(SS) Milliken v. Commissioner of Social Security, No. 1:2017cv01086 - Document 26 (E.D. Cal. 2019)

Court Description: FINAL JUDGMENT and ORDER Regarding Plaintiff's Social Security Complaint, signed by Magistrate Judge Jeremy D. Peterson on 1/23/19. CASE CLOSED. (Gonzalez, R)

Download PDF
(SS) Milliken v. Commissioner of Social Security Doc. 26 1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 8 9 REBECCA ANN MILLIKEN, Plaintiff, 10 v. 11 12 Case No. 1:17-cv-01086-JDP FINAL JUDGMENT AND ORDER REGARDING PLAINTIFF’S SOCIAL SECURITY COMPLAINT COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, 13 Defendant. 14 This matter is before the court on the claimant’s complaint for judicial review of an 15 16 unfavorable decision of the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration regarding her 17 application for Supplemental Security Income. The parties have consented to entry of final 18 judgment by the United States Magistrate Judge under the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), with 19 any appeal to the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Claimant makes two arguments on 20 appeal. 21 First, claimant argues that the presiding Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) improperly 22 summarized her Residual Functioning Capacity (“RFC”) for the Vocational Expert (“VE”), 23 leading the VE to identify potential jobs for claimant that claimant’s RFC would not permit her to 24 perform. In response, the Commissioner argues that whether or not the ALJ correctly 25 summarized the RFC, any error would be harmless because the ALJ identified at least one job 26 that claimant could perform, which exists in sufficient numbers in the economy. We agree with 27 defendant. We need not decide whether the ALJ erred in describing claimant’s RFC, since at 28 least one of the positions identified by the VE as existing in sufficient numbers—specifically, the 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 position of hand bander—could be performed by claimant. Second, claimant argues that the ALJ erred in discounting the opinion of Dr. Rambo. The 2 3 ALJ provided two reasons for giving Dr. Rambo’s opinion “little weight”: Dr. Rambo “had only 4 seen the claimant for one visit,” and “other records indicate that claimant continued to use drugs 5 and was not in remission from drug use” at the time of Dr. Rambo’s exam. The ALJ thus 6 discounted Dr. Rambo’s opinion that Dr. Rambo was able to separate the effects of claimant’s 7 mental impairments from the effects of her chemical dependency. Certified Administrative 8 Record (“CAR”) 22. The ALJ provides significant detail regarding those other records— 9 including extensive records of drug use, some of which post-dated Dr. Rambo’s examination of 10 plaintiff—and explains why they caused her to find that “the claimant’s statements concerning the 11 intensity, persistence and limiting effects of [her] symptoms are not credible to the extent they are 12 inconsistent with the residual functional capacity assessment.” CAR 19. The ALJ notes multiple 13 instances in which claimant made statements that the ALJ determined to be in conflict with other 14 portions of the record. Accordingly, we find that the ALJ did not err in discounting Dr. Rambo’s 15 opinion and that the ALJ sufficiently articulated a basis for according Dr Rambo’s report and 16 opinion “little weight.” In sum, having reviewed the record, administrative transcript, briefs of the parties, and 17 18 applicable law, we find that the ALJ’s decision is supported by substantial evidence in the record 19 and is based on proper legal standards. 20 Order 21 Accordingly, we deny claimant’s appeal from the administrative decision of the 22 Commissioner of Social Security. The clerk of court is directed to enter judgment in favor of 23 defendant Nancy Berryhill, the Acting Commissioner of Social Security, and against claimant 24 Rebecca Ann Milliken. The clerk of the court is directed to close this case. 25 26 27 28 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: January 23, 2019 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 2

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.