Patricia Martinez v. Michael J. Astrue, No. 5:2010cv01301 - Document 30 (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 PATRICIA MARTINEZ, 12 13 14 15 16 Plaintiff, vs. MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CASE NO. ED CV 10-01301 RZ MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER 17 Plaintiff raises two points in challenging the Commissioner s denial of her 18 disability claim, and both are couched in boilerplate terms. First, Plaintiff asserts that the 19 Administrative Law Judge was wrong not to accept the treating physician s opinion. 20 Second, Plaintiff asserts that the Administrative Law Judge was wrong not to accept the 21 lay testimony of Plaintiff s sister. Neither point has merit. 22 A treating physician s opinion merits deference, Aukland v. Massanari, 257 23 F.3d 1033, 1036 (9th Cir. 2001), but does not need to be accepted, and the Administrative 24 Law Judge may choose not to accept it if he gives specific and legitimate reasons for doing 25 so, Lester v. Chater, 81 F.3d 821 (9th Cir. 1996), or clear and convincing reasons if the 26 opinion is uncontroverted. Edlund v. Massanari, 253 F.3d 1152, 1157 (9th Cir. 2001). 27 The Administrative Law Judge fulfilled his responsibility. He pointed out that the progress 28 and treatment notes are inconsistent with the opinion, that there are no diagnostic or 1 treatment studies to support the opinion, and that opinions from the consulting and 2 examining physicians were contrary and were supported by the records, and, in the instance 3 of the mental health area, the contrary opinions were given by specialists in the field. [AR 4 17-19] These are sufficient reasons for choosing not to accept the opinion of the treating 5 physician, and rely instead on the substantial evidence from the other sources. Magallanes 6 v. Bowen, 881 F.2d 747, 751 (1989). 7 As a subordinate argument, Plaintiff asserts that the Administrative Law Judge 8 should have re-contacted Plaintiff s physician to develop the record further. An ALJ s 9 duty to develop the record further is triggered only when there is ambiguous evidence or 10 when the record is inadequate to allow for proper evaluation of the evidence. Mayes v. 11 Massanari, 276 F.3d 453, 459-60 (9th Cir. 2001) (citing Tonapetyan v. Halter, 242 F.3d 12 1144, 1150 (9th Cir. 2001). The record here was clear, and there was no need for further 13 development. The Administrative Law Judge simply had a question as to whether a 14 signature was that of the treating physician, but he proceeded to analyze the opinion under 15 two alternatives, assuming first that the signature was that of the treating physician, and 16 then also assuming that it was not. [AR 18-19] There was no need for further record 17 development. 18 Plaintiff also contends that the Administrative Law Judge erred in discounting 19 the evidence from Plaintiff s sister. An administrative law judge must consider such 20 evidence, Lewis v. Apfel, 236 F.3d 503, 510 (9th Cir. 2001), but, like any other evidence, 21 it need not be accepted. Here, the Administrative Law Judge gave valid reasons for 22 rejecting the opinion. It was not presented under oath, which made it not as reliable but, 23 more importantly, the Administrative Law Judge pointed out that Plaintiff s sister did not 24 have a strong foundation for her views, since she stated that she did not spend much time 25 with her and did very little with her. [AR 17, citing AR 155]. Finally, the Administrative 26 Law Judge noted that the report was exaggerated in that its view of the extreme limitations 27 on Plaintiff s ability was inconsistent with the medical evidence. [AR 19] These were all 28 -2- 1 sufficient reasons for not crediting the lay evidence. Greger v. Barnhart, 464F.3d 968 (9th 2 Cir. 2006); Lewis, supra, 236 F.3d 503, 511 (9th Cir. 2001). In accordance with the foregoing, the decision of the Commissioner is 3 4 affirmed. 5 6 DATED: November 30, 2011 7 8 9 10 RALPH ZAREFSKY UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 11 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.
