Blanca Ageman v. Nancy A. Berryhill, No. 5:2018cv02061 - Document 22 (C.D. Cal. 2020)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER by Magistrate Judge Autumn D. Spaeth. The decision of the Social Security Commissioner is AFFIRMED, and the action is DISMISSED with prejudice. Judgment shall be entered accordingly. (see document for further details) (hr)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Blanca Ageman v. Nancy A. Berryhill Doc. 22 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 BLANCA A., an Individual, 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. 14 Case No.: 5:18-0 20 61 ADS MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER ANDREW M. SAUL, Com m issioner of Social Security, 15 Defendant. 16 17 18 19 I. IN TROD U CTION Plaintiff Blanca A.1 (“Plaintiff”) challenges the Defendant Andrew M. Saul2 , Com m issioner of Social Security’s (hereinafter “Com m issioner” or “Defendant”) denial 20 21 22 23 24 1 Plaintiff’s nam e has been partially redacted in com pliance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5.2(c)(2)(B) and the recom m endation of the Com m ittee on Court Adm inistration and Case Managem ent of the J udicial Conference of the United States. 2 The Com plaint, and thus the docket caption, do not nam e the Com m issioner. The parties list Nancy A. Berryhill as the Acting Com m issioner in the J oint Subm ission. On J une 17, 20 19, Saul becam e the Com m issioner of Social Security. Thus, he is autom atically substituted as the defendant under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 25(d). -1Dockets.Justia.com 1 of her applications for a period of disability and disability insurance benefits (“DIB”) 2 and supplem ental security incom e (“SSI”). Plaintiff contends that the Adm inistrative 3 Law J udge (“ALJ ”) improperly rejected the opinion of her treating physician. For the 4 reasons stated below, the decision of the Com m issioner is affirm ed, and this m atter is 5 dism issed with prejudice. 6 II. PROCEED IN GS BELOW 7 A. Pro ce d u ral H is to ry 8 Plaintiff protectively filed her applications for DIB and SSI on Novem ber 13, 20 14 9 and J anuary 9, 20 15 respectively, alleging disability beginning J une 21, 20 13. 10 (Adm inistrative Record “AR” 233-43). Plaintiff’s claim s were denied initially on March 11 13, 20 15 (AR 141-42), and upon reconsideration on August 6, 20 15 (AR 173-74). A 12 hearing was held before ALJ Andrew Verne on J une 22, 20 17. (AR 78-114). Plaintiff, 13 represented by counsel, appeared and testified at the hearing, as did a vocational expert, 14 Corinne J . Porter. (Id.) 15 On October 2, 20 17, the ALJ found that Plaintiff was “not disabled” within the 16 m eaning of the Social Security Act.3 (AR 53-77). The ALJ ’s decision becam e the 17 Com m issioner’s final decision when the Appeals Council denied Plaintiff’s request for 18 review on J uly 31, 20 18. (AR 1-8). Plaintiff then filed this action in District Court on 19 Septem ber 25, 20 18, challenging the ALJ ’s decision. [Docket (“Dkt.”) No. 1]. 20 21 22 23 24 3 Persons are “disabled” for purposes of receiving Social Security benefits if they are unable to engage in any substantial gainful activity owing to a physical or m ental im pairm ent expected to result in death, or which has lasted or is expected to last for a continuous period of at least 12 m onths. 42 U.S.C. §423(d)(1)(A). -2- On February 11, 20 19, Defendant filed an Answer, as well as a copy of the 1 2 Certified Adm inistrative Record. [Dkt. Nos. 17, 18]. The parties filed a J oint 3 Subm ission on May 10 , 20 19. [Dkt. No. 21]. The case is ready for decision.4 4 B. Su m m ary o f ALJ D e cis io n Afte r H e arin g 5 In the decision (AR 59-72), the ALJ followed the required five-step sequential 6 evaluation process to assess whether Plaintiff was disabled under the Social Security 7 Act.5 20 C.F.R. §§ 40 4.1520 (a) and 416.920 (a). At s te p o n e , the ALJ found that 8 Plaintiff had not been engaged in substantial gainful activity since J une 21, 20 13, the 9 alleged onset date. (AR 61). At s te p tw o , the ALJ found that Plaintiff had the following 10 