Denise Yeldell-Johnson v. Michael J Astrue, No. 5:2007cv01408 - Document 22 (C.D. Cal. 2008)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER by Magistrate Judge Victor B. Kenton. The decision of the Administrative Law Judge will be affirmed. The Complaint will be dismissed with prejudice. IT IS SO ORDERED. (READ ATTACHED ORDER FOR DETAILS) (esa)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA WESTERN DIVISION 7 8 9 10 11 DENISE YELDELL-JOHNSON, 12 13 14 15 Plaintiff, v. MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of Social Security, 16 Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No. ED CV 07-01408-VBK MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER (Social Security Case) 17 18 This matter is before the Court for review of the decision by the 19 Commissioner of Social Security denying Plaintiff s application for 20 disability benefits. 21 consented that the case may be handled by the Magistrate Judge. 22 action arises under 42 U.S.C. §405(g), which authorizes the Court to 23 enter judgment upon the pleadings and transcript of the record before 24 the Commissioner. 25 ( JS ), and the Commissioner has filed the certified Administrative 26 Record ( AR ). 27 28 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §636(c), the parties have The The parties have filed the Joint Stipulation This Memorandum Opinion will constitute the Court s findings of fact and conclusions of law. 1 Plaintiff raises the following issues: 2 1. 3 4 Whether the Administrative Law Judge ( ALJ ) properly considered Plaintiff s treating physician s opinion; 2. 5 Whether the ALJ properly held Plaintiff has no severe mental impairment; 6 3. Whether the ALJ properly considered lay witness testimony; 7 4. Whether the ALJ complied with the Appeals Council s remand 8 order to develop the record regarding Plaintiff s computer 9 training; and 10 5. 11 Whether the ALJ posed a complete hypothetical question to the vocational expert ( VE ). 12 13 I 14 THE ALJ PROPERLY CONSIDERED THE OPINION OF PLAINTIFF S TREATING 15 PHYSICIAN AND THE MEDICAL EVIDENCE REGARDING MENTAL HEALTH ISSUES 16 In Plaintiff s first denominated issue, she asserts that the ALJ 17 failed to at all consider a Work Capacity Evaluation ( Evaluation ) 18 dated January 8, 2004 of her treating physician, Dr. Yakira. (AR 393- 19 394.) Indeed, Dr. Yakira s check-off form indicated both marked and 20 extreme limitations in literally all of the pertinent mental health 21 areas. 22 The decision in this case (AR 12-21) followed a hearing based 23 upon a remand order of the Appeals Council. (AR 69-71, 515-538.) 24 previous decision of the same ALJ, dated July 19, 2004, is in the 25 record. (AR 31-38.) 26 The In the prior decision, the ALJ directly addressed Dr. Yakira s 27 January 8, 2004 Evaluation. (AR 36.) 28 slightest foundation for such grossly exaggerate [sic] lack of 2 The ALJ found there was not the 1 function. (AR 36.) 2 In the subsequent decision, the ALJ specifically stated that his 3 evaluation of the medical evidence contained in the July 19, 2004 4 decision was incorporated by reference. (AR 15.) 5 Plaintiff s argument that the ALJ failed to consider Dr. Yakira s 6 opinion is not well taken. Consequently, 7 Similarly, Plaintiff s argument that the ALJ did not properly 8 determine that she has no severe mental impairment is without merit. 9 Plaintiff again cites Dr. Yakira s Evaluation of January 2004. (JS 9.) 10 Plaintiff fails to note, however, the ALJ s reliance on the October 11 17, 2005 report of psychiatric consultative examiner ( CE ) Dr. 12 Rodriguez. (AR 19, 440-446.) 13 psychiatric examination, including a mental status examination, and 14 determined 15 functioning, is basically stable on her antidepressant medication, and 16 that she has no functional limitations from a psychiatric standpoint. 17 (AR 440-446.) In combination with the conclusions of the State Agency 18 psychiatrists, these opinions provided substantial evidence to support 19 the ALJ s evaluation. 20 21 that Plaintiff Dr. Rodriguez conducted a complete had significantly improved in her Thus, the ALJ did not err in finding that Plaintiff has no severe mental impairment. 22 23 II 24 THE ALJ PROPERLY CONSIDERED LAY WITNESS TESTIMONY 25 Plaintiff contends that the ALJ failed to consider the Daily 26 Activities Questionnaire dated May 27 identified as her husband. (JS 11, AR 131-135.) 28 report of Dr. Yakira, Plaintiff fails to acknowledge that in the 3 27, 2003 of Dexter Johnson, Again, as with the 1 original decision, this lay witness opinion was extensively discussed 2 and considered. (AR 36-37.) 3 incorporated 4 decision, 5 Moreover, the remand order of the Appeals Council did not mandate 6 reconsideration of this evidence. (AR 69-71.) the ALJ s Plaintiff s Since the second decision specifically evaluation contention as is contained in unsupported by the original the record. 7 8 III 9 THE ALJ COMPLIED WITH THE APPEALS COUNCIL S REMAND ORDER TO DEVELOP 10 THE RECORD REGARDING THE EXTENT OF PLAINTIFF S COMPUTER TRAINING 11 In her fourth issue, Plaintiff contends that the ALJ failed to 12 obtain evidence of her computer training, as mandated by the remand 13 order of the Appeals Council. (JS 15, AR 69-71.) 14 unsupported by the record. 15 extensively examined Plaintiff regarding her computer training, after 16 the issue was raised by Plaintiff s counsel. (AR 533-535.) Indeed, an 17 entire page of the hearing transcript is devoted to this discussion. 18 Plaintiff does not contend that she was unable to explain the extent 19 of her training to the ALJ. 20 went through computer network training in the year 2000. 21 does not understand what further development of the record could have 22 accomplished in the absence of any assertion by Plaintiff that she had 23 undertaken any additional training other than the computer training in 24 the year 2000 which she extensively discussed with the ALJ. This contention is At the subsequent hearing, the ALJ Indeed, her own attorney stated that she The Court 25 26 IV 27 THE ALJ POSED A COMPLETE HYPOTHETICAL TO THE VE 28 Plaintiff contends that the ALJ s hypothetical questions to the 4 1 VE (JS 17-18, AR 535) are incomplete because they fail to set forth 2 Plaintiff s mental limitations and also the limitations described by 3 the lay witness (Issues 2 and 3). 4 that there were no shortcomings in the ALJ s analysis of these issues. 5 The ALJ complied with the requirement that all found limitations and 6 restrictions must be incorporated in the hypothetical question. 7 Embry v. Bowen, 849 F.2d 418, 423 (9th Cir. 1988). The Court has already determined See 8 Further, the ALJ here determined that at Step Four of the 9 sequential evaluation, Plaintiff could return to her past relevant 10 work. (AR 20-21.) 11 testimony a VE. 12 13 14 Thus, there was no necessity to obtain the For the foregoing reasons, the decision of the ALJ will be affirmed. The Complaint will be dismissed with prejudice. IT IS SO ORDERED. 15 16 17 DATED: October 8, 2008 /s/ VICTOR B. KENTON UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 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.
