Dennis Clauson v. Andrew Saul, No. 8:2019cv02061 - Document 20 (C.D. Cal. 2020)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER AFFIRMING COMMISSIONER by Magistrate Judge Alka Sagar. The decision of the Commissioner is AFFIRMED. (see document for further details) (hr)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Dennis Clauson v. Andrew Saul 1 Doc. 20 - 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA – SOUTHERN DIVISION 10 11 DENNIS C, 1 12 Plaintiff, 13 14 Case No. SACV 19-02061-AS MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER AFFIRMING COMMISSIONER v. ANDREW M. SAUL, Commissioner of Social Security, 15 Defendant. 16 17 For the reasons discussed below, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that, 18 pursuant to Sentence Four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), the Commissioner’s 19 decision is affirmed. 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 1 Plaintiff’s name is partially redacted in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5.2(c)(2)(B) and the recommendation of the Committee on Court Administration and Case Management of the Judicial Conference of the United States. 27 28 Dockets.Justia.com 1 PROCEEDINGS 2 3 On October 29, 2019, Plaintiff filed a Complaint Seeking 4 review of the Commissioner’s denial of Plaintiff’s application for 5 disability insurance benefits (“DIB”). 6 have consented to proceed before the undersigned United States 7 Magistrate Judge. 8 filed an Answer along with the Administrative Record (“AR”). (Dkt. 9 Nos. Joint 17-18). On (Dkt. Nos. 13-14). June 18, 2020, the Stipulation 11 positions regarding Plaintiff’s claim. Stip.”) The parties On March 25, 2020, Defendant 10 (“Joint (Dkt. No. 1). setting parties forth filed their a respective (Dkt. No. 19). 12 13 14 The Court has taken this matter under submission without oral argument. See C.D. Cal. L.R. 7-15. 15 16 BACKGROUND AND SUMMARY OF ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION 17 18 On February 29, 2016, Plaintiff, formerly employed as a sales 19 associate at Wal-Mart 2 (see AR 94, 96-97), filed an application for 20 DIB, alleging a disability onset date of February 16, 2016. 3 (AR 21 22 23 24 25 2 Plaintiff worked as a courier from July 1998 through January 2011, before working at Wal-Mart in 2013 as a sales associate, and subsequently working as a sales associate in WalMart’s claims department and, in October 2015, a sales associate in Wal-Mart’s sporting goods department. (AR 88, 90, 94, 96). Plaintiff returned to Wal-Mart in 2017 in the position of host whose duties included greeting customers. (AR 97). 26 3 27 28 Plaintiff had previously filed an application for DIB on February 20, 2012 and was found to be disabled from March 7, 2011 through October 1, 2013. (See AR 123-134). 2 1 234-35). 2 5, 2016 (AR 156-59), and on reconsideration on June 28, 2016 (AR 3 165-69). Plaintiff’s applications were denied initially on April 4 5 On August 1, 2018, Plaintiff, represented by counsel, 6 testified at a hearing before Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) 7 Kenneth Ball. 8 testimony from vocational expert Kathleen Spencer. 9 89, 97-100). (See AR 76, 79-86, 88-98, 101). The ALJ also heard (See AR 86-87, 10 11 On August 15, 2018, the ALJ issued a decision denying 12 Plaintiff’s applications. 13 sequential process, the ALJ found at step one that Plaintiff had 14 engaged in substantial gainful activity (“SGA”) from June 29, 1017 15 through January 16, 2018 and denied Plaintiff’s claim for that 16 period. (AR 28). 17 engaged in SGA from Plaintiff’s alleged onset date of February 16, 18 2016 through June 28, 2017, and from January 17, 2018 through the 19 date of the ALJ’s decision, August 15, 2018 4. (See AR 25-34). Applying the five-step However, the ALJ found that Plaintiff had not (Id.). 20 21 At step two, the ALJ found that Plaintiff had the following 22 severe impairment: lumbar spine degenerative disc disease, status 23 post-surgery on February 16, 2016. (AR 28). 24 25 26 4 27 28 Plaintiff’s claim for disability benefits are primarily concerned with the disability period between February 16, 2016 to June 28, 2017. (See Joint Stip. at 4). 