severe im pairm ents: (a) fibrom yalgia, (b) degenerative disc disease of the cervical spine 11 with radiculopathy; (c) degenerative disc disease of the lum bar spine; (d) history of left 12 shoulder adhesive capsulitis status post arthroscopic surgery with residual 13 osteoarthritis; (e) depression; and (f) anxiety. (AR 62). At s te p th re e , the ALJ found 14 that Plaintiff “does not have an im pairm ent or com bination of im pairm ents that m eets 15 or m edically equals the severity of one of the listed im pairm ents in 20 CFR Part 40 4, 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 4 The parties filed consents to proceed before the undersigned United States Magistrate J udge, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), including for entry of final J udgm ent. [Dkt. Nos. 10 , 11]. 5 The ALJ follows a five-step sequential evaluation process to assess whether a claim ant is disabled: Step one: Is the claim ant engaging in substantial gainful activity? If so, the claim ant is found not disabled. If not, proceed to step two. Step two: Does the claim ant have a “severe” im pairm ent? If so, proceed to step three. If not, then a finding of not disabled is appropriate. Step three: Does the claim ant’s im pairm ent or com bination of im pairm ents m eet or equal an im pairm ent listed in 20 C.F.R., Pt. 40 4, Subpt. P, App. 1? If so, the claim ant is autom atically determ ined disabled. If not, proceed to step four. Step four: Is the claim ant capable of perform ing his past work? If so, the claim ant is not disabled. If not, proceed to step five. Step five: Does the claim ant have the residual functional capacity to perform any other work? If so, the claim ant is not disabled. If not, the claim ant is disabled. Lester v. Chater, 81 F.3d 821, 828 n.5 (9th Cir. 1995) (citing 20 C.F.R. §40 4.1520 ). -3- 1 Subpart P, Appendix 1 (20 CFR 40 4.1520 (d), 40 4.1525, 40 4.1526, 416.920 (d), 416.925 2 and 416.926).” (AR 63). The ALJ then found that Plaintiff had the Residual Functional Capacity (“RFC”) 6 3 4 to perform m edium work as defined in 20 CFR 40 4.1567(c) and 416.967(c) 7, further 5 restricted by the following lim itations: lift and or carry 25 pounds frequently and 50 pounds occasionally while also being able to perform occasional pushing and/ or pulling within these weight restrictions. She is able to sit, stand and/ or walk for six hours out of an eight-hour workday. She is lim ited to occasional overhead reaching with the bilateral upper extrem ities as well as occasional clim bing of ladders, ropes and scaffolds. Due to pain, she is lim ited to sim ple, routine tasks and would be off task up to 10 % during the workday. 6 7 8 9 10 (AR 65). At s te p fo u r, based on Plaintiff’s RFC and the vocational expert’s testim ony, the 11 12 ALJ found that Plaintiff could not perform her past relevant work as a com m ercial 13 cleaner and institutional cook. (AR 70 ). At s te p five , considering Plaintiff’s age, 14 education, work experience, RFC and the vocational expert’s testim ony, the ALJ found 15 that there “are jobs that exist in significant num bers in the national econom y that 16 [Plaintiff] can perform ” such as m arking clerk and routing clerk. (AR 71). Accordingly, 17 the ALJ determ ined that Plaintiff had not been under a disability, as defined in the 18 Social Security Act, from J une 21, 20 13, through the date of the decision, October 2, 19 20 17. (AR 72). 20 21 22 23 24 6 An RFC is what a claim ant can still do despite existing exertional and nonexertional lim itations. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 40 4.1545(a)(1), 416.945(a)(1). 