Connors v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration, No. 3:2012cv01309 - Document 27 (D. Or. 2013)

Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER. For the foregoing reasons, the decision of the ALJ is AFFIRMED. IT IS SO ORDERED. Signed on 11/12/2013 by Judge Malcolm F. Marsh. (pvh)

Download PDF

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON 3:12-cv-01309-MA JANINE CONNORS, Plaintiff, v. COMMISSIONER SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Defendant. TIM D. WILBORN P.O. BOX 370578 Las Vegas, Nevada 89137 Attorney for Plaintiff S. AMANDA MARSHALL United States Attorney ADRIAN L. BROWN Assistant United States Attorney 1000 S.W. Third Avenue, Suite 600 Portland, Oregon 97204-2902 L. JAMALA EDWARDS Special Assistant United States Attorney Office of the General Counsel Social Security Administration 701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2900, M/S 221A Seattle, Washington 98104 Attorneys for Defendant 1 - OPINION AND ORDER OPINION AND ORDER MARSH, Judge Plaintiff, Janine Connors, brings this action for judicial review of a final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security (the Commissioner) denying her application for disability insurance benefits (DIB) under Title II of the Social Security Act (the Act). See 42 U.S.C. 42 U.S.C. § §§ 401-434. 405(g). This court has jurisdiction pursuant to For the reasons set forth below, I affirm the final decision of the Commissioner. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Plaintiff protectively filed an application for DIB on November 15, 2004, alleging disability beginning December 1, 2002 caused by left shoulder injuries and learning disabilities. 65. The claim was denied initially and upon reconsideration. hearing was December 14, held before 2006, at represented by counsel. an Administrative which plaintiff Law Judge testified, but Tr. A (ALJ) on was not In addition, vocational expert (VE) Nancy Bloom was present throughout the hearing and testified. Tr. 340- 56. On January 12, 2007, plaintiff's application. review, 2009, the ALJ Tr. 14-23. issued a decision denying The Appeals Council declined and plaintiff timely appealed. Tr. 5-8. On March 24, this court reversed the final decision of the Commissioner and remanded for further consideration. 2 - OPINION AND ORDER Tr. 396-98. o·n remand, an ALJ conducted another hearing on April 5, 2011, at which plaintiff testified and was represented by counsel. In addition, VE Gary Jesky was present throughout the 659-701. hearing and On April testified. 20, 2011, the ALJ issued decision again denying plaintiff's application for benefits. Appeals Tr. Council declined again commenced the instant action. review, and a The timely plaintiff Tr. 357-60. FACTUAL BACKGROUND Born on November 2, 1968, plaintiff was 34 years old on the alleged onset date of disability and 42 years old on the date of Plaintiff has a high school diploma, the remand hearing. throughout her participating reported Tr. 73. schooling. Handler, but Plaintiff has past relevant work as a Freight Guard, Security education special in Asphalt Truck Driver, Maid, Tr. 393. Researcher/Surveyor, .Cashier, and Gas Station Attendant. In addition to her submitted an Adult Function Report. husband, Wayne Connors, Tr. 88-96. Carol testimony at both hearings, Tr. A. Switlyk, submitted a Third Party Function Report. Greenough, M.D., plaintiff Plaintiff's 100-05. Ph.D., performed a Comprehensive Psychological Evaluation and submitted an opinion. Paul Field additionally ascribed some Tr. 158-63. functional limitations regarding plaintiff's left shoulder in the course of a "Closing Shoulder Exam." Ill 3 - OPINION AND ORDER Tr. 180-81. THE ALJ 1 S DISABILITY ANALYSIS The Commissioner has a established sequential five-step Bowen v. process for determining whether a person is disabled. 482 Yuckert 1 404.1520 (a) (4) (i)- (v) Tackett v. Apfel 1 180 F.3d 1094 1 1098 (9th significant a that is The burden shifts to the Commissioner at Step Five to Cir. 1999). show §§ The claimant bears the burden of proof at potentially dispositive. Steps One through Four. step Each 416.920 (a) (4) (i)- (v). 