Donald Pyrdeck v. Carolyn W. Colvin, No. 5:2016cv00711 - Document 17 (C.D. Cal. 2016)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER by Magistrate Judge Alicia G. Rosenberg. Plaintiff Donald Pyrdeck filed this action on April 15, 2016. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), the parties consented to proceed before the magistrate judge. (Dkt. Nos. 11, 12.) On October 20, 2016, the parties filed a Joint Stipulation ("JS") that addressed the disputed issues. Having reviewed the entire file, the court affirms the decision of the Commissioner. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the decision of the Commissioner is affirmed and that judgment be entered for the Commissioner. (mp)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Donald Pyrdeck v. Carolyn W. Colvin Doc. 17 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 DONALD PYRDECK, 11 Plaintiff, 12 v. 13 14 15 CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant. 16 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) NO. EDCV 16-711 AGR MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER 17 18 Plaintiff Donald Pyrdeck filed this action on April 15, 2016. Pursuant to 28 19 U.S.C. § 636(c), the parties consented to proceed before the magistrate judge. 20 (Dkt. Nos. 11, 12.) On October 20, 2016, the parties filed a Joint Stipulation 21 (“JS”) that addressed the disputed issues. 22 23 Having reviewed the entire file, the court affirms the decision of the Commissioner. 24 25 26 27 28 Dockets.Justia.com 1 I. 2 PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND 3 On October 8, 2012, Pyrdeck applied for disability insurance benefits and 4 alleged an onset date of August 20, 2012. Administrative Record (“AR”) 10. The 5 application was denied initially and on reconsideration. AR 60, 73. Pyrdeck 6 requested a hearing before an Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”). On September 7 29, 2014, the ALJ conducted a hearing at which Pyrdeck and a vocational expert 8 (“VE”) testified. AR 22-49. On November 24, 2014, the ALJ issued a decision 9 that denied benefits. AR 7-17. On April 4, 2016, the Appeals Council denied the 10 request for review. AR 1-3. This action followed. 11 II. 12 STANDARD OF REVIEW 13 Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), this court reviews the Commissioner’s 14 decision to deny benefits. The decision will be disturbed only if it is not supported 15 by substantial evidence, or if it is based upon the application of improper legal 16 standards. Moncada v. Chater, 60 F.3d 521, 523 (9th Cir. 1995) (per curiam); 17 Drouin v. Sullivan, 966 F.2d 1255, 1257 (9th Cir. 1992). 18 “Substantial evidence” means “more than a mere scintilla but less than a 19 preponderance – it is such relevant evidence that a reasonable mind might 20 accept as adequate to support the conclusion.” Moncada, 60 F.3d at 523. In 21 determining whether substantial evidence exists to support the Commissioner’s 22 decision, the court examines the administrative record as a whole, considering 23 adverse as well as supporting evidence. Drouin, 966 F.2d at 1257. When the 24 evidence is susceptible to more than one rational interpretation, the court must 25 defer to the Commissioner’s decision. Moncada, 60 F.3d at 523. 26 27 28 2 1 III. 2 DISCUSSION 3 4 A. Disability A person qualifies as disabled and thereby eligible for such benefits “only if 5 his physical or mental impairment or impairments are of such severity that he is 6 not only unable to do his previous work but cannot, considering his age, 7 education, and work experience, engage in any other kind of substantial gainful 8 work which exists in the national economy.” Barnhart v. Thomas, 540 U.S. 20, 9 21-22, 124 S. Ct. 376, 157 L. Ed. 2d 333 (2003). B. 10 11 The ALJ’s Findings The ALJ determined that Pyrdeck met the insured status requirements 12 through December 31, 2015. AR 12. Following the five-step sequential analysis 13 applicable to disability determinations, Lounsburry v. Barnhart, 468 F.3d 1111, 14 1114 (9th Cir. 2006),1 the ALJ found that Pyrdeck has the severe impairments of 15 psoriasis with joint pain, arthritis; disorder of the bilateral knees secondary to 16 psoriatic arthritis; obesity; and degenerative joint disease. AR 12. He does not 17 have an impairment that meets or equals a listing. AR 13. He has the residual 18 functional capacity (“RFC”) to perform light work except that he can lift/carry no 19 more than 20 pounds occasionally and 10 pounds frequently; stand/walk 4 hours 20 in an 8-hour workday with no prolonged standing or walking greater than about 21 30 minutes at a time; sit 6 hours in an 8-hour workday with the ability to stand and 22 stretch not to exceed 10% of the day; and he is limited to frequent fine 23 manipulation bilaterally. He is precluded from ladders, ropes and scaffolds; 24 kneeling, crouching or crawling; and forceful gripping or grasping with the right 25 26 27 28 1 The five-step sequential analysis examines whether the claimant engaged in substantial gainful activity, whether the claimant’s impairment is severe, whether the impairment meets or equals a listed impairment, whether the claimant is able to do his or her past relevant work, and whether the claimant is able to do any other work. Lounsburry, 468 F.3d at 1114. 3 1 dominant hand. He is limited to unskilled, routine, repetitive tasks due to side 2 effects from medication. AR 13. He cannot perform past relevant work, but there 3 are jobs that exist in significant numbers in the national economy that he can 4 perform such as routing clerk, cashier and information clerk. AR 15-16. 