3 1 At step three, the ALJ determined that Plaintiff did not have 2 an impairment or combination of impairments that meets or medically 3 equals the severity of any listing found in 20 C.F.R. Part 404, 4 Subpart P, Appendix 1. 5 (AR 28). The ALJ then found that Plaintiff 5 had the Residual Functional Capacity (“RFC”) 6 to perform light work 7 6 with 7 activities.” the following limitation: “occasionally perform postural (AR 29). 8 9 At step four, the ALJ determined that Plaintiff was able to 10 perform past relevant work as a “deliverer, outside” and sales 11 attendant 12 actually performed by plaintiff, past relevant work as a host 8 both 13 as actually and generally performed, considering Plaintiff’s RFC 14 with the physical and mental demands of Plaintiff’s past work 15 experience. 16 had not been under a disability, as defined in the Social Security as those jobs (AR 33). are generally performed, but not as Accordingly, the ALJ found that Plaintiff 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 5 The ALJ specifically considered whether Plaintiff’s medically determinable impairment meets the requirements of Listing 1.04 (disorders of the spine) and concluded that it did not. (AR 28). 6 A Residual Functional Capacity is what a claimant can still do despite existing exertional and nonexertional limitations. See 20 C.F.R § 404.1545(a)(1). 7 “Light work involves lifting no more than 20 pounds at a time with frequent lifting or carrying of objects weighing up to 10 pounds.” See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1567(b). 26 8 27 28 The ALJ noted that Plaintiff was employed as a host from June 29, 2017 to January 16, 2018 and therefore this position was only considered past relevant work since January 17, 2018. 4 1 Act, from the alleged disability onset, February 16, 2016, to 2 August 15, 2018, the date of the decision. (Id.). 3 4 On September 4, 2019, the Appeals Council denied Plaintiff’s 5 request to review the ALJ’s decision. 6 now seeks judicial review of the ALJ’s decision, which stands as 7 the final decision of the Commissioner. 8 1383(c). (See AR 1-6). Plaintiff See 42 U.S.C. §§ 405(g), 9 10 STANDARD OF REVIEW 11 12 This Court reviews the Commissioner’s decision to determine 13 whether the findings are supported by substantial evidence and 14 whether proper legal standards were applied. 15 Brewes v. Commissioner, 682 F.3d 1157, 1161 (9th Cir. 2012). 16 “Substantial evidence” is more than a mere scintilla, but less than 17 a preponderance. 18 2014). 19 finding, “a court must consider the record as a whole, weighing 20 both evidence that supports and evidence that detracts from the 21 [Commissioner’s] conclusion.” Aukland v. Massanari, 257 F.3d 1033, 22 1035 (9th Cir. 2001)(internal quotation omitted). 23 “[i]f the evidence can support either affirming or reversing the 24 ALJ’s conclusion, [a court] may not substitute [its] judgment for 25 that of the ALJ.” 26 (9th Cir. 2006). To 42 U.S.C § 405(g); Garrison v. Colvin, 759 F.3d 995, 1009 (9th Cir. determine whether substantial evidence supports a As a result, Robbins v. Soc. Sec. Admin., 466 F.3d 880, 882 27 28 5 1 PLAINTIFF’S CONTENTION 2 3 Plaintiff contends that the ALJ erred in failing to properly 4 evaluate Plaintiff’s subjective symptom testimony. 5 Stip. at 4-9; 20-23). 6 concerned with the period of disability between February 2016 to 7 June 2017. (See Joint As set forth above, Plaintiff is primarily (Joint Stip. at 4). 8 9 DISCUSSION 10 11 After consideration of the record as a whole, the Court finds 12 that the Commissioner’s findings are supported by substantial 13 evidence and are free from legal error. 9 14 15 A. 16 The ALJ Provided Clear and Convincing Reasons for Discrediting Plaintiff’s Subjective Symptom Testimony 17 18 Plaintiff asserts that the ALJ did not provide clear and 19 convincing reasons for rejecting Plaintiff’s subjective symptom 20 testimony. 21 that the (See Joint Stip. at 4-9; 20-23). ALJ provided proper reasons for Defendant asserts finding Plaintiff’s 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 9 The harmless error rule applies to the review of administrative decisions regarding disability. McLeod v. Astrue, 640 F.3d 881, 886–88 (9th Cir. 2011); see Burch v. Barnhart, 400 F.3d 676, 679 (9th Cir. 2005) (an ALJ’s decision will not be reversed for errors that are harmless). 