Eric Paul Stevens v. Carolyn W. Colvin, No. 8:2015cv01344 - Document 18 (C.D. Cal. 2016)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM AND OPINION by Magistrate Judge Alka Sagar. The decision of the Administrative Law Judge is AFFIRMED. (See Order for complete details) (afe)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Eric Paul Stevens v. Carolyn W. Colvin Doc. 18 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 11 12 ERIC PAUL STEVENS, 13 Plaintiff, v. 14 15 16 CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant. 17 ) No. SACV 15-1344 AS ) ) ) ) ) MEMORANDUM OPINION ) ) ) ) ) ) 18 19 PROCEEDINGS 20 21 22 On April 23 applied 24 condition beginning November 29, 2009. 25 2014, 26 testimony from Plaintiff. 27 held on February 23, 2015, and the ALJ heard testimony from medical 28 expert (“M.E.”) Lynne Jahnke and vocational expert Ronald Hatakeyama. for 9, 2013, Plaintiff supplemental Administrative Law Eric security Judge Paul income based on (AR 194). (“ALJ”) (AR 37-47). Stevens Sally C. (“Plaintiff”) a disabling On August 20, Reason heard A supplemental hearing was 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 (AR 48-59). 2 in a written decision. 3 review of the ALJ’s decision. On February 25, 2015, the ALJ denied Plaintiff benefits (AR 21-30). The Appeals Council denied (AR 1-3). 4 5 On August 24, 2015, Plaintiff filed a Complaint pursuant to 6 42 U.S.C. §§ 405(g) and 1383(c)(3) alleging that the Social Security 7 Administration erred in denying benefits. 8 January 13, 2016, Defendant filed an Answer to the Complaint, (Docket 9 Entry No. 14), and the Certified (Docket Entry No. 1). Administrative Record On (“AR”), 10 (Docket Entry No. 15). 11 a United States Magistrate Judge. 12 March 25, 2016, the parties filed a Joint Stipulation (“Joint Stip.”) 13 setting 14 (Docket Entry No. 17). forth The parties have consented to proceed before their (Docket Entry Nos. 10, 12). respective positions on Plaintiff’s On claims. 15 For 16 17 the reasons discussed below, the decision of the Administrative Law Judge is AFFIRMED. 18 SUMMARY OF ALJ’S DECISION 19 20 The ALJ applied the five-step process in evaluating Plaintiff’s 21 22 case. (AR 21-23). 23 had not engaged in substantial gainful activity after the date of his 24 application. 25 severe impairments included degenerative disc disease of the lumbar 26 spinal 27 obesity. area, At step one, the ALJ determined that Plaintiff (AR 23). At step two, the ALJ found that Plaintiff’s diverticulosis, (AR 23). hepatitis C, ventral hernia, and At step three, the ALJ found that Plaintiff’s 28 2 1 impairments did not meet or equal a listing found in 20 C.F.R. Part 2 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1. (AR 23-24). 3 4 Before proceeding to step four, the ALJ found that Plaintiff had 5 the residual functional capacity (“RFC”) to “lift and/or carry twenty 6 pounds occasionally and ten pounds frequently, stand and/or walk up 7 to two hours in an eight-hour workday (no more than thirty minutes 8 continuously), and sit without restriction, with no climbing ladders, 9 ropes, 10 (i.e., 11 climbing ramps or stairs); no exposure to unprotected heights; and no 12 concentrated exposure to vibrations or extreme cold or heat.” 13 24). 14 take a standing break once per hour (approximately five minutes in 15 duration) at his workstation.” 16 ALJ summarized medical evidence including a July 2011 opinion by 17 examining physician Karl Epstein, M.D. 18 Dr. Epstein’s opinion “significant probative weight,” observing that 19 Dr. 20 motivation including[] sitting, standing and walking no greater than 21 [two] hours.” or scaffolds, balancing, no more stooping, than occasional postural activities kneeling, crouching, crawling, or (AR The ALJ also determined that Plaintiff required “the ability to Epstein had stated that (AR 24). In formulating an RFC, the (AR 25, 27-28). Plaintiff could “work The ALJ gave with proper (AR 28) (second alteration in original). 