Berline Williams v. Carolyn W Colvin, No. 5:2013cv02168 - Document 21 (C.D. Cal. 2014)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER by Magistrate Judge Stephen J. Hillman (sbu)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA-WESTERN DIVISION 11 12 13 14 15 BERLINE WILLIAMS, 16 17 18 19 v. Plaintiff, CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Commissioner, Social Security Administration, Defendant. 20 21 ) CV 13-02168-SH ) ) MEMORANDUM DECISION ) AND ORDER ) ) ) ) ) ) ) This matter is before the court for review of the decision by the 22 Commissioner of Social Security denying plaintiff s application for Disability 23 Insurance Benefits. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), the parties have consented 24 that the case may be handled by the undersigned. The action arises under 42 25 U.S.C. §405(g), which authorized the Court to enter judgment upon the 26 pleadings and transcript of the record before the Commissioner. Plaintiff and 27 defendant have filed their pleadings, defendant has filed the certified transcript of 28 1 1 record, and each party has filed its supporting brief. After reviewing the matter, 2 the Court concludes the Decision of the Commissioner should be affirmed. I. BACKGROUND 3 4 Plaintiff, Berline Williams, applied for Disability Insurance Benefits on 5 February 21, 2011. (AR 10, 99-100). Plaintiff alleges disability commencing 6 November 10, 2010. (AR 99). 7 The Commissioner denied the application initially. (AR 58-60). A hearing 8 on the claim was conducted on August 12, 2012 (AR 33-48). On August 17, 9 2012, the administrative law judge ( ALJ ) issued an unfavorable Decision (AR 10 7-20). The Appeals Council denied the request of review. (AR 1-6). Plaintiff 11 commenced this civil action seeking judicial review of her case. 12 13 14 15 II. DISCUSSION A. The ALJ Properly Evaluated Plaintiff s Credibility Plaintiff asserts that the ALJ failed to properly evaluate her credibility and 16 assess her subjective complaints. In response, Defendant argues that the ALJ 17 articulated clear and convincing reasons why Plaintiff s statements of disability 18 were inapposite with the administrative record. 19 When assessing the residual functional capacity, the ALJ must evaluate 20 the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of the individual symptoms to 21 determine the extent to which the symptoms limit the individual s ability to do 22 basic work activities. Reddick v. Chater, 157 F.3d 715 (9th Cir. 1998). 23 Subjective symptoms are highly idiosyncratic and sometimes suggest a greater 24 severity of impairment than is demonstrated by objective and medical findings 25 alone. Bunnell v. Sullivan, 947 F.2d 341, 345 (9th Cir. 1991). Therefore, once 26 the claimant produces medical evidence of an underlying impairment, the ALJ 27 may not discredit the claimant's testimony as to subjective symptoms merely 28 2 1 because they are unsupported by objective evidence. Id. at 343. Unless there is 2 affirmative evidence showing that the claimant is malingering, the ALJ s reasons 3 for rejecting the claimant's testimony must be clear and convincing. Valentine 4 v. Commissioner Social Security Admin., 574 F.3d 685, 693 (9th Cir. 2009). At the hearing, Plaintiff alleged she was unable to work due to tremors and 5 6 pain in her hands and legs as well as numbness in her hands and fingers 7 associated with multiple sclerosis. (AR 12-13; AR 38). The ALJ determined that 8 Plaintiff s medically determinable impairments could reasonably be expected to 9 cause some of the alleged symptoms, however the claimant s testimony 10 concerning the intensity, persistence and limiting effect of these symptoms are 11 not credible to the extent they are inconsistent with the above medical functional 12 capacity assessment. (AR14). The ALJ provided the following reasons for finding Plaintiff not credible: 13 14 (1) Plaintiff s somewhat normal level of daily activity and interactions; (2) 15 Plaintiff s routine, conservative, and non-emergency treatment; (3) and the 16 objective medical and diagnostic findings since the alleged onset date. (AR 13- 17 16). 18 In determining Plaintiff s credibility, the first factor the ALJ considered 19 was Plaintiff s report of daily activities. The Plaintiff testified to living in a two- 20 story home with her twelve-year old son. (AR36-37). She reads a book for a 21 couple hours a day. (AR 41). She claimed difficulties with personal care. (AR 22 43). She stated that she is often visited with her niece and together they do 23 laundry or clean house or just average day stuff, in between ¦ the kids going to 24 school and house. (AR 40). She stated that she sometimes went out to eat. (AR 25 42). She attends church on occasion, cooking sometimes, and grocery shopping. 26 (AR 13, 40-44). 27 28 3 1 Although Plaintiff has carried on certain daily activities, such as grocery 2 shopping, driving a car, or limited walking for exercise, these do not necessarily 3 detract from her credibility as to her overall disability. Vertigan v. Halter, 260 4 F.3d 1044, 1050 (9th Cir. 2001). Nevertheless, they may be grounds for 5 discrediting the claimant's testimony to the extent that they contradict claims of a 6 totally debilitating impairment. Molina v. Astrue, 674 F.3d 1104, 1113 (9th Cir. 7 2012). 8 The ALJ determined, 9 12 Despite claimant s impairment, she engaged in a somewhat normal level of daily activities and interaction ¦ Some of the physical and mental abilities and social interaction required in order to perform these activities are the same as those necessary for obtaining and maintaining employment. The undersigned finds the claimant s ability to participate in such activities diminished the credibility of claimant s allegation of functional limitations. (AR 14). 