Gutierrez v. Saul, No. 1:2020cv03003 - Document 15 (E.D. Wash. 2021)
Court Description: ORDER GRANTING 12 DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND DENYING 11 PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT. File Closed. Signed by Judge Rosanna Malouf Peterson. (TR, Case Administrator)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Gutierrez v. Saul Doc. 15 Case 1:20-cv-03003-FVS ECF No. 15 filed 01/06/21 PageID.1587 Page 1 of 30 1 2 FI LED I N THE U.S. DI STRI CT COURT EASTERN DI STRI CT OF WASHI NGTON 3 Jan 06, 2021 4 SEAN F. MCAVOY, CLERK 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 6 7 CHRISTINA LYNN G., NO: 1:20-CV-3003-FVS 8 9 10 Plaintiff, v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT 11 Defendant. 12 13 BEFORE THE COURT are the parties’ cross motions for summary 14 judgment. ECF Nos. 11, 12. This matter was submitted for consideration without 15 oral argument. The Plaintiff is represented by Attorney Cory J. Brandt. The 16 Defendant is represented by Special Assistant United States Attorney Ryan Ta Lu. 17 The Court has reviewed the administrative record and the parties’ completed 18 briefing and is fully informed. For the reasons discussed below, the Court 19 GRANTS Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 12, and DENIES 20 Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 11. 21 ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ~ 1 Dockets.Justia.com Case 1:20-cv-03003-FVS ECF No. 15 filed 01/06/21 PageID.1588 Page 2 of 30 1 JURISDICTION 2 Plaintiff Christina Lynn G. 1 protectively filed for supplemental security 3 income and disability insurance benefits 2 on September 8, 2016, alleging an onset 4 date of January 31, 2005. Tr. 239. At the hearing, the alleged onset date was 5 amended to September 8, 2016. Tr. 23. Benefits were denied initially, Tr. 144-52, 6 and upon reconsideration, Tr. 163-69. Plaintiff appeared for a hearing before an 7 administrative law judge (“ALJ”) on January 9, 2018. Tr. 15-50. Plaintiff was 8 represented by counsel and testified at the hearing. Id. The ALJ denied benefits, Tr. 9 114-36, and the Appeals Council denied review. Tr. 1. The matter is now before 10 this court pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1383(c)(3). 11 12 1 In the interest of protecting Plaintiff’s privacy, the Court will use Plaintiff’s first 13 name and last initial. 14 2 As noted in the decision, at the hearing Plaintiff amended her alleged onset date 15 to September 8, 2016. Tr. 23, 117. “As a result, she would not be entitled to a 16 period of disability or disability insurance benefits under Title II of the Social 17 Security Act because the amended onset date is after her date last insured of 18 September 30, 2009.” Tr. 117. Accordingly, the ALJ dismissed Plaintiff’s request 19 for hearing under Title II of the Social Security Act, and noted the decision would 20 address only the pending application for Title XVI benefits. Tr. 117-18. 21 ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ~ 2 Case 1:20-cv-03003-FVS 1 ECF No. 15 filed 01/06/21 PageID.1589 Page 3 of 30 BACKGROUND 2 The facts of the case are set forth in the administrative hearing and 3 transcripts, the ALJ’s decision, and the briefs of Plaintiff and the Commissioner. 4 Only the most pertinent facts are summarized here. 5 Plaintiff was 45 years old at the time of the hearing. See Tr. 26. She 6 graduated from high school and has a certificate in fashion merchandising from 7 Yakima Technical College. Tr. 27. At the time of the hearing, she lived with her 8 husband and two children aged eight and twenty-six. Tr. 26. She testified that she 9 also lived with her mother during part of the adjudicatory period, before her 10 mother was moved to a retirement facility. Tr. 26. Plaintiff has work history as a 11 cashier and home attendant. Tr. 27-28, 45-46. Plaintiff testified that she cannot 12 work because of her depression, anxiety, diabetes, and interstitial cystitis. Tr. 29. 