Jerome Washington v. Carolyn W Colvin, No. 2:2013cv07192 - Document 16 (C.D. Cal. 2014)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER by Magistrate Judge Patrick J. Walsh; the ALJ's decision that Plaintiff is not disabled is affirmed and the action is dismissed with prejudice. IT IS SO ORDERED. See order for details. (jy)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Jerome Washington v. Carolyn W Colvin Doc. 16 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 JEROME WASHINGTON, Plaintiff, 11 12 v. 13 14 15 CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant. 16 ) Case No.: CV 13-7192-PJW ) ) ) ) MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 17 I. 18 19 INTRODUCTION Plaintiff appeals a decision by Defendant Social Security 20 Administration (“the Agency”), denying his application for 21 Supplemental Security Income (“SSI”). 22 Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) erred in finding that Plaintiff 23 was not credible. 24 decision is affirmed. For the reasons explained below, the Agency’s II. 25 He claims that the SUMMARY OF PROCEEDINGS 26 In April 2011, Plaintiff applied for SSI, alleging that he 27 had been disabled since birth due to “mental issues,” including 28 schizophrenia. (Administrative Record (“AR”) 35-36, 125-34, 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 147.) The Agency denied his application initially and on 2 reconsideration. 3 hearing before an ALJ. 4 with counsel and testified at the hearing. 5 subsequently issued a decision denying benefits. 6 Plaintiff appealed to the Appeals Council, which denied review. 7 (AR 1-3, 9.) (AR 83-91.) In June 2012, he appeared (AR 32-51.) The ALJ (AR 13-20.) He then commenced this action. III. 8 9 Plaintiff then requested and was granted a ANALYSIS The essence of Plaintiff’s testimony was that he suffered 10 from schizophrenia and that it prevented him from working. 11 36-45.) 12 that he suffered from a schizophrenia but determined that it did 13 not prevent him from working. 14 concluded that Plaintiff’s testimony that he could not work was 15 not credible. 16 For the following reasons, the Court disagrees. 17 (AR The ALJ agreed that the evidence supported his claim (AR 17.) In doing so, the ALJ Plaintiff claims that the ALJ erred in doing so. ALJs are responsible for judging the credibility of 18 witnesses, including the claimants. In making these 19 determinations, they can rely on ordinary credibility evaluation 20 techniques. 21 1996). 22 impairment which could reasonably be expected to produce the 23 symptoms alleged and there is no evidence of malingering, an ALJ 24 can only reject the claimant’s testimony for specific, clear, 25 and convincing reasons, id. at 1283-84, that are supported by 26 substantial evidence in the record. 27 F.3d 947, 959 (9th Cir. 2002). Smolen v. Chater, 80 F.3d 1273, 1284 (9th Cir. Where a claimant has produced medical evidence of an 28 2 Thomas v. Barnhart, 278 The ALJ gave several reasons for questioning Plaintiff’s 1 2 credibility. First, he noted that the record did not establish 3 that Plaintiff’s symptoms prevented him from working. 4 The ALJ pointed out, for example, that the notes from 5 Plaintiff’s treating psychiatrist while he was in prison 6 demonstrated that his condition was stable while on Geodon. 7 17.) 8 of disabling symptoms, see, e.g., Warre v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec. 9 Admin., 439 F.3d 1001, 1006 (9th Cir. 2006) (“Impairments that (AR 17.) (AR This is a valid reason for questioning Plaintiff’s claims 10 can be controlled effectively with medication are not disabling 11 for the purpose of determining eligibility for SSI benefits.”), 12 and is supported by the record. 13 notes from the prison psychiatrist for the period April 2011 to 14 April 2012. 15 generally speaking, Plaintiff was doing well on Geodon and that 16 it helped him control his symptoms. 17 on April 21, 2011, Plaintiff saw the prison psychiatrist for the 18 first time and reported that he had no problems or complaints, 19 other than hearing voices, which the doctor found were 20 “contained” with Geodon. 