5 6 7 8 9 C. Listed Impairment Pyrdeck raises a single issue. He argues that the ALJ erred in finding that he did not meet or equal Listing 8.05. At step three of the sequential analysis, the claimant bears the burden of demonstrating that his impairments are equivalent to one of the listed 10 impairments that are so severe as to preclude substantial gainful activity. Bowen 11 v. Yuckert, 482 U.S. 137, 141, 146 n.5 (1987). “If the impairment meets or equals 12 one of the listed impairments, the claimant is conclusively presumed to be 13 disabled. If the impairment is not one that is conclusively presumed to be 14 disabling, the evaluation proceeds to the fourth step.” Id. at 141; see also Tackett 15 v. Apfel, 180 F.3d 1094, 1099 (9th Cir. 1999); 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(iii), 16 416.920(a)(4)(iii). 17 “The listings define impairments that would prevent an adult, regardless of 18 his age, education, or work experience, from performing any gainful activity, not 19 just ‘substantial gainful activity.’” Sullivan v. Zebley, 493 U.S. 521, 532 (1990) 20 (quoting 20 C.F.R. § 416.925(a)) (emphasis in original). “For a claimant to show 21 that his impairment matches a listing, it must meet all of the specified medical 22 criteria. An impairment that manifests only some of those criteria, no matter how 23 severely, does not qualify.” Id. at 530 (emphasis in original). 24 Listing 8.05 consists of dermatitis, including psoriasis, “with extensive skin 25 lesions that persist for at least 3 months despite continuing treatment as 26 prescribed.” 20 C.F.R. § 404, subpt. P, app. 1, § 8.05. The term “extensive skin 27 lesions” is defined as “those that involve multiple body sites or critical body areas, 28 and result in a very serious limitation. Examples of extensive skin lesions that 4 1 result in a very serious limitation include but are not limited to: [¶] a. Skin lesions 2 that interfere with the motion of your joints and that very seriously limit your use of 3 more than one extremity; that, two upper extremities, two lower extremities, or 4 one upper and one lower extremity. [¶] b. Skin lesions on the palms of both 5 hands that very seriously limit your ability to do fine and gross motor movements. 6 [¶c] Skin lesions on the soles of both feet, the perineum, or both inguinal areas 7 that very seriously limit your ability to ambulate.” Id. § 8.00(C)(1); see Gentry v. 8 Comm’r, 741 F.3d 708, 724 (6th Cir. 2014). 9 The ALJ cited the consultative examination by an orthopedic surgeon in 10 February 2013. AR 14, 191-96. Dr. Bernabe observed dry, flaky patches of 11 psoriasis throughout Pyrdeck’s body including his trunk, back, arms and legs. AR 12 14, 193. However, Dr. Bernabe’s findings do not support very serious limitations 13 on Pyrdeck’s ability to ambulate, sit or stand. Pyrdeck’s gait was normal and he 14 walked on tiptoes and heels without difficulty and without evidence of weakness 15 in the ankle flexors or extensors. He was able to get on and off the examining 16 table without difficulty, and was able to move around the office and examination 17 room without assistive devices. He sat comfortably with normal posture. AR 14, 18 192-93. With respect to Pyrdeck’s ability to perform fine motor movements with 19 his hands, Dr. Bernabe found joint tenderness and swelling at the 20 metacarpophalangeal joints of both hands. Pyrdeck was able to make a fist but 21 had tenderness to palpation along the index finger with swelling of the right hand. 22 Pyrdeck had intact finger opposition and intact intrinsic function. His finger range 23 of motion was within normal limits. AR 14, 194. Motor strength was 5/5 24 throughout. AR 14, 195. Dr. Bernabe found that Pyrdeck could perform fine 25 manipulative activities on a frequent basis bilaterally. AR 14, 196. 26 The ALJ cited xrays in March 2013 that showed mild arthritic changes in 27 the bilateral hands and feet, minimal degenerative changes in the ankles, and 28 unremarkable bilateral knees and shoulders. AR 14, 203-10, 213. Treating 5 1 records are sparse and do not evidence the “very serious limitation” required by 2 the Listing. Pyrdeck has not shown error. Compare Gentry, 741 F.3d at 724-27 3 (remanding for consideration of Listing 8.05 for claimant who had evidence of 4 severe bleeding from psoriatic lesions in the hands and weakened grasp; treating 5 physician who stated it would not be completely unreasonable for claimant to 6 consider amputation below knee; increasingly risky and ineffective treatments 7 that resulted in cold sweats, nausea and dangerous oral infections; and xray 8 evidence of discogenic radiculitis, chronic cervical facetogenic pain, inflammatory 9 spondyloarthropathy, cervical spondylosis, sciatica, lumbosacral/throacic 10 radiculopathy, degenerative joint disease of L5-S1, severe right neural foramina 11 narrowing at C5-C6 and broad disc osteophyte bulge at C3-C4). 12 IV. 13 ORDER 14 15 16 17 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the decision of the Commissioner is affirmed and that judgment be entered for the Commissioner. The Clerk shall serve copies of this Order herein on all parties or their counsel. 18 19 DATED: October 31, 2016 ALICIA G. ROSENBERG United States Magistrate Judge 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.