6 1 subjective testimony not fully credible. (See Joint Stip. at 9- 2 23). 10 3 4 1. Legal Standard 5 6 When assessing a claimant’s credibility regarding subjective 7 pain or intensity of symptoms, the ALJ must engage in a two-step 8 analysis. 9 First, the ALJ must determine if there is medical evidence of an 10 impairment that could reasonably produce the symptoms alleged. 11 Garrison v. Colvin, 759 F.3d 995, 1014 (9th Cir. 2014). 12 analysis, the claimant is not required to show that her impairment 13 could reasonably be expected to cause the severity of the symptom 14 she has alleged; she need only show that it could reasonably have 15 caused some degree of the symptom.” 16 (citation omitted). 17 evidence of the pain or fatigue itself, or the severity thereof.” 18 Id. (citation omitted). Trevizo v. Berryhill, 871 F.3d 664, 678 (9th Cir. 2017). “In this Id. (emphasis in original) “Nor must a claimant produce objective medical 19 20 If the claimant satisfies this first step, and there is no 21 evidence of malingering, the ALJ must provide specific, clear and 22 convincing reasons for rejecting the claimant’s testimony about 23 the severity of his or her symptoms. 24 (citation omitted); see also Smolen v. Chater, 80 F.3d 1273, 1284 25 (9th Cir. 1996) (“[T]he ALJ may reject the claimant’s testimony 26 regarding the severity of her symptoms only if he makes specific 27 28 7 Trevizo, 871 F.3d at 678 1 findings stating clear and convincing reasons for doing so.”); 2 Robbins v. Soc. Sec. Admin., 466 F.3d 880, 883 (9th Cir. 2006) 3 (“[U]nless 4 affirmative evidence thereof, he or she may only find an applicant 5 not credible by making specific findings as to credibility and 6 stating clear and convincing reasons for each.”). 7 easy requirement to meet: The clear and convincing standard is the 8 most demanding required in Social Security cases.” 9 F.3d at 1015 (citation omitted). an ALJ makes a finding of malingering based on “This is not an Garrison, 759 10 11 Where, as here, the ALJ finds that a claimant suffers from a 12 medically determinable physical or mental impairment that could 13 reasonably be expected to produce the alleged symptoms, the ALJ 14 must evaluate “the intensity and persistence of those symptoms to 15 determine the extent to which the symptoms limit an individual’s 16 ability to perform work-related activities for an adult.” 17 Sec. Ruling (“SSR”) 16-3p, 2017 WL 5180304, at *3. 11 18 superseded SSR 96–7p and eliminated the term “credibility” from 19 the Agency’s sub-regulatory policy. However, the Ninth Circuit has 20 noted that SSR 16–3p: Soc. SSR 16–3p 21 22 makes clear what [the Ninth Circuit’s] precedent already 23 required: that assessments of an individual’s testimony 24 25 26 27 28 11 SSR 16-3p, which superseded SSR 96-7p, is applicable to this case, because SSR 16-3p, effective on March 28, 2016, was in effect at the time of the Appeal Council’s September 4, 2019 denial of Plaintiff’s request for review. Nevertheless, the regulations on evaluating a claimant’s symptoms, including pain, see 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529, have not changed. 8 1 by an ALJ are designed to “evaluate the intensity and 2 persistence of symptoms after the ALJ finds that the 3 individual has a medically determinable impairment(s) 4 that 5 symptoms, and not to delve into wide-ranging scrutiny of 6 the claimant’s character and apparent truthfulness. could reasonably be expected to produce those 7 8 Trevizo, 871 F.3d at 679 n.5 (quoting SSR 16–3p) (alterations 9 omitted). 10 11 In discrediting the claimant’s subjective symptom testimony, 12 the 13 evaluation, such as . . . prior inconsistent statements concerning 14 the symptoms, and other testimony by the claimant that appears less 15 than candid; unexplained or inadequately explained failure to seek 16 treatment or to follow a prescribed course of treatment; and the 17 claimant’s daily activities.” 18 1163 (9th Cir. 2014) (citation omitted). 