13 Plaintiff testified that her bladder pain affects her daily, and she has 14 “continual pain” in her feet and hands due to diabetes and neuropathy. Tr. 29-30. 15 She reported that she has to lie down three to four times a week, for six or seven 16 hours a day, due to low blood sugar. Tr. 31. Plaintiff testified that her diabetes 17 and depression both affect her daily activities and “play on each other quite a bit.” 18 Tr. 31-32. 19 20 21 STANDARD OF REVIEW A district court’s review of a final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security is governed by 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). The scope of review under § 405(g) is ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ~ 3 Case 1:20-cv-03003-FVS ECF No. 15 filed 01/06/21 PageID.1590 Page 4 of 30 1 limited; the Commissioner’s decision will be disturbed “only if it is not supported 2 by substantial evidence or is based on legal error.” Hill v. Astrue, 698 F.3d 1153, 3 1158 (9th Cir. 2012). “Substantial evidence” means “relevant evidence that a 4 reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.” Id. at 1159 5 (quotation and citation omitted). Stated differently, substantial evidence equates to 6 “more than a mere scintilla[,] but less than a preponderance.” Id. (quotation and 7 citation omitted). In determining whether the standard has been satisfied, a 8 reviewing court must consider the entire record as a whole rather than searching 9 for supporting evidence in isolation. Id. 10 In reviewing a denial of benefits, a district court may not substitute its 11 judgment for that of the Commissioner. If the evidence in the record “is 12 susceptible to more than one rational interpretation, [the court] must uphold the 13 ALJ’s findings if they are supported by inferences reasonably drawn from the 14 record.” Molina v. Astrue, 674 F.3d 1104, 1111 (9th Cir. 2012). Further, a district 15 court “may not reverse an ALJ’s decision on account of an error that is harmless.” 16 Id. An error is harmless “where it is inconsequential to the [ALJ’s] ultimate 17 nondisability determination.” Id. at 1115 (quotation and citation omitted). The 18 party appealing the ALJ’s decision generally bears the burden of establishing that 19 it was harmed. Shinseki v. Sanders, 556 U.S. 396, 409-10 (2009). 20 / / / 21 / / / ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ~ 4 Case 1:20-cv-03003-FVS 1 2 ECF No. 15 filed 01/06/21 PageID.1591 Page 5 of 30 FIVE–STEP SEQUENTIAL EVALUATION PROCESS A claimant must satisfy two conditions to be considered “disabled” within 3 the meaning of the Social Security Act. First, the claimant must be “unable to 4 engage in any substantial gainful activity by reason of any medically determinable 5 physical or mental impairment which can be expected to result in death or which 6 has lasted or can be expected to last for a continuous period of not less than twelve 7 months.” 42 U.S.C. § 1382c(a)(3)(A). Second, the claimant’s impairment must be 8 “of such severity that he is not only unable to do his previous work[,] but cannot, 9 considering his age, education, and work experience, engage in any other kind of 10 substantial gainful work which exists in the national economy.” 42 U.S.C. § 11 1382c(a)(3)(B). 12 The Commissioner has established a five-step sequential analysis to 13 determine whether a claimant satisfies the above criteria. See 20 C.F.R. § 14 416.920(a)(4)(i)-(v). At step one, the Commissioner considers the claimant’s work 15 activity. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(a)(4)(i). If the claimant is engaged in “substantial 16 gainful activity,” the Commissioner must find that the claimant is not disabled. 20 17 C.F.R. § 416.920(b). 18 If the claimant is not engaged in substantial gainful activity, the analysis 19 proceeds to step two. At this step, the Commissioner considers the severity of the 20 claimant’s impairment. