Tony A. Davis v. Michael J. Astrue, No. 2:2010cv06025 - Document 15 (C.D. Cal. 2011)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM DECISION by Magistrate Judge Stephen J. Hillman, The decision of the Commissioner is affirmed, and plaintiffs Complaint is dismissed. (SEE DECISION FOR FURTHER DETAILS) (lmh)

Download PDF

Tony A. Davis v. Michael J. Astrue Doc. 15 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA-WESTERN DIVISION 11 12 13 14 15 TONYA DAVIS, 16 ) CV 10-6025-SH ) ) MEMORANDUM DECISION ) ) ) Plaintiff, 17 vs. 18 MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, COMMISSIONER, ) ) 19 Defendant, 20 ) ) ) _________________________ ) 21 22 INTRODUCTION 23 Plaintiff applied for SSI benefits on July 28, 2008, alleging disability as of 24 July 23, 2008. Having thereafter exhausted her administrative remedies following 25 denial of her claim, plaintiff filed a Complaint on August 12, 2010. The parties 26 filed their respective briefs, however plaintiff did not file a Reply brief. The 27 28 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 parties having consented to the jurisdiction of the magistrate judge, the matter was taken under 2 submission. 3 4 Plaintiff raises two alleged legal errors in the Commissioner s decision. As discussed below, neither claim of error has merit. 5 6 1. 7 impairment. 8 9 The ALJ correctly found that plaintiff did not suffer from a severe mental Plaintiff asserts that the finding that plaintiff suffered from no severe mental impairment was erroneous. 10 Plaintiff, at the hearing before the ALJ, complained of anxiety and panic 11 attacks during the preceding four months. A.R. 21, 37. There was no evidence of 12 the medical record that plaintiff had received any treatment for anxiety. Her 13 treating physician, Dr. Carpenter, did not indicate that plaintiff had any mental 14 limitations. (A.R. 147-149, 233-35). The record is devoid of any mental status 15 exam or psychological testing. 16 17 Indeed, in her application for benefits, plaintiff complained only of physical impairments. 18 Although plaintiff later reported depression and anxiety to the examining 19 physician, Dr. Nassir, he conducted no mental status examination. He did 20 no more than accept plaintiff s self-reporting of mental symptoms. AR 226-229. 21 Moreover, his examination of plaintiff in 2010 was obtained four months after the 22 ALJ s decision had been issued. Thus, the opinion was outside the relevant time 23 period for an SSI application, namely the period between the date of alleged onset 24 (July 23, 2008) through the date of the ALJ s decision, November 6, 2009. 20 25 C.F.R. Sec. 416.1470(b) (2010). 26 /// 27 28 2 1 In sum, because no medical records established any mental limitations or 2 identified any clinical mental findings, plaintiff failed to meet her burden of 3 showing a severe mental impairment. While the court recognizes that a severity 4 finding requires that an impairment have only more than a minimal impact on 5 ability to work, here the ALJ properly concluded that plaintiff did not show that 6 she suffered from a severe mental impairment. Although the ALJ s comment (A.R. 21) to the 7 effect that plaintiff exhibited no signs of mental impairment at the hearing was improper, the fact 8 remains that there was no relevant medical opinion or findings upon which the ALJ could have 9 reasonably concluded that plaintiff suffered a severe mental impairment. 10 11 2. The Rejection of the Opinion of the Treating Physician was Proper. 12 The ALJ rejected the opinion of Dr. Carpenter, plaintiff s sole treating 13 physician. Dr. Carpenter opined on plaintiff s physical impairment of degenerative 14 disc disease. Dr. Carpenter opined on plaintiff s physical limitations. AR 147-49. 15 However, the ALJ correctly found that Dr. Carpenter s assessment of 16 plaintiff s physical limitations was not supported by progress notes, and was 17 countered by the results of a consultative exam performed by Dr. Sadasivam (AR 18 25, 204-209). Dr.Carpenter s treatment records revealed that plaintiff s impairments were 19 controlled or mild. Treatment records revealed no neurological deficits. AR. 24. In a note dated 20 December 18, 2009, Dr. Carpenter did not indicate degenerative disc or joint disease. The 21 treatment records simply did not support the limitations which she assessed. A December 10, 22 2009 radiology report showed only mild degenerative disc disease in the right hip. 23 On the other hand, Dr. Sadasivam s exam results did not support disabling 24 physical limitations. AR 24-25. The ALJ was entitled to rely on the alternative and 25 independent clinical findings, which included only a mildly reduced range of 26 motion in the back, a normal range of motion in hips, ankles and feet, and a 27 28 3 1 normal neurological exam. AR 208). Tonapetyan v. Halter, 242 F. 3rd 1144, 1149 2 (9th Cir. 2001). 3 4 Dr. Boetcher s non-examining consultative opinion constituted additional evidence to support the ALJ s findings. AR 211-15. 5 6 7 CONCLUSION AND ORDER For the foregoing reasons, the decision of the Commissioner is affirmed, 8 and plaintiff s Complaint is dismissed. 9 DATED: March 11, 2011 10 11 12 ___________________________________ STEPHEN J. HILLMAN UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 4

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.