Felipe Saucedo v. Carolyn W Colvin, No. 5:2013cv02104 - Document 18 (C.D. Cal. 2014)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER by Magistrate Judge Jay C. Gandhi. Based on the foregoing, IT IS ORDERED THAT judgment shall be entered AFFIRMING the decision of the Commissioner denying benefits. (see document for details). (dro)

Download PDF

Felipe Saucedo v. Carolyn W Colvin Doc. 18 O 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 12 FELIPE SAUCEDO, as Guardian Ad Litem for S.S., a minor, 13 Plaintiff, 14 v. 16 CAROLYN W. COLVIN, ACTING COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, 17 Defendant. 15 ) Case No. ED CV 13-2104 JCG ) ) ) ) MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ) ORDER ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 18 19 Felipe Saucedo (“Plaintiff”) challenges the Social Security Commissioner’s 20 decision denying his application for supplemental security income on behalf of his 21 minor daughter, S.S. Plaintiff alleges that the Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) 22 erred in concluding that the minor did not meet Listing 112.05(D) for her intellectual 23 disability. (See Joint Stip. at 3-10.) The Court addresses, and rejects, Plaintiff’s 24 contention below. A claimant has the burden to prove that he or she has an impairment that 25 26 meets or equals a Listing. Burch v. Barnhart, 400 F.3d 676, 683 (9th Cir. 2005). 27 “[T]o show that [an] impairment matches a Listing, it must meet all of the specified 28 medical criteria. An impairment that manifests only some of those criteria, no Dockets.Justia.com 1 matter how severely, does not qualify.” Sullivan v. Zebley, 493 U.S. 521, 530 2 (1990) (emphasis in original). 3 To prove functional equivalence, a claimant must present medical findings 4 related to her impairment that “are at least of equal medical significance to the 5 required criteria” of the listed impairment. 20 C.F.R. §§ 416.924(e), 416.926(a). 6 However, the ALJ is not required to state why a claimant fails to meet or equal every 7 section of the Listings, as long as the ALJ adequately summarizes and evaluates the 8 evidence. Gonzalez v. Sullivan, 914 F.2d 1197, 1200-01 (9th Cir. 1990). In this case, the ALJ committed no error in finding that S.S. does not meet or 9 10 equal a Listing. Two reasons support this determination. First, the ALJ properly relied on the opinion of the consultative examiner, Dr. 11 12 Adam Cash, in finding that S.S. does not meet or equal Listing 112.05D. (See 13 Administrative Record (“AR”) at 14, 178-82); Allen v. Heckler, 749 F.2d 577, 579 14 (9th Cir. 1984) (“[T]o the extent that [the examining physician’s] opinion rests on 15 objective clinical tests, it must be viewed as substantial evidence.”)1/ To meet 16 Listing 112.05D, a claimant must have a “valid verbal, performance, or full scale IQ 17 of 60 through 70 and a physical or other mental impairment imposing an additional 18 and significant limitation of function.” 20 C.F.R. pt. 404 subpt. P, app. 1 19 § 112.05D. Here, although Dr. Cash found that S.S. has a full scale IQ score of 70, 20 he did not “record[] findings equivalent in severity to the criteria of any listed 21 impairment, including Listing 112.” (AR at 12, 178-82.) In particular, Dr. Cash’s treatment notes indicate that S.S. is only mildly 22 23 impaired in concentration, persistence, pace, and the ability to tolerate stress. (Id. at 24 181.) She is moderately limited in the ability to understand, remember, and carry 25 26 1/ Here, Dr. Cash administered a complete psychological evaluation, mental status exam, Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children, and Test of Nonverbal 28 Intelligence. (AR at 179.) 27 2 1 out simple instructions. (Id.) While S.S. is moderately to markedly impaired in the 2 ability to socialize with teachers and students, she is not at risk for an emotional 3 breakdown at school. (Id.) Similarly, Dr. Cash found that S.S. has a Global 4 Assessment of Functioning (GAF) score of 51, indicating no more than “moderate 5 symptoms.” (Id.) Thus, despite S.S.’s low IQ score, S.S. does not have “significant 6 limitations,” let alone a presumptively disabling impairment. See 20 C.F.R. pt. 404 7 subpt. P, app. 1 § 112.05D. While Plaintiff may disagree with the ALJ’s 8 interpretation of Dr. Cash’s opinion, the ALJ’s interpretation was reasonable, and is 9 thus entitled to deference. See Burch, 400 F.3d at 679 (“Where evidence is 10 susceptible to more than one rational interpretation, it is the ALJ’s conclusion that 11 must be upheld.”). 12 Second, the signatures of the two State agency reviewing physicians, Drs. 13 B.A. Smith and N. Haroun, on S.S.’s disability determination and transmittal forms, 14 provide additional evidence that S.S. does not meet or equal a Listing. (See AR at 15 46-47); Social Security Ruling (“SSR”) 96-6p, 1996 WL 374180 at *3 (July 2, 1996) 16 (“The signature of a State agency medical or psychological consultant on an SSA17 831-U5 (Disability Determination and Transmittal Form) . . . ensures that 18 consideration by a physician (or psychologist) designated by the Commissioner has 19 been given to the question of medical equivalence at the initial and reconsideration 20 levels of administrative review.”). Here, both Drs. Smith and Haroun specifically 21 considered S.S.’s symptoms and IQ score, and found that she does not meet or equal 22 Listing 112.05D. (AR at 182-85, 192-93.) 23 Accordingly, the Court finds that substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s 24 decision that S.S. is not disabled. See Mayes v. Massanari, 276 F.3d 453, 458-59 25 (9th Cir. 2001). 26 \\\ 27 28 3 1 Based on the foregoing, IT IS ORDERED THAT judgment shall be entered 2 AFFIRMING the decision of the Commissioner denying benefits. 3 4 Dated: October 31, 2014 5 6 ____________________________________ 7 Hon. Jay C. Gandhi United States Magistrate Judge 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 4

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.