Andrews v. Commissioner of Social Security, No. 1:2018cv03240 - Document 19 (E.D. Wash. 2019)

Court Description: ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT. Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment ECF No. 13 is DENIED. Defendants Motion for Summary Judgment ECF No. 17 is GRANTED. The file is CLOSED. Signed by Chief Judge Thomas O. Rice. (LLH, Courtroom Deputy)

Download PDF

Andrews v. Commissioner of Social Security Doc. 19 1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 6 7 RUTH KAY A., NO: 1:18-CV-3240-TOR Plaintiff, 8 v. 9 10 ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, 11 Defendant. 12 13 BEFORE THE COURT are the parties’ cross motions for summary 14 judgment (ECF Nos. 13, 17). The Court has reviewed the administrative record 15 and the parties’ completed briefing, and is fully informed. For the reasons 16 discussed below, the Court grants Defendant’s motion and denies Plaintiff’s 17 motion. 18 JURISDICTION 19 20 The Court has jurisdiction over this case pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). // ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ~ 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 2 STANDARD OF REVIEW A district court’s review of a final decision of the Commissioner of Social 3 Security is governed by 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). The scope of review under § 405(g) is 4 limited: the Commissioner’s decision will be disturbed “only if it is not supported 5 by substantial evidence or is based on legal error.” Hill v. Astrue, 698 F.3d 1153, 6 1158 (9th Cir. 2012) (citing 42 U.S.C. § 405(g)). “Substantial evidence” means 7 relevant evidence that “a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a 8 conclusion.” Id. at 1159 (quotation and citation omitted). Stated differently, 9 substantial evidence equates to “more than a mere scintilla[,] but less than a 10 preponderance.” Id. In determining whether this standard has been satisfied, a 11 reviewing court must consider the entire record as a whole rather than searching 12 for supporting evidence in isolation. Id. 13 In reviewing a denial of benefits, a district court may not substitute its 14 judgment for that of the Commissioner. If the evidence in the record “is 15 susceptible to more than one rational interpretation, [the court] must uphold the 16 ALJ’s findings if they are supported by inferences reasonably drawn from the 17 record.” Molina v. Astrue, 674 F.3d 1104, 1111 (9th Cir. 2012) (citation omitted). 18 Further, a district court “may not reverse an ALJ’s decision on account of an error 19 that is harmless.” Id. An error is harmless “where it is inconsequential to the 20 [ALJ’s] ultimate nondisability determination.” Id. at 1115 (quotation and citation ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ~ 2 1 omitted). The party appealing the ALJ’s decision generally bears the burden of 2 establishing that it was harmed. Shinseki v. Sanders, 556 U.S. 396, 409-10 (2009). 3 FIVE-STEP SEQUENTIAL EVALUATION PROCESS 4 A claimant must satisfy two conditions to be considered “disabled” within 5 the meaning of the Social Security Act. First, the claimant must be “unable to 6 engage in any substantial gainful activity by reason of any medically determinable 7 physical or mental impairment which can be expected to result in death or which 8 has lasted or can be expected to last for a continuous period of not less than twelve 9 months.” 42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(1)(A). Second, the claimant’s impairment must be 10 “of such severity that he is not only unable to do his previous work[,] but cannot, 11 considering his age, education, and work experience, engage in any other kind of 12 substantial gainful work which exists in the national economy.” 42 U.S.C. 13 § 423(d)(2)(A). 14 The Commissioner has established a five-step sequential analysis to 15 determine whether a claimant satisfies the above criteria. See 20 C.F.R. § 16 404.1520(a)(4)(i)-(v). At step one, the Commissioner considers the claimant’s 17 work activity. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(i). If the claimant is engaged in 18 “substantial gainful activity,” the Commissioner must find that the claimant is not 19 disabled. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(b). 20 ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ~ 3 1 If the claimant is not engaged in substantial gainful activities, the analysis 2 proceeds to step two. At this step, the Commissioner considers the severity of the 3 claimant’s impairment. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(ii). If the claimant suffers 4 from “any impairment or combination of impairments which significantly limits 5 [his or her] physical or mental ability to do basic work activities,” the analysis 6 proceeds to step three. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(c). If the claimant’s impairment 7 does not satisfy this severity threshold, however, the Commissioner must find that 8 the claimant is not disabled. Id. 9 At step three, the Commissioner compares the claimant’s impairment to 10 several impairments recognized by the Commissioner to be so severe as to 11 preclude a person from engaging in substantial gainful activity. 20 C.F.R. § 12 404.1520(a)(4)(iii). If the impairment is as severe, or more severe than one of the 13 enumerated impairments, the Commissioner must find the claimant disabled and 14 award benefits. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(d). 15 If the severity of the claimant’s impairment does meet or exceed the severity 16 of the enumerated impairments, the Commissioner must pause to assess the 17 claimant’s “residual functional capacity.” Residual functional capacity (“RFC”), 18 defined generally as the claimant’s ability to perform physical and mental work 19 activities on a sustained basis despite his or her limitations (20 C.F.R. § 20 404.1545(a)(1)), is relevant to both the fourth and fifth steps of the analysis. ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ~ 4 1 At step four, the Commissioner considers whether, in view of the claimant’s 2 RFC, the claimant is capable of performing work that he or she has performed in 3 the past (“past relevant work”). 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(iv). If the claimant is 4 capable of performing past relevant work, the Commissioner must find that the 5 claimant is not disabled. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(f). If the claimant is incapable of 6 performing such work, the analysis proceeds to step five. 7 At step five, the Commissioner considers whether, in view of the claimant’s 8 RFC, the claimant is capable of performing other work in the national economy. 9 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(v). In making this determination, the Commissioner 10 must also consider vocational factors such as the claimant’s age, education and 11 work experience. Id. If the claimant is capable of adjusting to other work, the 12 Commissioner must find that the claimant is not disabled. 20 C.F.R. § 13 404.1520(g)(1). If the claimant is not capable of adjusting to other work, the 14 analysis concludes with a finding that the claimant is disabled and is therefore 15 entitled to benefits. Id. 16 The claimant bears the burden of proof at steps one through four above. 17 Bray v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 554 F.3d 1219, 1228 (9th Cir. 2009). If the 18 analysis proceeds to step five, the burden shifts to the Commissioner to establish 19 that (1) the claimant is capable of performing other work; and (2) such work 20 ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ~ 5 1 “exists in significant numbers in the national economy.” 20 C.F.R. § 416.1560(c); 2 Beltran v. Astrue, 700 F.3d 386, 389 (9th Cir. 2012). 3 ALJ’S FINDINGS 4 Plaintiff filed for disability benefits under Title II, alleging an onset date of 5 December 7, 2009. ECF No. 13 at 2. In 2013, Plaintiff’s claim was denied by an 6 Administrative Law Judge (ALJ). Id. The Appeals Council upheld the denial. Id. 7 Plaintiff appealed to the federal district court and secured a remand for further 8 proceedings. Id. Upon remand, an ALJ issued a new opinion in October 2018. 9 At step one, the ALJ found that Plaintiff had not engaged in substantial 10 gainful activity since December 7, 2009, the alleged onset date, through her date 11 last insured of December 31, 2014. Tr. 781. At step two, the ALJ found that 12 Plaintiff had the following severe impairments: “cervical and lumbar degenerative 13 disc disease; bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome, status post release; mild left cubital 14 tunnel syndrome; and mild right ulnar neuropathy”. Tr. 781. At step three, the 15 ALJ determined that the claimant does not have an impairment or combination of 16 impairments that met or medically equaled the severity” of a listed impairment. 17 Tr. 784. 18 19 20 The ALJ then determined that the Plaintiff had the residual functional capacity to perform light work as defined in 20 CFR 404.1567(b): Specifically, she is able to stand or walk for 6 hours in 8-hour workday as well as sit for 6 hours in an 8-hour workday with regular breaks. She is able ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ~ 6 1 2 3 4 5 to push and pull within these limits. She is able to frequently stoop and climb (ramps, stairs, ladders, ropes, and scaffolds) and occasionally reach overhead. With her left dominant hand, she can seldom finger to do activities like assembly, but would be able to use fingers for keyboarding. She would be able to handle with her left hand occasionally. She could occasionally finger with her right non-dominant hand. She must avoid concentrated exposure to extreme cold, extreme heat, and hazards. Tr. 785. 