Redenius v. Astrue, No. 3:2011cv03400 - Document 22 (N.D. Cal. 2012)
Court Description: ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND GRANTING DEFENDANTS CROSS-MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT. Signed by Judge JEFFREY S. WHITE on 8/6/12. (jjoS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/6/2012)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Redenius v. Astrue Doc. 22 1 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 RANDY REDENIUS, 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 12 No. 3:11-CV-03400-JSW Plaintiff, v. MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of Social Security ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND GRANTING DEFENDANT’S CROSS-MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT 13 Defendant. 14 15 16 17 / 18 INTRODUCTION 19 Now before the Court is the motion for summary judgment filed by Plaintiff Randy 20 Redenius (“Redenius”) and the cross-motion for summary judgment filed by Defendant, the 21 Commissioner of Social Security (the “Commissioner”). Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 16-5, the 22 motions have been submitted on the papers without oral argument. Having carefully reviewed 23 the administrative record, the parties’ papers, and relevant authority, the Court hereby DENIES 24 Redenius’ motion for summary judgment and GRANTS the Commissioner’s cross-motion for 25 summary judgment. 26 27 28 BACKGROUND Dockets.Justia.com 1 Redenius brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) and seeks judicial review of 2 the Commissioner’s decision to deny his claim for disability insurance benefits. Redenius 3 claims that a hip replacement and revision limit his ability to work due to problems with 4 walking, traveling, and chronic pain. (Administrative Record (“AR”) at 60.) Redenius received 5 treatment at the Veteran’s Administration Medical Center (“VA”) in San Francisco from 6 January 1, 1996 through October 1, 2001. (AR at 18.) This included treatment for weight gain, 7 hip pain, a minor rash, an arm infection, “upper extremity complaints[,]” minor discomfort in 8 his right thigh after a fall, and an infected finger laceration. (Id.) Redenius’ hip replacement 9 surgery took place in 1989. (Id.) Redenius claims he underwent a hip revision surgery in 2004. (AR at 19.) However, the record contains no supporting medical documents regarding the hip 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 revision. (Id.) 12 On January 10, 2007, Redenius filed an application for disability insurance benefits, 13 claiming that he became disabled on January 1, 1998. (AR at 15.) The claim was denied on 14 March 2, 2007, and denied again upon reconsideration on April 11, 2007. (Id.) On August 25, 15 2007, Redenius filed a request for a hearing before an Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”). (Id.) 16 On May 28, 2008, Redenius appeared and testified at a hearing before ALJ Gary J. Lee. 17 (Id.) In his decision, dated September 25, 2008, the ALJ found that Redenius had sufficient 18 quarters of coverage to remain insured through December 31, 2001. (AR at 15.) Thus, the ALJ 19 held that Redenius had to establish disability on or before this date he was last insured (“DLI”) 20 “in order to be entitled to a period of disability and disability insurance benefits.” (Id.) 21 The ALJ found that the VA treatment records show that Redenius was in “‘overall 22 excellent health,’ ‘working outdoors,’ had no ‘severe pain,’ and engaged ‘in vigorous exercise’ 23 throughout the period following his hip replacement surgery in 1989 continuing through the end 24 of his sporadic treatment for minor complaints at the VA, ending on October 1, 2001[.]” (AR at 25 19.) The ALJ noted that the VA sources indicate that Redenius’ surgery was “very successful.” 26 (Id.) The ALJ also noted that there is no evidence that Redenius “sought or received treatment 27 for any significant hip impairment on or before his DLI.” (Id.) The ALJ pointed out “that in 28 the months prior to the date his insured status expired, [Redenius] was performing significant 2 1 outdoor physical activities, including mountain climbing and tree cutting.” (Id.) The ALJ also 2 pointed out that Redenius continued “to work in self employment through 1997 . . . with the 3 credible medical evidence of record showing that [Redenius] continued to enjoy a healthy, 4 vigorous, pain and limitation-free physical capacity through the date of his last treatment with 5 the VA . . . three months before his insured status expired.” (Id. (citation omitted).) Finally, the 6 ALJ noted that “[o]n September 19, 2000, [Redenius] reported that he was fine and that his hip 7 was ‘not bothering him.’” (Id. (citation omitted).) Therefore, the ALJ concluded that Redenius 8 was capable of medium work on or before his DLI. (AR at 20.) 