Doris L. Hicks v. Carolyn W. Colvin, No. 5:2015cv00296 - Document 19 (C.D. Cal. 2015)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER by Magistrate Judge Jay C. Gandhi: Accordingly, reviewing the record as a whole, the ALJ's decision is supported by substantial evidence. Based on the foregoing, IT IS ORDERED THAT judgment shall be entered AFFIRMING the decision of the Commissioner denying benefits. See document for further information. (lwag)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Doris L. Hicks v. Carolyn W. Colvin Doc. 19 O 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 11 DORIS L. HICKS, Plaintiff, 12 v. 13 14 15 CAROLYN W. COLVIN, COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, 16 Defendant. 17 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No. ED CV 15-0296 JCG MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER 18 Doris L. Hicks (“Plaintiff”) challenges the Social Security Commissioner’s 19 20 decision denying her application for disability benefits. Two issues are presented for 21 decision here: 22 1. Whether the Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) properly evaluated 23 the medical evidence, in particular, Plaintiff’s treating physicians’ medical opinions 24 (see Joint Stip. at 5-14, 27-28); and 2. 25 Whether the ALJ’s decision is supported by substantial evidence in light 26 of a treating physician’s opinion that was presented to the Appeals Council after the 27 issuance of the ALJ’s decision (see id. at 14-15). 28 // 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 2 The Court addresses Plaintiff’s contentions below, and finds that reversal is not warranted. 3 A. The ALJ Properly Evaluated the Medical Evidence 4 Plaintiff contends that the ALJ improperly rejected the (1) 2011 opinion of 5 treating physician Dr. Kenneth Lucero, and (2) 2013 opinion of treating physician Dr. 6 Ralph Steiger. (See Joint Stip. at 5-14, 27-28.) 7 As a general rule, “[i]f the ALJ wishes to disregard the opinion of the treating 8 physician, he or she must make findings setting forth specific, legitimate reasons for 9 doing so that are based on substantial evidence in the record.” Murray v. Heckler, 722 10 11 F.2d 499, 502 (9th Cir. 1983); Lester v. Chater, 81 F.3d 821, 830 (9th Cir. 1995). 1. Dr. Lucero 12 Here, the ALJ properly rejected Dr. Lucero’s opinion that Plaintiff would likely 13 be absent from work more than three times per month, and is “disabled and not able to 14 work,” for three reasons. (AR at 22-24, 318-32.) 15 First, Dr. Lucero’s opinion contradicted the objective medical evidence. (AR at 16 22-24); see Batson v. Comm’r Soc. Sec. Admin., 359 F.3d 1190, 1197 (9th Cir. 2004) 17 (“[I]t was permissible for the ALJ to give [the treating physician’s opinion] minimal 18 evidentiary weight, in light of the objective medical evidence and the opinions and 19 observations of other doctors.”). For example: (1) an x-ray indicated only a mild 20 decrease in Plaintiff’s L5-S1 disc space; (2) an MRI revealed a bulging disc but no 21 evidence of disc herniation, canal stenosis, lateral recess narrowing, or foraminal 22 encroachments; (3) an EMG/nerve conduction study was normal; and (4) a treatment 23 note revealed no objective indication of numbness, despite Plaintiff’s subjective 24 allegations of numbness. (Id. at 22-23, 209, 259, 328, 331.) 25 Second, Plaintiff’s treatment with medication and epidural injections resulted in 26 decreased pain. (AR at 22, 203, 259, 327, 329, 458-59); see Warre v.Comm’r of Soc. 27 Sec. Admin., 439 F.3d 1001, 1006 (9th Cir. 2006) (“Impairments that can be controlled 28 effectively with medication are not disabling for the purpose of determining eligibility 2 1 for SSI benefits.”); Odle v. Heckler, 707 F.2d 439, 440 (9th Cir. 1983) (affirming non- 2 disability finding in part because some of claimant’s conditions had a “fair response” 3 to medication and other conditions were “satisfactorily” controlled by medication and 4 treatment). 5 Third, Dr. Lucero’s conclusions that Plaintiff is “disabled” and “not able to 6 work” are issues reserved for the Commissioner. (AR at 24, 331); see Ukolov v. 7 Barnhart, 420 F.3d 1002, 1004 (2005) (“Although a treating physician’s opinion is 8 generally afforded the greatest weight in disability cases, it is not binding on an ALJ as 9 to the existence of an impairment or the ultimate determination of disability.”); 20 10 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(d)(1), 416.927(d)(1) (statements by a medical source that a 11 claimant is “disabled” or “unable to work” “are not medical opinions, . . . but are, 12 instead, opinions on issues reserved to the Commissioner”). 13 Fourth, to the extent Dr. Lucero’s opinion was based on his examination of 14 Plaintiff in 2011, it had limited probative value with respect to the relevant time 15 period – May 23, 2008 to December 31, 2008. (AR at 16, 19, 24, 318-25, 440-42); see 16 Lombardo v. Schweiker, 749 F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir. 1984) (ALJ properly disregarded 17 opinion of treating physician who examined claimant a year and a half after the 18 relevant period). 19 20 21 22 Thus, the ALJ’s rejection of Dr. Lucero’s opinion is supported by substantial evidence. 