7 “Medium work” is defined as: lifting no m ore than 50 pounds at a tim e with frequent lifting or carrying of objects weighing up to 25 pounds. If som eone can do m edium work, we determ ine that he or she can also do sedentary and light work. 20 C.F.R. § 40 4.1567(c); see also J am es T. v. Saul, 20 19 WL 30 17755, at *1 (C.D. Cal. J uly 10 , 20 19). -4- 1 III. AN ALYSIS 2 A. Is s u e o n Ap p e al 3 Plaintiff raises one issue for review: whether the ALJ properly considered the 4 treating physician’s opinion? [Dkt. No. 21 (J oint Subm ission), at p. 4]. Specifically, 5 Plaintiff contends that the ALJ failed to provide “any specific and legitim ate reasons for 6 rejecting [her treating physician’s] m edical opinion regarding the lim itations 7 attributable to Plaintiff’s severe physical im pairm ents.” [Id.] 8 B. Stan d ard o f Re vie w 9 A United States District Court m ay review the Com m issioner’s decision to deny 10 benefits pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 40 5(g). The District Court is not a trier of the facts but 11 is confined to ascertaining by the record before it if the Com m issioner’s decision is 12 based upon substantial evidence. Garrison v. Colvin, 759 F.3d 995, 10 10 (9th Cir. 20 14) 13 (District Court’s review is lim ited to only grounds relied upon by ALJ ) (citing Connett v. 14 Barnhart, 340 F.3d 871, 874 (9th Cir. 20 0 3)). A court m ust affirm an ALJ ’s findings of 15 fact if they are supported by substantial evidence and if the proper legal standards were 16 applied. Mayes v. Massanari, 276 F.3d 453, 458-59 (9th Cir. 20 0 1). An ALJ can satisfy 17 the substantial evidence requirement “by setting out a detailed and thorough sum m ary 18 of the facts and conflicting clinical evidence, stating his interpretation thereof, and 19 m aking findings.” Reddick v. Chater, 157 F.3d 715, 725 (9th Cir. 1998) (citation 20 om itted). 21 “[T]he Com m issioner’s decision cannot be affirm ed sim ply by isolating a specific 22 quantum of supporting evidence. Rather, a court m ust consider the record as a whole, 23 weighing both evidence that supports and evidence that detracts from the Secretary’s 24 conclusion.” Aukland v. Massanari, 257 F.3d 10 33, 10 35 (9th Cir. 20 0 1) (citations and -5- 1 internal quotation m arks om itted). “‘Where evidence is susceptible to m ore than one 2 rational interpretation,’ the ALJ ’s decision should be upheld.” Ryan v. Com m ’r of Soc. 3 Sec., 528 F.3d 1194, 1198 (9th Cir. 20 0 8) (citing Burch v. Barnhart, 40 0 F.3d 676, 679 4 (9th Cir. 20 0 5)); see Robbins v. Soc. Sec. Adm in., 466 F.3d 880 , 882 (9th Cir. 20 0 6) (“If 5 the evidence can support either affirm ing or reversing the ALJ ’s conclusion, we m ay not 6 substitute our judgm ent for that of the ALJ .”). However, the Court m ay review only “the 7 reasons provided by the ALJ in the disability determ ination and m ay not affirm the ALJ 8 on a ground upon which he did not rely.” Orn v. Astrue, 495 F.3d 625, 630 (9th Cir. 9 20 0 7) (citation om itted). 10 C. Th e ALJ Pro p e rly Evalu ate d Th e Me d ical Evid e n ce 11 Plaintiff contends that the ALJ erred in rejecting the lim itations attributable to 12 her severe physical im pairm ents assessed by her treating physician, Tobias Moeller- 13 Bertram , M.D. Defendant argues that the ALJ properly rejected the opinion of the 14 treating physician. 15 16 1. Standard for Weighing Medical Opinions The ALJ m ust consider all m edical opinion evidence. 20 C.F. R. § 40 4.1527(b). 17 “As a general rule, m ore weight should be given to the opinion of a treating source than 18 to the opinion of doctors who do not treat the claim ant.” Lester v. Chater, 81 F.3d 821, 19 830 (9th Cir. 1995) (citing Winans v. Bowen, 853 F.2d 643, 647 (9th Cir. 1987)). Where 20 the treating doctor’s opinion is not contradicted by another doctor, it m ay only be 21 rejected for “clear and convincing” reasons. Id. (citing Bayliss v. Barnhart, 427 F.3d 22 1211, 1216 (9th Cir. 20 0 5)). “If a treating or exam ining doctor’s opinion is contradicted 23 by another doctor’s opinion, an ALJ m ay only reject it by providing specific and 24 legitim ate reasons that are supported by substantial evidence.” Trevizo v. Berryhill, 871 -6- 1 F.3d 664, 675 (9th Cir. 20 17) (quoting Bayliss, 427 F.3d at 1216). In Trevizo, the Ninth 2 Circuit addressed the factors to be considered in assessing a treating physician’s 3 opinion. 4 5 6 7 8 The m edical opinion of a claim ant’s treating physician is given “controlling weight” so long as it “is well-supported by m edically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the claim ant’s] case record.” 