1 C.F.R. 20 (1987); 140-42 137/ U.S. number of jobs in exist the See Yuckert 1 economy that the claimant can perform. national 482 U.S. at 141-42; Tackett 1 180 F.3d at 1098. At Step One 1 the ALJ determined that plaintiff did not engage in substantial gainful activity between the alleged onset date 1 December 1 1 2002 1 and her date last insured 1 March 31 1 2008. 20 C.F.R. §§ See 404.1571 et seq.; Tr. 388. At Step Two 1 the ALJ determined that plaintiff 1 s rheumatoid arthritis; degenerative disease of the left 1 non-dominant shoulder; and cognitive impairments. addition 1 pain 1 disorder See 20 (not C.F.R. otherwise § 404.1520(c); the ALJ found plaintiff 1 s cardiomegaly 1 nonetheless specified) severe 388-89. Tr. depression 1 were right In shoulder and obesity were nonsevere impairments 1 but severe and considered the combined effect of the nonsevere impairments in addressing plaintiff 1 s residual functional capacity. Tr. 388-89. 4 - OPINION AND ORDER At Step Three, the ALJ determined that plaintiff does not have an impairment or combination of impairments that meet or medically equal See impairment. listed any C.F.R. 20 §§ 404.1520(d), 404.1525, 404.1526; Tr. 389-90. that The ALJ found capacity (RFC) the plaintiff has residual functional except that plaintiff is to perform light work, further limited to lifting ten pounds occasionally and less than ten pounds frequently with the non-dominant left arm; lifting 20 pounds occasionally and ten pounds frequently with the dominant right arm; no climbing ladders, crawling; unlimited reaching or ropes; scaffolds, with right the occasional arm, but only occasional reaching with the left arm in all directions; standing and walking a total of four hours in an performing simple, routine, unskilled work. At Step Four, eight-hour and day; Tr. 390-93. the ALJ found that plaintiff is capable of performing past relevant work as a Cashier, albeit with the number of cashier jobs available reduced by 75% to accommodate plaintiff's functional limitations. In the alternative, See 20 C.F.R. at Step Five, § 404.1565; Tr. 393-94. the ALJ found that jobs exist in significant numbers in the national economy that plaintiff can perform, including Small Products Assembler. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1569, 404.1569(a); Tr. 394-95. Accordingly, the ALJ found that plaintiff was not disabled within the meaning of the Act. 5 - OPINION AND ORDER ISSUES ON REVIEW Plaintiff raises five issues on appeal. First, plaintiff argues that the ALJ erred at Step Three in finding that plaintiff's rheumatoid arthritis did not meet or equal a listed impairment. Second, plaintiff asserts that the ALJ improperly rejected her testimony. plaintiff maintains that the ALJ improperly Third, rejected the opinions of Drs. Czarnecki, Switlyk, and Greenough. Fourth, plaintiff argues that the ALJ improperly rejected the lay Wayne of testimony Connors, plaintiff's Finally, husband. plaintiff submits that the jobs cited by the ALJ at Steps Four and Five are inconsistent with the RFC. STANDARD OF REVIEW The court must affirm the Commissioner's if decision the Commissioner applied proper legal standards and the findings are supported by substantial 405(g); Andrews v. evidence in the Shalala, 53 F. 3d 1035, record. 1039 42 U.S. C. (9th Cir. § 1995). ''Substantial evidence means more than a mere scintilla but less than a preponderance; it is such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion." 53 F.3d at 1039. The court must weigh all of the evidence, whether it supports or detracts from the Commissioner's decision. v. Heckler, 807 F.2d 771, 772 (9th Cir. 1986). susceptible to Commissioner's Andrews, more than decision must 6 - OPINION AND ORDER one be rational upheld. Martinez If the evidence is interpretation, Andrews, 53 the F. 3d at If the evidence supports the Commissioner's conclusion, 1039-40. the Commissioner must be affirmed; "the court may not substitute Edlund v. Massanari, its judgment for that of the Commissioner." 