13 Although Plaintiff s testimony was somewhat equivocal about how 14 regularly she was able to keep up with all these activities, and there may be other 15 reasonable interpretations, if the ALJ s interpretation is reasonable and supported 16 by substantial evidence then it is not Court s role to second-guess it. Rollins v. 17 Massanari, 261 F.3d 853, 857 (9th Cir. 2001). Here, the reports of daily activities 18 affected Plaintiff s credibility because the somewhat normal level of her daily 19 activity and interactions were inconsistent with Plaintiff s allegedly disabling 20 impairments. In addition, if the Plaintiff engaged in numerous daily activities 21 involving skills that could be transferred to the workplace, the ALJ may discredit 22 the claimant's allegations upon making specific findings relating to the claimant's 23 daily activities. Fair v. Bowen, 885 F.2d 597, 603 (9th Cir.1989). Therefore, 24 there was no reversible error in the ALJ s consideration of Plaintiff s report of 25 daily activities as one factor to discredit her allegations of disabling functional 26 limitations. 10 11 27 28 4 1 In addition to Plaintiff s somewhat normal level of reported daily 2 activities, the ALJ properly considered Plaintiff s infrequent, conservative, and 3 non-restrictive treatment as relevant factors in determining Plaintiff s credibility 4 regarding the severity of her symptoms. The ALJ found the following: 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 The record reveals relatively infrequent trips to a doctor for the allegedly disabling symptoms. Although the claimant alleged an inability to afford medical treatment due to lack of health insurance, there is no evidence the claimant could not have obtained low cost or no cost treatment alternatives, such as treatment at a public health clinic. Further when the claimant has received treatment for the allegedly disabling impairments, that treatment has been essentially routine and conservative in nature, primarily in the form of medications. The lack of more aggressive treatment or even a referral to a specialist suggests the claimant s symptoms and limitations were not as severe as she alleged. The credibility of the claimant s allegation regarding the severity of her symptoms as limitations is diminished because those allegations are greater than expected in light of the objective evidence of record. Lastly given the claimant s allegation of totally disabling symptoms, one might expect to see some indication in the treatment records of restriction placed on claimant by the treating doctors. Yet, a review of the record in this case reveals no restrictions recommended by the treating doctors. (AR 14) (emphasis added). Plaintiff implies that the ALJ should not have considered that the objective medical findings did not support Plaintiff s testimony. Pl. s Br. 9. However, the ALJ properly considered Plaintiff s lack of objective medical evidence when assessing Plaintiff s credibility regarding the severity of the symptoms. Burch v. Barnhart, 400 F.3d 676, 680 (9th Cir. 2011). Though it cannot be the sole basis for discounting testimony, an ALJ may consider minimal objective evidence as one factor in the credibility analysis. Id. Here, the ALJ considered the conservative treatment as a relevant factor that diminished a Plaintiff s credibility. Parra v. Astrue, 481 F.3d 742, 750-51(9th Cir. 2007). Another relevant factor is unexplained, or inadequately explained, failure to seek treatment or follow a prescribed course of treatment. Fair v. Bowen, 885 F.2d 597, 603 (9th Cir.1989). Therefore, ALJ properly considered Plaintiff s 27 28 5 1 infrequent, conservative, and non-restrictive treatment as evidence to discredit 2 Plaintiff s testimony. 3 Lastly, the ALJ considered the objective clinical and diagnostic findings as 4 a factor in determining Plaintiff s credibility. The ALJ found the following 5 medical findings: 6 1. On January 24, 2011, a neurological examination of the Plaintiff 7 revealed normal gait, normal speech, no sensory deficits, and 8 normal strength in the upper right extremity (AR 15, 195). 9 2. On February 23, 2011, Dr. Deborah Fisher recommended the 10 Plaintiff undergo Tysabri infusion to treat her multiple sclerosis 11 symptoms. (AR 15, 207). At a later physical examination on May 12 19, 2011, Dr. Fisher s notes showed reduced sensation in the right 13 upper extremity and left lower extremity, but were otherwise 14 unremarkable. (AR 15,322-323) 15 3. On May 2, 2012, consultative examiner Sara L. Maze, M.D., Board 16 eligible neurologist, conducted a complete consultative neurological 17 evaluation of the claimant. (AR 15, 375-386). The findings from the 18 physical examination included: the claimant s coordination was 19 normal bilaterally, as were her reflexes and motor strength; she 20 stood from a seated position, consistent with her level of obesity, 21 and she was able to ambulate independently. (AR 15, 377). Dr. 22 Maze diagnosed the Claimant with clinically stable multiple 23 sclerosis. (AR 15, 377). 24 The ALJ determined the objective clinical and diagnostic findings do not 25 support Plaintiff s claim of disabling impairment. (AR 15). While the evidence 26 may support another conclusion, this Court s role in reviewing whether the 27 ALJ s decision was support by substantial evidence and based on proper legal 28 6 1 grounds. Magallanes v. Bowen, 881 F. 2d 747, 750 (9th Cir. 1989). Therefore, in 2 determining the Plaintiff s credibility the ALJ properly considered that the 3 positive objective clinical and diagnostic findings do not support the alleged 4 severity of Plaintiff s subjective complaints. 5 Overall, the ALJ provided the following clear and convincing reasons to 6 find Plaintiff s subjective complaints were less than fully credible: (1) Plaintiff s 7 somewhat normal level of daily activity and interactions; (2) Plaintiff s routine, 8 conservative, and non-emergency treatment; (3) and the objective medical and 9 diagnostic findings since the alleged onset date. ORDER 10 11 The Court finds the ALJ properly evaluated Plaintiff s credibility when 12 assessing her subjective complaints. For the foregoing reasons, the Decision of 13 the Commissioner is affirmed and the Complaint is dismissed. 14 DATED: September 9, 2014 15 16 17 ____________________________________ STEPHEN J. HILLMAN UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 7
]]>
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.
