Emma Jo Trowbridge v. Michael J. Astrue, No. 2:2010cv08112 - Document 24 (C.D. Cal. 2011)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER by Magistrate Judge Suzanne H. Segal; pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g),3 IT IS ORDERED that judgment be entered AFFIRMING the decision of the Commissioner. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court serve copies of this Order and the Judgment on counsel for both parties. See order for further details. (jy)

Download PDF

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 EMMA JO TROWBRIDGE, 12 Plaintiff, 13 14 15 v. MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of the Social Security Administration, 16 Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) NO. CV 10-08112 SS MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER 17 18 I. 19 INTRODUCTION 20 21 Emma Jo Trowbridge ( Plaintiff ) brings this action seeking to 22 overturn the decision of the Commissioner of the Social Security 23 Administration 24 partially denying her applications for Social Security Income benefits 25 ( SSI ) 26 consented, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), to the jurisdiction of the 27 undersigned United States Magistrate Judge. 28 below, the decision of the Agency is AFFIRMED. and (hereinafter Disability the Insurance Commissioner Benefits or ( DIB ). the Agency ) The parties For the reasons stated 1 II. 2 PROCEDURAL HISTORY 3 4 Plaintiff filed an application for DIB on April 19, 2004 5 (Administrative Record ( AR ) 160-69), and an application for SSI on 6 April 20, 2004. 7 April 1, 2002, (AR 135), due to [a]sthma, breathing problem[s], mass 8 in left lung, migraine, lung disease [sarcoidosis] 9 Agency initially denied this claim on February 17, 2005. (AR 135-38). She alleged a disability onset date of (AR 161). The (AR 108-09). 10 11 On April 20, 2005, Plaintiff requested reconsideration of her 12 claim, which the Agency denied on August 18, 2005. (AR 106). Plaintiff 13 then requested a hearing (AR 52), which was scheduled for October 17, 14 2006. 15 The Administrative Law Judge ( ALJ ) declined to dismiss the hearing and 16 instead continued it to August 6, 2007. 17 with counsel and testified. 18 ALJ issued a decision granting benefits starting on March 1, 2006, but 19 found that the evidence did not support benefits prior to that date. 20 (AR 30). However, Plaintiff failed to appear at the hearing. (AR 58). (AR 58, 64-94). (AR 56). Plaintiff appeared On January 25, 2008, the 21 22 Plaintiff sought review of the ALJ s decision before the Appeals 23 Council, which denied her request on August 18, 2010. (AR 6-8). 24 ALJ s decision became the final decision of the Agency. Plaintiff then 25 filed a complaint in this Court. 26 27 28 2 The 1 III. 2 FACTUAL BACKGROUND 3 4 Plaintiff was born on May 27, 1967. (AR 135). 5 hearing, Plaintiff was forty years old. 6 disability onset date, Plaintiff worked as a secretary from 1999 and 7 2000 where she assisted the general manager and the vice president, 8 typed, 9 scheduling needs. filed reports, and handled (AR 66, 162). (AR 58). At the time of her travel Prior to her alleged arrangements and other Plaintiff reported that she stopped 10 working when the pain [she] was feeling would not allow [her] to work. 11 (AR 161). Plaintiff is a high school graduate and has some college 12 education. (AR 65). 13 14 A. Plaintiff s Medical History 15 16 Plaintiff stated in her Disability Report that she sought treatment 17 from Dr. Robert Thompson primarily for lung problems from April 2002 to 18 August 2004. 19 Advair, Albuterol, and Theophylline for her respiratory issues. 20 AR 300-05). 21 visiting Dr. Joshua Levy with complaints of body pain and arthritis from 22 August 2005 to October 11, 2005. 23 Levy prescribed her Tramadol, Tylenol Arthritis, and Darvon for her 24 pain. (AR 163). Dr. Thompson regularly prescribed Plaintiff (See In her Disability Report Appeal, Plaintiff reported (AR 173). Plaintiff stated that Dr. (AR 175). 25 26 On August 19, 2002, a computerized tomograph ( CT ) scan of 27 Plaintiff s chest revealed a 1.4 cm spiculated left upper lung mass 28 3 1 with associated extensive 2 consistent with primary lung malignancy. 