Sandra A Fife Harris v. Carolyn W Colvin, No. 2:2013cv07618 - Document 19 (C.D. Cal. 2014)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER by Magistrate Judge Patrick J. Walsh; the Agency's decision is affirmed and the case is dismissed with prejudice. IT IS SO ORDERED. See order for details. (jy)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Sandra A Fife Harris v. Carolyn W Colvin Doc. 19 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 SANDRA HARRIS, 11 Plaintiff, 12 13 14 v. CAROLYN W. COLVIN, ACTING COMMISSIONER OF THE SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, 15 Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No. CV 13-7618-PJW MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER 16 17 18 I. INTRODUCTION Plaintiff appeals a decision by Defendant Social Security 19 Administration (“the Agency”), denying her application for Disability 20 Insurance Benefits (“DIB”) and Supplemental Security Income (“SSI”). 21 She claims that the Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) erred when she 22 found that Plaintiff was not credible. 23 below, the Court concludes that the ALJ did not err. 24 25 II. For the reasons explained SUMMARY OF PROCEEDINGS In February 2011, Plaintiff applied for DIB and SSI, alleging 26 that she had been unable to work since September 2009, due to 27 osteoarthritis and Turner’s Syndrome. 28 98-111.) (Administrative Record (“AR”) Her applications were denied initially and on reconsidera- Dockets.Justia.com 1 tion and she requested and was granted a hearing before an ALJ. 2 51-64, 67-71, 75-91.) 3 testified at the administrative hearing. 4 2012, the ALJ issued a decision denying benefits. 5 found that Plaintiff’s impairments–-Turner’s syndrome, hypothyroidism, 6 obesity, history of cataract surgery, presbyopia, and astigmatism–- 7 were severe but that they did not prevent her from performing her past 8 work as a security guard. 9 Plaintiff’s testimony that her impairments prevented her from working. 10 (AR 13-14.) 11 review. On June 1, 2012, she appeared with counsel and (AR 10-14.) (AR 19-50.) On July 27, (AR 8-15.) The ALJ In doing so, the ALJ rejected Plaintiff appealed to the Appeals Council, which denied (AR 1-4.) She then commenced this action. III. 12 13 (AR ANALYSIS Plaintiff testified that she could no longer work due to constant 14 pain, particularly in her joints, caused by Turner’s syndrome. 15 30-39.) 16 contends that she erred in doing so. 17 Court concludes that the ALJ did not err. 18 The ALJ rejected this testimony. (AR 12-14.) (AR Plaintiff For the following reasons, the ALJs are tasked with judging the credibility of the claimants. 19 In making these credibility determinations, they may employ ordinary 20 credibility evaluation techniques. 21 1284 (9th Cir. 1996). 22 medical evidence of an impairment which could reasonably be expected 23 to produce the symptoms alleged and there is no evidence of 24 malingering, the ALJ can only reject the claimant’s testimony for 25 specific, clear, and convincing reasons, id. at 1283-84, that are 26 supported by substantial evidence in the record. 27 278 F.3d 947, 959 (9th Cir. 2002). Smolen v. Chater, 80 F.3d 1273, But, where a claimant has produced objective 28 2 Thomas v. Barnhart, 1 The ALJ set out several reasons why Plaintiff’s testimony was not 2 credible. 3 able to work full time for years and had only stopped working when she 4 was laid off from her job. 5 been born with Turner’s syndrome and that it had not prevented her 6 from working before she was laid off. 7 there was no evidence in the record that Plaintiff’s symptoms had 8 changed since she was laid off and inferred that that indicated that 9 her condition did not preclude work. 10 The primary reason, however, was because Plaintiff had been (AR 13.) The ALJ noted that Plaintiff had (AR 13.) She also noted that (AR 13.) This is a valid reason for questioning Plaintiff’s testimony that 11 she could no longer work. 12 Cir. 2001); Copeland v. Bowen, 861 F.2d 536, 542 (9th Cir. 1988). 13 it is particularly relevant in this case as the evidence established 14 that Plaintiff had worked full time from 1982 until 2009 and there was 15 no evidence in the record that her condition changed after she was 16 laid off in 2009. 17 Bruton v. Massanari, 268 F.3d 824, 828 (9th And (AR 116-20.) Plaintiff disagrees. She points out that Turner’s Syndrome is a 18 progressive disease and that, though there is no evidence in the 19 record that her condition deteriorated after she was laid off, there 20 is also no evidence that it did not deteriorate. 21 erred when she assumed that Plaintiff’s condition had remained stable. 22 (Joint Stip. at 9.) 23 This argument is rejected. In her view, the ALJ The evidence supports the ALJ’s 24 finding that Plaintiff’s condition did not materially change after she 25 was laid off. 26 is not proof that it did not change is also rejected. 27 that that were true, it does not undermine the Agency’s argument here. 28 It was Plaintiff’s burden to establish that she was disabled and by Plaintiff’s argument that the absence of such evidence 3 Even assuming 1 not presenting evidence that her condition changed after she was laid 2 off she failed to do so. 3 Cir. 2007) (“[T]he burden is on the claimant to establish [her] 4 entitlement to disability insurance benefits.”) (citation omitted). 