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(a)(4)(ii). If the claimant suffers from 21 “any impairment or combination of impairments , the ALJ found 8 (1) treatment records indicate Plaintiff’s interstitial cystitis improved with 9 medication; (2) the “record shows little treatment for” lower back pain, imaging 10 showed minimal to mild degenerative findings and largely normal examination 11 findings; and (3) Plaintiff’s “statements about her diabetes, low blood sugar, and 12 neuropathy are also not consistent with the examination findings and treatment 13 record.” Tr. 124-25. Plaintiff generally argues, without citation to the record, that 14 her symptoms “varied day to day, [and] her ability to function did as well. The 15 record is full of both benign and abnormal findings that are consistent with her 16 allegations.” ECF No. 11 at 14. Plaintiff similarly contends that her conditions 17 “did not show consistent improvement; instead, they showed a pattern of waxing 18 and waning.” ECF No. 11 at 15. 19 However, the ALJ specifically found that Plaintiff was treated successfully 20 with medication several times for interstitial cystitis, and “[a]t no time did she 21 report that she had such severe pain that affected her body movements or her ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ~ 21 Case 1:20-cv-03003-FVS ECF No. 15 filed 01/06/21 PageID.1608 Page 22 of 30 1 concentration and focus.” Tr. 124, 1352, 1357, 1384. Moreover, with respect to 2 her complaints of back pain, the ALJ noted that imaging in January 2017 showed 3 only minimal to mild degenerative findings; and examination findings included 4 normal gait, stable station, negative Romberg, able to walk on heels and toe, able 5 to tandem walk, able to stand on one foot, able to perform a full squat, negative 6 straight leg raising, mild decrease in range of motion, no muscle spasm, and 7 decreased sensation to light touch pinprick in a stocking distribution bilaterally. 8 Tr. 124, 1003-05, 1044. Finally, regarding Plaintiff’s diabetes, low blood sugar, 9 and neuropathy, the ALJ cited treatment records showing a history of good control 10 of her diabetes, a normal diabetic foot screen examination in January 2017, a 11 normal diabetic eye examination in June 2017, a normal June 2017 diabetic foot 12 screening, and lack of evidence of ongoing low blood sugar readings. Tr. 125 13 (citing Tr. 949 (reporting history of good control of blood sugars), 1231, 1235, 14 1239, 1246-47 (reporting high blood sugar), 1253, 1332, 1350). 15 As to his claimed mental health limitations, the ALJ found that Plaintiff’s 16 testimony of mental health symptoms was not consistent with the evidence. Tr. 17 126. Plaintiff did not specifically identify or challenge the ALJ’s analysis of her 18 mental health complaints in her opening brief; thus, the Court may decline to 19 address the specific issue. See Carmickle, 533 F.3d at 1161 n.2. Regardless, in 20 support of this finding, the ALJ cited treatment notes from the relevant 21 adjudicatory period indicating that Plaintiff’s mood was doing “doing well ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ~ 22 Case 1:20-cv-03003-FVS ECF No. 15 filed 01/06/21 PageID.1609 Page 23 of 30 1 overall,” insight and judgment were good, mood and affect were normal, she was 2 fully alert an oriented, and had normal recent and remote memory. Tr. 125, 950, 3 1122, 1245, 1248, 1342, 1350. In addition, the ALJ noted that at a consultative 4 psychological evaluation in January 2017 Plaintiff complained of anxiety and 5 depression symptoms was “admitted she was ‘doing better’ because she had been 6 focusing on Bible study and taking medication”; and upon examination she was 7 cooperative and personable, had generally linear and goal-directed thought 8 processes, her mood was dysphoric with congruent affect, memory was within 9 normal limits, and her mood was generally stable. Tr. 125, 995-97. Finally, as 10 noted by the ALJ, a March 2017 psychiatric examination show that Plaintiff was 11 fully oriented, thought processes were coherent, insight was good, and fund of 12 knowledge was appropriate; and individual therapy notes from November 2017 13 show that Plaintiff presented with euthymic mood and congruent affect, and 14 “demonstrated coping skills and future thinking/planning.” Tr. 126 (citing Tr. 15 1313, 1318, 1458, 1460, 1463). 