3 later hospitalized for breathing problems at Granada Hills Community 4 Hospital in November 2002. 5 from Plaintiff s left lung by on November 8, 2002. 6 biopsy taken on April 18, 2003 by Dr. Nyamathi revealed features of 7 sarcoidosis. 8 along with a CT scan conducted on April 2, 2003 mirrored the findings 9 of the biopsy. (AR 205). left hilar (AR 164). and mediastinal (AR 235). adenopathy Plaintiff was Dr. Eswar Nyamathi took a biopsy (AR 231). A second A chest x-ray performed on April 16, 2003, (AR 207, 209). The medical record indicates that Dr. 10 Thompson first diagnosed Plaintiff with sarcoidosis on May 14, 2003. 11 (AR 305). 12 13 Following Plaintiff s diagnosis with sarcoidosis, she made numerous 14 visits to Granada Hills Community Hospital seeking treatment for various 15 ailments and prescription refills. 16 ray taken of Plaintiff s right foot after she complained of persistent 17 foot pain revealed no significant issue. 18 visit on September 26, 2003, Plaintiff complained of pelvic pain. 19 275). 20 thickened wall adjacent to the right endometrium probably from a 21 degenerated fibroid. (AR 251-72). On May 5, 2003, an x- (AR 277). During another (AR An ultrasound revealed a 6 mm cyst area, with a slightly (Id.) 22 23 Plaintiff commonly complained of debilitating headaches. (AR 251- 24 55, 260-65). However, an MRI taken on May 24, 2004 showed no evidence 25 of mass, hemorrhage, or infarct. 26 Another MRI, taken the same day, of the pituitary gland also returned 27 negative for abnormalities. No abnormal enhancement. (AR 273). 28 4 (AR 274). 1 Although Plaintiff complained of persistent neck pain, an MRI of 2 her cervical spine taken on November 8, 2004 failed to reveal any severe 3 abnormalities, other than mild central canal stenosis. 4 However, on March 8, 2006, a new x-ray of Plaintiff s cervical spine 5 revealed evidence of more severe issues including degenerative disc 6 disease of the lower cervical spine and narrowing of disc space possibly 7 related to disk bulging. 8 Seltzer performed a cervical epidural injection on Plaintiff to 9 relieve pain associated with cervical disc disease. (AR 337-41). (AR 247-48). On July 27, 2006, Dr. Andrew (AR 333). 10 11 B. Examining Sources 12 13 1. Psychiatric Evaluations 14 15 On July 10, 2006, medical student Jennifer Stevenson, performed the 16 first psychiatric evaluation of Plaintiff. (AR 353-58). The assessment 17 stated that Plaintiff had a GAF of 52. 18 2006, Dr. 19 suffered from major depressive disorder and recurrent post traumatic 20 stress disorder. (AR 359). The record does not include any psychiatric 21 treatment records prior to July 10, 2006. Olayinka Kamson, a (AR 358). psychiatrist, opined On September 28, that Plaintiff 22 23 2. Internal Medicine Evaluations 24 25 On March 5, 2003, Dr. R.S. Vasan examined Plaintiff. (AR 192). 26 Based on impressions from the examination, Dr. Vasan concluded that 27 Plaintiff had clear lungs, and no irregularities in her chest, heart, 28 5 1 or head. (Id.). After reviewing x-rays of Plaintiff s chest, Dr. Vasan 2 determined 3 lymphadenopathy, but was uncertain of the cause. that Plaintiff had [m]adiastinal and axillary (AR 193). 4 5 Dr. Douglas R. Gellerman examined Plaintiff on November 2, 2004, 6 at the request of treating physician, Dr. Joey Brett, to determine the 7 cause of Plaintiff s headaches. (AR 249). Dr. Gellerman concluded that 8 Plaintiff had no abnormalities. (See id.). 9 10 Dr. Jagvinder Singh performed an Internal Medicine Consultation on 11 December 21, 2004. (AR 317-21). 12 problem with mobility, and that her appearance, mood, gait and speech 13 [were] normal. 14 clear despite her recorded history of asthma. 15 Dr. Singh, Plaintiff could stand and walk for about 6 hours, sit 16 without complication, lift fifty pounds occasionally, and lift twenty- 17 five pounds frequently. (AR 318). Dr. Singh noted that Plaintiff had no Additionally, Plaintiff s lungs sound[ed] (AR 321). According to (Id.). 18 19 On January 31, 2005, Dr. Om P. Sharma reported findings based on 20 an examination of Plaintiff. (AR 297). Dr. Sharma diagnosed Plaintiff 21 with sarcoidosis of the lungs and spleen, and recurrent chest pain with 22 fibromyalgia or chronic fatigue syndrome. 