Haseltine v. Astrue, No. 3:2008cv05782 - Document 69 (N.D. Cal. 2010)
Court Description: ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT by Magistrate Judge Bernard Zimmerman denying 64 Motion for Summary Judgment; granting 65 Motion for Summary Judgment; finding as moot 67 Motion to Strike (bzsec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/24/2010)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Haseltine v. Astrue Doc. 69 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JO ANNE E. HASELTINE, Plaintiff, 12 v. 13 14 MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Defendant. 15 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No. C 08-5782 BZ ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT 16 17 Before the Court are plaintiff Jo Ann Haseltine’s and 18 defendant Michael Astrue’s cross-motions for summary judgment. 19 Plaintiff argues that she should have been granted disability 20 benefits as of December 10, 1999 instead of September 1, 21 2001.1 22 date decision is supported by substantial evidence and free of 23 legal error. Plaintiff applied for disability insurance benefits in 24 25 Defendant moves for summary judgment that the onset March 2001 and was granted benefits as of September 1, 2001 by 26 27 28 1 All parties have consented to my jurisdiction for all proceedings, including entry of final judgment, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Thomas P. Tielens on September 2 4, 2008.2 3 declined review. 4 review is substantially larger than ALJ Tielens’s September 5 2008 decision. 6 Council’s decision not to review ALJ Tielens’s September 2008 7 ruling is subject to judicial review. 8 well established law however. 9 decision, or the decision of the administrative law judge if That decision became final when the Appeals Council Plaintiff contends that the scope of this First, plaintiff contends that the Appeals This is contrary to “The Appeals Council's 10 the request for review is denied, is binding unless you or 11 another party file an action in Federal district court, or the 12 decision is revised.” 13 Council denied review, making the ALJ's decision the 14 Commissioner's final decision for purposes of review.” 15 v. Barnhart, 331 F.3d 758, 759 (10th Cir. 2003). 16 U.S.C. 405(g), a claimant may only seek review of a “final 17 decision of the Commissioner of Social Security.” 18 exception arises when the Appeals Council considers new 19 evidence in its denial of review, which the Council did not do 20 in this case. 21 operative, reviewable decision. 22 that ALJ Tielens was biased against her, but this claim has 23 been addressed in a prior ruling. 24 25 20 C.F.R. § 404.981. “The Appeals Doyal Under 42 One Therefore, the decision of the ALJ is the Second, Plaintiff asserts See Doc. No. 42. The sole issue before the Court is whether ALJ Tielens’s decision to award Plaintiff an onset date of September 1, 2001 26 2 27 28 In a prior decision, I remanded this case after finding that ALJ Lazuran had improperly offered a compromise date of disability onset. See Haseltine v. Astrue, C07-1605 BZ, Doc. No. 17, (N.D.Cal. Dec. 10, 2007). 2 1 is supported by substantial evidence.3 2 ‘Substantial evidence means more than a scintilla but less than a preponderance.’ (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). "Substantial evidence is relevant evidence which, considering the record as a whole, a reasonable person might accept as adequate to support a conclusion." Flaten v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 44 F.3d 1453, 1457 (9th Cir.1995). Where the evidence is susceptible to more than one rational interpretation, one of which supports the ALJ's decision, the ALJ's conclusion must be upheld. 3 4 5 6 7 8 Thomas v. Barnhart, 278 F.3d 947, 954 (9th Cir. 2002). 9 Further, “at all times, the burden is on the claimant to 10 establish her entitlement to disability insurance benefits.” 11 Tidwell v. Apfel, 161 F.3d 599, 601 (9th Cir. 1998). 12 Turning to the administrative record, I find ALJ 13 Tielens’s September 2008 decision was supported by substantial 14 evidence. 15 grant plaintiff a disability onset date of September 1, 2001. 16 The following evidence supports the decision to Malcolm Brodzinksi, plaintiff’s vocational rehabilitation 17 counselor, found that there were “no medical 18 contraindications” to plaintiff returning to full time 19 employment in July of 2001. (AR 283). 