Carper v. Commissioner Social Security Administration, No. 2:2014cv01185 - Document 16 (D. Or. 2015)

Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER. The Commissioner's decision is AFFIRMED and this case is DISMISSED. See formal OPINION AND ORDER. Signed on 12/2/2015 by Chief Judge Ann L. Aiken. (rh)

Download PDF

Carper v. Commissioner Social Security Administration Doc. 16 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON Kelley Carper, Case No. 2:14-cv-01185-AA OPINION AND ORDER Plaintiff, v. Carolyn W. Colvin, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant. Rory Linerud Linerud Law Firm P.O. Box 1105 Salem, OR 97308 Attorney for plaintiff Billy J. Williams Ronald K. Silver United States Attorney's Office 1000 S.W. Third Avenue, Suite 600 Portland, Oregon 97201 Franco L. Becia Social Security Administration Office of the General Counsel 701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2900 M/S 221A Seattle, Washington 98104-7075 Attorneys for defendant Page 1 - OPINION AND ORDER Dockets.Justia.com AIKEN, Chief Judge: Plaintiff Kelley Carper brings this action pursuant to the Social Security Act judicial review Cormnissioner of ("the Act"), a denied final 42 U.S.C. decision plaintiff's of § the 405(g), to obtain Cormnissioner. applications for Title The II disability iqansurance benefits and Title XVI supplemental security income disability benefits under the Act. For the reasons explained below, the ALJ's decision is affirmed and this case is dismissed. BACKGROUND Born September 11, 1961, plaintiff was 39 years old on the alleged disability onset date of September 1, 2001. Tr. Plaintiff completed tenth grade. Id. at 24, 31. 28. Plaintiff "can do simple math but has no computer skills." Id. Her previous jobs include pet care, in-home caregiver, lawn maintenance, and cleaner. Id. Plaintiff alleges she suffers from: bronchitis, lifelong asthma, chronic chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, migraines, insomnia resulting from pain back spasms, in her back and hips, childhood and domestic abuse, kidney failure, numbness in her arm and middle fingers, plaintiff alleges and hand cramps. difficulty extended periods of time, gallon of milk, Id. at 28-29. breathing, walking, Page 2 - OPINION AND ORDER sitting for lifting anything weighing more than a tolerating gas objects. Id. In addition, and fumes, and handling small On July 14, 2010, plaintiff filed an application for disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income, alleging disability beginning September 1, 2001. Id. at 22. Both claims were denied initially and on reconsideration, after which plaintiff filed a written request for a hearing. Id. Plaintiff appeared with counsel and testified at a hearing on October 26, 2012. Id. The ALJ found plaintiff not disabled, and capable of performing both past work and other work. Id. at 23. The Appeals Council denied plaintiff's request for review, rendering the ALJ's findings the final agency decision. Id. at 1. Plaintiff subsequently filed this appeal on May 26, 2015. Pl.'s Br. 1. STANDARD The court must affirm the Commissioner's decision if it is based on proper legal standards and the findings are supported by substantial evidence in the record. Hammock v. Bowen, 879 F.2d 498, 501 (9th Cir. scintilla. 1989). Substantial evidence is "more than a mere It means such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion." Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389, 401 (1971) (citation and quotations marks omitted). The court must weigh "both the evidence that supports and detracts from the [ALJ's] conclusions." Martinez v. Heckler, F.2d 771, 772 (9th Cir. 1986). 807 Variable interpretations of the evidence are insignificant if the ALJ's interpretation is rational. Burch v. Barnhart, 400 F.3d 676, 679 (9th Cir. 2005). Page 3 - OPINION AND ORDER The initial burden of proof rests upon the claimant to establish disability. Howard v. Heckler, 782 F.2d 1484, 1486 (9th Cir. 1986). To meet this burden, the claimant must demonstrate an "inability to engage in any substantial gainful activity by reason of any medically determinable physical or mental impairment which can be expected . . to last for a continuous period of not less than 12 months." 