21 entries in the records documenting the doctor’s contacts with 22 Plaintiff during the course of the following year. 23 notes from five of those visits reflect that Plaintiff was 24 stable (May 2, 2011, May 23, 2011, October 4, 2011, January 12, 25 2012, and April 11, 2012). 26 notes, from June 29 and September 27, 2011, do not describe his 27 condition at all. 28 2011, describes him as “highly anxious,” though it is not clear (AR 276-85.) Plaintiff submitted nine chart These chart notes record that, (AR 285.) (AR 276-85.) There are eight more (AR 277-79, 282, 284.) (AR 280-81.) For example, The chart Two of the And one note, from May 19, 3 1 whether the doctor even saw him that day as the note indicates 2 that the “contact” was other than a face to face. 3 Notes from the prison psychologists and social workers who 4 treated Plaintiff during this same period also reflect that, in 5 general, they found him to be stable, too. 6 Furthermore, on May 26, 2011, examining psychiatrist Suzanne 7 Ashman found that Plaintiff would be no more than mildly 8 impaired in his ability to function in the workplace. 9 (AR 283.) (AR 232-44.) (AR 256.) Plaintiff disagrees with the ALJ’s characterization of the 10 medical evidence. He points out that, in addition to finding 11 Plaintiff highly anxious in June 2011, the prison psychiatrist 12 also found that he was unable to work because he was hearing 13 voices when he was under stress, was confused about his 14 medications, and felt sleepy on Geodon. 15 Though the records include these entries (AR 277, 279, and 284), 16 they do not undermine the ALJ’s characterization of the 17 psychiatrist’s assessments. 18 the psychiatrist believed that Plaintiff was stable on his meds. 19 In fact, on the day that he found that Plaintiff was confused 20 about his medications and was still hearing “some” voices, he 21 noted that Plaintiff was stable. 22 psychiatrist’s opinion that Plaintiff was not able to work, the 23 ALJ was not required to accept it as it was an issue reserved to 24 the ALJ. 25 2007) (“[T]he opinion that Martinez is unable to work is not a 26 medical opinion, but is an opinion about an issue reserved to 27 the Commissioner. 28 medical opinion.”). (Joint Stip. at 5.) These same records document that (AR 279.) As to the prison Martinez v. Astrue, 261 Fed. App’x 33, 35 (9th Cir. It is therefore not accorded the weight of a Thus, the ALJ’s finding that Plaintiff’s 4 1 claims of disabling impairment were undermined by the medical 2 records from the prison is supported by the record and 3 constitutes a valid reason for questioning his testimony.1 4 The ALJ also concluded that Plaintiff was exaggerating when 5 he claimed that he could not work because he was able to perform 6 a number of daily activities like bathing, dressing, preparing 7 meals, and handling money. 8 the ALJ’s finding that Plaintiff could perform these functions, 9 the Court does not agree with the ALJ that Plaintiff’s ability (AR 18.) Though the record supports 10 to perform them undermines his testimony that he could not work. 11 They are simple, routine functions that obviously have little or 12 no connection to holding down a job for 40 hours a week. 13 Vertigan v. Halter, 260 F.3d 1044, 1050 (9th Cir. 2001) (“This 14 court has repeatedly asserted that the mere fact that a 15 plaintiff has carried on certain daily activities, such as 16 grocery shopping, driving a car, or limited walking for 17 exercise, does not in any way detract from her credibility as to 18 her overall disability.”); and Gonzalez v. Sullivan, 914 F.2d 19 1197, 1201 (9th Cir. 1990) (holding ALJ errs in failing to 20 explain how ability to perform daily activities translated into 21 ability to perform work). 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 See Plaintiff contends that the ALJ erred by not addressing his testimony that Geodon made him sleepy. (Joint Stip. at 34.) The record shows, however, that Plaintiff did not report any side effects from Geodon while he was in prison, nor did he mention any to the examining psychiatrist. (AR 232-44, 252-56.) As such, any failure by the ALJ to address the side effects was not erroneous. See, e.g., Osenbrock v. Apfel, 240 F.3d 1157, 1163 (9th Cir. 2001) (holding ALJ did not err in failing to address “passing mentions” of side effects in medical records where there was no evidence that the side effects were severe enough to interfere with claimant’s ability to work). 