2. Dr. Steiger The ALJ also properly rejected Dr. Steiger’s 2013 opinion that Plaintiff would 23 likely be absent from work more than three times per month, and is “unable to perform 24 full time competitive work,” for three reasons. (AR at 22-24, 383-400.) 25 26 27 28 First, Dr. Steiger’s opinion contradicted the objective medical evidence, discussed above. See Batson, 359 F.3d at 1197. Second, Plaintiff responded to medication and treatment, as discussed above. See Warre, 439 F.3d at 1006; Odle, 707 F.2d at 440. 3 Third, Dr. Steiger examined and treated Plaintiff for the first time in 2013, 1 2 almost five years after the relevant period. (AR at 16, 19, 24, 383, 390, 440-42); see 3 Lombardo, 749 F.2d at 567; Ritzma v. Astrue, 279 F. App’x 555, 557 (9th Cir. 2008) 4 (ALJ properly rejected treating physician’s testimony because his medical reports 5 showed treatment began after the relevant period); Chavolla v. Colvin, 2014 WL 6 953422, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 11, 2014) (doctor’s opinion not probative because there 7 was no evidence doctor saw claimant during relevant period). Thus, the ALJ’s rejection of Dr. Steiger’s 2013 opinion is supported by 8 9 substantial evidence. B. 10 The ALJ’s Decision Is Supported By Substantial Evidence Even In Light of New Evidence 11 12 Next, Plaintiff contends the ALJ’s decision is not supported by substantial 13 evidence in light of Dr. Steiger’s 2014 opinion that Plaintiff was unable to work during 14 the relevant period, which was presented to the Appeals Council after the issuance of 15 the ALJ’s decision.1 (Joint Stip. at 14-15; AR at 6-9, 411-14.) As a rule, when the Appeals Council “considers new evidence in deciding 16 17 whether to review a decision of the ALJ, that evidence becomes part of the 18 administrative record, which the district court must consider when reviewing the 19 Commissioner’s final decision for substantial evidence.” Taylor v. Comm’r Soc. Sec. 20 Admin., 659 F.3d 1228, 1232 (9th Cir. 2011). When the Appeals Council declines 21 review, the ALJ’s decision becomes the final decision of the Commissioner, and the 22 district court reviews that decision for substantial evidence based on the record as a 23 whole. Brewes v. Comm’r Soc. Sec. Admin., 682 F.3d 1157, 1161-62 (9th Cir. 2012). 24 // 25 26 27 28 1 Dr. Steiger’s “opinion” is a two-page letter explaining that he reviewed “correspondence,” and, based on “retrospective judgment, subjective observations[,] and clinical findings,” concluded Plaintiff would have been unable to perform “full time competitive work” during the relevant period. (AR at 413-14.) 4 1 2 3 Dr. Steiger’s 2014 opinion does not change this Court’s determination that the ALJ’s decision is supported by substantial evidence, for three reasons. First, Dr. Steiger’s 2014 opinion suffers from the same problems as his 2013 4 opinion, discussed above. See Dixon v. Colvin, 2014 WL 2694239, *3 (W.D. Wash. 5 June 13, 2014) (new evidence submitted to Appeals Counsel did not change district 6 court’s determination because it was “plagued by the same problems as the old (for 7 example, it is inconsistent with the rest of the record) and [did] not change the fact that 8 the ALJ’s factual findings are supported by substantial evidence”); Herrera v. Astrue, 9 2013 WL 68611, *8 (D. Ariz. Jan. 7, 2013) (questionnaire completed by treating 10 physician and submitted to Appeals Council as further support for his own prior 11 opinion did not change district court’s determination in light of evidence properly 12 found contradictory by ALJ). 13 Second, the opinion does not appear to be based on any additional treatment by 14 Dr. Steiger outside of his evaluation and treatment in 2013. (AR at 383, 390, 413-14); 15 see Russell v. Astrue, 269 F. App’x 707, 708 (9th Cir. 2008) (ALJ properly rejected 16 retrospective opinions of doctors who were not treating physicians during the relevant 17 period); Adams v. Astrue, 2012 WL 4107882, *8 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 19, 2012) (after 18 remand from Appeals Council, ALJ properly rejected opinion in part because no 19 additional treatment records supported opinion). 20 Third, Dr. Steiger admitted that he did not review certain background records, 21 yet speculated that the findings “must have been significant[.]” (AR at 413); see Micus 22 v. Bowen, 979 F.2d 602, 607 (7th Cir. 1992) (ALJ erred in part by relying on doctor 23 who saw claimant only once and speculated as to her past condition); Ladue v. Chater, 24 1996 WL 83880, at *5 (N.D. Cal. 1996) (error for an ALJ to afford considerable 25 weight to an examining physician where that physician “lack[s] important background 26 information regarding plaintiff”). 27 28 Accordingly, reviewing the record as a whole, the ALJ’s decision is supported by substantial evidence. 5 1 2 Based on the foregoing, IT IS ORDERED THAT judgment shall be entered AFFIRMING the decision of the Commissioner denying benefits. 3 4 5 6 DATED: December 11, 2015 ________________________________________ Hon. Jay C. Gandhi United States Magistrate Judge 7 8 9 *** 11 This Memorandum Opinion and Order is not intended for publication. Nor is it intended to be included or submitted to any online service such as Westlaw or Lexis. 12 *** 10 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 6
]]>
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.
