Alejandro Hernandez Bernal v. Carolyn W Colvin, No. 5:2013cv02372 - Document 16 (C.D. Cal. 2014)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER by Magistrate Judge Jay C. Gandhi. IT IS ORDERED THAT judgment shall be entered AFFIRMING the decision of the Commissioner denying benefits. (twdb)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
O 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 12 ALEJANDRO HERNANDEZ BERNAL, Plaintiff, 13 14 v. 16 CAROLYN W. COLVIN, ACTING COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, 17 Defendant. 15 ) Case No. CV 13-2372 JCG ) ) ) ) MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ) ORDER ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 18 19 Alejandro Hernandez Bernal ( Plaintiff ) challenges the Social Security 20 Commissioner ( Defendant ) s decision denying his application for disability 21 benefits. In particular, Plaintiff contends that the Administrative Law Judge ( ALJ ) 22 erred in determining Plaintiff s residual functional capacity ( RFC ). (See Joint 23 Stip. at 5-10, 14-16.) The Court addresses, and rejects, Plaintiff s contention below. 24 A. The ALJ Properly Determined Plaintiff s RFC 25 Plaintiff argues that the ALJ improperly determined his RFC. (See id.) 26 Specifically, the ALJ erred by rejecting the medical opinions of Plaintiff s treating 27 and examining physicians, as well as the other source opinions provided by 28 Plaintiff s chiropractors. (Id.) The Court takes each argument in turn. 1 I. The ALJ Properly Evaluated the Opinion of Plaintiff s Treating Physician 2 First, Plaintiff argues that the ALJ improperly rejected the opinion of his 3 4 treating physician, Dr. Brent Pratley. (See id. at 7-10.) Although a treating physician s opinion is generally afforded the greatest 5 6 weight in disability cases, it is not binding on an ALJ with respect to the existence of 7 an impairment or the ultimate determination of disability. Tonapetyan v. Halter, 8 242 F.3d 1144, 1149 (9th Cir. 2001) (citation omitted); see Morgan v. Comm r of 9 Soc. Sec. Admin., 169 F.3d 595, 600 (9th Cir. 1999) ( [T]he opinion of the treating 10 physician is not necessarily conclusive as to either a physical condition or the 11 ultimate issue of disability. ). Nevertheless, the ALJ must present specific and 12 legitimate reasons for discounting the treating physician s opinion, supported by 13 substantial evidence. Bray v. Comm r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 554 F.3d 1219, 1228 14 (9th Cir. 2009) (quoting Lester v. Chater, 81 F.3d 821, 830 (9th Cir. 1995)). Here, the ALJ properly gave limited weight to Dr. Pratley s treating opinion 15 16 for two reasons.1/ First, the ALJ properly gave limited weight to Dr. Pratley s opinion because 17 18 he prescribed conservative treatment. (Administrative Record ( AR ) at 30); see 19 Rollins v. Massanari, 261 F.3d 853, 856 (9th Cir. 2001) (ALJ properly rejected 20 opinion of treating physician who prescribed conservative treatment). Specifically, 21 the ALJ noted that Dr. Pratley opined that [Plaintiff] would benefit from a 22 conservative course of treatment, including physiotherapy, home exercises, and pain 23 medication. (AR at 30, 408.) Dr. Pratley further advised Plaintiff to visit a 24 25 1/ Although the ALJ did not explicitly state that he rejected Dr. Pratley s opinion 26 for the reasons discussed below, he incorporated them into his analysis of Dr. Pratley s opinion. (AR at 30); see Magallanes v. Bowen, 881 F.2d 747, 755 (9th Cir. 27 1989) ( As a reviewing court, we are not deprived of our faculties for drawing 28 specific and legitimate inferences from the ALJ s opinion. ). 2 1 chiropractor. (Id.); see Lane v. Colvin, 2013 WL 3449631, at *2 (C.D. Cal. July 9, 2 2013) (describing chiropractic treatment as conservative). 3 Next, the ALJ properly rejected the more extreme limitations imposed by Dr. 4 Pratley in light of his relatively benign findings. (AR at 30-31); see Burkhart v. 5 Bowen, 856 F.2d 1335, 1339-40 (9th Cir. 1988) (ALJ properly rejected treating 6 physician s opinion which was unsupported by treatment notes, personal 7 observations, or test reports). For instance, findings from physical examinations 8 included that Plaintiff ambulated well, and the range of motion of his lumbar spine 9 was only slightly diminished. (AR at 30, 402-11.) While there was some evidence 10 of tenderness in the paraspinal muscles bilaterally, there was no guarding or spasm 11 noted. (Id.) Furthermore, a nerve conduction study was normal, indicating no 12 evidence of radiculopathy or neuropathy. (Id. at 30, 454-59.) 