22 23 At steps four and five, the ALJ determined that Plaintiff had no 24 past relevant work but could work as a telephone information clerk or 25 a lens inserter, optical goods industry. 26 the ALJ determined that Plaintiff was not disabled within the meaning 27 of the Social Security Act. (AR 30). 28 3 (AR 28-30). Accordingly, 1 STANDARD OF REVIEW 2 3 This court reviews the Administration’s decision to determine if 4 the decision is free of legal error and supported by substantial 5 evidence. 6 1157, 1161 (9th Cir. 2012). 7 mere scintilla, but less than a preponderance. 8 759 F.3d 995, 1009 (9th Cir. 2014). 9 evidence supports a finding, “a court must consider the record as a See Brewes v. Commissioner of Soc. Sec. Admin., 682 F.3d weighing To determine whether substantial whole, 11 detracts 12 Massanari, 257 F.3d 1033, 1035 (9th Cir. 2001) (internal quotation 13 omitted). 14 affirming 15 substitute [its] judgment for that of the ALJ.” 16 Admin., 466 F.3d 880, 882 (9th Cir. 2006). the As or a evidence Garrison v. Colvin, 10 from both “Substantial evidence” is more than a that supports [Commissioner’s] result, reversing “[i]f the the ALJ’s and evidence conclusion.” evidence conclusion, can [a that Aukland support court] v. either may not Robbins v. Soc. Sec. 17 18 PLAINTIFF’S CONTENTIONS 19 20 Plaintiff’s contends that Dr. Epstein assessed limitations 21 inconsistent with Plaintiff performing full time work, and the ALJ 22 was 23 reasons for partially rejecting Dr. Epstein’s opinion or fully credit 24 the opinion and find Plaintiff disabled. 25 \\ 26 \\ 27 \\ 28 \\ therefore required to either 4 provide specific and legitimate (See Joint Stip. at 5-8). 1 DISCUSSION 2 3 A. The ALJ Properly Evaluated Dr. Epstein’s Opinion 4 Plaintiff 5 argues that Dr. Epstein’s opinion, which limited 6 Plaintiff to “sitting, standing and walking no greater than [two] 7 hours,” can be read to either limit Plaintiff’s sitting, standing, 8 and walking to a “combined total time” of two hours or to limit these 9 activities to two hours each, for a combined total of six hours. 10 (Joint Stip. at 5-6). 11 Plaintiff’s sitting, standing, and walking to less than eight hours 12 per day, Plaintiff contends that Dr. Epstein assessed limitations 13 that are inconsistent with full-time work. 14 maintains 15 legitimate reasons for rejecting Dr. Epstein’s opinion or to accept 16 the opinion in full and find Plaintiff disabled. that the Because either of these interpretations limits ALJ was required to (Id. at 6). either Plaintiff provide specific, (Id. at 6-7). 17 An ALJ must take into account all medical opinions of record. 18 19 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(b), 20 physician’s 21 physician’s, and an examining physician’s opinion carries more weight 22 than a reviewing physician’s.” 23 1202 (9th Cir. 2001); see also Lester v. Chater, 81 F.3d 821, 830 24 (9th Cir. 1995). 25 not contradicted by another physician, it may be rejected only for 26 “clear and convincing” reasons. 27 treating or examining physician’s opinion is contradicted by another 28 doctor, it may only be rejected if the ALJ provides “specific and opinion 416.927(b). carries more “Generally, weight than a an treating examining Holohan v. Massanari, 246 F.3d 1195, When a treating or examining physician’s opinion is Lester, 81 F.3d at 830. 5 When a 1 legitimate” reasons supported by substantial evidence in the record. 2 Id. at 830-31; see also Ryan v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 528 F.3d 1194, 3 1198 (9th Cir. 2008). 4 On July 25, 2011, Plaintiff underwent a consultative physical 5 6 examination before Dr. Epstein. 