Robert Ramirez Avila v. Michael J. Astrue, No. 5:2008cv00663 - Document 17 (C.D. Cal. 2009)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER by Magistrate Judge Ralph Zarefsky. (ib)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
O 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ROBERT RAMIREZ AVILA, 12 13 14 15 16 Plaintiff, vs. MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CASE NO. ED CV 08-00663 (RZ) MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER 17 At some point in the past several years, perhaps in 2003, perhaps in 2007, 18 Plaintiff sprained his ankle. That appears to be what the present lawsuit is about a 19 sprained ankle. Plaintiff claims that the Administrative Law Judge here made three errors 20 in determining that Plaintiff was not disabled by virtue of his sprained ankle. None of 21 those claims of error is persuasive. 22 Plaintiff argues first that the Administrative Law Judge failed to develop the 23 record. The record contains a medical report, which the Administrative Law Judge thought 24 was signed by S. Tiffany , in which the ankle sprain was noted, and Plaintiff was said to 25 be temporarily incapacitated or precluded from heavy lifting from December 3, 2007 to 26 February 3, 2008. The Administrative Law Judge did not give very much weight to this 27 statement, and Plaintiff now says that if, as the Administrative Law Judge says, this opinion 28 was ambiguous and it was not clear that S. Tiffany was an acceptable medical source, the 1 Administrative Law Judge should have followed up and developed the record further to 2 clear up those matters. 3 That would have been a waste of time. The Administrative Law Judge also 4 stated that this opinion indicated only temporary limitations, and that most certainly is 5 true: it indicated only a period of three months, and during those three months, Plaintiff 6 was not completely disabled, but only precluded from lifting heavy objects. 7 Administrative Law Judge also stated that the opinion was inconsistent with Plaintiff s own 8 subjective statements and testimony about his capabilities, with his tests and examinations, 9 which consistently produced normal and unremarkable results, and with the medical 10 opinions of others. [AR 19.] In this Court, Plaintiff challenges none of these rationales 11 used by the Administrative Law Judge for according no significant weight to the opinions 12 of S. Tiffany. The 13 Even assuming that S. Tiffany was an acceptable medical source, all these 14 were valid reasons for not giving the statements much weight. Plaintiff supposedly had an 15 onset date of May 2, 2002, but testified that he was fine until May 2003. 16 Administrative Law Judge noted that Plaintiff had no treatment for a period of almost two 17 years after he allegedly became disabled but that, despite his claims, he currently can walk 18 a mile at a time, and sit without limitation, even by his own testimony. [AR 17.] The 19 Administrative Law Judge also detailed the many medical reports showing perfectly 20 normal examinations. [AR 17-19.] All of these were valid reasons for limiting the weight 21 given to the statement of S. Tiffany. Morgan v. Apfel, 169 F.3d 595, 602-03 (9th Cir. 22 1999); Magallanes v. Bowen, 881 F.2d 747, 751 (9th Cir. 1989). The 23 For all these same reasons, Plaintiff s claim that the Administrative Law Judge 24 did not judge his credibility properly is unpersuasive. Plaintiff points to a single statement 25 on his questionnaire, that he keeps his foot elevated to relieve pain. [AR 124.] But in the 26 same questionnaire he stated that he could walk a mile or two, that he bicycles, that he can 27 sit normally, and that he can lift objects up to 30 pounds. [AR 125.] These are the same 28 sorts of things the Administrative Law Judge identified in discrediting Plaintiff, and thus -2- 1 he did not need to specifically mention Plaintiff s elevating his leg in evaluating the claim. 2 For the same reason, the Administrative Law Judge did not err when he did not include 3 elevation of the leg in the hypothetical question to the vocational expert. Osenbrock v. 4 Apfel, 240 F.3d 1157, 1164-65 (9th Cir. 2000). 5 The decision of the Commissioner is affirmed. 6 7 DATED: February 26, 2009 8 9 10 11 RALPH ZAREFSKY UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 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.