13 14 15 16 As such, the ALJ properly weighted Dr. Pratley s opinion. II. The ALJ Properly Evaluated the Opinion of Plaintiff s Examining Physician Next, Plaintiff contends that the ALJ improperly rejected the opinion of his 17 examining physician, Dr. Anthony T. Fenison. (See Joint Stip. at 6-7.) 18 An ALJ may reject the controverted opinion of an examining physician only 19 for specific and legitimate reasons that are supported by substantial evidence. 20 Carmickle v. Comm r, Soc. Sec. Admin., 533 F.3d 1155, 1164 (9th Cir. 2008) 21 (quoting Lester, 81 F.3d at 830-31). 22 Here, however, the ALJ did not reject Dr. Fenison s opinion. Contrary to 23 Plaintiff s assertion, Dr. Fenison never opined that Plaintiff was restricted to lifting 24 13.5 pounds. (See Joint Stip. at 6; AR at 301.) Rather, after noting that Plaintiff s 25 chiropractor, Dr. Gasparian, found such a restriction, Dr. Fenison explicitly rejected 26 the finding as somewhat excessive. (Id. at 301, 495.) Indeed, Dr. Fenison only 27 precluded Plaintiff from repetitive activities involving his lumbar spine and 28 heavy lifting activities. (Id. at 28, 301) (emphasis added). As such, the ALJ 3 1 actually adopted Dr. Fenison s opinion in finding that Plaintiff cannot perform 2 repetitive stopping, crouching, or twisting[,] but can carry 20 pounds occasionally 3 and 10 pounds frequently[.] (Id.) The ALJ thus properly evaluated Dr. Fenison s examining opinion. 4 III. 5 The ALJ Properly Evaluated the Opinions of Plaintiff s Chiropractors 6 Finally, Plaintiff argues that the ALJ improperly rejected the opinions of 7 8 his chiropractors, Drs. Anna Gasparian and Andrew Mer. (See Joint Stip. at 8-10.) Because chiropractors are not acceptable medical sources, 20 C.F.R. § 9 10 404.1513(a); Bunnell v. Sullivan, 912 F.2d 1149, 1152 (9th Cir. 1990), rev d en banc 11 on other grounds, 947 F.2d 341 (9th Cir. 1991) ( a chiropractor[] . . . is not 12 considered an acceptable medical source[] ), their opinions are entitled to less 13 weight than those offered by physicians. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1513(d). An ALJ may 14 discount other source opinions if he gives germane reasons for doing so. Molina 15 v. Astrue, 674 F.3d 1104, 1111 (9th Cir. 2012); see Dodrill v. Shalala, 12 F.3d 915, 16 919 (9th Cir. 1993); accord Lewis v. Apfel, 236 F.3d 503, 511 (9th Cir. 2001). Here, the ALJ committed no error in rejecting certain lifting limitations 17 2/ 18 imposed by Plaintiff s chiropractors in favor of those prescribed by the examining 19 physician. See Figueroa v. Astrue, 2011 WL 4084852, at *6 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 13, 20 2011) (ALJ is entitled to favor the supported treating and examining observations 21 of licensed physicians over the opinions of a chiropractor who is not an acceptable 22 medical source. ) As described above, the ALJ s RFC encompasses the lifting 23 24 25 26 27 28 2/ Notably, the opinions of Drs. Gasparian and Mer are inconsistent. Dr. Gasparian would agree with the ALJ s RFC that Plaintiff can lift 10 pounds frequently, but would disagree that he can lift 20 pounds occasionally. (AR at 495.) Dr. Mer, on the other hand, would agree that Plaintiff can lift 20 pounds occasionally, but would disagree that he can lift 10 pounds frequently. (Id. at 460.) As such, the ALJ did, in fact, incorporate a portion of each opinion into his RFC. (See id. at 28.) 4 1 limitations assessed in Dr. Fenison s examining opinion. (See AR at 28, 301.) This 2 alone is a germane reason for rejecting the opinions of Drs. Gasparian and Mer. See 3 Figueroa, 2011 WL 4084852, at *6. 4 For the above reasons, the ALJ properly evaluated the opinions of Plaintiff s 5 physicians and chiropractors, and in turn, properly determined Plaintiff s RFC. 6 Based on the foregoing, IT IS ORDERED THAT judgment shall be entered 7 AFFIRMING the decision of the Commissioner denying benefits. 8 9 10 Dated: September 23, 2014 11 12 ____________________________________ 13 Hon. Jay C. Gandhi United States Magistrate Judge 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 5
]]>
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.
