Victor-Kailianu v. Kijakazi, No. 1:2020cv03144 - Document 24 (E.D. Wash. 2022)

Court Description: ORDER Granting 21 Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment. Denying 18 Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by Magistrate Judge James A. Goeke. (MO, Courtroom Deputy)

Download PDF

Victor-Kailianu v. Kijakazi Doc. 24 1 2 FI LED I N THE U.S. DI STRI CT COURT EASTERN DI STRI CT OF WASHI NGTON 3 4 Mar 31, 2022 5 SEAN F. MCAVOY, CLERK UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 6 7 8 9 LISA V. K., No. 1:20-CV-03144-JAG Plaintiff, 10 11 v. 12 13 14 KILOLO KIJAKAZI, ACTING COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,1 15 Defendant. 16 17 ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT BEFORE THE COURT are cross-motions for summary judgment. ECF 18 No. 18, 21. Attorney Kathryn Higgs represents Lisa V. K. (Plaintiff); Special 19 Assistant United States Attorney Benjamin Groebner represents the Commissioner 20 of Social Security (Defendant). The parties have consented to proceed before a 21 magistrate judge. ECF No. 7. After reviewing the administrative record and the 22 briefs filed by the parties, the Court GRANTS Defendant’s Motion for Summary 23 Judgment and DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment. 24 25 1 Kilolo Kijakazi became the Acting Commissioner of Social Security on 26 July 9, 2021. Pursuant to Rule 25(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 27 Kilolo Kijakazi is substituted for Andrew M. Saul as the defendant in this suit. No 28 further action need be taken to continue this suit. See 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION . . . - 1 Dockets.Justia.com JURISDICTION 1 2 Plaintiff filed an application for Supplemental Security Income on 3 September 14, 2018, alleging disability beginning January 1, 2003, due to bipolar 4 disorder, schizoaffective disorder, and chronic low back pain. Tr. 66-67. The 5 application was denied initially and upon reconsideration. Tr. 97-100, 108-14. 6 Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Mary Gallagher Dilley held a hearing on 7 November 20, 2019, Tr. 31-64, and issued an unfavorable decision on December 8 20, 2019. Tr. 15-25. Plaintiff requested review by the Appeals Council and the 9 Appeals Council denied the request on August 12, 2020. Tr. 1-5. The ALJ’s 10 November 2019 decision became the final decision of the Commissioner, which is 11 appealable to the district court pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). Plaintiff filed this 12 action for judicial review on September 14, 2020. ECF No. 1. STATEMENT OF FACTS 13 14 Plaintiff was born in 1960 and was 58 years old when she filed her 15 application. Tr. 24. She has a high school education with some additional courses. 16 Tr. 38, 326. She has a minimal work history, having worked only briefly at her 17 brother’s restaurant and for three weeks in a fast-food restaurant. Tr. 39-41, 177, 18 326. She has alleged she is unable to work due to a combination of physical and 19 mental issues. Tr. 42. 20 21 STANDARD OF REVIEW The ALJ is responsible for determining credibility, resolving conflicts in 22 medical testimony, and resolving ambiguities. Andrews v. Shalala, 53 F.3d 1035, 23 1039 (9th Cir. 1995). The ALJ’s determinations of law are reviewed de novo, with 24 deference to a reasonable interpretation of the applicable statutes. McNatt v. Apfel, 25 201 F.3d 1084, 1087 (9th Cir. 2000). The decision of the ALJ may be reversed 26 only if it is not supported by substantial evidence or if it is based on legal error. 27 Tackett v. Apfel, 180 F.3d 1094, 1097 (9th Cir. 1999). Substantial evidence is 28 defined as being more than a mere scintilla, but less than a preponderance. Id. at ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION . . . - 2 1 1098. Put another way, substantial evidence is such relevant evidence as a 2 reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. Richardson v. 3 Perales, 402 U.S. 389, 401 (1971). If the evidence is susceptible to more than one 4 rational interpretation, the Court may not substitute its judgment for that of the 5 ALJ. Tackett, 180 F.3d at 1097; Morgan v. Commissioner of Social Sec. Admin., 6 169 F.3d 595, 599 (9th Cir. 1999). If substantial evidence supports the 7 administrative findings, or if conflicting evidence supports a finding of either 8 disability or non-disability, the ALJ’s determination is conclusive. Sprague v. 9 Bowen, 812 F.2d 1226, 1229-1230 (9th Cir. 1987). Nevertheless, a decision 10 supported by substantial evidence will be set aside if the proper legal standards 11 were not applied in weighing the evidence and making the decision. Brawner v. 12 Secretary of Health and Human Services, 839 F.2d 432, 433 (9th Cir. 1988). 13 14 SEQUENTIAL EVALUATION PROCESS The Commissioner has established a five-step sequential evaluation process 15 for determining whether a person is disabled. