Jacqueline MacIntyre v. Carolyn W. Colvin, No. 2:2014cv02660 - Document 16 (C.D. Cal. 2014)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER by Magistrate Judge Jay C. Gandhi. IT IS ORDERED THAT judgment shall be entered AFFIRMING the decision of the Commissioner denying benefits. (twdb)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Jacqueline MacIntyre v. Carolyn W. Colvin Doc. 16 O 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JACQUELINE MACINTYRE, 12 13 14 Plaintiff, v. 15 CAROLYN W. COLVIN, COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, 16 Defendant. 17 ) Case No. CV 14-2660 JCG ) ) ) ) MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ) ORDER ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 18 19 Jacqueline MacIntyre (“Plaintiff”) challenges the Social Security 20 Commissioner’s decision denying her application for disability benefits. In 21 particular, Plaintiff argues that the Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) improperly 22 rejected her credibility. (See Joint Stip. at 3-8.) The Court addresses, and rejects, 23 Plaintiff’s contention below. 24 A. The ALJ Properly Rejected Plaintiff’s Credibility 25 An ALJ can reject a claimant’s subjective complaints by expressing clear and 26 convincing reasons for doing so. Benton ex rel. Benton v. Barnhart, 331 F.3d 1030, 27 1040 (9th Cir. 2003). “General findings are insufficient; rather, the ALJ must 28 identify what testimony is not credible and what evidence undermines the claimant’s Dockets.Justia.com 1 complaints.” Lester v. Chater, 81 F.3d 821, 834 (9th Cir. 1995) (citations omitted). 2 Here, the ALJ properly discounted Plaintiff’s credibility for the following 3 three reasons. 4 First, the ALJ found that the objective evidence does not support Plaintiff’s 5 alleged degree of disability. (Administrative Record (“AR”) at 14.) Plaintiff cannot 6 identify any medical evidence that supports her claim of disability, and a review of 7 the record shows that no physician suggested limitations more restrictive than those 8 imposed by the ALJ. (See generally id.) To the contrary, treatment notes from April 9 2010 indicate that Plaintiff had normal range of motion in the spine, negative 10 straight leg raising tests, and no tenderness to palpation. (Id. at 228.) Plaintiff 11 reported that she was active, and her general functioning was not affected. (Id. at 12 228-29.) Similarly, records from November 2010 show that Plaintiff had good range 13 of motion in her low back, and her extremities were normal, with no edema or 14 deformities. (Id. at 222.) Finally, in March 2011, Plaintiff’s treating physician 15 found that her “complaints of pain and dysfunction [we]re discordant with physical 16 findings,” and there was “no evidence of disability at th[at] evaluation.” (Id. at 320.) 17 While a lack of objective evidence cannot be the sole reason for rejecting Plaintiff’s 18 testimony, it can be one of several factors used in evaluating her credibility. Rollins 19 v. Massanari, 261 F.3d 853, 857 (9th Cir. 2001). 20 Second, the ALJ found that Plaintiff is not credible because her “subjective 21 complaints and alleged limitations are not consistent with the treatment she 22 receives.” (See AR at 26); Fair v. Bowen, 885 F.2d 597, 603 (9th Cir. 1989) 23 (conservative treatment can discount the severity of symptoms). Indeed, Plaintiff 24 treats her symptoms with Ibuprofen, has “routine medication follow-up visits,” and 25 never participated in physical therapy. (AR at 26, 212-51, 273-348.) Further, 26 Plaintiff failed to follow her treating doctor’s advice to lose weight, exercise more, 27 and stop smoking. (Id. at 26, 319); Fair, 885 F.2d at 603 (failure to follow 28 prescribed course of treatment casts doubt on sincerity of claimant’s pain 2 1 testimony). Moreover, Plaintiff neither sought nor received any medical treatment 2 since May 2011. (See generally id.); Smolen v. Chater, 80 F.3d 1273, 1284 (9th Cir. 3 1996) (in evaluating credibility, ALJ may consider any “inadequately explained 4 failure to seek treatment”). 5 Third, the ALJ noted that Plaintiff’s daily activities “are not consistent with 6 the extreme limitations she alleges.” (AR at 27); see Molina v. Astrue, 674 F.3d 7 1104, 1113 (9th Cir. 2012) (An “ALJ may discredit a claimant’s testimony when the 8 claimant reports participation in everyday activities indicating capacities that are 9 transferable to a work setting . . . . Even where those activities suggest some 10 difficulty functioning, they may be grounds for discrediting the claimant’s testimony 11 to the extent that they contradict claims of a totally debilitating impairment.”) 12 (citations omitted). 13 In this case, Plaintiff testified that she is able to cook, clean the house, do 14 laundry, watch her grandchildren, and carry a bag of groceries or a load of laundry. 15 (AR at 27, 174-75.) Further, Plaintiff is capable of bathing and dressing herself, 16 leaving the house to shop, and she spends a lot of time reading. (Id. at 43.) At least 17 some of these activities are transferable to a job setting. Moreover, they undermine 18 Plaintiff’s allegation of total disability. 19 Thus, the ALJ properly discounted Plaintiff’s credibility. 20 Based on the foregoing, IT IS ORDERED THAT judgment shall be entered 21 AFFIRMING the decision of the Commissioner denying benefits. 22 23 Dated: November 21, 2014 24 ____________________________________ 25 Hon. Jay C. Gandhi United States Magistrate Judge 26 27 28 3
]]>
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.