42 U.S.C. The Commissioner § has 423(d) (1) (A). established a five-step sequential process for determining whether a person is disabled. Yuckert, 482 U.S. 137, 140 (1987); 20 C.F.R. ALJ determines gainful whether activity." a claimant Yuckert, 482 is U.S. Bowen v. 404.1502. First, the § engaged at in 140; "substantial 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(b). If so, the claimant is not disabled. At step two, "medically the ALJ evaluates whether the claimant has a severe Yuckert, 482 claimant does U.S. not impairment or combination at 20 C.F.R. 140-41; have a severe § of impairments." 404.1520(c). impairment or If combination the of impairments, she is not disabled. At step three, the ALJ determines whether the claimant's impairments, either singly or in combination, meet or equal "one of a number of listed impairments that the [ALJ) acknowledges are so severe as to preclude substantial gainful activity." Yuckert, 482 U.S. at 140-41; 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(d) (list of impairments in Appendix 1). If so, the claimant is presumptively disabled; if not, Page 4 - OPINION AND ORDER the ALJ proceeds to step four. Yuckert, 482 U.S. at 141. At step four, the ALJ resolves whether the claimant can still perform "past relevant work." 20 C.F.R. 404.1520(f). § If the claimant can work, she is not disabled; if she cannot perform past relevant work, the burden shifts to the Commissioner. Yuckert, 482 U.S. at 141. At step five, the ALJ must establish the claimant can perform other work existing in significant numbers in the national and local economy. Id. at 141-42; 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(g). If the Commissioner meets this burden, the claimant is not disabled. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1566. ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE'S FINDINGS At step one, the ALJ concluded the claimant, despite working "relatively steadily" until 2003, had not engaged in substantially gainful activity since September 1, 2001. Tr. 24, 29. At step two, the ALJ diabetes, found asthma, with lumbosacral three, the claimant hypertension, radiculi tis, has several severe impairments: lumbar degenerative disk disease and obesity. Id. at 25. At the ALJ found claimant's combination of symptoms, step while severe, did not meet or equal the severity of impairments listed in Appendix 1. Id. at 27. At step four, the ALJ concluded plaintiff was not disabled because she had the residual functional capacity ("RFC") to perform past work. Id. at 27-31. Finally, the ALJ made the alternative finding the claimant had the RFC to perform other work existing in significant numbers in the national economy. Id. Page 5 - OPINION AND ORDER at 32. DISCUSSION Plaintiff asserts the ALJ made three errors in finding plaintiff not disabled. First, plaintiff alleges the ALJ erred by failing to address physicians' opinions considering plaintiff's diabetes, and failing to explain how her diabetes is accommodated in the RFC findings. Pl.'s Br. 9-13. Second, plaintiff alleges the Appeals Council improperly declined to review the ALJ's findings after ignoring new lay witness testimony. plaintiff alleges the ALJ erred Id. during at 13-14. step Third, five's RFC determination by failing to consider all applicable age categories. Id. at 6-9. I. First Claim: The ALJ Failed to Address Physicians' Opinions of Plaintiff's Diabetes, and Failed to Explain How Her Diabetes is Accommodated in the RFC Findings Plaintiff alleges the ALJ failed to adequately consider her severe impairment of diabetes in determining her RFC because the ALJ relied on state agency physician's opinions which do not address diabetes. Id. at 10. In addition, plaintiff alleges the ALJ failed to explain how her diabetes is accommodated by the RFC finding. Id. at 11. An ALJ is required to determine a claimant's RFC based on all relevant evidence 416. 945 (a). Here, in the record. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1545(a), the opinions of Mary Ann Westfall, M. D., and Sharon Eder, M.D., both discuss plaintiff's diabetes. Tr. 84, 96, Page 6 - OPINION AND ORDER 107, 114, 117. In addition, plaintiff testified she has difficulty using her upper extremities. Id. at 29, 65-67. She now argues that difficulty is caused by her diabetes. below, Pl.'s Br. 11. As explained the ALJ adequately considered this relevant evidence in determining plaintiff's RFC. Tr. 27, 29. The opinions of Mary Ann Westfall, M. D., and Sharon Eder, M.D., both acknowledge plaintiff's diabetes but do not specifically link any limitations to diabetes. Id. at 84, 96, 107, 114, 117. The only evidence of difficulties plaintiff's testimony. Id. with at 29, her 65-67. upper extremities Therefore, is plaintiff's allegation the ALJ failed to adequately consider her limitations is a challenge to the ALJ's determination plaintiff's testimony lacked credibility. To find a claimant's testimony lacks credibility, an ALJ "must provide specific, cogent reasons for the disbelief." Lester v. Chater, 81 F.3d 821, 834 (9th Cir. 1995) (quotation marks omitted). In the absence of evidence suggesting malingering, the ALJ' s reasons for rejecting a claimant's testimony "must be clear and convincing." Swenson v. Sullivan, 876 F.2d 683, 687 (9th Cir. 1989). When an ALJ "finds that a claimant's testimony relating to the intensity of his pain and other limitations is unreliable, the ALJ must make a credibility determination citing the reasons why the testimony is Admin., 169 F.3d unpersuasive." Morgan v. 595, 599 Page 7 - OPINION AND ORDER (9th Cir. 1999) Comm' r of Soc. Sec. (citing Bunnell v. Sullivan, 947 F.2d 341 (9th Cir. 1991)). In making a credibility determination, the ALJ "must specifically identify what testimony is credible complaints. and In what this testimony regard, undermines questions of the claimant's credibility and resolutions of conflicts in the testimony are functions solely of the [ALJ] . " Id. (citations omitted) . Although the ALJ found "the claimant's medically determinable impairments could reasonably be expected to cause the alleged symptoms" the ALJ concluded "the claimant's statements concerning the intensity, persistence and limiting effects of these symptoms are not entirely credible." Tr. 29. The ALJ supported the adverse credibility finding with specific, cogent reasons. The ALJ explained plaintiff continued to work "relatively steadily for two more years" after the alleged disability began in September 2001. Id. In addition, the ALJ noted the plaintiff was not diagnosed with diabetes comply until with medication. 2007 taking Id. and, despite losing blood pressure fifty pounds, medication and did not diabetes These factors are permissible bases for finding plaintiff's testimony lacked credibility. See Smolen v. Chater, 80 F. 3d 1273, 1284 (9th Cir. 1996) of a claimant's symptoms a (when determining the credibility court may consider the claimant's "unexplained or inadequately explained failure to seek treatment or follow a prescribed course of treatment" and "work record") . Page 8 - OPINION AND ORDER The ALJ also found plaintiff's testimony about difficulty using her arms and hands lacked credibility because the symptoms were "new impairments" raised at the alleging the symptoms began in 2003, hearing. Tr. 29. Despite plaintiff "did not mention these symptoms in any of the [medical) evaluations since that time" with the exception of one mention to Dr. Henderson in October 2010, who "failed to indicate any significant findings in association with this complaint." Id. at 29-30. Absence of medical corroboration is an insufficient basis to discredit a claimant's testimony about the severity of symptoms caused by an underlying impairment. However, Lester v. Chater, absence of 81 F.3d 821, objective 834 medical (9th Cir. records 1995). supporting plaintiff's testimony, in combination with contradictory testimony from plaintiff about her ability to work, is a permissible basis for the ALJ to determine plaintiff's statements lack credibility. Batson v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 359 F.3d 1190, 1196-97 (9th Cir. 2004). Although physicians' diagnosis, from opinions confirm plaintiff's diabetes the only evidence of upper