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(a); Bowen v. 16 Yuckert, 482 U.S. 137, 140-142 (1987). In steps one through four, the claimant 17 bears the burden of establishing a prima facie case of disability. Tackett, 180 F.3d 18 at 1098-1099. This burden is met once a claimant establishes that a physical or 19 mental impairment prevents the claimant from engaging in past relevant work. 20 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(a)(4). If a claimant cannot perform past relevant work, the ALJ 21 proceeds to step five, and the burden shifts to the Commissioner to show (1) the 22 claimant can make an adjustment to other work; and (2) the claimant can perform 23 specific jobs that exist in the national economy. Batson v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. 24 Admin., 359 F.3d 1190, 1193-94 (9th Cir. 2004). If a claimant cannot make an 25 adjustment to other work in the national economy, the claimant will be found 26 disabled. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(a)(4)(v). 27 28 ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION . . . - 3 ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION 1 2 3 4 5 6 On December 20, 2019, the ALJ issued a decision finding Plaintiff was not disabled as defined in the Social Security Act. Tr. 15-25. At step one, the ALJ found Plaintiff had not engaged in substantial gainful activity since the application date. Tr. 18. At step two, the ALJ determined Plaintiff had the following severe 7 impairments: degenerative disc disease, bipolar disorder, mild degenerative 8 osteoarthropathy, and mild right knee degenerative joint disease. Id. 9 At step three, the ALJ found Plaintiff did not have an impairment or 10 combination of impairments that met or medically equaled the severity of one of 11 the listed impairments. Tr. 18-19. 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 The ALJ assessed Plaintiff’s Residual Functional Capacity (RFC) and found she could perform medium work, with the following additional limitations: She is able to lift and carry 50 pounds occasionally and 25 pounds frequently. She can stand and/or walk about 6 hours in an 8-hour workday with normal breaks. She can sit for about 6 hours in an 8-hour workday with normal breaks. She can frequently climb ramps, stairs, ladders, ropes, and scaffolds. She can frequently stoop. She can perform simple, routine, repetitive tasks. She can have superficial contact with the public. She can have superficial contact with coworkers meaning no teamwork. 20 21 Tr. 20. 22 At step four, the ALJ found Plaintiff had no past relevant work. Tr. 24. 23 At step five, the ALJ determined that, based on the testimony of the 24 vocational expert, and considering Plaintiff’s age, education, work experience, and 25 RFC, Plaintiff could perform jobs that existed in significant numbers in the 26 national economy, including the jobs of laundry worker, industrial cleaner, and 27 kitchen helper. Tr. 24-25. 28 ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION . . . - 4 1 The ALJ thus concluded Plaintiff was not under a disability within the 2 meaning of the Social Security Act at any time from the application date through 3 the date of the decision. Tr. 25. ISSUES 4 The question presented is whether substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s 5 6 decision denying benefits and, if so, whether that decision is based on proper legal 7 standards. Plaintiff contends the ALJ erred by (1) failing to find schizophrenia to be a 8 9 severe impairment at step 2; (2) improperly assessing Plaintiff’s subjective 10 statements; (3) improperly rejecting medical opinion evidence; and (4) improperly 11 determining Plaintiff’s residual functional capacity. DISCUSSION 12 13 14 15 16 1. Plaintiff’s Symptom Statements Plaintiff alleges the ALJ erred in rejecting her symptom testimony without providing adequate reasons. ECF No. 18 at 10-14. It is the province of the ALJ to make determinations regarding a claimant’s 17 subjective reports. Andrews v. Shalala, 53 F.3d 1035, 1039 (9th Cir. 1995). 18 However, the ALJ’s findings must be supported by specific cogent reasons. 19 Rashad v. Sullivan, 903 F.2d 1229, 1231 (9th Cir. 1990). Absent affirmative 20 evidence of malingering, the ALJ’s reasons for rejecting a claimant’s testimony 21 must be “specific, clear and convincing.” Smolen v. Chater, 80 F.3d 1273, 1281 22 (9th Cir. 1996); Lester v. Chater, 81 F.3d 821, 834 (9th Cir. 1995). 23 The ALJ found Plaintiff’s medically determinable impairments could 24 reasonably be expected to cause the alleged symptoms; however, she found 25 Plaintiff’s statements concerning the intensity, persistence and limiting effects of 26 her symptoms were not entirely consistent with the medical evidence and other 27 evidence in the record. Tr. 21. Specifically, the ALJ found Plaintiff’s allegations to 28 be undermined by minimal treatment, improvement with medication, and largely ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION . . . - 5 1 normal exam findings, along with finding evidence that Plaintiff primarily engaged 2 in mental health treatment in order to obtain housing and noting that she endorsed 3 a full range of daily activities and had stopped working for reasons unrelated to her 4 disability. Tr. 21-23. 