253 F. 3d 1152, 1156 (9th Cir. 2001). DISCUSSION I. Step Three Finding Plaintiff the ALJ failed that argues to properly address whether plaintiff's rheumatoid arthritis met or equaled Listing 14.09. In making a finding of whether a claimant's condition meets "the ALJ must explain or medically equals a listed impairment, adequately his evaluation of alternative tests and the combined effects of the impairments." (9th Cir. 1990). Marcia v. Sullivan, 900 F. 2d 172, 17 6 "Marcia simply requires an ALJ to discuss and evaluate the evidence that supports his or her conclusion," it does not require the ALJ to do so under any particular heading in the opinion. Here, Lewis v. Apfel, 236 F. 3d 503, 513 (9th Cir. 2001). the ALJ found "[n]or did symptoms claimant's of rheumatoid arthritis meet or equal any listing described in section Tr. 389. 14.00 (Immune System)." Later in the opinion, the ALJ extensively discussed the medical evidence concerning plaintiff's rheumatoid arthritis, noting controlled by medication, unrelated to rheumatoid that that generally appeared well some of her pain symptoms were arthritis, appeared to be largely asymptomatic. 7 - OPINION AND ORDER it and plaintiff Tr. 392. frequently The ALJ's findings in this supported are respect substantial by evidence, as plaintiff's medical records indicate that her treatment providers generally found that her rheumatoid arthritis was stable, without findings, mild, well and controlled by significant physical medication. See, e.g., Tr. 476, 516-19, 525, 541, 543, 546, 549, 551, 553, 566-67, 606, 600, 608, This 610. sufficient to "evaluate the evidence that discussion supports is [the ALJ's] conclusion" that plaintiff's rheumatoid arthritis "did not meet or equal any listing described in section 14. 00." The ALJ's Step Three finding was not in error. 236 F.3d at 513. II. See Tr. 38 9; Lewis, Plaintiff's Testimony In deciding whether to accept subjective symptom testimony, an ALJ must perform two stages of analysis. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529. First, the claimant must produce objective medical evidence of an underlying impairment that could reasonably be expected to produce the symptoms alleged. Cir. 1996). Smolen v. Chater, 80 F.3d 1273, 1281-82 (9th Second, absent a finding of malingering, the ALJ can reject the claimant's testimony about the severity of her symptoms only by offering specific, clear, and convincing reasons for doing so. Id. at 1281. If an ALJ finds that the claimant's testimony regarding her subjective symptoms is unreliable, the "ALJ must make a credibility the reasons why the testimony is determination citing unpersuasive." Morgan v. Comm'r Soc. Sec. Admin., 169 F.3d 595, 8 - OPINION AND ORDER 599 (9th Cir. In doing so, 1999). the ALJ must identify what testimony is credible and what testimony undermines the claimant's complaints, and make "findings sufficiently specific to permit the court to conclude that the ALJ did not arbitrarily discredit [the] Thomas v. Barnhart, 278 F.3d 947, 958 (9th claimant's testimony." Cir. may ALJ The 2002). credibility evaluation upon rely in weighing the ordinary techniques claimant's of credibility. Tommasetti v. Astrue, 533 F. 3d 1035, 1039 (9th Cir. 2008). At her December, 2006 hearing, plaintiff testified that a left shoulder injury forced her to have surgery, but that she still could not tolerate her arm hanging from her side or any jarring to her shoulder. Tr. 345, 351. Accordingly, plaintiff testified that she had to prop her arm up frequently. In addition to her Id. shoulder impairments, plaintiff testified that she has difficulty reading and writing, and was in special education throughout her schooling. At Tr. 349-50. 2011 the April, plaintiff hearing, testified that she cannot drive for long periods of time because the jarring hurts her shoulder. Tr. Plaintiff testified that her shoulder pain 666. became much worse after her .surgery, and that she could no longer lift her left arm above her head. Tr. 673. Plaintiff stated that as of March 31, 2008, the last date insured, she had arthritis in her shoulder that Plaintiff stated caused her pain that 9 - OPINION AND ORDER the in cold weather. rheumatoid arthritis Tr. affects 674. her and feet, ankles, shoulder, hands, particularly painful after activity. and that Tr, her 675-76. are hands In addition, plaintiff reported that her feet and ankles would hurt the day after she "stood too much, or walked around, or did anything." 