20 Dr. Tracy Newkirk, who treated Plaintiff from June 2000 21 onwards stated on June 4, 2001 that the physical job demands 22 of “activities coordinator,” provided by Malcolm Brodzinski 23 were “well within her capacity.” 24 Dr. Newkirk stated that “it remains my medical opinion based 25 on the evidence we have, therefore, that the patient is a 26 candidate for Social Security Disability benefits, based on (AR 424). On August 3, 2001 27 3 28 Plaintiff’s assertion that the standard of review is de novo is incorrect. 3 1 her injury and underlying physical condition, which cannot be 2 changed in any reasonable way any time in the near future.” 3 (AR 423). 4 plaintiff “should be considered permanently, totally disabled 5 as there appear to be no employment options for her 6 particularly in view of her learning disability.” 7 It is unclear what prompted Dr. Newkirk to change his medical 8 opinion of plaintiff’s disability between June and September 9 of 2001. Dr. Newkirk stated on September 28, 2001 that (AR 445). However, it is undisputed that just three months 10 prior to September 1, 2001, Dr. Newkirk opined that plaintiff 11 was capable of working. 12 In May 2001, psychiatrist Robert Lee, M.D. examined 13 plaintiff and found her capable “of sustained simple work with 14 limited public interactions.” 15 (AR 409). In June of 2001 Dr. Eugene McMillan, M.D. observed that 16 other than some hand pain, there were very few other objective 17 physical findings. 18 (AR 412). At least one doctor opined that plaintiff was disabled 19 prior to September 1, 2001. 20 Schoenbrun, M.D., Ph.D. stated that plaintiff was “severely 21 disabled and continuing to deteriorate.” 22 On July 27, 2001 Dr. Richard Lee (AR 423). In sum, there is substantial evidence, certainly more 23 than a scintilla, that plaintiff was not disabled in the 24 months leading up to September 1, 2001. 25 of the opinions rendered by medical and other professionals 26 indicate that plaintiff was capable of working. 27 simply no evidence in the record that plaintiff was disabled 28 as of December 10, 1999 as she argues in her moving papers. 4 In fact, the majority There is 1 Plaintiff’s argument appears to be as follows. 2 December 10, 1999 plaintiff was injured and subsequently 3 underwent vocational rehabilitation with Malcolm J. 4 Brodzinski. 5 insurance. 6 full time substantive employment. 7 argues, defendant should have determined that the date of 8 onset of disability is December 10, 1999. 9 On That injury was covered by worker’s compensation After that injury, plaintiff never returned to Therefore, plaintiff However, this argument is contradicted by all medical and 10 professional opinions rendered by those that worked with and 11 treated plaintiff during the relevant time period. 12 or professional at any point stated that plaintiff was unable 13 to return to work due to disability as of December 10, 1999. 14 Turning to plaintiff’s assertions of legal error, No doctor 15 plaintiff first argues that ALJ Tielens did not properly apply 16 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520a, which outlines the method of evaluating 17 mental impairments. 18 evaluate “pertinent symptoms, signs, and laboratory findings 19 to determine” whether a plaintiff has “a medically 20 determinable mental impairment.” 21 done by rating the degree of functional limitation in 22 “activities of daily living; social functioning; 23 concentration, persistence, or pace; and episodes of 24 decompensation.” 25 included a specific finding on each of those functional areas. 26 (AR 603). 27 daily living; social functioning; and concentration, 28 persistence, and pace. Doc. No. 64, p. 18. The first step is to § 404.1520a(b). § 404.1520a(c)(3). This is Here, ALJ Tielens He found moderate difficulties in activities of Id. ALJ Tielens found that the 5 1 plaintiff experienced one or two episodes of decompensation. 2 Id. 3 404.1520a. 4 lacking in the ALJ’s application and the Court can find no 5 significant departures from § 404.1520a. 6 All of these findings were made in accordance with § Plaintiff did not explicitly state what was Second, plaintiff’s argument that ALJ Tielens failed to 7 properly weigh the treating physicians’ opinions fails for two 8 reasons. 