Kevin Hardiman v. Michael J Astrue, No. 5:2010cv00939 - Document 16 (C.D. Cal. 2011)
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 KEVIN HARDIMAN, 12 13 14 15 16 Plaintiff, vs. MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CASE NO. ED CV 10-00939 RZ MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER 17 This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff Kevin Hardiman s action to 18 review the Commissioner s denial of his disability benefits application. Plaintiff has a bad 19 back, with previous sprains of his right ankle and right wrist, all resulting from an accident 20 at work. The Administrative Law Judge ruled that Plaintiff had the residual functional 21 capacity to perform light work, with certain restrictions. Finding that there were sufficient 22 jobs in the economy that Plaintiff was qualified to perform, the Administrative Law Judge 23 determined that Plaintiff was not disabled. 24 Substantial evidence supports this determination, and substantial evidence is 25 all that the law requires. 42 U.S.C. ยง 405(g); Drouin v. Sullivan, 966 F.2d 1255, 1257 26 (9th Cir. 1992). The consulting physician reached a similar conclusion about Plaintiff s 27 impairments as did the physician who examined Plaintiff as an agreed examiner in the 28 Worker s Compensation proceedings. In this Court, however, Plaintiff complains that the 1 Administrative Law Judge did not adequately address the limitation of the Worker s 2 Compensation physician that, due to disk problems in the cervical spine, Plaintiff should 3 do no repetitive and prolonged upward or downward gazing or repetitive rotation of the 4 neck. [AR 157] All of Plaintiff s claims in this Court derive from this supposed failure 5 of the Administrative Law Judge. 6 The Administrative Law Judge did not state that Plaintiff could perform an 7 unlimited range of work. Instead, he placed a limit on lifting, climbing, balancing, 8 bending, stooping, kneeling, crouching and crawling. Plaintiff s argument is that there 9 should have been a separate limit completely prohibiting Plaintiff from upward or 10 downward gazing or repetitive rotation of the neck. The Court does not agree. 11 Plaintiff puts too much stock in this condition; the Worker s Compensation 12 examining physician did not emphasize the condition, nor did he prohibit any looking 13 downward or upward or any rotation of the neck. It is fair to say, rather, that at most he 14 thought that prolonged stress gazing should be avoided, as well as repetitive 15 rotation of the neck, as in swinging the neck back and forth. Contrary to Plaintiff s 16 arguments, jobs that he was deemed qualified for do not require the kind of prolonged 17 stress on the neck, through gazing or repetitive neck motion, that even the Worker s 18 Compensation physician addressed. Virtually any work requires some movement of the 19 neck and head, and the Dictionary of Occupational Titles description of the job of 20 electronics assembly, for example, does not require the kind of prolonged stress on the 21 neck that even the Worker s Compensation physician restricted. 22 The Court thus finds that there was no error in the description of the residual 23 functional capacity that the Administrative Law Judge gave, and that there was substantial 24 evidence to back his findings. The Commissioner s decision is affirmed. 25 DATED: September 7, 2011 26 27 28 RALPH ZAREFSKY UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE -2-
]]>
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.