7 of 8 hepatitis 9 performed a physical examination, noting “tenderness over T12 and L1” flat foot, C, compressed and pain (AR 477-78). vertebrae while and sitting. Plaintiff complained ventral (AR hernia, 477). obesity, Dr. Epstein 10 but “no significant pain over the lumbar spine.” 11 Epstein also observed “sacroiliac joint pain with functional range of 12 motion.” 13 a history of hepatitis C. 14 wrote that Plaintiff “should be able to work with proper motivation 15 including 16 hours.” (AR 477). sitting, (AR 477). Dr. Dr. Epstein diagnosed Plaintiff with obesity and (AR 477). standing, and Under “Discussion,” Dr. Epstein walking no greater than [two] (AR 478). 17 18 During the supplemental ALJ hearing, the M.E. testified that she 19 had reviewed Plaintiff’s medical records and opined that Plaintiff’s 20 impairments included chronic low back pain with degenerative disc 21 disease. 22 Plaintiff had “no limitations to sitting,” although she stated that 23 it would be “nice” to afford Plaintiff the opportunity to stand for 24 less than five minutes once per hour to “stretch his back out” and 25 alleviate 26 recommended limitations consistent with those ultimately assessed by 27 the ALJ. (AR 52). his low Based on her review, the M.E. concluded that back pain. (AR (Compare AR 24 with AR 54). 28 6 54). The M.E. otherwise 1 2 The ALJ discussed the medical evidence and assigned weight to the opinions of Dr. Epstein and the M.E. in the following excerpts: 3 4 The record shows that [Plaintiff] has a history of back 5 pain. 6 orthopedic evaluation at the request of the Social Security 7 Administration. 8 “compressed vertebrae,” pain with sitting, and flat feet. 9 On physical examination, [Dr. Epstein] observed tenderness 10 “over T12 and L1,” “sacroiliac joint pain,” and pain with 11 straight leg raise testing. In July 2011, [Dr. Epstein] performed a consultative [Plaintiff] complained to [Dr. Epstein] of 12 13 In March 2013, 14 departments 15 Providence Tarzana Medical Center (“PTMC”) with complaints 16 of low back pain. 17 at NHMC he experienced back pain after performing yard work 18 and daily chores. 19 facility 20 extremities. 21 physician at NHMC observed a limp and “mild” weakness in 22 the right lower extremity. at [sic] [Plaintiff] Northridge visited Medical the Hospital emergency (“NHMC”) and [Plaintiff] told the attending physician He told the attending physicians at both his On back pain physical radiated examination, to the his lower attending 23 24 An X-ray study of the lumbar spinal area performed in March 25 2014 revealed evidence of “moderate” degenerative changes 26 at L5-S1, including disc space narrowing. 27 the lumbar spinal area performed in March 2014 revealed 28 evidence of multilevel degenerative changes, including disc 7 An MRI study of 1 bulges; 2 foraminal stenosis. loss of disc height; facet arthopathy; and 3 4 Between 2014 and 2015, [Plaintiff] complained to treatment 5 providers at Medicina Familiar Medical Group (“MFMG”) of 6 back pain and “sciatica.” [. . .] 7 8 [T]he objective 9 [Plaintiff’s] of medical evidence allegations. the spine They did The not support aforementioned 10 studies 11 changes. 12 subluxation, 13 stenosis. 14 studies 15 The of not reveal root record evidence evidence impingement, does [Plaintiff’s] not of imaging complaints of radicular symptoms. [. . .] nerve revealed does of or contain extremities degenerative fracture, spinal canal neurodiagnostic to support his 16 17 Further, 18 largely were unremarkable. 19 of tenderness at various points of the spine and pain with 20 straight leg raise testing. 21 range 22 lateral tilt and rotation, and a healed ventral scar. 23 Epstein] 24 “significant pain over the lumbar spine.” 