16 Based on the foregoing, and regardless of evidence that could be considered 17 more favorable to Plaintiff, it was reasonable for the ALJ to find the severity of 18 Plaintiff’s symptom claims was inconsistent with medical evidence. See Burch, 19 400 F.3d at 679 (ALJ’s conclusion must be upheld where evidence is susceptible to 20 more than one rational interpretation). This lack of corroboration of Plaintiff’s 21 claimed limitations by the medical evidence was a clear and convincing reason, ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ~ 23 Case 1:20-cv-03003-FVS ECF No. 15 filed 01/06/21 PageID.1610 Page 24 of 30 1 supported by substantial evidence, for the ALJ to discount Plaintiff’s symptom 2 claims. 3 4 2. Failure to Seek and Comply with Treatment Second, the ALJ noted that “[a]fter her January 2017 consultative 5 examination, [Plaintiff] sought no treatment for back complaints”; and “she never 6 reported any issues with neuropathy in her hands and only mentioned issues with 7 her feet, but declined medication because it was mild.” Tr. 124-25. Unexplained, 8 or inadequately explained, failure to seek treatment or follow a prescribed course 9 of treatment may be the basis for an adverse credibility finding unless there is a 10 showing of a good reason for the failure. Orn, 495 F.3d at 638; see also Burch, 11 400 F.3d at 680 (minimal objective evidence is a factor which may be relied upon 12 in discrediting a claimant’s testimony, although it may not be the only factor). 13 First, Plaintiff concedes that she “did not receive a significant amount of 14 treatment for her back pain,” but generally contends that she “suffered from this 15 condition.” ECF No. 11 at 15. However, the only evidence cited by Plaintiff in 16 support of this argument is her own report in January 2017 that she experienced 17 increased back pain when she turned her head, and a “marked” increase in back 18 pain “approximately every other week.” ECF No. 11 at 15 (citing Tr. 1001). 19 Thus, it was reasonable for the ALJ to find that, given the lack of treatment, 20 Plaintiff’s statements about disabling limitations due to back pain are not 21 consistent with the record. Tr. 124. ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ~ 24 Case 1:20-cv-03003-FVS 1 ECF No. 15 filed 01/06/21 PageID.1611 Page 25 of 30 Second, Plaintiff argues that the ALJ “mischaracterized [Plaintiff’s] decision 2 to reject treatment” for her neuropathy because her symptoms were mild; rather, 3 Plaintiff cites a January 2017 consultative examination wherein she reported that 4 she declined treatment “after reading about the side effects.” ECF No. 11 t 15 5 (citing Tr. 1002). This argument is unavailing. An ALJ “will not find an 6 individual’s symptoms inconsistent with the evidence in the record on this basis 7 without considering possible reasons he or she may not comply with treatment or 8 seek treatment consistent with the degree of his or her complaints.” Social 9 Security Ruling (“SSR”) 16-3p at *8-*9 (March 16, 2016), available at 2016 WL 10 1119029. However, regardless of Plaintiff’s self-report at her January 2017 11 consultative examination, the ALJ properly supported her finding that Plaintiff 12 declined treatment for neuropathy by citing a separate treating provider’s report 13 that Plaintiff “chooses not to treat [her neuropathy] as [it] seems to be mild 14 bothersome.” Tr. 364. The Court also notes that this same treatment note indicates 15 that while Plaintiff “complains of some numbness, tingling in her feet and swelling 16 in her feet[,] [s]he states it comes and goes but has not been bothering her a lot.” 17 Tr. 360. Finally, Plaintiff testified that she was offered pain medication for her 18 neuropathy but she “didn’t want to take it because [she’s] already on a lot of 19 medication and [she’d] rather just not deal with that right now.” Tr. 42. 