23 Sharma asserted that Plaintiff did not need any treatment at this time 24 with regard to her sarcoidosis. (AR 298). However, Dr. (Id.). 25 26 Dr. Singh reexamined Plaintiff on August 1, 2005. (AR 311). While 27 Dr. Singh recognized Plaintiff s history of rheumatoid arthritis, 28 6 1 pulmonary fibrosis, sarcoidosis, and hypothyroidism, he could not find 2 any physical signs of any of the diseases. 3 could not find any limitation either. 4 opined that Plaintiff could still stand and walk for 6 hours, sit 5 without restrictions, lift and carry twenty-five pounds frequently, and 6 lift and carry fifty pounds occasionally. 7 Singh asserted that Plaintiff had no postural limitations, but stated 8 that Plaintiff should avoid exposure to fumes, dust, biological or 9 chemical hazards. (AR 314-15). (AR 315). (Id.). Further, he Accordingly, he Additionally, Dr. (Id.). 10 11 On June 12, 2006, at Dr. Brett s request, Dr. Jessica Bren Boston 12 examined Plaintiff to determine the source of her neck pain and 13 recommend a treatment program. 14 Boston reported that Plaintiff had significant pain with lateral 15 flexion bilaterally at the cervical spine as well as increased low 16 back pain with lumbar extension greater than flexion. (AR 337). After 17 reviewing x-rays of Plaintiff s cervical spine, Dr. Boston concluded 18 that Plaintiff had possible cervical disc bulging and degenerative disk 19 disease of the lower cervical spine. 20 examining an x-ray of Plaintiff s lumbar spine, Dr. Boston concluded 21 that Plaintiff had [f]acet arthropathy at L4-L5 and L5-S1 bilaterally. 22 (Id.). (AR 335-38). (Id.). Upon examination, Dr. Additionally, after 23 24 C. Consultative Sources 25 26 27 On February 17, 2005, Dr. Myung Sohn, completed a Physical Residual Functional Capacity Assessment of 28 7 Plaintiff. (AR 324-31). The 1 assessment was based on Dr. Sohn s 2 Plaintiff s records. 3 Plaintiff could occasionally lift and/or carry fifty pounds, frequently 4 lift and/or carry twenty-five pounds, and be on her feet for about 6 5 hours in an 8-hour workday. (AR 325). Further, Dr. Sohn asserted that 6 Plaintiff did not have any push or pull limitations, nor any postural, 7 manipulative, visual, or communicative limitations. (See AR 324). impression after reviewing Accordingly, Dr. Sohn opined that (AR 325-28). 8 9 D. Vocational Expert s Testimony 10 11 Barbara Miksic, a vocational expert, testified at Plaintiff s 2007 12 hearing. (AR 94-96). Ms. Miksic testified that a person who is is 13 physically able of lifting 50 pounds occasionally, and 25 pounds 14 frequently, can stand and/or walk for 6 hours out of an 8-hour day, can 15 sit for 6 hours in an 8-hour day, and frequently able to perform all six 16 of the postural functions would be able to perform Plaintiff s past 17 relevant work. (AR 96). 18 19 F. Plaintiff s Testimony 20 21 At the 2007 hearing, Plaintiff testified that she last worked as 22 a secretary for an airplane manufacturing company. (AR 66). She 23 confirmed that the maximum amount of weight she had to carry was maybe 24 15 pounds, and that she was on her feet less than four hours a day. 25 (AR 66-67). 26 could carry up to a maximum of ten pounds, be on her feet for a total 27 of thirty minutes in an eight-hour period, and sit continuously for an Plaintiff testified that, at the time of the hearing, she 28 8 1 hour in an eight-hour period. (AR 79-80). Moreover, Plaintiff claimed 2 that she had trouble balancing because of back problems arising from 3 pregnancy and other factors during the 1990s. 4 Plaintiff testified that she routinely leaves her house at least twice 5 a day, five days a week, to take her son to and from school. (AR 83-84). Further, (AR 93). 6 7 When the ALJ asked why Plaintiff was unable to work since January 8 2000, Plaintiff claimed that sarcoidosis and asthma limited her ability 9 to breathe (AR 68-69), which further impacted her exertional capacity 10 because she would become dizzy, light-headed, and feel faint. (AR 11 69). 12 about half an hour in an eight-hour period, and had to change positions 13 every twenty minutes while seated. Plaintiff also testified that during that time she could walk (AR 70-71). 