extremity limitation came plaintiff's permissible reasons. testimony, which the ALJ discounted for Because the ALJ was justified in finding plaintiff's upper extremities symptoms not credible, finding regarding plaintiff's RFC is affirmed. Page 9 - OPINION AND ORDER the ALJ' s II. Second Claim: The Appeals Council Improperly Declined to Review the ALJ's Findings Based on Lay Witness Testimony Plaintiff alleges the Appeals Council improperly elected not to review the ALJ's findings based on lay witness statements from Allison Cox and Teresa Daum-Futter provided to the Council after the ALJ's decision. Pl.'s Br. 13; Tr. 6, 268 270-74. Although the Appeals Council specifically stated it "considered the additional evidence," including letters from Ms. Cox and Ms. DaumFutter, it found no reason to review the ALJ's decision. Tr. 1, 5. Plaintiff contends this error "was harmful because the statements made by Ms. Cox and Ms. [Daum-) Futter regarding [p) laintiff' s walking difficulties establishes disability." Pl.'s Br. 14. District courts have jurisdiction to review only final agency actions. Brewes v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 682 F.3d 1157, 1161 (9th Cir. 2011). The Appeals Council's decision to decline review of the ALJ's decision is a non-final agency action and, therefore, this court lacks jurisdiction to review it. Id. To the extent plaintiff alleges the ALJ' s decision is no longer supported by substantial evidence in light of the new lay witness testimony, plaintiff's argument fails. The testimony of Ms. Cox and Ms. Daum-Futter offers no new insight claims and, rather, into plaintiff's reiterates symptoms previously mentioned by plaintiff and in third party statements by plaintiff's sister, Donna Cisneroz, and significant other, James Johnson. For example, Ms. Cox and Ms. Daum-Futter both report plaintiff's difficulty with Page 10 - OPINION AND ORDER mobility, symptoms mentioned by plaintiff in her testimony and represented in her medical records. Tr. 52-53, 56, 72-73, 84, 96, 107, 114, 117, 268, 272. As explained in section I, the ALJ had permissible reasons for disbelieving plaintiff about the severity of her symptoms. Moreover, the statements of Ms. Cox and Ms. DaumFutter are similar to the statements of Ms. Cisneroz and Mr. Johnson, which the ALJ permissibly discredited as inconsistent with other evidence in the record. Tr. 30. When an ALJ does not consider lay witness testimony describing symptoms already within the record and properly rejected by the ALJ, there is no harmful error. Molina v. Astrue, 674 F.3d 1104, 1117 (9th Cir. 2012). The ALJ's findings are supported by substantial evidence and are affirmed. III. Third Claim: The ALJ Failed to Examine Plaintiff's Claims Under Each Relevant Age Category, Resulting in Erroneous Determination of Plaintiff's RFC At step five, the ALJ considered only jobs available to "younger individual[s)" age 18-49. Tr. 31. Plaintiff contends the ALJ should have closely also considered approaching advanced age jobs available 50-54." Pl.'s for Br. "person [s) 6-9. As defendant concedes, the failure to consider the "person approaching advanced age 50-54" category was error. See 20 C.F.R. 404.1563(b) (ALJ must consider all age categories applying to the claimant during the period of time for which the court determines claimant's disability). The error, however, is harmless because at step four the ALJ determined plaintiff could perform past work. See Crane v. Page 11 - OPINION AND ORDER Shalala, 76 F.3d 251, 255 (9th Cir. 1996) (failure to properly call a vocational expert during step five was harmless because the ALJ determined in step four claimant could perform past work) . vocational expert testified plaintiff could work as The a housekeeper/cleaner. Tr. 31. Plaintiff does not challenge the ALJ's finding she could perform this past work. Accordingly, any error by the ALJ at step five was harmless. CONCLUSION The Commissioner's decision is AFFIRMED DISMISSED. IT rs so ORDERED. Dated this ")no day of Nmr@ml3el! 2015. Ann Aiken United States District Judge Page 12 - OPINION AND ORDER and this case is

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.