677. Tr. Plaintiff testified that she could only stand or walk for 30 minutes to one hour before needing to rest, and that she could not lift more problems. Tr. household chores load of dry laundry because of her than a 681. shoulder Plaintiff reported that she was able to do such as loading cooking, and unloading the dishwasher, vacuuming, and laundry, but not all at the same time. Tr. 689-90. Generally, however, plaintiff testified that as of the date last insured she lived a very sedentary lifestyle. In her Adult plaintiff reported that "sit [s] Tr. 100. Report Function in a dated November Tr. 687. 21, 2004, typical day she gets dressed and here at home," unless she has an appointment to attend. Plaintiff reported that her arm pain interferes with her sleep, and makes certain aspects of dressing and bathing difficult. Tr. 101. Plaintiff stated that she could no longer cook because of the pain in her shoulder, and that her husband does most of the household chores. Tr. 102. Plaintiff checked that her conditions affect her abilities to lift, kneel, and climb stairs. squat, Tr. 103. bend, stand, reach, walk, Plaintiff stated that she can only walk for two blocks before needing to rest "a long time." Tr. cause her 103. Plaintiff's reading 10 - OPINION AND ORDER deficits, she reported, difficulty following written instructions, but she has no problem Tr. 103. following spoken instructions. The ALJ discredited plaintiff's testimony because the extent of symptoms alleged were inconsistent with activities reported in and because it was record, her testimony and elsewhere in the inconsistent with the conditions and limitations contained in the medical record. Tr. 391. I conclude that these reasons amount to clear and convincing reasons to reject plaintiff's testimony. The absence of disabling diagnoses of permanent conditions in the medical record a is particularly strong reason to reject Indeed, as to plaintiff's shoulder injury, plaintiff's testimony. the medical record reveals consistently normal or mild findings, plaintiff's significant notwithstanding. complaints subjective Tr. 143-50, 152, 157, 174. L_g_,_, On April 28, 2004, underwent plaintiff shoulder surgery performed by Dr. Switlyk which revealed some shoulder pathology. Tr. 170-71. Five weeks post operation, plaintiff reported "doing okay, ¢ though "still quite sore and painful. ¢ Tr. 185. At that point, she was released to light duty with no lifting or reaching away from her body with the left arm. Dr. Switlyk, however, kept her ~'off Tr. 185. In July of 2004, even light duty work, as I do not think it would be reasonable or tolerated for her to drive four hours a day for her job. ¢ little improvement, 11 - OPINION AND ORDER Dr. Tr. 184. Switlyk After three more months of opined that plaintiff had ftplateaued with rehabilitative efforts," and diagnosed her with "mild permanent partial ·impairment on the basis restricted of active range of motion," and "mild restriction on the basis of Additionally, Dr. Switlyk opined: Tr. 181. weakness." do not think she could return to her work as a I I think she would be restricted with warehouse person. this left shoulder to a sedentary category of lifting and carrying and additional restriction from pushing or pulling, repetitive reaching away from her body or overhead use with her left arm. treatment plaintiff's after however, notably, Most relationship with Dr. Switlyk ended in October of 2004, there were only left to references passing (5/12/06). 557 (5/15/06). 558 scattered Tr. 314 (7/1/06), 549 throughout a very extensive medical record. (3/9/07). problems shoulder 566 (8/14/09). The ALJ reasonably concluded that the medical record was inconsistent with plaintiff's allegations of ongoing, severe left shoulder limitations. The ALJ's reasoning in this plaintiff's arthritis allegations. respect also applies to As discussed above, although the record indicates occasional flares of arthritic pain, generally the medical record reflects that plaintiff's arthritis symptoms were well managed. The ALJ reasonably discredited plaintiff's testimony because it was not supported by the medical record. The ALJ also reasonably cited inconsistency between plaintiff's