6 At step four, the ALJ found that Plaintiff is capable of performing work that 7 she has performed in the past (tool crib attendant) as actually performed. Tr. 794. 8 Based on expert testimony from a Vocational Expert, the ALJ alternatively found 9 that Plaintiff could perform the representative occupations of usher, sandwich 10 board carrier, and courier. Tr. 794, n.1. The ALJ accordingly found Plaintiff was 11 not under a disability at any time from December 7, 2009 (the alleged onset date) 12 through December 31, 2014 (the date last insured) and denied Plaintiff’s 13 application for benefits. Tr. 794-95. Plaintiff now appeals to this Court. 14 ISSUES 15 Plaintiff seeks judicial review of the ALJ’s final decision denying her 16 disability insurance benefits under Title II of the Social Security Act. Plaintiff 17 raises the following issues for review: 18 1. Whether the ALJ conducted de novo review; 19 2. Whether the ALJ erred in rejecting Plaintiff’s subjective complaints; 20 3. Whether the ALJ erred in finding Plaintiff did not meet or equal a listing at step 3; ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ~ 7 1 2 4. Whether the ALJ erred in applying and weighing the medical opinions; and 3 5. Whether the ALJ erred in finding Plaintiff could perform work. 4 ECF No. 13 at 2. The Court evaluates each issue in turn. DISCUSSION 5 6 A. De Novo Review 7 Plaintiff asserts that the ALJ failed to conduct a de novo hearing because the 8 ALJ adopted and incorporated findings from the prior decision. ECF No. 13 at 4. 9 Importantly, the district court instructed the ALJ to “hold a de novo hearing 10 addressing step three, Plaintiff’s credibility, and, if necessary, Plaintiff’s residual 11 functional capacity.” Tr. 927. Further, the ALJ only incorporated “the prior 12 decision to the extent not inconsistent with the direction of the District Court and 13 the subsequent evidence of record.” Tr. 778. Upon review of the opinion, it is 14 clear the ALJ reviewed the evidence and reached its own conclusion anew, without 15 any deference to the preceding opinion, as to step three, Plaintiff’s credibility, and 16 Plaintiff’s RFC. See Tr. 784-93 (reviewing evidence and making determinations 17 without reference to the preceding opinion; and the ALJ repeatedly wrote, “After 18 reviewing and considering the evidence in the case, I . . .”). As such, despite 19 Plaintiff’s argument otherwise, the ALJ complied with the instructions on remand. 20 // ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ~ 8 1 B. Subjective Complaints 2 In social security proceedings, a claimant must prove the existence of a 3 physical or mental impairment with “medical evidence consisting of signs, 4 symptoms, and laboratory findings.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1508, 404.1527. A 5 claimant’s statements about his or her symptoms alone will not suffice. 20 C.F.R. 6 §§ 404.1508, 404.1527. Once an impairment has been proven to exist, an ALJ 7 “may not reject a claimant’s subjective complaints based solely on a lack of 8 objective medical evidence to fully corroborate the alleged severity of pain.” 9 Bunnell v. Sullivan, 947 F.2d 341, 345 (9th Cir. 1991) (en banc). As long as the 10 impairment “could reasonably be expected to produce [the] symptoms,” the 11 claimant may offer a subjective evaluation as to the severity of the impairment. Id. 12 at 345. This rule recognizes that the severity of a claimant’s symptoms “cannot be 13 objectively verified or measured.” Id. at 347 (quotation and citation omitted). 14 However, an ALJ may conclude that the claimant’s subjective assessment is 15 unreliable, so long as the ALJ makes “a credibility determination with findings 16 sufficiently specific to permit [a reviewing] court to conclude that the ALJ did not 17 arbitrarily discredit claimant’s testimony.” Thomas v. Barnhart, 278 F.3d 947, 958 18 (9th Cir. 2002); see also Bunnell, 947 F.2d at 345 (“[A]lthough an adjudicator may 19 find the claimant’s allegations of severity to be not credible, the adjudicator must 20 specifically make findings which support this conclusion.”). If there is no ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ~ 9 1 evidence of malingering, the ALJ’s reasons for discrediting the claimant’s 2 testimony must be “specific, clear and convincing.” Chaudhry v. Astrue, 688 F.3d 3 661, 671-72 (9th Cir. 2012) (quotation and citation omitted). That is, the ALJ 4 “must specifically identify the testimony she or he finds not to be credible and 5 must explain what evidence undermines the testimony.” Holohan, 246 F.3d at 6 1208. 7 Plaintiff argues the ALJ erred in rejecting Plaintiff’s subjective testimony. 