14 15 16 IV. 17 THE FIVE-STEP SEQUENTIAL EVALUATION PROCESS 18 19 To qualify for disability benefits, a claimant must demonstrate a 20 medically determinable physical or mental impairment that prevents her 21 from engaging in substantial gainful activity1 and that is expected to 22 result in death or to last for a continuous period of at least twelve 23 months. 24 42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(1)(A)). 25 incapable of performing the work she previously performed and incapable Reddick v. Chater, 157 F.3d 715, 721 (9th Cir. 1998) (citing The impairment must render the claimant 26 1 Substantial gainful activity means work that involves doing 27 significant and productive physical or mental duties and is done for pay or profit. 20 C.F.R. § 416.910. 28 9 1 of performing any other substantial gainful employment that exists in 2 the national economy. 3 1999) (citing 42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(2)(A)). Tackett v. Apfel, 180 F.3d 1094, 1098 (9th Cir. 4 5 6 To decide if a claimant is entitled to benefits, an ALJ conducts a five-step inquiry. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920. The steps are: 7 8 (1) 9 activity? 10 11 Is the claimant presently engaged in substantial gainful If so, the claimant is found not disabled. If not, proceed to step two. (2) Is the claimant s impairment 12 claimant is found not disabled. 13 severe? If not, the three. 14 (3) Does the claimant s If so, proceed to step impairment meet or equal the 15 requirements of any impairment listed at 20 C.F.R. Part 16 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1? 17 found disabled. 18 (4) If so, the claimant is If not, proceed to step four. Is the claimant capable of performing h[er] past work? 19 If so, the claimant is found not disabled. 20 proceed to step five. 21 (5) Is the claimant able to do any other work? 22 claimant is found disabled. 23 If not, If not, the If so, the claimant is found not disabled. 24 25 Tackett, 180 F.3d at 1098-99; see also Bustamante v. Massanari, 262 F.3d 26 949, 953-54 (9th Cir. 2001); 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(b)-(g)(1). 27 28 10 1 The claimant has the burden of proof at steps one through four, and 2 the Commissioner has the burden of proof at step five. Bustamante, 262 3 F.3d at 953-54. 4 establishing an inability to perform the past work, the Commissioner 5 must show that the claimant can perform some other work that exists in 6 significant numbers in the national economy, taking into account the 7 claimant s RFC, age, education and work experience. 8 at 1100; 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(g)(1). 9 testimony of a vocational expert or by reference to the Medical- 10 Vocational Guidelines appearing in 20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpart P, 11 Appendix 2 (commonly known as the Grids ). 12 F.3d 1157, 1162 (9th Cir. 2001). 13 (strength-related) 14 inapplicable and the ALJ must take the testimony of a vocational expert. 15 Moore v. Apfel, 216 F.3d 864, 869 (9th Cir. 2000). If, at step four, the claimant meets her burden of and Tackett, 180 F.3d The Commissioner may do so by the Osenbrock v. Apfel, 240 When a claimant has both exertional nonexertional limitations, the Grids are 16 17 V. 18 THE ALJ S DECISION 19 20 The ALJ employed the five-step sequential evaluation process and 21 concluded that Plaintiff was disabled beginning March 1, 2006 under the 22 Social Security Act. (AR 21-31). At the first step, the ALJ found that 23 Plaintiff had not engaged in substantial gainful activity since June 30, 24 2003. 25 impairments, 26 secondary 27 established), and depression. (AR 24). to At step two, the ALJ found that Plaintiff had severe including her degenerative chronic fatigue (Id.). 28 11 disc disease, syndrome fibromyalgia (possible but not At step three, the ALJ found 1 that the severe impairments at step two did not meet or medically equal 2 a listed impairment. (AR 25). 3 4 At step four, the ALJ split his analysis based on Plaintiff s 5 residual functional capacity ( RFC ) before and after March 1, 2006. 6 (AR 26-30). 7 perform medium work, including standing and/or walking at least 6 hours 8 in an 8 hour work day; sitting at least 6 hours in an 8 hour work day, 9 using hands and feet for pushing and pulling arm and leg controls, and 10 lifting 50 lbs. occasionally with frequent lifting of up to 25 lbs. 11 (AR 26). 