alleged symptoms and activities of daily living as a 12 - OPINION AND ORDER reason 2005, September 1, included swimming. on example, For testimony. plaintiff's discredit to plaintiff reported that her exercise habits Swimming is clearly inconsistent with Tr. 48 9. plaintiff's allegations of severe, ongoing shoulder limitations. On 19, August plaintiff 2004, cancelled therapy physical a appointment for August 31 because she was "going on vacation with her despite son," reporting and limitations extensive a very sedentary lifestyle in her Adult Function Report in November of June 26, Finally, as the ALJ noted, plaintiff's Tr. 100, 271. that year. 2003 report that she and goes fires investigates to meetings for the volunteer fire department, even if she no longer fights fires, is also with inconsistent Tr. significant limitations. 160. In sum, her allegations of the above reasons, taken together, constitute clear and convincing reasons to reject plaintiff's testimony of disabling limitations. III. Medical Testimony The Commissioner must provide clear and convincing reasons to reject the physician. uncontradicted opinion of a treating or examining Lester v. Chater, 81 F. 3d 821, 830-31 (9th Cir. 1995). Where a physician's opinion is contradicted by that of another physician, the ALJ may reject the physician's opinion by providing specific and legitimate reasons supported by substantial evidence in the record. physician, Id. "'The ALJ need not accept the opinion of any including a 13 - OPINION AND ORDER treating physician, if that opinion is conclusory, brief, inadequately and supported clinical by Chaudhry v. Astrue, 688 F.3d 661, 671 (9th Cir. 2012) findings.'" (quoting Bray v. Comm'r Soc. Sec. Admin., 554 F.3d 1219, 1228 (9th Cir. 2009)). "opinions," be To the physicians and psychologists must records be from "statements . . that reflect judgments about the nature and severity of [the claimant's] impairment(s), including [the claimant's] still do despite physical or mental can claimant] claimant's] 404.1527 (a) (2). C.F.R. § diagnosis and prognosis, symptoms, the what and impairment(s), [the C.F.R. 20 restrictions." [that § If a record does not meet the criteria of 20 404.1527(a)(2), it is not an "opinion," but rather only one portion of the medical evidence from which the ALJ's decision must find the support of substantial evidence. the "'Where evidence, the ALJ is translating the (9th Cir. claimant's limitations in the RFC. is Id. 2003)). medical Id. Ill 14 - OPINION AND ORDER medical credibility and (quoting Benton v. Barnhart, 331 The ALJ is responsible for conditions into functional Ultimately, t'he RFC is sufficient if "consistent with restrictions testimony." conflicting See Stubbs-Danielson v. Astrue, 539 F.3d 1169, 1174 (9th Cir. 2008). it contains charged with determining resolving the conflict.'" F.3d 1030,1040 record identified in the medical A. Dr. Czarnecki Plaintiff first argues that the ALJ failed to give any reasons to reject the "opinions" of Mark D. cites two chart notes from Dr. Czarnecki, Czarnecki D.O. that Plaintiff indicate that plaintiff was to temporarily remain off work during treatment of her left shoulder injury. See Tr. 198, 207. These records, however, are not "opinions" because they do not meet the criteria of 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(a) (2). Rather, these records are chart notes that merely reflect the notes of Dr. treatment of plaintiff. Czarnecki's ongoing While these records are certainly part of the medical record upon which the ALJ's decision must be based, they are not entitled to evidence. records I was the special consideration of opinion find that the ALJ's discussion of Dr. sufficient, and the information Czarnecki's contained in Dr. Czarnecki's chart notes does not deprive the ALJ's decision of the support of substantial evidence. See Tr. 391-92. Thus, the ALJ did not err in his consideration of Dr. Czarnecki's records. B. Dr. Switlyk Plaintiff next argues that the ALJ failed to fully incorporate Dr. Switlyk's opined limitations into the RFC despite giving Dr. Switlyk's opinion "significant weight." As relevant here, Dr. Switlyk opined "I think she would be restricted with this