25 the 26 tenderness at the lumbar spinal area, negative straight leg 27 raise 28 extremities, of the clinical motion of indicated attending tests, findings and did motor normal the record He also observed “functional sacroiliac physician normal in [Dr. Epstein] observed evidence the he contained at not gait, 8 observe PTMC strength joint,” evidence [Dr. of In March 2013, observed and “adequate” “minimal” reflexes despite in the [Plaintiff’s] 1 complaints of back pain and radicular symptoms. 2 2014, [Plaintiff] visited the emergency department at West 3 Hills Hospital and Medical Center with complaints of back 4 pain and spasm. 5 physician observed normal breath sounds, regular heart rate 6 and 7 extremities (without tenderness), and normal motor strength 8 and sensation in the extremities. 9 providers at MFMG observed regular heart rate and rhythm; 10 clear lungs; normal peripheral pulses; normal bowel sounds; 11 symmetrical 12 hepatosplenomegaly); normal range of motion in the spine 13 and 14 normal 15 Cumulatively, 16 support finding that [Plaintiff] is unable to perform basic 17 work activities. [. . .] rhythm, On physical examination, the attending full range abdomen extremities; motor In August of strength leg sensation objective the masses, straight and in spine and [Plaintiff’s] treatment (without negative the motion raise in medical guarding, the tests; or and extremities. evidence does not 18 19 In addition to the objective medical evidence, the [ALJ] 20 has 21 non-examining 22 residual 23 regulations. 24 and/or 25 frequently, stand and/or walk up to two hours in an eight- 26 hour workday (no more than thirty minutes continuously), 27 and 28 ropes, considered physicians functional carry sit statements [The twenty without or from in determining capacity, M.E.] opined pounds no as more 9 examining, and [Plaintiff’s] required [Plaintiff] occasionally restriction, scaffolds, treating, and with no than occasional by the could lift ten climbing pounds ladders, balancing, 1 stooping, kneeling, crouching, crawling, or climbing ramps 2 or 3 concentrated 4 heat. 5 to take a standing break once per hour (approximately five 6 minutes in duration) at his workstation. 7 deserving 8 supported by the objective medical evidence, which shows a 9 history of complaints of back pain and abdominal pain, as 10 well as anatomical abnormalities of the spine and abdomen, 11 but 12 musculoskeletal, neurological, and respiratory functioning. 13 [The M.E.] had the opportunity to review and consider the 14 relevant 15 opinions additional probative weight. stairs; no exposure exposure to to unprotected vibrations or heights; and no extreme cold or [The M.E.] opined [Plaintiff] required the ability of significant otherwise probative mostly documentary This opinion is weight because normal evidence, which it is cardiovascular, lends their [sic] 16 17 Based on 18 Epstein] 19 motivation 20 greater than [two] hours.” 21 ability to stand and/or walk, this opinion is deserving of 22 significant probative weight because it is consistent with 23 the 24 medical evidence, as discussed above, and the opinion of 25 [the M.E.], which the [ALJ] has determined is deserving of 26 significant probative weight. other his clinical opined findings [Plaintiff] including[] evidence of could sitting, observations, “work standing with and [Dr. proper walking no With respect to [Plaintiff’s] record, 27 28 and (AR 25, 27-28 (citations omitted)). 10 including the objective 1 The ALJ did not err in evaluating Dr. Epstein’s opinion. First, 2 as Plaintiff points out, the limitations assessed in Dr. Epstein’s 3 opinion were somewhat ambiguous and vague. (Joint Stip. at 5-6). 