12 of Plaintiff s RFC. 13 Singh did not find any physical signs of any diseases that Plaintiff 14 asserted. Prior to March 1, 2006, the ALJ found that Plaintiff could The ALJ relied on the State Agency s and Dr. Singh s opinions (Id.). Further, the ALJ cited the fact that Dr. (AR 25). 15 16 Moreover, the ALJ discounted Plaintiff s testimony about her 17 capabilities prior to March 1, 2006, because her medical history and 18 the objective medical evidence offer no basis for drawing reasonable 19 conclusions regarding the extent of her alleged symptoms. 20 Specifically, the ALJ referred to MRI scans of Plaintiff s head and 21 spine during that time, which failed to support Plaintiff s assertions. 22 (See id.). Further, the ALJ noted that Plaintiff had no trouble living, 23 dressing, grooming, bathing, cooking, doing laundry, or talking walks. 24 (AR 28). 25 Plaintiff s medical record supporting mental limitations prior to March 26 1, 2006. (AR 27). The ALJ also highlighted that there is no evidence in (Id.). Additionally, the ALJ pointed out that Plaintiff was 27 28 12 1 classified as a younger individual, thirty-six years old, on the alleged 2 onset date of disability. (AR 29). 3 4 After determining Plaintiff s RFC, the ALJ determined that 5 Plaintiff could have performed her past relevant work as a secretary 6 prior to March 1, 2006. (AR 28). 7 impairments were not so severe and frequent to prevent medium work with 8 frequent 9 kneeling, crouching, and crawling. postural limitations in Specifically, he asserted, her climbing, (Id.). balancing, stooping, The ALJ relied partially 10 on the vocational expert s opinion, which confirmed that a hypothetical 11 person, similarly situated to Plaintiff, could perform secretarial 12 duties. (AR 29). 13 14 However, after March 1, 2006, the ALJ determined that there was 15 sufficient evidence in the record to support this finding. 16 ALJ accredits this change to x-ray results from Plaintiff s lower back 17 and neck, which revealed disabling degenerative disc disease and disc 18 bulge of the lower spine, as well as facet arthropathy at L4-L5 and 19 L5-S1 bilaterally. 20 findings of Plaintiff s mental evaluation on July 10, 2006, which showed 21 that Plaintiff had major depressive disorder and recurrent and post- 22 traumatic stress disorder. 23 Plaintiff could not perform her previous work experience after March 1, 24 2006, and that she was disabled as of that date. (Id.). (Id.). The Further, the ALJ gave weight to the (AR 30). 25 26 27 28 13 Accordingly, the ALJ found that (Id.). 1 VI. 2 STANDARD OF REVIEW 3 4 Under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), a district court may review the 5 Commissioner s decision to deny benefits. The court may set aside the 6 Commissioner s decision when the ALJ s findings are based on legal error 7 or are not supported by substantial evidence in the record as a whole. 8 Aukland v. Massanari, 257 F.3d 1033, 1035 (9th Cir. 2001); Smolen v. 9 Chater, 80 F.3d 1273, 1279 (9th Cir. 1996). 10 11 Substantial evidence is more than a scintilla, but less than a 12 preponderance. 13 which a reasonable person might accept as adequate to support a 14 conclusion. 15 a finding, the court must consider the record as a whole, weighing 16 both 17 [Commissioner s] conclusion. Aukland, 257 F.3d at 1035 (quoting Penny 18 v. Sullivan, 2 F.3d 953, 956 (9th Cir. 1993)). 19 reasonably support either affirming or reversing that conclusion, the 20 court may not substitute its judgment for that of the Commissioner. 21 Reddick, 157 F.3d at 720-21. evidence Reddick, 157 F.3d at 720. Id. It is relevant evidence To determine whether substantial evidence supports that supports and evidence that detracts from the If the evidence can 22 23 VII. 24 DISCUSSION 25 26 Plaintiff contends the ALJ erred in failing to provide clear and 27 convincing reasons for rejecting Plaintiff s testimony concerning her 28 14 1 condition prior to March 1, 2006. (Memorandum in Support of Plaintiff s 2 Complaint ( Complaint Memo. ) at 2). 3 claim. 