Enrique Galindo v. Nancy A. Berryhill, No. 2:2016cv02688 - Document 26 (C.D. Cal. 2017)
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. (kh)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Enrique Galindo v. Nancy A. Berryhill Doc. 26 1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 10 11 ENRIQUE GALINDO, Plaintiff, 12 13 14 v. NANCY A. BERRYHILL1, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant. 15 16 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No. LA CV 16-2688 JCG MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER 17 18 19 20 Enrique Galindo (“Plaintiff”) challenges the Social Security Commissioner’s decision denying his application for disability benefits. Three issues are presented for decision here: 21 22 1. Plaintiff’s treating physician’s opinion (see Joint Stip. at 3-10); 23 24 Whether the Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) properly assessed 2. Whether the ALJ’s hypothetical to the vocational expert (“VE”) was incomplete because it omitted Plaintiff’s use of a walker (see id. at 11-14); and 25 26 27 1 28 The Court DIRECTS the Clerk of Court to update the case caption to reflect Nancy A. Berryhill as the proper Defendant. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 25(d). 1 Dockets.Justia.com 3. 1 2 the residual functional capacity (“RFC”) (see id. at 14-17). The Court addresses Plaintiff’s contentions below, and finds that reversal is not 3 4 Whether the ALJ properly assessed Plaintiff’s depression in formulating warranted. 5 A. 6 Plaintiff contends that the ALJ improperly assessed the opinion of his treating 7 The ALJ Properly Assessed the Treating Physician’s Opinion physician, Dr. Robert Titcher. (Joint Stip. at 3-10.) As a rule, if an ALJ wishes to disregard the opinion of a treating or examining 8 9 physician, “he or she must make findings setting forth specific, legitimate reasons for 10 doing so that are based on substantial evidence in the record.” Murray v. Heckler, 722 11 F.2d 499, 502 (9th Cir. 1983); accord Carmickle v. Comm’r, Soc. Sec. Admin., 533 12 F.3d 1155, 1164 (9th Cir. 2008).2 Here, the ALJ properly assigned “little weight” to Dr. Titcher’s opinion3 for four 13 14 reasons. First, the extreme limitations in the opinion were inconsistent with the doctor’s 15 16 own progress notes showing that Plaintiff’s symptoms were controlled when he 17 complied with treatment. (AR at 24, 250, 311-12, 318-21, 334-37); see Wilhelm v. 18 Comm’r Soc. Sec. Admin., 597 F. App’x 425, 425 (9th Cir. 2015) (ALJ properly 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2 The Court notes that on January 18, 2017, the Commissioner issued new rules that made substantial changes to the way ALJs must evaluate medical opinion evidence going forward. Among other things, these changes eliminate the traditional scheme of deference and greater weight generally assigned to treating physicians, and instead require that all opinion evidence be evaluated on a more equal footing, with a focus on issues such as the supportability of those opinions and consistency with the overall record. See 82 Federal Register 5844-01, 2017 WL 168819, *5844-45, 5853, 5869-71, 5880-81. However, those particular changes apply only to claims filed on or after March 27, 2017, and thus do not affect Plaintiff’s instant claim filed in 2012. Id.; (Administrative Record (“AR”) at 16). 3 Dr. Titcher opined that Plaintiff suffered from diabetes with peripheral neuropathy, hyperlipidemia, and lumbar disc disease with radiculopathy. He opined that Plaintiff could not sit or stand for more than 30 minutes at a time, or sit for more than two hours total in an eight-hour workday. He limited Plaintiff to lifting 20 pounds frequently and occasionally, and Plaintiff was precluded from bending, pushing, stooping, crouching, kneeling, or climbing. Dr. Titcher also indicated that Plaintiff needed a walker at all times. (AR at 24, 346-51.) 2 1 rejected doctor’s opinion because it contradicted her own treatment notes); Warre v. 2 Comm’r Soc. Sec. Admin., 439 F.3d 1001, 1006 (9th Cir. 2006) (impairments that can 3 be controlled are not disabling). 4 Second, Dr. Titcher’s opinion that Plaintiff needed a walker at all times 5 (1) conflicted with examinations noting that Plaintiff’s gait was steady and non- 6 antalgic without the use of an assistive device, and (2) was insufficiently supported by 7 evidence that he required one on a consistent basis. (AR at 22, 24, 39-40, 241, 261, 8 263, 276, 278, 319, 350); see Batson v. Comm’r Soc. Sec. Admin., 359 F.3d 1190, 1197 9 (9th Cir. 2004) (“[I]t was permissible for the ALJ to give [treating physicians’ 10 opinions] minimal evidentiary weight, in light of the objective medical evidence and 11 the opinions and observations of other doctors.”); Cunningham v. Astrue, 2010 WL 12 4916629, at *7 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 1, 2010) (lack of sufficient objective documentation of 13 need for walker, and conflict with evidence that claimant could ambulate without an 14 assistive device, are specific, legitimate reasons for discounting treating physician’s 15 opinion). 