8 Plaintiff asserts, inter alia, the ALJ erred (1) in finding that her carpal tunnel 9 symptoms had improved post-surgery and (2) by failing to discuss the relevant 10 expert testimony of Dr. Schmitter. ECF No. 13 at 9-10. However, as 11 demonstrated below, the ALJ’s finding is supported by substantial evidence. 12 Further, the ALJ identified other reasons to discredit Plaintiff’s subjective 13 testimony and these findings are supported by substantial evidence. These reasons 14 provide a clear and convincing basis for finding Plaintiff’s testimony not entirely 15 credible. 16 As for Plaintiff’s complaint regarding Dr. Schmitter, despite Plaintiff’s 17 representation that “Dr. Schmitter . . . agreed that there was no real evidence of 18 improvement”, ECF No. 13 at 10-11, the testimony of Dr. Schmitter shows (1) he 19 was recounting an opinion from a doctor in 2009 that said Plaintiff’s symptoms in 20 her hand improved and (2) Dr. Schmitter simply stated that he did not know ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ~ 10 1 whether there was any real evidence of improvement because the initial doctor 2 wasn’t specific. Tr. 839. Dr. Schmitter did not positively assert that there was no 3 real evidence of improvement. Further, Dr. Schmitter’s testimony that Plaintiff’s 4 carpal tunnel surgery had a poor outcome does not necessarily mean she did not 5 see improvements. 6 As for the former argument, the ALJ specifically noted that, despite 7 Plaintiff’s testimony that “she had no improvement from the carpal tunnel 8 surgeries” in February 2010, she “admitted to improvement in her right hand since 9 the surgery, with no tenderness and only mild induration” with only “some 10 numbness in her left hand” and “had a full range of motion in both wrists and all 11 her digits.” Tr. 786. The ALJ then noted that “[p]roviders released her for full 12 work duties without restriction [], which suggest her carpal tunnel condition was 13 not as limiting as the claimant has alleged.” Id. Then, in April 2010, Plaintiff 14 “denied having any hand pain but reported having some numbness in her hands” 15 and “stated that she did not have any difficulty with her head, neck, shoulder, or 16 mid-back, only ‘variable discomfort’ in the low back that was aggravated by 17 repetitive bending or lifting.” Id. Upon examination she had “adequate grip in the 18 right hand despite some sensory loss in the fingers, and mild impairment in her left 19 20 ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ~ 11 1 hand with regard to motor and sensory changes.” Id. 1 2 Moreover, the ALJ recounted that Plaintiff was able to drive a truck in 2009 3 and worked in the tool area until she had the carpal tunnel release surgeries. Tr. 4 788. The ALJ then observed that, “while she did not seem to have dramatic 5 improvement in her left hand, she had some improvement and, at the least, her 6 condition remained mostly the same afterwards.” Id. Thus, the ALJ found her past 7 work activities are indicative of her capability after the surgeries. Id. 8 The ALJ also identified inconsistencies with Plaintiff’s complaints regarding 9 her back. The ALJ noted that, in September 2010, Plaintiff’s “physicians opined 10 that her cervical and lumbar degenerative disc disease was only mild in severity” 11 and that “she had a good range of motion in her cervical spine, normal gait, good 12 range of motion in her shoulders with no focal changes, full function in her right 13 hand, and no focal changes in her elbows.” Tr. 786-87. The ALJ observed that, 14 “[i]n contrast to the evaluations only a few month[s] earlier, in November 2010, 15 the claimant now was reporting constant pain in her neck, entire back, right 16 17 1 18 argues the “ALJ repeatedly refers to examinations irrelevant to this purported 19 reason[.]” ECF No. 13 at 10. Whatever the reason for the examinations, the ALJ 20 reasonably relied on statements made related to her condition at issue here. Notably, Plaintiff does not argue her condition fluctuated. Rather, Plaintiff ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ~ 12 1 buttock, and right leg as well as chronic numbness in her left hand.” Tr. 787. The 2 ALJ continued to discuss subsequent examinations where Plaintiff had “some 3 limited range of back motion [with] normal gait, no spasms, and no muscle 4 atrophy” along with a “gross hand grip” strength “between 50-65 pounds.” Id. 5 Finally, the ALJ noted that “[m]ultiple examiners determined that [Plaintiff] had 6 mild or no impairment involving her neck, back, or hands.” Tr. 789. 7 In light of this, the ALJ reached a reasonable conclusion in finding 8 Plaintiff’s subjective complaints were inconsistent with the medical evidence in the 9 record. This is a clear and convincing reason for discounting Plaintiff’s credibility. 