20 C.F.R. § 40 4.1527(c)(2). When a treating physician’s opinion is not controlling, it is weighted according to factors such as the length of the treatm ent relationship and the frequency of exam ination, the nature and extent of the treatm ent relationship, supportability, consistency with the record, and specialization of the physician. Id. § 40 4.1527(c)(2)-(6). 9 10 11 871 F.3d at 675. “Substantial evidence” m eans m ore than a m ere scintilla, but less than a 12 preponderance; it is such relevant evidence as a reasonable person m ight accept as 13 adequate to support a conclusion.” Lingenfelter v. Astrue, 50 4 F.3d 10 28, 10 35 (9th Cir. 14 20 0 7) (citing Robbins, 466 F.3d at 882). “The ALJ can m eet this burden by setting out a 15 detailed and thorough sum m ary of the facts and conflicting clinical evidence, stating his 16 interpretation thereof, and m aking findings.” Magallanes v. Bowen, 881 F.2d 747, 751 17 (9th Cir. 1989) (citation om itted); see also Tom m asetti v. Astrue, 533 F.3d 10 35, 10 41 18 (9th Cir. 20 0 8) (finding ALJ had properly disregarded a treating physician’s opinion by 19 setting forth specific and legitim ate reasons for rejecting the physician’s opinion that 20 were supported by the entire record). 21 As noted above, an RFC is what a claim ant can still do despite existing exertional 22 and nonexertional lim itations. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 40 4.1545(a)(1). Only the ALJ is 23 responsible for assessing a claim ant’s RFC. See 20 C.F.R. § 40 4.1546(c). “It is clear that 24 it is the responsibility of the ALJ , not the claim ant’s physician, to determ ine residual -7- 1 functional capacity.” Vertigan v. Halter, 260 F.3d 10 44, 10 49 (9th Cir. 20 0 1) (citing 20 2 C.F.R. § 40 4.1545). 3 2. The ALJ Gave Specific and Legitim ate Reasons, Supported by Substantial Evidence 4 5 The ALJ com plied with Magallanes and provided specific and legitim ate reasons 6 for rejecting the lim itations assessed by Plaintiff’s treating physician, Dr. Moeller- 7 Bertram that are supported by the entire record. 8 9 The ALJ first discussed the historical treatment and findings of Dr. MoellerBertram as follows: 10 The claim ant sought treatm ent with a pain m anagem ent specialist, [Dr. Moeller-Bertram ] twice in 20 16 with her first visit in J anuary 20 16 and the second in February 20 16. Again, her physical findings were unrem arkable except for slightly decreased m otor strength of her upper and lower extrem ities along with a decreased range of m otion of her neck and back. She was prescribed m edication and she was sent for MRIs of her neck and back. [citing AR 543-47]. In February 20 16, she reported that m edication was m anaging her pain and she did not return for treatm ent. [citing AR 548-50 ]. It does not appear that she followed through with getting updated MRIs in 20 16. 11 12 13 14 15 16 (AR 67). 17 Later in the decision, the ALJ noted that Plaintiff had provided a checklist 18 m edical source statem ent from Daniela Shellenberg, a m ovem ent therapist and signed 19 by Dr. Moeller-Bertram , Plaintiff’s pain m anagem ent specialist dated October 27, 20 16: 20 21 22 23 24 In this statem ent the claim ant was lim ited to lifting/ carrying no m ore than ten pounds as well as being lim ited to standing/ walking less than two hours out of an eight-hour workday and sitting for two hours out of an eight-hour workday with the need to shift positions at will and walk around every ten m inutes for ten m inutes. It was reported that she would need to lie down at unpredictable intervals during the work day, required the use of a cane som etim es, needed to elevate her legs and would be absent m ore than three tim es per m onth. Again, as stated above checklist opinions are weak when not supported by clinical -8- findings. Here [Dr. Moeller-Bertram ] only treated the claim ant twice with his treatm ent notes showing unrem arkable findings while there is no record that Ms. Shellenberg ever treated the claim ant. Further, this opinion in inconsistent with the record showing m anagem ent of her pain with m edication and m ild findings per x-rays and im provem ent of her left shoulder with surgery. 