stip. at 2.) 5 released. 6 an ALJ denied his application in a decision dated November 2, 2005. 7 (AR 84-93.) 8 denied Plaintiff s request for review in July 2006, and Plaintiff 9 failed to appeal that decision. 10 (Joint Plaintiff reapplied for SSI in 2003, after he was (Administrative Record ( AR ) 84-85.) Following a hearing, The ALJ s decision became final when the Appeals Council (AR 97-100.) In March 2007, Plaintiff applied for SSI, again. (AR 125-32.) 11 The ALJ denied the application in December 2008, finding that 12 Plaintiff had not presented evidence to overcome the presumption of 13 continuing nondisability arising from the 2005 decision. 14 After the Appeals Council denied Plaintiff s request for review (AR 1- 15 4), he commenced this action. 16 17 III. (AR 10-21.) ANALYSIS Plaintiff argues that the ALJ erred by applying the doctrine of 18 res judicata to his case and finding that he was not disabled. (Joint 19 Stip. 3-7, 11-12.) For 20 the following reasons, the Court sides with the Agency. 21 The Agency disagrees. (Joint Stip. 7-10.) The doctrine of res judicata applies to the administrative 22 decisions of the Social Security Administration. Chavez v. Bowen, 844 23 F.2d 691, 693 (9th Cir. 1988) ( The principles of res judicata apply 24 to administrative decisions, although the doctrine is applied less 25 rigidly to administrative proceedings than to judicial proceedings. ). 26 As such, an ALJ s determination that a claimant is not disabled 27 creates a presumption of continuing nondisability with respect to any 28 later disability applications. Lester v. Chater, 81 F.3d 821, 827 2 1 (9th Cir. 1996). 2 demonstrating that there are changed circumstances affecting his 3 ability to function in the workplace. 4 Ruling ( SSR ) 97-4(9) ( [W]here the final decision by the ALJ on the 5 prior claim, which found the claimant not disabled, contained findings 6 of the claimant s residual functional capacity, education, and work 7 experience, [the Agency] may not make different findings in 8 adjudicating the subsequent disability claim unless there is new and 9 material evidence relating to the claimant s residual functional 10 11 A claimant may overcome this presumption by Id. at 827-28; Social Security capacity, education or work experience. ). In this case, Plaintiff argues that evidence from employees of an 12 independent living skills center where he went for training 13 establishes changed circumstances sufficient to overcome the 14 presumption of continuing nondisability. 15 a 2007 report by an evaluator and report writer at the center who, 16 essentially, described Plaintiff as severely impaired and incapable of 17 functioning in the real world. 18 This report was based on the writer s review of files, statements by 19 Plaintiff and his family, and observations by staff at the center. 20 (Joint Stip. 4-7.) He cites (Joint Stip. 4-5 (citing AR 238-53).) Because the author of this report does not have any training in 21 the medical profession, she is considered an other source under the 22 regulations. 23 required to provide reasons that were germane in order to discount the 24 evidence. 25 (quoting Lewis v. Apfel, 236 F.3d 503, 511 (9th Cir. 2001)). 26 See 20 C.F.R. § 416.913(d). Thus, the ALJ was only Turner v. Comm r, 613 F.3d 1217, 1223-24 (9th Cir. 2010) The ALJ met this standard. He noted that he was highly dubious 27 of the statements Plaintiff and his family made to the evaluator about 28 the extent of Plaintiff s impairment, statements that the ALJ had 3 1 rejected as incredible. 2 that, though they claimed that Plaintiff was incapable of dressing 3 himself, tying his shoes, and feeding himself, he had been able to 4 burglarize a home and steal a car. 5 had served time in prison without any apparent difficulty. 6 He also rejected the conclusions in the report because they were based 7 on the faulty premise that Plaintiff was mildly retarded. 8 9 (AR 16-18.) He pointed out, for example, (AR 17.) He noted that Plaintiff (AR 17.) (AR 18.) These reasons are germane and are supported by substantial evidence. As such, the Court concludes that the ALJ did not err in 10 rejecting the finding in the report or in concluding that the report 11 did not establish changed circumstances, supporting Plaintiff s bid 12 to overcome the presumption of continuing nondisability. 13 Plaintiff also claims that the testimony of John Ramos, an 14 educator and . . . interventionist at the center established changed 15 circumstances. 16 things, that Plaintiff loses his cool real fast [i]f he gets a 17 block of instructions given to him, generally needs supervision and 18 assistance, and has problems with social skills and respect for 19 authority. 20 (Joint Stip. 5; AR 41.) Ramos testified, among other (AR 41, 45-56.) As the ALJ pointed out, however, Ramos was a lay witness. (AR 21 41, 44.) Thus, though the ALJ was required to consider his testimony, 22 see Stout v. Comm r, 454 F.3d 1050, 1053 (9th Cir. 2006), he was 23 authorized to reject it for reasons that were germane to the 24 testimony. 25 The ALJ provided germane reasons for rejecting Ramos s testimony. 26 noted that Ramos s testimony was consistent with Plaintiff s 27 testimony, testimony that the ALJ found incredible. 28 pointed out that there was no indication that Ramos had taken into Bayliss v. Barnhart, 427 F.3d 1211, 1218 (9th Cir. 2005). 4 (AR 19.) He He also 1 account the fact that Plaintiff may have been exaggerating his 2 symptoms or that Ramos was qualified to evaluate whether Plaintiff was 3 exaggerating. 4 (AR 19.) These reasons are germane to Ramos s testimony and supported by 5 substantial evidence. See, e.g., Valentine v. Comm r, 574 F.3d 685, 6 694 (9th Cir. 2009) (holding, where ALJ properly rejected the 7 claimant s testimony as incredible, it follows that the ALJ also gave 8 germane reasons for rejecting [a lay witness s] testimony, which was 9 similar to claimant s). Accordingly, the ALJ properly determined that 10 Ramos s testimony did not constitute evidence of changed 11 circumstances, either.1 12 IV. CONCLUSION 13 For these reasons, the Court concludes that the Agency s findings 14 are supported by substantial evidence and are free from material legal 15 error. As such, the decision is affirmed. 16 IT IS SO ORDERED. 17 DATED: September 22, 2011. 18 19 20 ______________________________ PATRICK J. WALSH UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 21 22 23 S:\PJW\Cases-CLOSED\Closed-Soc Sec\RODRIGUEZ, M 3261\Memo_Opinion.wpd 24 25 1 26 27 28 Plaintiff also alleged that the ALJ erred when he found that there were a significant number of jobs in the economy that Plaintiff could perform. (Joint Stip. 13.) In light of the Court s determination that the ALJ properly applied the doctrine of res judicata, the Court need not and does not address this issue. 5

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.