20 21 Based on the foregoing, and regardless of evidence in the record that could be considered favorable to Plaintiff, it was reasonable for the ALJ to conclude that ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ~ 25 Case 1:20-cv-03003-FVS ECF No. 15 filed 01/06/21 PageID.1612 Page 26 of 30 1 Plaintiff’s failure to seek treatment for back pain and neuropathy was inconsistent 2 with the alleged severity of her complaints. See Burch, 400 F.3d at 679 (where 3 evidence is susceptible to more than one interpretation, the ALJ’s conclusion must 4 be upheld). This was a clear and convincing reason for the ALJ to discredit 5 Plaintiff’s symptom claims. 6 7 3. Daily Activities Third, the ALJ noted that at the time of her amended onset date, Plaintiff 8 was separated from her husband, “taking care of a 6 to 7 year old boy on her own, 9 as well as her mother who had both dementia and a stroke,” taking care of 10 household chores, and managing the household. Tr. 126. As noted by Plaintiff, a 11 claimant need not be utterly incapacitated in order to be eligible for benefits. ECF 12 No. 11 at 16 (citing Fair, 885 F.2d at 603); see also Orn, 495 F.3d at 639 (“the 13 mere fact that a plaintiff has carried on certain activities . . . does not in any way 14 detract from her credibility as to her overall disability.”). Regardless, even where 15 daily activities “suggest some difficulty functioning, they may be grounds for 16 discrediting the [Plaintiff’s] testimony to the extent that they contradict claims of a 17 totally debilitating impairment.” Molina, 674 F.3d at 1113. 18 Plaintiff generally argues that her activities were “sporadic and reportedly 19 difficult for [her] to complete. Thus, they did not contradict her allegations.” ECF 20 No. 11 at 15. However, in addition to her ability to care for her young child and 21 her elderly mother with health problems, the ALJ noted elsewhere in the decision ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ~ 26 Case 1:20-cv-03003-FVS ECF No. 15 filed 01/06/21 PageID.1613 Page 27 of 30 1 that Plaintiff’s activities included performing personal care, preparing meals, 2 performing household chores and laundry, performing yardwork, going out alone, 3 driving a car, shopping in stores, handling finances, spending time with others, and 4 attending church and Bible studies regularly. Moreover, regardless of evidence 5 that could be viewed more favorably to Plaintiff, it was reasonable for the ALJ to 6 conclude that Plaintiff’s documented daily activities, including caring for other 7 people and managing a household without assistance, was inconsistent with her 8 allegations of incapacitating limitations. Tr. 28; Molina, 674 F.3d at 1113 9 (plaintiff’s activities may be grounds for discrediting plaintiff’s testimony to the 10 extent that they contradict claims of a totally debilitating impairment); See Burch, 11 400 F.3d at 679 (where evidence is susceptible to more than one interpretation, the 12 ALJ’s conclusion must be upheld). This was a clear and convincing reason to 13 discredit Plaintiff’s symptom claims. 14 15 16 17 The Court concludes that the ALJ provided clear and convincing reasons, supported by substantial evidence, for rejecting Plaintiff’s symptom claims. C. Lay Witness Evidence “In determining whether a claimant is disabled, an ALJ must consider lay 18 witness testimony concerning a claimant’s ability to work.” Stout v. Comm'r, Soc. 19 Sec. Admin., 454 F.3d 1050, 1053 (9th Cir. 2006); see also Dodrill v. Shalala, 12 20 F.3d 915, 918-19 (9th Cir. 1993) (“friends and family members in a position to 21 observe a claimant's symptoms and daily activities are competent to testify as to ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ~ 27 Case 1:20-cv-03003-FVS ECF No. 15 filed 01/06/21 PageID.1614 Page 28 of 30 1 [his] condition.”). To discount evidence from lay witnesses, an ALJ must give 2 reasons “germane” to each witness. Dodrill, 12 F.3d at 919. 