Amundson v. Commissioner Social Security Administration, No. 3:2013cv01548 - Document 14 (D. Or. 2014)
Court Description: Opinion and Order: The ALJ's determination that plaintiff could perform past work is supported by the record and free of legal error. The Commissioner's final decision is Affirmed. Signed on 10/16/2014 by Judge Michael J. McShane. (cp)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Amundson v. Commissioner Social Security Administration Doc. 14 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT .COURT FOR THE BISTRICT OF OREGON MINDY AMUNDSON, Plaintiff Civ. No. 3:13-cv-01548-MC v. OPINION AND ORDER CAROLYN W. COL YIN, Acting Commissioner of the Social Security Administration, Defendant. ( _j , I MCSHANE, Judge: PlaintiffMindy Amundsonbrings this action for judicial review ofthe Commissioner's decision denying plaintiffs application for disability insurance benefits. This court has jurisdiction under 42 U.S.C. §§ 405(g) and 1383(c)(3). Plaintiff seeks benefits as of May 14, 2007. The administrative law judge (ALJ) determined plainti±T was not disabled as of plaintiffs last insured date of December 31, 2010. TR 30. 1 Plaintiti argues the ALJ erred by: (1) improperly discounting the credibility of the plailltiff's testimony concerning the severity of her symptoms and the functional limitations of her 1 "TR" refers to the Transcript of Social Security Administrative Record [f.CF No. 8] provided by the Commissioner. 1 -OPINION AND ORDER Dockets.Justia.com impairments; and (2) improperly discounting the opinions of two treating physicians. For the reasons stated below, the Corr.Jnissioner' s decision is AFFIR.MED. STANDARD OF REVIEW The reviewing court must affirm the Coll'.Jnissionq' s decision if it is based 0n legal standards and the legal findings are supported by substantial evidence in the record. 42 U.S.C. § 405(g); Batson v. Comm 'f fer Soc. Sec. Admin., 359 F.Jd 1190, 1193 (9th Cir. 2004). "'Substantial evidence is '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."' Hill v. Astr·ue, 698 F.3d 1153, 1159 (9th Cir. 2012) (quoting Sandgathe v. Chater, 108 F.3d 978,980 (9th Cir. 1997)). To determine whether substantial evidence exists, we review the administrative record as a whole, weighing both the evidence that supports and that which detracts from the ALJ's conclusion. Davis v. Heckler, 868 F.2d 323, 326 (9th Cir. 1989). "Ifthe evidence can reasonably support either affirming or reversing, 'the reviewing court may not substitute its judgment' for that of the Commissioner," and therefore must af±inn. Gutierrez v. Cornm ·r of Soc. ' Sec. Admin., 740 F.3d 519, 523 (9th Cir. 20 14) (quoting Reddick v. Chater, 157 F. 3d 715, 720-21 (9th Cir. 1996)). DISCUSSION The Social Security Administration utilizes a five step sequential evaluation to determine whether a claimant is disabled. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520, 416.920. The burden of proving the claimant's disability rests upon the claimant until the fifth and final step of the analysis, at which point the burden shifts to the Commissioner to prove the claimant is capable of making an adjustment to work other th.;n what she has done before. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520. 2- OPINION AND ORDER ·. The ALJ found that December 31, 2010 was the date that plaintiff last had social security insurance. TR 21. Plaintiff does not dispute this finding. Accordingly, plaintiff needed to demonstrate that she had a qualifying disability no later than December 31, 2010, her last insu1ed date. The ALJ found plaintiff had the residual functional capacity (RFC) to perform light work. TR 23. Based on the testimony· of the vocational expert, the ALJ determined plaintiff cou.ld perform her past relevant work as a merchandiser. TR 30. Accordingly, the ALJ found plaint!ff did not qualify as disabled under the Social Security Act. Id Because the ALJ's findings are based on proper legal standards and supported by substantial evidence in the record, the ALJ's decision is affirmed. 