9 “Giving [Redenius] every benefit of doubt,” the ALJ found that Redenius was unable to perform his past relevant work as a sales and marketing executive. (Id.) However, the ALJ 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 determined that jobs “existed in significant numbers in the national economy that [Redenius] 12 could have performed.” (Id.) Thus, the ALJ found that Redenius was not disabled at any time 13 from January 1, 1998 through December 31, 2001, his DLI. (AR at 21.) Accordingly, the ALJ 14 denied Redenius’s claim. (Id.) 15 Having exhausted his administrative remedies, Redenius commenced this action for 16 judicial review of the ALJ’s decision. On November 12, 2011, Rednius brought the instant 17 motion for summary judgment. December 13, 2011, the Commissioner filed a cross-motion for 18 summary judgment. 19 The Court shall address additional facts as necessary in the remainder of this Order. 20 ANALYSIS 21 Redenius raises three arguments in support of his motion for summary judgment. First, 22 he argues that the ALJ erred in failing to consider any statements by his orthopedic surgeon. 23 Second, he argues that the ALJ erred in failing to properly consider the orthopedic aspect of his 24 medical condition. Third, he argues that the ALJ erred in conducting the vocational analysis. 25 The Commissioner argues that because Redenius failed to support these arguments with 26 facts and legal authority, he abandoned them. The Commissioner further argues that substantial 27 evidence supports the ALJ’s decision. 28 A. Standard of Review. 3 1 A federal district court may disturb the Commissioner’s final decision only if the 2 decision contains legal error or is not supported by substantial evidence. See 42 U.S.C. § 3 405(g). “Substantial evidence means more than a mere scintilla, but less than a preponderance; 4 it is such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a 5 conclusion.” Andrews v. Shalala, 53 F.3d 1035, 1039 (9th Cir. 1995). To determine whether 6 substantial evidence exists, the reviewing court looks at the administrative record as a whole, 7 considering both evidence that supports and undermines the ALJ’s findings. Id. “[W]here the 8 evidence is susceptible to more than one rational interpretation,” the reviewing court must 9 uphold the ALJ’s decision. Id. at 1039-40. 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 B. Legal Standard for Establishing a Prima Facie Case for Disability. Disability is “the inability to engage in any substantial gainful activity” because of a 12 medical impairment which can result in death or “which has lasted or can be expected to last for 13 a continuous period of not less than 12 months.” 42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(1)(A). The ALJ applies a 14 five-step sequential evaluation process to determine whether a plaintiff is disabled. See 20 15 C.F.R. § 404.1520. During the first four steps of this sequence, the claimant bears the burden of 16 proof to demonstrate disability, but the burden shifts to the Commissioner at step five “to show 17 that the claimant can do other kinds of work.” Valentine v. Comm’r Soc. Sec. Admin., 574 F.3d 18 685, 689 (9th Cir. 2009) (quoting Embrey v. Bowen, 849 F.2d 418, 422 (9th Cir. 1988)). 19 The five-step analysis proceeds as follows. First, the claimant must not be engaged in 20 substantial gainful activity. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(i). Second, the claimant must have a 21 severe impairment. Id. § 404.1520(c). Third, if the claimant’s impairment meets the duration 22 requirement and meets or equals an impairment listed in Appendix 1 to the regulation (a list of 23 impairments presumed severe enough to preclude work), the claimant will be found disabled 24 without consideration of age, education, or work experience. See id. § 404.1520(d). Fourth, if 25 the claimant fails to satisfy step three, the ALJ will assess and make a finding on the claimant’s 26 residual function capacity (“RFC”). Id. § 404.1520(e). The RFC measurement describes the 27 most an individual can do despite his or her limitations. Id. § 404.1545(a)(1). If the claimant 28 has the RFC to perform past relevant work, the claimant will not be found disabled; if not, the 4 1 ALJ proceeds to step five. See id. § 404.1520(f). Fifth, if the claimant is able to adjust to other 2 work in the national economy, the claimant will not be found disabled. Id. § 404.1520(g)(1). 