10 C. Step Three 11 Plaintiff asserts that the ALJ erred in considering whether her impairments 12 met or equaled a recognized listing. ECF No. 13 at 4-9. At its base, Plaintiff 13 disagrees with the ALJ’s finding that (1) “there was no objective medical evidence 14 . . . of nerve root compression, spinal arachnoiditis, or lumbar spinal stenosis 15 resulting in an inability to ambulate effectively” and that (2) her impairments “did 16 not result in inability to perform fine and gross movements effectively[.]” ECF 17 No. 13 at 5, 7. However, the record supports the ALJ’s finding. Tr. 784-85. 18 While Plaintiff points to the existence of nerve impingement, ECF No. 13 at 6, and 19 some limitations in handling, reaching, and fingering, ECF No. 13 at 8, Plaintiff 20 has not demonstrated that her impairments “interfere very seriously with [her] ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ~ 13 1 ability to independently initiate, sustain or complete activities”, as is required to 2 show an “inability to ambulate effectively[,]” see ECF No. 13 at 7, let alone show 3 it was unreasonable for the ALJ to find otherwise.2 4 Notably, Dr. Schmitter opined that Plaintiff did not meet or medically equal 5 the severity of any listing and the ALJ agreed, noting that his “impartial testimony 6 was well reasoned and persuasive” and “supported by the medical evidence[.]” Tr. 7 784. While Dr. Francis took the contrary position, see Tr. 772-73, the ALJ rejected 8 his opinion because there was “no documentation that [Dr. Francis] treated or 9 evaluated the claimant”, he “provided no explanation for the opinion offered”, and 10 the “opinion is not consistent with the evaluations or treatment evidence” because 11 “[t]here is no evidence of inability to perform gross or fine movements or extreme 12 loss of function to support [his] conclusory statement.” Tr. 784. Plaintiff has not 13 pointed to evidence directly contradicting these findings. Indeed, Plaintiff was 14 able to prepare meals, shop, do cleaning tasks (when not in pain), and drive a 15 vehicle. Tr. 783. 16 // 17 18 2 19 other paragraphs under the 1.04 listing, but Plaintiff makes no attempt to explain 20 how they would apply. It is Plaintiff’s burden to demonstrate harmful error. Plaintiff asserts that this finding did not necessarily negate the application of ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ~ 14 1 D. Medical Opinions 2 There are three types of physicians: “(1) those who treat the claimant 3 (treating physicians); (2) those who examine but do not treat the claimant 4 (examining physicians); and (3) those who neither examine nor treat the claimant 5 [but who review the claimant’s file] (nonexamining [or reviewing] physicians).” 6 Holohan v. Massanari, 246 F.3d 1195, 1201-02 (9th Cir. 2001) (citations omitted). 7 Generally, a treating physician’s opinion carries more weight than an examining 8 physician’s, and an examining physician’s opinion carries more weight than a 9 reviewing physician’s. Id. In addition, the regulations give more weight to 10 opinions that are explained than to those that are not, and to the opinions of 11 specialists concerning matters relating to their specialty over that of nonspecialists. 12 Id. (citations omitted). 13 If a treating or examining physician’s opinion is uncontradicted, an ALJ may 14 reject it only by offering “clear and convincing reasons that are supported by 15 substantial evidence.” Bayliss v. Barnhart, 427 F.3d 1211, 1216 (9th Cir. 2005) 16 (citation omitted). “However, the ALJ need not accept the opinion of any 17 physician, including a treating physician, if that opinion is brief, conclusory, and 18 inadequately supported by clinical findings.” Bray v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 19 554 F.3d 1219, 1228 (9th Cir. 2009) (quotation and citation omitted). “If a treating 20 or examining doctor’s opinion is contradicted by another doctor’s opinion, an ALJ ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ~ 15 1 may only reject it by providing specific and legitimate reasons that are supported 2 by substantial evidence.” Bayliss, 427 F.3d at 1216 (citing Lester v. Chater, 81 3 F.3d 821, 830-31 (9th Cir. 1995). 4 “Where an ALJ does not explicitly reject a medical opinion or set forth 5 specific, legitimate reasons for crediting one medical opinion over another, he 6 errs.” Garrison v. Colvin, 759 F.3d 995, 1012 (9th Cir. 2014). “In other words, an 7 ALJ errs when he rejects a medical opinion or assigns it little weight while doing 8 nothing more than ignoring it, asserting without explanation that another medical 9 opinion is more persuasive, or criticizing it with boilerplate language that fails to 10 offer a substantive basis for his conclusion.” Id. at 1012-13. That said, the ALJ is 11 not required to recite any magic words to properly reject a medical opinion. 