1. The ALJ's Adverse Credibility Determi11ation. Where, as here, the plaintiff presented objective medical evidence of an impairment that could reasonably be expected to produce the pain or other symptoms she has testified to, the ALJ can reject that testimony only by giving "specific, clear and convincing reasons" for the rejection. Vasquez v. Astrue, 572 F.3d 586, 591 (9th Cir. 2009) (quoting Lingenfelter v. Astrue, 504 F .3d 1028, 1035-36 (9th Cir.2007). The ALJ is not "required to believe every allegation of disabling pain, or else disability bene±1ts would be available for the asking, a result plainly contrary to 42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(5)(A)." },;Jolina v. Aslrue, 674 F.3d 1104, 1112 (9th Cir. 2012) (quoting Fair v. Bowen, 885 F.2d 597,603 (9th Cir.1989)). The ALJ "may consider a wide range of factors in assessing credibility." Ghanim v. Colvin, 12-35804, 2014 WL 4056530, at *7 (9th Cir. Aug. 18, 2014). Th{:se factors can include "·ordinary techniques of Cl'edibility evaluation," id., as well as: (1) whether the claimant engages in daily activities inconsistent with the alleged symptoms; (2) whether the claimant takes medication or undergoes other treatment for the symptoms; {3) whether the claimant fails tD follow, without 3 -OPINION AND ORDER adequate explanation, a prescribed course of treatment; and (4) whether the ' alleged symptoms are consistent with the medical evidence. Lingenfelrer, 504 F.3d at 1040. The ALJ in this case supported his credibility determination with spa:ific references to several above factors. The ALJ first noted that plaintiff's testimony regarding limitation.'i and symptoms was inconsistent with the medical evidence of record. TR 24-27. That conclusion is supported by the record. For example, during an appointment with Dr. Lee in June 2010, plaintiff specifically denied back or joint pain. TR 277. Neurologist Howard Taylor, M.D., reported on a December 23, 2010 consultation on plaintiff that she had "multilevel cervical degenerative disc disease with moderate to severe bilateral neuroforaminal narrowings." TR 3 S 1. Dr. Taylor did not "suspect anything more serious" and agreed with plaintiffs suggestion of conservative treatment of ongoing physical therapy and perhaps pilates. Id. One month later, neurologist Tracy Sax M.D. examined plaintiff and plaintiffs MRis ai1d concluded the results showed only mild abnormalities. TR 532. Dr. Sax agreed that conservative treatment was appropriate.Id. August 2010 X-ray:j, of plaintiffs spine were unremarkable with no acute injury. TR. 420. The AU also noted the medical evidence indicated that up to the date last insured,. plaintiff was generally a quite active individual. TR 29. For instance, on November 14, 2010, plaintiff reported to the emergency room complaining of chest pain, shortness of b-reath, and weakness. Those symptoms started three days earlier, when plaintiff was kickboxing. TR 401. During that hospital visit, plaintiff reported no back or neck pain. TR 406. In notes from a December 28, 2010 exam, Dr. Lee noted plaintiff "was not pleased with advice to change 4 -OPINION AND ORDER lifestyle," TR 485, which included the recommendation that plaintiff no longer engage in kickboxing, TR 484. The ALJ also noted inconsistencies in plaintiffs statements. For example, despite reporting that she was bedridden in June 2 0 1-0, a phone call answered by plainti±T s partner near that time revealed plaintiff was in Portland watching her grandchildren." TR 267. All of the above reasons constitute specific, clear and convincing reasons supporting the ALJ 's adverse credibility assessment of plaintiffs claims as to the severity of her symptom<:. 2. Opinions of Raymond Lee, D.O. & Richard Rosenbaum, M.D. Plaintiff argues the ALJ failed to accord the proper weight to the medical opinions of Raymond Lee, D.O. and Richard Rosenbaum, M.D. Dr. Lee was plaintiffs primary care physician since the late 1990s. In November 2011, nearly one year after plaintiffs date last insured Dr. Lee filled out a questionnaire from plaintiffs attorney concerning plaintiffs limitations. TR 545-49. Amongst other limitations, Dr. Lee opined that since or before December 31, 2010, TR 549, plaintiff could stand and/or walk for one hour in an eight-hour day, and sit for two hours in an eight-hour day. TR 546. Dr. Lee opined plaintiff would miss at least 16 hours of work per month due to neck and pain. TR 548. The ALJ gave Dr. Lee's opinion little weight, judging it inconsistent with Dr. Lee's ow11 treatment notes and the record as a whole. TR 28. Substantial evidence supports the ALJ's conclusions. On June 18, 2010, during an with Dr. Lee, plaintiff reported no back pain. TR 277. At that visit, Dr. Lee noted plaintiff"enjoys fitness." TR 275. In notes from a December 16,2010 appointment, Dr. Lee