1 2 3 4 (AR 69).8 5 The ALJ gave little weight to the October 20 16 m edical source statem ent as he 6 7 rejected the lim itations set forth in the statem ent. (AR 69). Instead, the ALJ 8 determ ined to give weight to the opinions of Vincente R. Bernabe, D.O., as well as two 9 non-exam ining State agency m edical consultants, all of whom assessed Plaintiff capable 10 of m edium exertional activity.9 (AR 68). As Dr. Moeller-Bertram ’s opinion was thus 11 contradicted by another doctor’s opinion, the ALJ m ay have only rejected it “by 12 providing specific and legitim ate reasons that are supported by substantial evidence.” 13 See Trevizo, 871 F.3d at 675. The ALJ did so here. 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 8 Earlier in the decision, the ALJ stated:”[i]t is generally understood that ‘checklist opinions are weak evidence at best’ and ‘rejection of a treating physician’s opinion is appropriate when the conclusions are in the form of a checklist, and the treating notes do not provide ‘objective m edical evidence of the lim itations asserted.’ (See SSR 962p).” (AR 69). In support the ALJ cited: Mason v. Shalala, 994 F.2d 10 58, 10 65 (3d Cir. 1993), quoted with approval, Deja v. Com m issioner, 61 Fed. Appx. 778 (3d Cir. 20 0 3); accord Negrete v. Barnhart, 186 Fed. Appx. 734 (9th Cir. 20 0 6); Batson v. Com m issioner, 359 F.3d 1190 , 1195 n. 3 (10 th Cir. 20 0 4) (opinions of treating physicians m ay be rejected when treating notes do not provide “objective m edical evidence of the lim itations asserted”), Baker v. Barnhart, 84 Fed. Appx. 10 (10 th Cir. 20 0 3) (“checkm ark style evaluation form s, standing alone, unaccom panied by written reports or persuasive testim ony, are not substantial evidence”), and Frey v. Bowen, 816 F.2d 50 8, 515 (10 th Cir. 1987). (AR 69, n.1). 9 As set forth above, in finding Plaintiff capable of m edium work, the ALJ also assessed that Plaintiff was: “lim ited to occasional overhead reaching with the bilateral upper extrem ities as well as occasional clim bing of ladders, ropes and scaffolds. Due to pain, she is lim ited to sim ple, routine tasks and would be off task up to 10 % during the workday.” (AR 65). -9- The ALJ discussed all of Dr. Moeller-Bertram ’s m edical records in evidence and 1 2 concluded that the doctor’s own treatm ent notes are inconsistent with the extrem e 3 lim itations set forth in the m edical source statem ent. This alone is a sufficient reason 4 for the ALJ to have properly rejected the opinion. See Connett v. Barnhart, 340 F.3d 5 871, 875 (9th Cir. 20 0 3) (ALJ properly rejected treating physician’s opinion where 6 “treatm ent notes provide[d] no basis for the functional restrictions [physician] opined 7 should be im posed on [claim ant]”); Bayliss v. Barnhart, 427 F.3d 1211, 1216 (9th Cir. 8 20 0 5) (discrepancy between physician’s notes and other recorded observations and 9 opinions regarding claim ant’s capabilities “clear and convincing reason” for rejecting 10 physician’s opinion). 11 Furtherm ore, the ALJ also rejected the opinion of Dr. Moeller-Bertram in 12 concluding that the lim itations assessed therein conflicted with his review of Plaintiff’s 13 m edical records in evidence, specifically “m anagem ent of her pain with m edication and 14 m ild findings per x-rays and im provem ent of her left shoulder with surgery.”10 (AR 69) 15 The ALJ concluded that the m edical records did not support the treating doctor’s 16 opinion. This is a proper basis to reject the opinion. See Batson v. Com m ’r of Social 17 Security, 359 F.3d 1190 , 1195 (9th Cir. 20 0 4) (ALJ properly gave m inim al weight to 18 treating physician opinions that were based on the claim ant’s subjective complaints, 19 were unsupported by the objective evidence, contradicted by other statem ents and 20 assessm ents, and were in the form of a checklist). 