Johnetta Brooks v. Carolyn W. Colvin, No. 2:2014cv04182 - Document 18 (C.D. Cal. 2014)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER by Magistrate Judge Stephen J. Hillman, the Decision of the Commissioner is affirmed,and the Complaint is dismissed. (sbu)

Download PDF

Johnetta Brooks v. Carolyn W. Colvin Doc. 18 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 JOHNETTA BROOKS, 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 v. Plaintiff, CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Commissioner, Social Security Administration, Defendant. ) CV 14-04182-SH ) ) MEMORANDUM DECISION ) AND ORDER ) ) ) ) ) ) ) I. BACKGROUND Plaintiff applied for a period of Disability Insurance Benefits and Supplemental Security Income, alleging disability as of September, 2009. An ALJ held a hearing on October 12, 2012. On December 10, 2012, the ALJ found Plaintiff not disabled, and that she retained a residual functional capacity to perform work in the national economy. The Appeals Council denied review, and this action followed. The parties have filed their briefs, and the Defendant has 28 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 filed the Administrative Record. 2 3 II. DISCUSSION 4 Plaintiff makes two contentions: First, that the ALJ failed to properly 5 accept or reject the November, 2009 report (A.R. 249-266) by examining clinical 6 psychologist Gunilla Karlsson, Ph.D. Dr Karlsson examined plaintiff on a single 7 occasion, barely two months after the tragic accident and alleged onset of 8 disability. 9 The plaintiff, on September 5, 2009, suffered personal traumatic physical 10 and psychological injury, when she tragically witnessed the serious injury of one 11 brother and the instant death of another brother; all of which were caused by the 12 family being struck by a drunk driver while they were standing by their disabled 13 vehicle on the side of the I-5 freeway. Plaintiff was seriously psychologically 14 traumatized by her horrific experience. Dr. Karlsson found plaintiff to be 15 “temporarily totally psychologically disabled.” A.R. 264. 16 Plaintiff asserts that the ALJ gave only cursory consideration to Dr. 17 Karlsson’s report, but did not expressly state whether he accepted or rejected the 18 opinion of total temporary disability. (A.R. 14). 19 Although the ALJ could have elaborated on his reasons for not giving Dr. 20 Karlsson’s report controlling weight, not doing was harmless error. The opinion 21 was that of only temporary disability, not disability expected to last twelve 22 months or longer. 23 Moreover, more recent reports relied on by the ALJ supported the ALJ’s 24 conclusion. Psychological reports and unremarkable evidence from treating 25 sources led the ALJ to the conclusion that plaintiff was not credible, and was 26 malingering, conclusions which plaintiff does not challenge. The fact that 27 plaintiff was traumatized and temporarily psychologically disabled a mere two 28 months after the horrific incident does not mean that her condition remained the 2 1 same over the following years, nor that she was disabled despite some 2 psychological sequalae. Second, Plaintiff argues that the ALJ did not mention the 2012 letter from 3 4 Josie Montgomery, MA, LMFT, plaintiff’s therapist. However, as defendant 5 notes, Ms. Montgomery’s letter was considered by Dr. Pierce, the examining 6 psychologist, who indicated that he found plaintiff’s effort during his 7 examination to be minimal, and her deportment “exaggerated.” A.R. 525-531. Dr. Jordan, a psychiatrist also questioned plaintiffs’ truthfulness as to the 8 9 10 11 degree of her symptomology, and that she was highly manipulative. A.R. 335340. The ALJ properly resolved conflicts in the record, and reasonably gave 12 greater weight to the more recent opinions of the psychiatrists, relying on those 13 reports more than the very early report of Dr. Karlsson (which only opined as to 14 temporary disability) and Ms. Montgomery. Moreover, the plaintiff was found to 15 be malingering and not credible, a conclusion which she does not challenge. 16 III. CONCLUSION 17 18 For the foregoing reasons, the Decision of the Commissioner is affirmed, 19 and the Complaint is dismissed. 20 DATED: December 3, 2014 21 22 23 24 25 STEPHEN J. HILLMAN 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.