19 a claimant’s testimony and conduct, or internal contradictions in 20 the claimant’s testimony, also may be relevant. 21 775 F.3d 1133, 1137 (9th Cir. 2014); Light v. Soc. Sec. Admin., 22 119 F.3d 789, 792 (9th Cir. 1997). 23 consider the observations of treating and examining physicians 24 regarding, among other matters, the functional restrictions caused 25 by the claimant’s symptoms. 26 Burrell, 775 F.3d at 1137. 27 reject subjective testimony based “solely” on its inconsistencies 28 with the objective medical evidence presented. ALJ may consider: “ordinary techniques of credibility Ghanim v. Colvin, 763 F.3d 1154, Inconsistencies between Burrell v. Colvin, In addition, the ALJ may Smolen, 80 F.3d at 1284; accord However, it is improper for an ALJ to 9 Bray v. Comm’r of 1 Soc. Sec. Admin., 554 F.3d 1219, 1227 (9th Cir. 2009) (citation 2 omitted). 3 4 The ALJ must make a credibility determination with findings 5 that are “sufficiently specific to permit the court to conclude 6 that the ALJ did not arbitrarily discredit claimant’s testimony.” 7 Tommasetti v. Astrue, 533 F.3d 1035, 1039 (9th Cir. 2008) (citation 8 omitted); see Brown-Hunter v. Colvin, 806 F.3d 487, 493 (9th Cir. 9 2015) (“A finding that a claimant’s testimony is not credible must 10 be sufficiently specific to allow a reviewing court to conclude 11 the adjudicator rejected the claimant’s testimony on permissible 12 grounds and did not arbitrarily discredit a claimant’s testimony 13 regarding 14 interpretation of a claimant’s testimony may not be the only 15 reasonable one, if it is supported by substantial evidence, “it is 16 not [the court’s] role to second-guess it.” 17 261 F.3d 853, 857 (9th Cir. 2001). pain.”) (citation omitted). Although an ALJ’s Rollins v. Massanari, 18 19 2. Plaintiff’s Subjective Statements and Testimony 20 21 Plaintiff had lumbar fusion surgery at L5-S1 on February 16, 22 2016. 23 Questionnaire, 24 symptoms preventing Plaintiff from carrying out normal workday 25 activities were “pain in lower back when standing walking or 26 sitting for longer than 20 to 30 minutes at a time, lack of sleep 27 due to pain when pains meds wear off + weakness + fatigue from 28 normal activities + chores” (AR 282); (2) light cooking, washing (AR 345). On May 21, 2016, Plaintiff submitted an Exertion providing the following 10 information: (1) the 1 dishes, light sweeping or vacuuming, small loads of laundry and 2 walking in nearby parks were among the daily activities that caused 3 weakness and fatigue after ten minutes; (3) Plaintiff experienced 4 lower back pain while standing, walking or light lifting and 5 pushing or pulling objects less than ten pounds and could climb 6 one flight of stairs slowly while using the handrail and a cane, 7 drive about 20 to 30 minutes at a time, between 5 to 15 miles with 8 stops to rest, wash a car, check the car’s fluid levels and tire 9 pressure once or twice per month, and do light yard word for 10 to 10 20 minutes at a time, but these activities also caused lower back 11 pain (AR 283); (4) Plaintiff needed to rest or nap 2-3 times a day, 12 wore a back brace for lower back support and used a cane while 13 walking; and (5) Plaintiff took the following medications: 300 mg 14 of Gabapentin 3 times per day, 10 mg of Hydrocodone with 325 mg of 15 Acetaminophen 2 times per day, and 10 mg Cyclobenzaprine and 15 mg 16 of morphine at night. (AR 284). 17 18 On June 10, 2016, Warren Yu, M.D., an orthopedic consultant 19 examiner, reported that Plaintiff was happy with the results of 20 his surgery and noted significant improvement. 21 examination, Dr. Yu observed that Plaintiff was able to move 22 “freely in and out of the office” without the use of an assistive 23 device, had a normal gait (AR 494-95), and found that Plaintiff 24 was able to push and pull without limitations, sit, walk and stand 25 for six hours out of an eight hour day with appropriate breaks. 26 (AR 498). 27 28 11 (AR 494). Upon 1 Progress notes from Tien T. Nguyen, M.D., who performed 2 Plaintiff’s surgery, indicated that Plaintiff generally used a 3 brace between March 2016 through June 2017 and only used a cane 4 through June 2016. 5 2016], 566 [August 31, 2016], 569 [November 30, 2016], 571-72 6 [February 15, 2017]). 