3 C. 4 Redenius Abandoned the Issues Raised in His Motion For Summary Judgment. The Commissioner argues that because Redenius did not support his contentions with 5 argument or citation to relevant authorities, he abandoned them. The Federal Rules require that 6 a brief contain “the contentions of the appellant with respect to the issues presented, and the 7 reasons therefore, with citations to the authorities, statutes and parts of the record relied on.” 8 Fed. R. App. P. 28(a)(4). “Issues raised in a brief which are not supported by argument are 9 deemed abandoned” and the Court may only review them if failure to do so would result in manifest injustice. Leer v. Murphy, 844 F.2d 628, 634 (9th Cir. 1988). A pro se plaintiff is not 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 exempt from the requirement that a brief be supported by argument. See Acosta-Huerta v. 12 Estelle, 7 F.3d 139, 144 (9th Cir. 1992); see also Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d, 52, 54 (9th Cir. 13 1995) (noting that pro se litigants are bound by the rules of procedure). Redenius’ motion lacks 14 legal arguments to support his contention that the ALJ erred in finding him not disabled. 15 Furthermore, his contentions are unsupported by any citation to evidence in the record. 16 Therefore, Redenius abandoned the issues he seeks to assert in his appeal. 17 D. Substantial Evidence in the Record Supports the ALJ’s Decision. 18 Even had Redenius not abandoned the issues raised in his motion, Redenius’ assertion 19 that the ALJ erred in finding him not disabled is without merit. Substantial evidence supports 20 the ALJ’s determination. 21 1. 22 23 The ALJ Did Not Err in Failing to Consider Evidence From Redenius’ Orthopedic Surgeon. Redenius argues that the ALJ erred in failing consider testimony of Redenius’ 24 orthopedic surgeon. The ALJ must base his decision on the evidence in the record before him. 25 See, e.g., Andrews, 53 F.3d at 1039-40. Redenius did not present any testimony, medical 26 27 28 5 1 records, or other evidence from his orthopedic surgeon.1 Redenius had an opportunity after his 2 hearing to submit further evidence in support of his claim and did not do so. (AR at 19.) Thus, 3 the ALJ did not err in failing to consider evidence from Redenius’ orthopedic surgeon because 4 there is no such evidence in the record. 5 2. 6 The ALJ Did Not Err in Evaluating the Medical Evidence Regarding the Orthopedic Aspect of Redenius’ Alleged Impairments. 7 Redenius argues that the ALJ erred in evaluating his claim because the ALJ “only 8 considered a small part of [Redenius’] overall medical condition,” and did not focus sufficiently 9 on “the orthopedic aspect,” i.e., his alleged “hip and back disability[.]” (Plaintiff’s Motion (“Mot.”) at 1.) An ALJ’s decision must be based on the whole record. See Andrews, 53 F.3d at 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 1039. The ALJ considered diagnostic studies dated September 1999 regarding degenerative 12 changes to Redenius’ hip and spine. (AR at 18.) The ALJ noted that Redenius’ hip 13 replacement surgery in 1989 “was very successful[.]” (AR at 19.) The ALJ also noted that 14 there “is no evidence that [Redenius] sought or received treatment for any significant hip 15 impairment on or before his DLI.” (Id.) Finally, the ALJ pointed to ample evidence that 16 Redenius was capable of vigorous physical activity on or before the DLI. (AR at 18-19.) 17 Thus, the ALJ considered Redenius’ hip and back impairments, but did not find that such 18 impairments were disabling. There is sufficient evidence to support the ALJ’s conclusion. 19 Accordingly, the ALJ did not err. 20 3. The ALJ Did Not Err in Performing the Vocational Analysis. 21 Redenius argues that the ALJ erred in performing the vocational analysis because the 22 vocational counselor “never understood what [Redenius] did as a career” and “provided 23 alternatives which had nothing to do with [Redenius’] past” work experience. (Plaintiff’s Mot. 24 at 1.) Redenius appears to misunderstand what is required to support a finding that he is 25 disabled. “Once a claimant has established that he or she suffers from a severe impairment that 26 27 28 1 The ALJ noted that Redenius “had a hip revision surgery in 2004, which is not evidenced in the record[.]” (AR at 19.) At the hearing before the ALJ, Redenius asserted that this revision surgery was performed by his orthopedic surgeon. (AR at 171-74.) However, Redenius failed to provide any evidence related to the surgery. 