16 Third, the severe restrictions in Dr. Titcher’s opinion conflicted with his July 17 2014 recommendation for Plaintiff to increase physical activity. (AR at 24, 45, 312); 18 see Wilhelm, 597 F. App’x at 425; Kern v. Colvin, 2014 WL 5034658, at *8 (E.D. 19 Wash. Oct. 8, 2014) (ALJ properly assigned “little weight” to treating physician’s 20 opinion in part because it conflicted with doctor’s own suggestion for Plaintiff to 21 increase activity, rather than limit claimant to sedentary activity). 22 Fourth, Dr. Titcher’s opinion conflicted with the consultative examining 23 physician’s opinion that Plaintiff could perform a range of light work. (AR at 21-22, 24 24, 275-79); see Batson, 359 F.3d at 1197; Andrews v. Shalala, 53 F.3d 1035, 1041 25 (9th Cir. 1995) (“Reports of consultative physicians called in by the Secretary may 26 serve as substantial evidence.”). 27 28 Thus, the ALJ properly assigned little weight to the treating physician’s opinion. 3 1 B. 2 Next, Plaintiff contends that the ALJ’s hypothetical to the VE was incomplete 3 The Hypothetical to the VE was Proper because it omitted Plaintiff’s use of a walker. (See Joint Stip. at 11-14.) 4 However, because the ALJ properly discounted the need for that assistive 5 device, as discussed in Section A, the ALJ’s hypothetical is not invalidated. See 6 Richardson v. Comm’r Soc. Sec., 588 F. App’x 531, 533 (9th Cir. 2014) (ALJ properly 7 posed hypothetical to VE because it contained all limitations found credible and 8 supported by medical record); Osenbrock v. Apfel, 240 F.3d 1157, 1165 (9th Cir. 2001) 9 (ALJ not required to include limitations in hypothetical that are not supported by 10 substantial evidence). 11 Thus, the ALJ did not pose, or improperly accept, an incomplete hypothetical. 12 C. 13 The ALJ Properly Assessed Plaintiff’s RFC, and Plaintiff Has Failed to Show Any Prejudice 14 Finally, Plaintiff contends that the ALJ improperly assessed his depression in 15 formulating the RFC. (Joint Stip. at 14-17.) Specifically, Plaintiff contends that the 16 ALJ limited him to unskilled work due to his depression, but failed to point to any 17 medical evidence to support her findings, and “completely ignored” all mental health 18 records in the decision. (Id. at 14.) 19 As a rule, when formulating a claimant’s RFC, an ALJ must consider all the 20 relevant evidence in the record, including medical records, lay evidence, and the 21 effects of symptoms reasonably attributable to medically determinable impairments. 22 See Robbins v. Soc. Sec. Admin., 466 F.3d 880, 883 (9th Cir. 2006). However, the ALJ 23 “need not discuss all evidence presented.” Vincent ex rel. Vincent v. Heckler, 739 F.2d 24 1393, 1394-95 (9th Cir. 1984) (citation omitted). Rather, the ALJ must explain only 25 why “significant probative evidence has been rejected.” Id. at 1395 (citation omitted). 26 27 Here, the ALJ’s assessment of Plaintiff’s RFC does not warrant reversal for three reasons. 28 4 First, as Plaintiff does not dispute in the reply, the ALJ did cite to the mental 1 2 health record. (Joint Stip. at 16; AR at 21-24.) Also, contrary to Plaintiff’s assertion, 3 the ALJ provided a detailed review of Plaintiff’s mental health, including his 4 allegations of depression. (AR at 21-24); see, e.g., Magallanes v. Bowen, 881 F.2d 5 747, 755 (9th Cir. 1989) (substantial evidence supported decision where ALJ 6 “summarized the facts and conflicting clinical evidence in detailed and thorough 7 fashion, stating his interpretation and making findings”); Yeager v. Colvin, 2013 WL 8 5306642, at *3 (E.D. Wash. Sept. 19, 2013) (“[C]ontrary to [claimant]’s assertion, the 9 ALJ did address the effects of [claimant]’s mental health issues, but found that due to 10 the fact that the depression was treated effectively with medication, it had no effect on 11 [claimant]’s [RFC].”). 12 Second, Plaintiff essentially disagrees with the ALJ’s ultimate characterization 13 of the mental health record, but the role of this Court is not to reweigh that evidence.4 14 (See Joint Stip. at 14-17); Lewis v. Astrue, 498 F.3d 909, 911 (9th Cir. 2007) (“[I]f 15 evidence is susceptible of more than one rational interpretation, the decision of the 16 ALJ must be upheld.”) (citation omitted)); Tommasetti v. Astrue, 533 F.3d 1035, 1041 17 (2008) (“[T]he ALJ is the final arbiter with respect to resolving ambiguities in the 18 medical evidence.”). Third, and finally, even if the ALJ erred by not providing a more detailed 19 20 analysis of Plaintiff’s depression, Plaintiff fails to adequately explain how his 21 symptom is disabling. See Molina v. Astrue, 674 F.3d 1104, 1111 (9th Cir. 2012) 22 (“[T]he burden of showing that an error is harmful normally falls upon the party 23 attacking the agency’s determination.” (internal quotation marks omitted)); Miller v. 24 Heckler, 770 F.2d 845, 849 (1985) (“A claimant bears the burden of proving that an 25 impairment is disabling.”); Alcantar v. Colvin, 2015 WL 5732621, at *22 (E.D. Cal. 26 Sept. 28, 2015) (“Absent evidence in the record that [claimant]’s alleged impairments 27 4 28 Indeed, Plaintiff requests a remand to reevaluate “the additional impact the Plaintiff’s mental impairment has on his ability to work.” (Joint Stip. at 17.) 5
]]>
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.