7 tingling radiating into his right lower extremity. (See AR 479 8 [March 3, 2016], 566 [August 31, 2016], 570-71 [February 15, 9 2017]). 10 (See AR 479 [March 3, 2016], 482 [June 6, Plaintiff complained of pain, numbness and In June 2017, Plaintiff reported only minimal pain with prolonged activity. (See AR 572, 574-575). 11 12 At the August 1, 2018 hearing, Plaintiff testified to the 13 following: (1) he was currently taking both Cyclobenzaprine, a 14 muscle 15 morphine to help him sleep through the night without pain ; (2) 16 after the surgery, he could only manage to sit for 30 to 45 minutes 17 without having to lie down and would lie down on and off between 8 18 to 10 hours daily; (3) he has had no treatment since his surgery, 19 and was able to resume activity after the one-year mark of his 20 surgery in February 2016; (4) currently, his daily activities 21 consist of watching a lot of TV, lying down, vacuuming, washing 22 dishes and grocery shopping and his chores and errands do not take 23 more than two hours per day; (5) he has difficulty driving in 24 excess of 45 minutes due to lower back pain; and (6) Plaintiff 25 estimated he could currently be on his feet for up to four hours a 26 day. relaxer to treat muscle (AR 84-86). 27 28 12 spasms, and extended release 1 3. The ALJ’s Credibility Findings 2 3 The ALJ found Plaintiff’s testimony about the intensity, 4 persistence and limiting effects of his pain and symptoms to be 5 inconsistent with the medical evidence and other evidence in the 6 record, stating: 7 8 In sum, the above-specified residual functional 9 capacity reflects an analysis of all of the relevant 10 evidence in the record, which does not generally support 11 the 12 intensity, 13 symptoms. Accordingly, the residual functional capacity 14 determined in this decision indicates the most that the 15 claimant 16 limitations. claimant’s statements persistence, could do and despite regarding limiting his the effects alleged of his impairment-related 17 18 (AR 32). 19 20 4. Analysis 21 22 As set forth below, the ALJ provided specific, clear and 23 convincing 24 discredit Plaintiff’s complaints of pain and other symptoms. reasons, supported by 25 26 27 28 13 evidence in the record, to 1 a. Improvement 2 3 The ALJ found that Plaintiff’s symptoms improved following 4 surgery. 5 testimony where there is medical evidence of improvement after a 6 surgery. 7 Cir. 2019); see also Warre v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 439 F.3d 8 1001, 1006 (9th Cir. 2006)(evidence that a claimant's condition 9 is improving can support the ALJ's decision if “the severity of 10 the problem had decreased sufficiently to enable him to engage in 11 gainful activity.” 12 Plaintiff told Dr. Yu, the consultative examiner that he was happy 13 with the results of his surgery and noted significant improvement 14 despite 15 Although Plaintiff was taking pain medication and wearing a back 16 brace, he had a normal gait and did not use any assistive device 17 to ambulate. 18 that although a healed surgical scar was evident when Plaintiff’s 19 lumbar spine was examined, there was no significant tenderness, 20 spasm, or atrophy, the straight leg raising was negative and the 21 neurological examination was “wholly unremarkable. 12” 22 citing AR 496-97). (See AR 29). An ALJ can properly reject a plaintiff’s See Fletcher-Silvas v. Saul, 791 Fed. Appx. 647, 649 (9th reporting The ALJ noted that four months after surgery, residual back and gluteal (See AR 30, citing AR 494-95). pain. (AR 30). The ALJ also noted (See AR 30, 23 24 25 The AlJ also found that Dr. Nguyen, who saw Plaintiff approximately every two to three months from March 2016 through 26 12 27 28 The ALJ noted that because Plaintiff’s surgeon had advised him not to bend, Plaintiff’s range of motion was not evaluated. (See AR 30, citing AR 496). 14 1 June 2017, consistently indicated that Plaintiff was doing well. 2 (See AR 30, citing AR 479 [March 3, 2016], 482 [June 6, 2016], 567 3 [August 31, 2016], 570 [November 30, 2016], 572 [February 15, 4 2017], 575 [June 12, 2017]). 