left shoulder to a sedentary category of lifting and carrying and additional restriction from pushing or pulling, repetitive reaching 15 - OPINION AND ORDER away from her body or overhead use with her left arm." Tr. 181. In the RFC, the ALJ limited plaintiff to light work, except that limited with respect plaintiff was further to her left arm to lifting ten pounds occasionally and less than ten pounds frequently and occasional reaching in all directions. Tr. 390. Plaintiff argues that the ALJ erred in failing to incorporate two of Dr. Switlyk's limitations into the RFC - the reaching and This argument is without merit. sedentary lifting limitations. The ALJ reasonably translated Dr. Switlyk's opinion as to repetitive reaching overhead or away from her body with the left arm into an occasional reaching in all directions limitation in the Moreover, Dr. Switlyk only limited plaintiff to a sedentary RFC. 1 category of lifting with the left shoulder, a limitation that was appropriately accounted for by the ALJ' s limitation of plaintiff to occasional ten pound lifting with the lifting left arm. and frequent less-than-ten pound The ALJ reasonably translated Dr. Swi tlyk' s opined reaching and lifting limitations into the RFC. See Stubbs-Danielson, 539 F.3d at 1174. Ill Ill 1 Notably, Dr. Switlyk did not opine plaintiff could not reach overhead or away from her body at all, but rather that she . repetitive would have "additional restriction from . (emphasis added). The ALJ's limitation to reaching." Tr. 181 occasional reaching was a reasonable interpretation of this opinion. 16 - OPINION AND ORDER C. Dr. Greenough Plaintiff next argues that the ALJ rejected Dr. Greenough's opinion that plaintiff required workplace accommodations for her reading and writing deficits without providing sufficient reasons. Dr. Greenough performed a Comprehensive Psychological Evaluation for the purpose rehabilitation. Suggestions," disability and significant." of Tr. Dr. assisting In 158. Greenough writing Tr. 161. plaintiff a noted disability with vocational section entitled "Planning that are plaintiff's on the edge "reading of being Dr. Greenough opined that plaintiff "is going to do best in hands-on work. While she can use some very brief and non-formal reading and writing, it will be important she not be in a job that relies on this much." challenges plaintiff faces Id. in looking for a With respect to job, Dr. Greenough noted that "[a]ny accommodations that can be made to help her, including having a reader and a scribe would open doors for her to get through tests that she needs to get a job." added). Tr. 162 (emphasis On the whole, however, Dr. Greenough found that plaintiff "would be a very good candidate for moving into some kind of new hands-on, non-physically demanding work. probably from on-the-job training. good worker." I saw her being a potentially Id. The ALJ apparently interpreted Dr. being She would learn best "consistent with 17 - OPINION AND ORDER the residual Greenough's opinion as functional capacity for performing unskilled work with no restriction on social contact," and accordingly gave it "some weight." The ALJ did not note any portion of Dr. Greenough's opinion that he rejected, however, and did not provide any reasons for doing so. Thus, for the ALJ's treatment of Dr. Greenough's opinion to have been proper, it must be accommodated by the limitation of plaintiff to "simple, routine, unskilled work." Tr. 390. I conclude it was. Because the opinion was written for Vocational Rehabilitation purposes, some of Dr. Greenough's discussion pertained to helping plaintiff find a job, and did not entirely plaintiff was capable of performing work. however, is 423 (d) (2) (A). confined Thus, to the latter whether The disability analysis, inquiry. to the extent Dr. plaintiff's ability to be hired at a concern 42 u.s.c. § Greenough was discussing job, that portion of the opinion was irrelevant to the disability analysis. The paragraph in which Dr. Greenough discussed accommodations for plaintiff addressed plaintiff's ability whether she was capable of performing work. to be hired, not Dr. Greenough opined: It sounds as if [plaintiff] frequently cannot get jobs that