5 Thus, the ALJ did not err when she questioned Plaintiff’s testimony 6 that she could no longer work in the face of evidence establishing 7 that her condition had not prevented her from working before the 8 layoff and had not changed since the layoff. See Parra v. Astrue, 481 F.3d 742, 746 (9th 9 The ALJ also focused on the fact that Plaintiff could cook, run 10 errands, and shop for groceries, concluding that this suggested that 11 she was not as impaired as she claimed. 12 support this conclusion. 13 and explained that, when she performed it, she was forced to sit down 14 after about ten minutes of walking and/or standing. 15 type of activity does not suggest that Plaintiff was being 16 disingenuous when she testified that her condition, and the pain it 17 caused, prevented her from working. 18 260 F.3d 1044, 1050 (9th Cir. 2001) (“This court has repeatedly 19 asserted that the mere fact that a plaintiff has carried on certain 20 daily activities, such as grocery shopping, driving a car, or limited 21 walking for exercise, does not in any way detract from her credibility 22 as to her overall disability.”). 23 (AR 13.) The record does not Plaintiff testified to very minimal activity (AR 37-42.) This See, e.g., Vertigan v. Halter, The Court also rejects the ALJ’s finding along similar lines that 24 Plaintiff’s ability to perform these activities showed that she could 25 work because the “physical and mental capabilities requisite to 26 performing [them] . . . replicate those necessary for obtaining and 27 maintaining employment.” 28 connection between these activities and holding down a full-time job. (AR 13.) The ALJ failed to explain the 4 1 And the Court is unable to conjure any connection on its own. 2 such, this reason is rejected. 3 1201 (9th Cir. 1990) (holding ALJ errs when he fails to explain how 4 ability to perform daily activities translated into the ability to 5 perform work). 6 As Gonzalez v. Sullivan, 914 F.2d 1197, The ALJ also questioned Plaintiff’s testimony because none of her 7 doctors opined that she was disabled or even seriously limited. 8 13.) 9 claimed, her doctors would have recognized this and indicated in the (AR The ALJ reasoned that, if Plaintiff was as debilitated as she 10 medical charts that she could not work because she was disabled. 11 13-14.) 12 Plaintiff takes exception to this finding. (AR Though she recognizes 13 that the ALJ was right, she argues that there may have been other 14 reasons why the doctors failed to mention that she was disabled and/or 15 failed to restrict her activities due to her limitations. 16 Stip. at 10-11.) 17 (Joint The Court finds that the record supports the ALJ’s finding on 18 this ground and is a reasonable basis for questioning Plaintiff’s 19 claims of pain. 20 opining that she was disabled, or even restricted, it stands to reason 21 that their notes would have reflected the progression of her 22 limitations and the imposition of some restrictions on her activities 23 over time, both at work and at home. 24 telling.1 Though the doctors may have had other reasons for not The absence of such entries is 25 26 27 28 1 Plaintiff complains that the ALJ improperly rejected a July 2011 note referencing an X-ray report on the ground that the X-ray was not included and, therefore, the note was hearsay. (AR 12.) The note states, in full, “X-ray only showed degenerative joint disease changes of hand and spine.” (AR 407.) The Court agrees with Plaintiff’s 5 1 In the end, the Court finds that two of the reasons cited by the 2 ALJ for questioning Plaintiff’s testimony are supported by the 3 evidence and two are not. 4 reasons are enough to uphold the ALJ’s credibility finding. 5 Carmickle v. Comm’r, Soc. Sec. Admin., 533 F.3d 1155, 1162 (9th Cir. 6 2008) (holding error by ALJ in credibility determination is harmless 7 “[s]o long as there remains substantial evidence supporting the ALJ’s 8 conclusions on . . . credibility and the error does not negate the 9 validity of the ALJ’s ultimate credibility conclusion.”). The issue that remains is whether these two See Ultimately, 10 the Court finds that they are. 11 Plaintiff had no difficulty working prior to being laid off from her 12 full-time job as a security guard and that her condition remained 13 relatively constant after being laid off. 14 records, which consists almost exclusively of Plaintiff’s Kaiser 15 Permanente records (AR 162-386), and the doctors entries therein do 16 not support her testimony that her condition is so debilitating that 17 she cannot work. 18 testimony that she could not work will be upheld. It is clear from the record that In addition, the medical As such, the ALJ’s decision to discount Plaintiff’s 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 premise that ALJs should not reject evidence on the ground that it is hearsay because the Rules of Evidence do not apply to Social Security cases. But, even assuming that the ALJ had rejected the note on that ground and even assuming, further, that the Court were to accept the statement contained in the note, it would not change the outcome of this case or the credibility analysis. 6 1 2 IV. CONCLUSION For these reasons, the Agency’s decision is affirmed and the case 3 is dismissed with prejudice. 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. 5 DATED: December 9, 2014. 6 7 8 _______________________________ PATRICK J. WALSH UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 S:\PJW\Cases-Social Security\HARRIS, 7618\Memorandum Opinion and Order.wpd 7
]]>
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.