5 ALJ’s findings regarding medical improvement were not supported by 6 the three CT scans showing that Plaintiff’s spine had not yet 7 fused 13 (see Joint Stip. at 4, citing AR 516-17, 584), as Defendant 8 points out, the partial fusion did not preclude Dr. Nguyen from 9 finding that Plaintiff could work with certain restrictions – Although Plaintiff claims that the 10 namely, that 11 2017] and later up to 50 pounds (AR 575 [June 12, 2017]; see Joint 12 Stip. at 16-17). 13 Plaintiff’s symptoms, Dr. Nguyen opined that it was caused by 14 Plaintiff’s continued smoking 14. 15 570-71, 575, 577-84). could lift up to 25 pounds (see AR 572 [February 25, To the extent the partial fusion impacted (See AR 30, citing 479, 482, 566, 16 17 b. Objective Medical Evidence 18 19 20 The ALJ also found that Plaintiff’s testimony about the intensity and limiting effects of his symptoms was not supported 21 13 22 23 24 To the extent there were conflicts in the record, it was the ALJ’s duty to resolve any such conflicts. See Diedrich v. Berryhill, 874 F.3d 634, 638 (9th Cir. 2017). (“The ALJ is responsible for studying the record and resolving any conflicts or ambiguities in it.”); see also DeLorme v. Sullivan, 924 F.2d 634, 638 (9th Cir. 1991) (“The ALJ has a duty to develop the record.”). 25 26 27 28 14 See Warre v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 439 F.3d 1001, 1006 (“Impairments that can be controlled effectively with medication are not disabling for the purpose of determining eligibility for SSI benefits.”). 15 1 by the objective medical evidence. (See AR 30). 2 Barnhart , 400 F.3d 676, 681 (9th Cir. 2005) (“Although lack of 3 medical evidence cannot form the sole basis for discounting pain 4 testimony, 5 credibility analysis.”); Rollins v. Massanari , 261 F.3d 853, 857 6 (9th Cir. 2001)(“While subjective pain testimony cannot be rejected 7 on the sole ground that it is not fully corroborated by objective 8 medical evidence, the medical evidence is still a relevant factor 9 in it is determining a the factor that severity of the the ALJ can See Burch v. consider claimant’s pain in and his its 10 disabling effects.”); SSR 16-3p, *5 (“objective medical evidence 11 is a useful indicator to help make reasonable conclusions about 12 the intensity and persistence of symptoms, including the effects 13 those symptoms may have on the ability to perform work-related 14 activities”). 15 16 As the ALJ pointed out, the medical records concerning 17 Plaintiff’s back issues reflected only minimal, static examination 18 findings and consistently indicated that Plaintiff was doing well. 19 (See AR 30, citing AR 479 [March 3, 2016], 482 [June 6, 2016], 567 20 [August 31, 2016], 570 [November 30,2016], 572 [February 15, 2017], 21 574 [June 12, 2017]). Plaintiff’s subjective testimony was also 22 not supported by the opinions of his various doctors who found that 23 Plaintiff was capable of working, including B. Vaghaiwalla, M.D., 24 a State Agency medical consultant, (see AR 134-42 [April 4, 2016]), 25 Warren Yu, M.D., a board certified orthopedic surgeon, (see AR 494- 26 98 [June 10, 2016]), Karen Sarpolis, MD, a State Agency medical 27 consultant, (see AR 144-54 [June 27, 2016]), and Dr. Nguyen, 28 16 1 Plaintiff’s treating doctor (see AR 572 [February 25, 2017], 575 2 [June 12, 2017]). 3 4 However, the objective medical record was not the sole basis 5 for 6 testimony. 7 improvement 8 inconsistent with Plaintiff’s claims regarding his inability to 9 work due to pain and other symptoms. the ALJ’s As in rejection set forth of Plaintiff’s above, Plaintiff’s the ALJ condition subjective also found following symptom that surgery the was The Court finds that the ALJ 10 offered clear and convincing reasons, supported by substantial 11 evidence in the record, for discounting Plaintiff’s statements 12 regarding 13 Accordingly, no remand is required. the limiting effects of his pain and symptoms. 14 15 ORDER 16 17 18 For the foregoing reasons, the decision of the Commissioner is AFFIRMED. 19 20 LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY. 21 22 DATED: August 5, 2020 23 /s/ _________ ALKA SAGAR UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 24 25 26 27 28 17
]]>
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.