would be appropriate for her because of her difficulties with reading and writing. Any accommodations that can be made to help her, including having a reader and a scribe[,] would open doors for her to get through tests that she needs to get a job. Tr. 162 (emphasis added). Thus, Dr. Greenough's discussion of accommodations was not relevant to the disability analysis, and it 18 - OPINION AND ORDER was accordingly not error for the ALJ to omit any discussion of accommodations from his decision. I conclude that the remainder of Dr. Greenough's opinion was adequately captured by the limitation to simple, routine, This unskilled work. is especially true considering there is no evidence the cognitive deficits described by Dr. Greenough had worsened since the time plaintiff maintained a number of similarly unskilled jobs. The RFC was consistent with the relevant portion of Dr. Greenough's opinion. In sum, the ALJ appropriately weighed the medical testimony and incorporated the limitations contained therein into the RFC. IV. Lay Testimony Plaintiff next asserts that the ALJ cited insufficient reasons to reject the testimony of plaintiff's husband, Wayne Connors. testimony regarding a Lay claimant's symptoms or how an impairment affects her ability to work is competent evidence that an ALJ must take into account. the ALJ must give Mr. Connors's allegations largely mirrored plaintiff's. Mr. 2012). To Molina v. Astrue, 674 F.3d 1104, 1114 (9th Cir. discount lay witness testimony, reasons that are germane to the witness. Id. Connors reported that in a typical day, plaintiff "sits at home and watches TV, and goes to [appointments] when she has them." Like plaintiff, household chores, Mr. Connors Tr. 88. reported that he does most of the and that she has trouble with getting dressed, caring for her hair, and shaving her armpits. 19 - OPINION AND ORDER Tr. 89-90. Much like plaintiff, Mr. Connors alleged plaintiff's conditions affected her ability to lift, stairs. squat, bend, stand, reach, walk, and climb Tr. 93. Also like plaintiff, the ALJ rejected Mr. Connors's testimony because it was inconsistent with the medical record. above, the medical allegations shoulder record impairments prominence in the Connors's as were medical rheumatoid arthritis, controlled. inconsistent limitations, of severe is described record with As discussed Mr. plaintiff's as mild altogether, Connors's longstanding before and losing plaintiff's while causing occasional flares, was well This inconsistency is a germane reason to reject Mr. testimony. The ALJ appropriately weighed the lay testimony. V. Step Four and Five Findings Plaintiff finally argues that the ALJ erred at Steps Four and Five because the jobs cited are inconsistent with the RFC, because the ALJ failed Connors's testimony, to properly credit plaintiff's and Mr. as well as the opinions of Drs. Switlyk, and Greenough. and Czarnecki, The ALJ, however, reasonably relied on the VE testimony in making the Step Four and Five findings. The VE specifically testified that the Cashier job was available, but plaintiff's other past relevant work was not because ftthe other jobs . would likely involve more bilateral arm use." Tr. 694. Moreover, the VE specifically reduced the number of Cashier jobs 20 - OPINION AND ORDER available to plaintiff on account of her functional limitations. Tr. 695. Similarly, with respect to the small product assembly job relied upon in the ALJ' s alternative Step Five finding, the VE specifically testified that "I think, as long as [the nondominant] extremity can be used as a, as a helping hand, so to speak, and the dominant hand is still functional, significant impact on my answer." Tr. 697. then that has a The ALJ reasonably relied on this detailed testimony in making the Step Four and Five findings. Finally, based on plaintiff's argument that the my above findings, vocational I reject hypothetical was inadequate. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, the decision of the ALJ AFFIRMED. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED this ~ day of November, 2013. Malcolm F. Marsh United States District Judge 21 - OPINION AND ORDER 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.