noted plaintiffs symptoms were no worse when she walked on the beach and she vvas "eager to return to exercising. TR 487. -Notably, plaintiff 5 - OPIN10N AND ORDER appeared for that appointment in "gym attire." TR 488. Dr. Lee noted plaintiff's back pain and radiculopathy had improved and he advised plaintiff to slowly resume her exercises. TR 489. There were otheT notable inconsistencies between Dr. Lee's November 2011 form and his notes from the relevant time period. In November 2011, Dr. Lee opined plaintiff st:ffered ±rom bilateral am1 or hand functional limitations precluding her from lifting more than ±1·ve pounds, or pushing or pulling. TR 545-46. Dr. Lee noted those bilateral limitations were in place on or before December 31,2010. TR 549. Yet Dr. Lee's treatment notes from plaintiffs December 16, 2010 appointment noted plaintiff had full strength in her upper extremities. TR 488. Where there exists conflicting medical evidence, the ALJ is charged with determining credibility and resolving any conflicts. Chaudhry v. Astrue, 688 F.3d 661, 671 (9th Cir. 2012). When a treating physician's opinion is contradicted by another medical opinion, the ALJ may reject the opinion of a treating physician only by providing "specific and legitimate reasons supported by substantial evidence in the record." Orn v. Astrue, 495 F.3d 625, 632 (9th Cir. 2007). As noted, much of the medical evidence suggests plaintiff's limitations as of December 31,2010 did not prevent her from performing light work. The ALJ's determination that Dr. Lee's November 2011 opinion was inconsistent with his own earlier treatment notes, and inconsistent with the medical record as a whole, was supported by substantial evidence. Plaintiff also c..rgues the ALJ eued in discounting the opinion of Dr. Rosenbaum. Dr. Rosenbaun: began treating plaintiff in March 2011, af1er plaintiff's date last insured. In November 2011, Dr. Rosenbaum completed the same questionnaire Dr. Lee filled out. TR 541544. Dr. Rosenbaum opined that on or before December 31, 20.1 0, plaintiff could stand andlm walk up to 15 minutes at a time and no longer than four hours in an eight hour day. TR 542. Dr. Rosenbau!Illisted identical sitting limitations. ld. Dr. Rosenbaum opined plaintiff could not 6- OPINION AND ORDER frequently lift or carry any weight. I d. Finally, Dr. Rosenbaum noted plaintiff was last able to work in 2007 and would miss more than two days of work per month due to her impairments. TR 543. The ALJ gave little weight to Dr. Rosenbaum's opinion. TR 28. The ALJ noted Dr. Rosenbaum's opinion was inconsistent with his own treatment records and the record as a whole. As noted above, the medical evidence from December 20 10 suggests plaintiff was capable of performing light work. Dr. Rosenbaum's own treatment notes are inconsistent with the limitations on the question..l1aire. In June 2011, Dr. Rosenbaum noted plaintiffhad normal arm and leg strength. TR 501. Dr. Rosenbaum noted plaintiff's "lumbar and cervical spondylosis [J do not explain her symptoms." TR 502. Dr. Rosenbaum told plaintiff to continue daily yoga. I d. As noted by the ALJ, Dr. Rosenbaum's opinion that plaintiffwas last able to work in 2007 appears to be based solely on plaintiffs own self-reporting. The medical evidence from 2007 through 2010 does not support such a finding. As late as June 2010, plaintiffreported no back or joint pain, TR 277, exercised four times per week, TR 276, and was com..rnended by Dr. Lee for her healthy lifestyle. TR 279. As demonstrated above, the ALJ reasonably concluded plaintiff's self-reporting ofher hmitations was not credible. That Dr. Rosenbaum began treating plaintiff after her date last insured is an additional reason supporting the ALJ's conclusion to give that opinion little weight. j\;facri v. Chater, 93 F.3d 540, 545 (9th Cir. 1996). The ALJ provided several specific and legitimate reasons, supported by substantial evidence, irr assigning little \veight to Dr. Rosenbaum's November 2011 opinion regarding plaintiff's limitations on or before December 31, 2010. 7 OPINION AND ORDER CONCLUSION. The ALJ' s detem1ination that plaintiff could perform past work is supported by the record a..nd free of legal error. The Commissioner's final decision is AFFIRMED. IT IS SO ORDERED .. DATED this _lk_ day ' 2014. Michael McShane United States District Judge 8 --OPINION AND ORDER
]]>
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.