4 decision should be AFFIRMED. The Court rejects Plaintiff s For the reasons discussed below, the Court finds that the ALJ s 5 6 The ALJ Gave Clear and Convincing Reasons For Rejecting 7 Plaintiff s Subjective Testimony Regarding Her Condition Before 8 March 1, 2006 9 10 Plaintiff contends that the ALJ failed to provide clear and 11 convincing reasons for rejecting Plaintiff s subjective 12 concerning her condition prior to March 1, 2006. 13 2). testimony (Complaint Memo. at The Court disagrees. 14 15 Whenever an ALJ s disbelief of a claimant s testimony is a critical 16 factor in a decision to deny benefits, as it is here, the ALJ must make 17 explicit credibility findings. 18 602 (9th Cir. 2006); Rashad v. Sullivan, 903 F.2d 1229, 1231 (9th Cir. 19 1990). 20 malingering, the ALJ s reasons for rejecting the claimant s testimony 21 must be clear and convincing. Parra v. Astrue, 481 F.3d 742, 750 (9th 22 Cir. 2007); Lester v. Chater, 81 F.3d 821, 834 (9th Cir 1995). 23 as 24 reasonably be expected to produce pain, the ALJ may not require the 25 degree of pain to be corroborated by objective medical evidence. 26 Bunnell v. Sullivan, 947 F.2d 341, 346-47 (9th Cir. 1991) (en banc); 27 Smolen, 80 F.3d at 1282. Rochin v. Barnhart, 204 F. App x 601, Unless there is affirmative evidence showing that a claimant is Plaintiff offers evidence of a 28 15 medical impairment As long that could 1 The ALJ may, however, reject Plaintiff s testimony regarding the 2 severity of her symptoms if he points to clear and convincing reasons 3 for doing so. 4 Plaintiff s 5 credible, the ALJ may consider, among other things, the following 6 evidence: (1) ordinary techniques of credibility evaluation, such as the 7 claimant s 8 concerning the symptoms, and other testimony by the claimant that 9 appears less than candid; (2) unexplained or inadequately explained 10 failure to seek treatment or to follow a prescribed course of treatment; 11 and (3) the claimant s daily activities. 12 credibility finding is supported by substantial evidence in the record, 13 the court may not engage in second-guessing. 14 F.3d 947, 959 (9th Cir. 2002). See Smolen, 80 F.3d at 1283-84. testimony reputation regarding for the lying, severity prior To determine whether of her symptoms inconsistent Id. at 1284. is statements If the ALJ s Thomas v. Barnhart, 278 15 16 Here, the ALJ found that Plaintiff s allegations of symptoms 17 simply do not support an allegation that she [was] incapable of 18 performing any work activity prior to 2006. 19 that Plaintiff had no problem in dressing, grooming and bathing 20 herself. 21 the bed, dishwashing, and takes a walk. 22 noted that there were no laboratory or clinical findings or any 23 demonstrated medical pathology documented in the record to support a 24 more restrictive RFC. 25 the record to indicate that there were any limitations from a mental 26 standpoint prior to March 1, 2006. 27 while Plaintiff s medically determinable impairment could reasonably (AR 27). The ALJ noted [Plaintiff] drives, does cooking, laundry, vacuuming, makes (Id.). (AR 28). The ALJ further Additionally, the ALJ found nothing in 28 16 (Id.). The ALJ concluded that 1 be expected to produce the alleged symptoms . . . [her] statements 2 concerning the intensity, persistence and limiting effects of these 3 symptoms are not entirely credible. Id. 4 5 The ALJ s opinion is supported by substantial evidence in the 6 record. Specifically, there is significant evidence showing Plaintiff 7 exaggerated her pre-2006 symptoms. First, the ALJ properly discredited 8 Plaintiff s complaints of disabling migraines by pointing to an MRI from 9 March 24, 2004. (AR 27). The MRI revealed no evidence of mass, 10 hemorrhage or infarct. Id. Moreover, Dr. Gellerman failed to find 11 abnormalities when he examined Plaintiff on November 2, 2004. 12 249). 13 (AR 251-72), there are no records supporting her complaints. (AR 18, Although Plaintiff frequently complained of disabling headaches 14 15 Second, the ALJ correctly determined that the degree of Plaintiff s 16 complaints pertaining to her cervical spine pain were not supported by 17 the medical record prior to March 1, 2006. 