3 Here, Plaintiff’s friend, Charlene Sorrell, completed a third-party function 4 report. She reported that Plaintiff used to be able to spend more time with her 5 horses and was more physically active, she is “quick tempered because she doesn’t 6 feel good,” and she “falls apart real easy” because her “medical condition has her 7 stressed out.” Tr. 290-97. The ALJ considered Ms. Sorrell’s report and found it 8 “is not supported by or consistent with the record as a whole, including objective 9 signs and findings. Accordingly, the statement is not accorded substantial weight.” 10 Tr. 127. Plaintiff argues this finding was “vague” and therefore the ALJ “did not 11 give the required specific, germane reasons for rejecting the lay witness 12 testimony.” ECF No. 11 at 17. 13 As an initial matter, the ALJ may discount lay testimony if it conflicts with 14 the medical evidence. See Lewis, 236 F.3d at 511. Moreover, where the ALJ gives 15 clear and convincing reasons to reject a claimant's testimony, and where a lay 16 witness's testimony is similar to the claimant's subjective complaints, the reasons 17 given to reject the claimant's testimony are also germane reasons to reject the lay 18 witness testimony. See Valentine v. Comm’r Soc. Sec. Admin., 574 F.3d 685, 694 19 (9th Cir. 2009); see also Molina, 674 F.3d at 1114 (“[I]f the ALJ gives germane 20 reasons for rejecting testimony by one witness, the ALJ need only point to those 21 reasons when rejecting similar testimony by a different witness”). Thus, the ALJ's ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ~ 28 Case 1:20-cv-03003-FVS ECF No. 15 filed 01/06/21 PageID.1615 Page 29 of 30 1 well-supported reasons for rejecting Plaintiff's subjective symptom claims, as 2 discussed above, apply equally to Ms. Sorrell’s statements. Based on the 3 foregoing, the ALJ did not err in discounting Ms. Sorrell’s lay testimony. 4 5 D. Step Five Finally, Plaintiff argues that the ALJ failed to meet her step five burden 6 “because the ALJ improperly rejected the opinion of [Plaintiff’s] medical 7 providers, [and] the limitations they assessed were improperly excluded from the 8 hypothetical.” ECF No. 11 at 18. “If an ALJ's hypothetical does not reflect all of 9 the claimant's limitations, the expert's testimony has no evidentiary value to 10 support a finding that the claimant can perform jobs in the national economy.” 11 Bray, 554 F.3d at 1228). However, as discussed in detail above, the ALJ’s 12 consideration of the medical opinion evidence was supported by the record and 13 free of legal error. The hypothetical posed to the vocational expert contained the 14 limitations reasonably identified by the ALJ and supported by substantial evidence 15 in the record. Thus, the ALJ did not err at step five. 16 17 CONCLUSION A reviewing court should not substitute its assessment of the evidence for 18 the ALJ’s. Tackett, 180 F.3d at 1098. To the contrary, a reviewing court must 19 defer to an ALJ’s assessment as long as it is supported by substantial evidence. 42 20 U.S.C. § 405(g). As discussed in detail above, the ALJ provided clear and 21 convincing reasons to discount Plaintiff’s symptom claims and the lay witness ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ~ 29 Case 1:20-cv-03003-FVS ECF No. 15 filed 01/06/21 PageID.1616 Page 30 of 30 1 statement, properly weighed the medical opinion evidence, and did not err at step 2 five. After review, the Court finds the ALJ’s decision is supported by substantial 3 evidence and free of harmful legal error. 4 ACCORDINGLY, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 5 1. Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 11, is DENIED. 6 2. Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 12, is 7 8 9 10 11 GRANTED. IT IS SO ORDERED. The District Court Clerk is hereby directed to enter this Order and provide copies to counsel, enter judgment in favor of the Defendant, and CLOSE the file. DATED January 6, 2021. 12 13 s/ Rosanna Malouf Peterson ROSANNA MALOUF PETERSON United States District Judge 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ~ 30
]]>
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.