12 Magallanes, 881 F.2d at 755 (stating that the Court may draw reasonable 13 inferences when appropriate). “An ALJ can satisfy the ‘substantial evidence’ 14 requirement by ‘setting out a detailed and thorough summary of the facts and 15 conflicting clinical evidence, stating his interpretation thereof, and making 16 findings.’” Garrison, 759 F.3d at 1012 (quoting Reddick v. Chater, 157 F.3d 715, 17 725 (9th Cir. 1998)). 18 1. Dr. Schmitter 19 First, Plaintiff argues the ALJ failed to explain why the RFC did not 20 incorporate all of the limitations posed by Dr. Schmitter, despite the ALJ assigning ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ~ 16 1 his opinion great weight (Plaintiff does not challenge the weight given to the 2 opinion). Specifically, Plaintiff complains the ALJ “only restricted reaching to 3 overhead and did not restrict the right hand from handling” even though Dr. 4 Schmitter limited Plaintiff to reaching and handling occasionally. ECF No. 13 at 5 17-18. However, as Defendant points out, ECF No. 17 at 15, Dr. Schmitter 6 clarified that the “right [hand] is doing fine”. Tr. 840. Further, Dr. Schmitter only 7 stated Plaintiff would have limitations reaching/handling larger objects, stating 8 they would be diminished on an occasional basis. Tr. 828. Dr. Schmitter did not 9 make an opinion about reaching overhead in particular, so there is no 10 inconsistency. In any event, harmful error has not been shown. 11 2. Dr. Bauer 12 Plaintiff also takes issue with the ALJ assigning “little weight” to the 13 opinion of Dr. Bauer. Because the opinion of Dr. Bauer is contradicted by other 14 medical opinions, the ALJ need only provide a specific and legitimate reason for 15 discounting the opinion. The ALJ met this burden. The ALJ reasonably found that 16 Dr. Bauer’s opinion that Plaintiff was “severely limited” was inconsistent with 17 other medical evidence in the record and the claimant’s documented activities. Tr. 18 792. While Plaintiff essentially complains that the ALJ did not explain the 19 reasoning in detail at the point of making this assertion, the ALJ adequately laid 20 out the underlying rationale why Plaintiff was not so limited throughout the ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ~ 17 1 opinion, which clearly supports the ALJ’s position. Garrison, 759 F.3d at 1012 2 (“An ALJ can satisfy the ‘substantial evidence’ requirement by ‘setting out a 3 detailed and thorough summary of the facts and conflicting clinical evidence, 4 stating his interpretation thereof, and making findings.’” (quoting Reddick v. 5 Chater, 157 F.3d at 725)). 6 E. Plaintiff’s ability to perform work 7 Plaintiff asserts that the ALJ erred in finding (1) Plaintiff could perform past 8 work “as actually performed” and that (2) Plaintiff was capable of performing 9 three other identified jobs. ECF No. 13 at 20-21. Plaintiff contends she could not 10 perform her last job as a tool crib attendant because “she handled objects for 5 11 hours a day,” citing to a form she filled-out at Tr. 236. But that is not what she 12 testified to under oath before the ALJ. She testified that she did not do any lifting 13 or carrying at that job. Tr. 849. Notably, the ALJ found that Plaintiff could 14 perform this job, “as actually performed.” Tr. 794. 15 Alternatively, the ALJ found that Plaintiff could perform work as an usher, 16 for which there are about 23,000 jobs in the national economy, which represents a 17 “significant number” of jobs. See ECF No. 13 at 21 (asserting 25,000 jobs is a 18 close call under Ninth Circuit precedent). Plaintiff argues that, “[a]ccording to Job 19 Browser Pro” the number of jobs available is significantly less than the number 20 cited by the Vocational Expert. Counsel’s subsequent offer of data derived from ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ~ 18 1 Job Browser Pro does not undermine the vocational expert’s testimony. Counsel 2 did not offer any expert opinion to the ALJ interpreting data from these or other 3 sources to undercut the VE’s analysis. The VE cited three occupations with 4 approximately 108,000 jobs in the national economy. The ALJ thus properly 5 found Plaintiff was not disabled. 6 ACCORDINGLY, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 7 1. Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 13) is DENIED. 8 2. Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 17) is 9 10 11 12 GRANTED. The District Court Executive is directed to file this Order, enter Judgment for Defendant, provide copies to counsel, and CLOSE this file. DATED September 3, 2019. 13 14 THOMAS O. RICE Chief United States District Judge 15 16 17 18 19 20 ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ~ 19

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.