6 made a prima facie showing of disability.” See Tackeet v. Apfel, 180 F.3d 1094, 1100 (9th Cir. 3 1999). However, a mere inability to perform past work is insufficient to support a finding of 4 disability. If, at step five in the disability analysis, the Commissioner demonstrates that “the 5 claimant can perform some other work that exists in ‘significant numbers’ in the national 6 economy, taking into consideration the claimant’s residual functional capacity, age, education, 7 and work experience,” then the claimant does not qualify for disability benefits. Id. (citing 20 8 C.F.R. § 404.1560(b)(3)). The Commissioner may meet this burden in two ways: (1) by the 9 testimony of a vocational expert, or (2) by reference to the Medical-Vocational Guidelines. See 10 Tackett, 180 F.3d at 1101 (citing 20 C.F.R. pt. 404, subpt. P, app. 2). When a claimant is “able 11 For the Northern District of California prevents the claimant from doing any work he or she has done in the past, the claimant has 2 United States District Court 1 to perform the full range of jobs in a given category, i.e., sedentary work, light work, or 12 medium work[,]” the ALJ may apply the Medical-Vocational Guidelines to determine whether 13 the claimant could perform work that exists in significant numbers in the national economy and 14 is therefore not disabled.2 See Tackett,180 F.3d at 1101 (emphasis in original). Here, “[g]iving [Redenius] every benefit of doubt,” the ALJ found that he was unable to 15 16 perform his past relevant work as a sales and marketing executive. (AR at 20.) However, the 17 ALJ also determined that Redenius had the RFC for the full range of medium work. Based on 18 this RFC, the ALJ concluded that through Redenius’ DLI, considering his age, education and 19 work experience, a finding of “not disabled” was directed by Medical-Vocational Rule 203.15. 20 (AR at 21.) Medical Vocational Rule 203.15 dictates a finding of “not disabled” for a claimant 21 with an RFC for the full range of medium work who is of “[a]dvanced age[,]” is a “[h]igh 22 school graduate or more[,]” and has previous work experience that is “[s]killed or semiskilled - 23 skills not transferrable.” 20 C.F.R. pt. 404, subpt. P, app. 2. Redenius fails to show that the 24 “The Medical–Vocational Guidelines are a matrix system for handling claims that involve substantially uniform levels of impairment.” Tackett, 180 F.3d at 1101. The matrix consists of a grid presenting “combinations of factors relevant to a claimant’s ability to find work.” Id. The factors “are the claimant’s age, education, and work experience.” Id. For various combinations “of these factors, e.g., fifty years old, limited education, and unskilled work experience, the grids direct a finding of either ‘disabled’ or ‘not disabled’ based on the number of jobs in the national economy in that category of physical-exertional requirements.” Id. 2 25 26 27 28 7 1 ALJ erred in applying Medical-Vocational Rule 203.15. Therefore, the ALJ did not err in 2 finding that there were a significant number of jobs Redenius could perform and that he was 3 therefore not disabled. CONCLUSION 4 5 For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES Redenius’ motion for summary judgment 6 and GRANTS the Commissioner’s cross-motion for summary judgment. A separate judgment 7 shall issue, and the Clerk is directed to close the file. 8 IT IS SO ORDERED. 9 Dated: August 6, 2012 JEFFREY S. WHITE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 8 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 FOR THE 3 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 4 5 RANDY REDENIUS, 6 7 8 9 Plaintiff, For the Northern District of California United States District Court 12 13 14 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE v. MICHAEL J. ASTRUE et al, Defendant. 10 11 Case Number: CV11-03400 JSW / I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S. District Court, Northern District of California. That on August 6, 2012, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, by placing said copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter listed, by depositing said envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into an inter-office delivery receptacle located in the Clerk's office. 15 16 17 Randy Redenius 967 Church Street San Francisco, CA 94114 18 Dated: August 6, 2012 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Richard W. Wieking, Clerk By: Jennifer Ottolini, Deputy Clerk
]]>
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.