18 November 19 abnormalities other than mild central canal stenosis. (AR 247-48). The 20 medical 21 unchanged until March 8, 2006.2 8, 2004 records of Plaintiff s relating to (AR 24). cervical Plaintiff s spine An MRI taken on showed cervical no severe spine remained the consultative doctors 22 23 24 Third, assessments. the ALJ properly (AR 27). relied on While Plaintiff asserted that she could only 25 2 The ALJ properly relied on a significant change in Plaintiff s diagnostic test results from an MRI taken on March 8, 2006, which 27 revealed degenerative disc disease and disc bulging (AR 337-41), to award benefits after March 1, 2006. (AR 29). 28 17 26 1 carry a maximum of ten pounds and be on her feet for thirty minutes in 2 an eight-hour period (AR 79-80), Dr. Singh found that she could carry 3 up to fifty pounds occasionally, carry twenty-five pounds frequently, 4 and be on her feet for six hours in an eight-hour period. 5 Dr Singh s results were unchanged after reexamining Plaintiff the 6 following year. 7 disabling conditions, such as asthma and sarcoidosis, Dr. Singh could 8 not find any physical signs of any of the diseases, nor did he find 9 any significant limitations. (AR 315). (AR 318). Although Plaintiff complained of numerous (Id.). 10 11 Further, Dr. Sohn s consultative assessment filed on February 17, 12 2005 supported Dr. Singh s finding that Plaintiff could perform medium 13 work. 14 demonstrated medical pathology documented anywhere in the record which 15 would substantiate restricting the [RFC] greater. (AR 28). Therefore, 16 the ALJ properly relied on the opinions of Dr. Singh and Dr. Sohn. (AR 325-28). The ALJ also correctly noted that there was no 17 18 Fourth, the ALJ correctly noted that the record is devoid of any 19 mental health treatment prior to 2006. (AR 28). 20 that Plaintiff had a substantial mental health limitation came from an 21 examination on July 10, 2006. 22 suggested that Plaintiff s mental health was an aggravating factor 23 contributing to her disability (AR 90), there is no evidence in the 24 record to show that Plaintiff s mental state was impaired prior to July 25 10, 2006. 26 record to indicate that there were any limitations from a mental 27 standpoint prior to March 1, 2006. (AR 353-58). The first indication While Plaintiff s attorney The Court agrees with the ALJ that there was nothing in the 28 18 (AR 28). 1 Finally, the ALJ correctly noted that there was not much objective 2 medical evidence 3 sarcoidosis, 4 Plaintiff disabled before 2006. 5 medical opinions of Dr. Singh and Dr. Sohn, another examining physician, 6 Dr. Sharma, also concluded that Plaintiff did not require any further 7 treatment for sarcoidosis as of January 31, 2005. 8 the ALJ indicated that he was very aware of sarcoidosis, and knew that 9 some people can do more than others while afflicted with the disease. or from any her other treating impairment, sources was to severe (See AR 28). conclude enough to that deem In addition to the (AR 298). 10 (AR 72). 11 Further However, nothing in the medical records show that Plaintiff s sarcoidosis prevented her from working prior to March 1, 2006. 12 13 Therefore, it was proper for the ALJ to reject Plaintiff s claims 14 regarding her ability to work prior to March 2006. 15 that the ALJ provided clear and convincing reasons for discounting 16 Plaintiff s testimony concerning her condition prior to March 1, 2006. 17 Accordingly, no remand is required. 18 \\ 19 \\ 20 \\ 21 \\ 22 \\ 23 24 25 26 27 28 19 The Court concludes 1 VIII. 2 CONCLUSION 3 4 Consistent with the foregoing, and pursuant to sentence four of 42 5 U.S.C. § 405(g),3 IT IS ORDERED that judgment be entered AFFIRMING the 6 decision of the Commissioner. 7 the Court serve copies of this Order and the Judgment on counsel for 8 both parties. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of 9 10 DATED: September 21, 2011 11 12 13 /S/ 14 SUZANNE H. SEGAL 15 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 THIS MEMORANDUM IS NOT INTENDED FOR PUBLICATION NOR IS IT INTENDED 23 TO BE INCLUDED IN OR SUBMITTED TO ANY ONLINE SERVICE SUCH AS WESTLAW OR 24 LEXIS. 25 3 This sentence provides: The [district] court shall have power to enter, upon the pleadings and transcript of the record, a judgment 27 affirming, modifying, or reversing the decision of the Commissioner of Social Security, with or without remanding the cause for a rehearing. 28 20 26

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.