9 opinion is generally entitled to greater weight than a non- Plaintiff’s assertion that a treating physician’s 10 treating physician’s opinion is correct. 11 Shalala, 53 F.3d 1035, 1041 (9th Cir. 1995). 12 “opinion” to which plaintiff refers is not a medical opinion, 13 but instead is a letter drafted by Mr. Ragnes, a 14 representative for the plaintiff. 15 Tielens credited Dr. Newkirk’s various opinions regarding 16 plaintiff’s disability onset date. 17 postdates the onset date of September 1, 2001 by more than 18 four months. 19 the ALJ attach to the letter. 20 2002 letter conclusively established that plaintiff was 21 disabled as of January 2002, plaintiff has already received 22 benefits for that time period. 23 See Andrews v. However, the (AR 442-43). Moreover, ALJ The Ragnes letter It is unclear what weight plaintiff would have Even assuming that the January To the extent that plaintiff believes that this letter 24 would trigger a duty to re-contact Dr. Newkirk, plaintiff has 25 not persuaded me that any such duty was triggered. 26 to further develop the record only arises when “there is 27 ambiguous evidence or when the record is inadequate to allow 28 for proper evaluation of the evidence.” 6 The duty Mayes v. Massanari, 1 276 F.3d 453, 460-61 (9th Cir. 2001). In a prior opinion, I 2 remanded the case because the ALJ committed legal error when 3 she offered a compromise date of disability onset in lieu of 4 properly evaluating the evidence. 5 1605 BZ, Doc. No. 17, (N.D.Cal. Dec. 10, 2007). 6 ALJ Tielens carefully parsed through and weighed all of the 7 relevant medical opinions in rendering his decision. 8 to supplement the record was triggered as ALJ Tielens found 9 the evidence neither ambiguous nor inadequate. Haseltine v. Astrue, C07Here however, No duty Instead, he 10 found that Dr. Newkirk had opined in the months leading up to 11 September 1, 2001, that plaintiff was able to work, and 12 subsequently changed his mind. 13 Third, plaintiff argues that ALJ Tielens improperly 14 determined her credibility. 15 difficult to follow and therefore address. 16 plaintiff takes issue with the manner in which ALJ Tielens 17 documented his credibility findings regarding plaintiff’s 18 testimony of intensity, persistence, and limiting effect of 19 her impairment. 20 Plaintiff’s argument is somewhat It appears that For the ALJ to reject the claimant’s subjective 21 complaints, he must provide specific, cogent reasons for the 22 disbelief. 23 1999)(citing Lester v. Chater, 81 F.3d 821, 824 (9th Cir. 24 1995)). 25 must identify what testimony is not credible and what evidence 26 undermines the claimant’s complaints. 27 12 F.3d 915, 918 (9th Cir. 1993). 28 are the province of the ALJ. See Morgan v. Apfel, 169 F.3d 595, 599 (9th Cir. General findings are insufficient; rather, the ALJ See Dodrill v. Shalala, Credibility determinations See Fair v. Bowen, 885 F.2d 597, 7 1 604 (9th Cir. 1989). 2 ALJ Tielens explained that he found plaintiff’s testimony 3 not credible because her symptoms were undocumented, or 4 unsupported and contradicted by the medical and documentary 5 evidence before him. 6 evidence which undercut plaintiff’s testimony and therefore 7 properly determined plaintiff’s credibility. 8 further claims that ALJ Tielens made a credibility 9 determination that is at odds with the prior, vacated In his ruling, ALJ Tielens specified the Plaintiff 10 determination of ALJ Lazuran and that ALJ Tielens was bound by 11 res judicata to accept the earlier credibility determination. 12 Yet, plaintiff cites no authority for such an argument. 13 Further, plaintiff would have this Court cherry-pick the parts 14 of ALJ Lazuran’s vacated ruling which are favorable to her and 15 disregard the parts that are not. 16 so. The Court declines to do 17 Defendant’s motion for summary judgment is GRANTED. 18 Tielens’s decision to grant an onset date of SEPTEMBER 1, 2001 19 is supported by substantial evidence. 20 summary judgment is DENIED. 21 plaintiff’s proposed order (Doc. No. 66) is DENIED AS MOOT. 22 Dated: June 24, 2010 Plaintiff’s motion for Defendant’s motion to strike 23 24 25 ALJ Bernard Zimmerman United States Magistrate Judge G:\BZALL\-BZCASES\HASELTINE v. ASTRUE\MSJ ORD.wpd 26 27 28 8
]]>
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.