4 Dr. Plaintiff’s 5 status, however, was that Plaintiff “should be able to work with 6 proper 7 consultative 8 specific purpose of evaluating the severity of Plaintiff’s disability 9 and his ability to work. Epstein’s clearest motivation.” (AR examiner report statement was regarding 478). conducting This a opinion physical (AR 477-78). ambiguous, it was was disability offered examination by for a the To the extent that Dr. 10 Epstein’s the ALJ’s prerogative to 11 resolve this ambiguity, Tommasetti v. Astrue, 533 F.3d 1035, 1041–42 12 (9th Cir. 2008), and it is incongruous to suggest, without meaningful 13 explanation of the apparent inconsistency, that fully crediting Dr. 14 Epstein’s opinion that Plaintiff “should be able to work,” (AR 478), 15 actually requires a finding that Plaintiff is fully disabled. 16 17 Moreover, the ALJ credited Dr. Epstein’s assessment “[w]ith 18 respect to [Plaintiff’s] ability to stand and/or walk” because it was 19 “consistent including the 20 objective medical evidence . . . and the opinion of [the M.E.].” (AR 21 28); see also Thomas v. Barnhart, 278 F.3d 947, 957 (9th Cir. 2002) 22 (“The opinions of non-treating or non-examining physicians may also 23 serve as substantial evidence when the opinions are consistent with 24 independent clinical findings or other evidence in the record.”). 25 The ALJ thus implicitly rejected limitations on Plaintiff’s ability 26 to sit as lacking support in the medical evidence and inconsistent 27 with the M.E.’s opinion. 28 (9th Cir. 1989) (“It is true that the ALJ did not recite the magic with the other evidence of record, See Magellanes v. Bowen, 881 F.2d 747, 755 11 1 words, ‘I reject Dr. Fox’s opinion about the onset date because....’ 2 But our cases do not require such an incantation. As a reviewing 3 court, we are not deprived of our faculties for drawing specific and 4 legitimate inferences from the ALJ’s opinion.”). 5 The 6 Ninth Circuit has disapproved of vague or unsupported 7 conclusions that a medical opinion is credited to the degree that it 8 is consistent with other opinions or objective medical evidence. 9 Embrey v. Bowen, 849 F.2d 418, 421 (9th Cir. 1988) (“To say that 10 medical opinions are not supported by sufficient objective findings 11 or 12 objective findings does not achieve the level of specificity our 13 prior cases have required, even when the objective factors are listed 14 seriatim.”). 15 and supported by an extensive analysis of the medical evidence of 16 record, including the M.E.’s opinion. 17 this 18 evidence does not support the finding that [Plaintiff] is unable to 19 perform 20 contained in the record largely were unremarkable.” 21 determinations 22 Plaintiff’s 23 Plaintiff acknowledges that the ALJ’s summary was fair and accurate. 24 (Joint Stip. at 4). 25 Epstein’s opinion. 26 595, 27 testifying medical advisor may serve as substantial evidence when 28 they are supported by other evidence in the record and are consistent are contrary the preponderant conclusions mandated by the However, in this case the ALJ’s conclusion was preceded analysis basis 600, to Cf. that the work determined activities” were not specific 602 ALJ (AR 25-28). and that unreasonable challenges to that this “objective “the and, It was during with summary clinical medical findings (AR 27). the These exception discussed of supra, Therefore, the ALJ did not err in evaluating Dr. See Morgan v. Commissioner of Soc. Sec., 169 F.3d (9th Cir. 1999) 12 (“Opinions of a nonexamining, 1 with it. . . . [W]e have consistently upheld the Commissioner’s 2 rejection of the opinion of a treating or examining physician, based 3 in 4 advisor.” (emphasis in original)). part on the testimony of a nontreating, nonexamining medical 5 6 CONCLUSION 7 8 9 For the foregoing reasons, the decision of the Administrative Law Judge is AFFIRMED. 10 11 LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY. 12 13 14 15 Dated: July 28, 2016 _____________/s/______________ ALKA SAGAR UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 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.