5 The third reason offered by the ALJ for questioning 1 2 Plaintiff’s testimony was that he was treated “conservatively” 3 with psychotropic medications and was not hospitalized. 4 18.) 5 testimony. 6 2007) (“[E]vidence of ‘conservative treatment’ is sufficient to 7 discount a claimant’s testimony regarding severity of an 8 impairment.”) 9 Plaintiff’s treatment was conservative. (AR This is a valid reason for questioning a claimant’s See Parra v. Astrue, 481 F.3d 742, 751 (9th Cir. And the record supports the ALJ’s finding that In fact, the Court 10 would characterize it as non-existent, except when he was in 11 prison. 12 when he was 15, he was placed in a psychiatric hospital for one 13 month. 14 administrative hearing. 15 received in that 35-year interval was when he was in prison. 16 (AR 232-44, 272-85.) 17 not start hearing voices until 2005 (AR 252), he did not submit 18 any records to show that he received treatment for the voices 19 until 2010, when he was in prison. 20 him receiving any treatment after he was released. 21 Court might quibble with the ALJ’s finding that Plaintiff’s 22 treatment was conservative in the absence of any medical 23 testimony that a more aggressive treatment was warranted, the 24 Court agrees with the ALJ’s sentiment that Plaintiff’s testimony 25 that he suffers from a debilitating psychiatric disorder is 26 incongruent with the minimal treatment he received. 27 28 As Plaintiff explained to the examining psychiatrist, (AR 253.) He was 50 years old at the time of the Yet, the only psychiatric treatment he Even accepting his statement that he did And there is no record of Though the Finally, the ALJ noted that, though Plaintiff testified that he was not able to go out alone, he told the examining 6 1 psychiatrist that he could. 2 rely on the fact that Plaintiff contradicted his testimony. 3 Smolen, 80 F.3d at 1284 (explaining ALJs are entitled to rely on 4 ordinary credibility evaluation techniques, including a 5 claimant’s prior inconsistent statements concerning his 6 symptoms, in evaluating his credibility). 7 (AR 18.) The ALJ was entitled to In the end, the Court finds that three of the reasons cited 8 by the ALJ for questioning Plaintiff’s testimony are supported 9 by the evidence and one is not. The issue that remains is 10 whether these three reasons are enough to uphold the ALJ’s 11 credibility finding. 12 533 F.3d 1155, 1162 (9th Cir. 2008) (holding error by ALJ in 13 credibility determination is harmless “[s]o long as there 14 remains substantial evidence supporting the ALJ’s conclusions on 15 . . . credibility and the error does not negate the validity of 16 the ALJ’s ultimate credibility conclusion.”). 17 that they are. 18 condition is controlled by his medication. 19 time in custody, he did not receive any treatment for a 20 condition that he claims is incapacitating. 21 presents himself as someone who is incapable of leaving his 22 house on his own, he told his doctor that he could. 23 evidence suggests that Plaintiff’s testimony that he was unable 24 to work due to his condition was not true and the ALJ rightly 25 questioned it concluding that Plaintiff was not disabled.2 26 Plaintiff complains that the ALJ failed to include all of his subjective complaints in the hypothetical question to the vocational expert. This argument is rejected. The ALJ was only required to include those limitations that he found believable, 27 28 See Carmickle v. Comm’r, Soc. Sec. Admin., The Court finds It is clear from this record that Plaintiff’s 2 7 Further, but for his Finally, though he All this IV. CONCLUSION 1 2 For these reasons, the ALJ’s decision that Plaintiff is not 3 disabled is affirmed and the action is dismissed with prejudice. 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. 5 DATED: October 30, 2014 6 7 PATRICK J. WALSH UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 S:\PJW\Cases-Social Security\WASHINGTON, 7192\Memorandum Opinion and Order.docx 27 28 which he did. Cir. 2005). See Bayliss v. Barnhart, 427 F.3d 1211, 1217 (9th 8
]]>
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.