21 22 Plaintiff raises a num ber of argum ents as to why the ALJ ’s finding is in error, none of which holds any weight. First, Plaintiff takes issue with the ALJ ’s criticism of 23 24 10 The ALJ did a detailed and thorough review of Plaintiff’s m edical records of these and other issues, with citations to specific evidence, earlier in his decision. (AR 62-67) -10 - 1 the checklist opinion. However, as correctly noted by the ALJ , a checklist opinion is 2 weak evidence at best when not supported by m edical evidence. See Batson, 359 F.3d at 3 1195. Here, Plaintiff argues that the m edical evidence does support the lim itations 4 assessed by Dr. Moeller-Bertram . Plaintiff, however, would sim ply like any conflicts or 5 am biguity in the m edical records to be weighed in her favor. But it is the ALJ who is the 6 “final arbiter with respect to resolving am biguities in the m edical evidence.” See 7 Andrews v. Shalala, 53 F.3d 10 35, 10 39-40 (9th Cir. 1995) (“The ALJ is responsible for 8 determ ining credibility, resolving conflicts in m edical testim ony, and for resolving 9 am biguities.”) 10 Second, Plaintiff takes issue with the ALJ noting that Dr. Moeller-Bertram only 11 treated Plaintiff twice. As stated above, however, when a treating physician’s opinion is 12 contradicted, it is weighted according to such factors as the length of the treatm ent 13 relationship and the frequency of exam ination, the nature and extent of the treatm ent 14 relationship, supportability, consistency with the record, and specialization of the 15 physician. Trevizo, 871 F.3d at 675 (citing 20 C.F.R. § 40 4.1527(c)(2)) (em phasis 16 added). Thus, it was proper for the ALJ to consider the fact that Plaintiff had a lim ited 17 treatm ent history with Dr. Moeller-Bertram when he m ade his m edical source statem ent 18 in October 20 16. 19 Third, Plaintiff contends it was error for the ALJ to reject her treating physician’s 20 opinion on the basis that it “is inconsistent with the record showing m anagem ent of 21 [Plaintiff’s] pain m edication” and “inconsistent with Plaintiff’s m ild findings per x-rays.” 22 [Dkt. No. 21, at pp. 5-6]. In support of these objections, Plaintiff again points to m edical 23 records that she contends are in conflict with the ALJ ’s findings. As previously noted, 24 however, the ALJ did a thorough and detailed review of the m edical records and found -11- 1 they sim ply do not support the severe lim itations assessed in Dr. Moeller-Beltram ’s 2 m edical source statem ent. It is the role of the ALJ , and not this Court, to interpret and 3 resolve any am biguities in the m edical records. See Tom m asetti, 533 F.3d at 10 41-42 4 (“The ALJ is the final arbiter with respect to resolving am biguities in the m edical 5 evidence.”). 6 Finally, Plaintiff takes issue with the ALJ noting that she had experienced 7 “im provem ent of her left shoulder with surgery.” (AR 69). Plaintiff contends the issue 8 of any im provem ent in her shoulder has no bearing on the relevance of Dr. Moeller- 9 Bertram ’s opinion. As Defendant correctly notes, however, Dr. Moeller-Bertram did 10 include Plaintiff’s shoulder pain as part of his m edical findings, including in his 11 treatm ent notes. (AR 540 -50 ). Thus, there was no error in the ALJ including this 12 reason in his decision. 13 The Court concludes that the ALJ provided “specific and legitim ate” reasons 14 based on substantial evidence for his rejecting the lim itations set forth in Plaintiff’s 15 treating physician’s m edical source statem ent. Although Plaintiff offers alternative 16 interpretations of the m edical record, the Court is bound by the rationale set forth by the 17 ALJ in the written decision. Ryan, 528 F.3d at 1198; see Robbins, 466 F.3d at 882 (“If 18 the evidence can support either affirm ing or reversing the ALJ ’s conclusion, we m ay not 19 substitute our judgm ent for that of the ALJ .”). 20 21 22 23 24 -12- 1 2 IV. CON CLU SION For the reasons stated above, the decision of the Social Security Com m issioner is 3 AFFIRMED, and the action is DISMISSED with prejudice. J udgment shall be entered 4 accordingly. 5 6 DATE: March 13, 20 20 7 8 / s/ Autum n D. Spaeth THE HONORABLE AUTUMN D. SPAETH United States Magistrate J udge 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 -13-
]]>
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.