5 Plaintiff argues the ALJ’s rationale is not supported by substantial evidence 6 and asserts that she never alleged a complete inability to work, but rather that she 7 could do no more than sedentary work. ECF No. 18 at 11-13. She argues the record 8 contains objective findings supportive of her allegations, and that her activities and 9 work history are not inconsistent with her claim of disability. Id. at 13-14. 10 Defendant argues the ALJ reasonably found the record unsupportive of the degree 11 of limitations Plaintiff alleged, noting normal physical and mental exam findings 12 and that the record largely showed her conditions were stable or improved with 13 medication. ECF No. 21 at 4-8. 14 The Court finds the ALJ did not err. An ALJ may consider evidence of the 15 type and effectiveness of treatments received in assessing the reliability of a 16 claimant’s symptom allegations. Social Security Ruling 16-3p. The ALJ found that 17 the record showed Plaintiff’s conditions were largely controlled and improved with 18 medication. Tr. 21-22. This was a reasonable interpretation of the records, which 19 document Plaintiff’s reports that treatment provided adequate relief, that her pain 20 was controlled, and that her medications were adequate for her to maintain 21 functioning. Tr. 339-40, 343-44, 390-92, 1178. While she occasionally reported 22 increased symptoms, the ALJ’s interpretation of the record is reasonable. 23 Although it cannot serve as the sole ground for rejecting a claimant’s 24 symptom statements, objective medical evidence is a “relevant factor in 25 determining the severity of the claimant’s pain and its disabling effects.” Rollins v. 26 Massanari, 261 F.3d 853, 857 (9th Cir. 2001). The ALJ reasonably found the 27 objective findings throughout the record to not be supportive of the extent of 28 Plaintiff’s alleged limitations. ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION . . . - 6 1 While the ALJ offered other reasons that are not supported by substantial 2 evidence, any such error was harmless. See Carmickle v. Comm'r Soc. Sec. Admin, 3 533 F.3d 1155, 1163 (9th Cir. 2008) (upholding an adverse credibility finding 4 where the ALJ provided four reasons to discredit the claimant, two of which were 5 invalid). 6 2. 7 8 Medical Opinion Evidence Plaintiff argues the ALJ improperly weighed the medical opinion evidence. ECF No. 18 at 15-16. 9 For claims filed on or after March 27, 2017, new regulations apply that 10 change the framework for how an ALJ must weigh medical opinion evidence. 11 Revisions to Rules Regarding the Evaluation of Medical Evidence, 2017 WL 12 168819, 82 Fed. Reg. 5844 (Jan. 18, 2017); 20 C.F.R. § 416.920c. The new 13 regulations provide the ALJ will no longer give any specific evidentiary weight to 14 medical opinions or prior administrative medical findings, including those from 15 treating medical sources. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920c(a). Instead, the ALJ will consider 16 the persuasiveness of each medical opinion and prior administrative medical 17 finding, regardless of whether the medical source is an Acceptable Medical Source. 18 20 C.F.R. § 416.920c(c). The ALJ is required to consider multiple factors, 19 including supportability, consistency, the source’s relationship with the claimant, 20 any specialization of the source, and other factors (such as the source’s familiarity 21 with other evidence in the file or an understanding of Social Security’s disability 22 program). Id. The regulations make clear that the supportability and consistency of 23 an opinion are the most important factors, and the ALJ must articulate how they 24 considered those factors in determining the persuasiveness of each medical opinion 25 or prior administrative medical finding. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920c(b). The ALJ may 26 explain how they considered the other factors, but is not required to do so, except 27 in cases where two or more opinions are equally well-supported and consistent 28 with the record. Id. ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION . . . - 7 1 Supportability and consistency are further explained in the regulations: 2 3 (1) Supportability. The more relevant the objective medical evidence and supporting explanations presented by a medical source are to support his or her medical opinion(s) or prior administrative medical finding(s), the more persuasive the medical opinions or prior administrative medical finding(s) will be. (2) Consistency. The more consistent a medical opinion(s) or prior administrative medical finding(s) is with the evidence from other medical sources and nonmedical sources in the claim, the more persuasive the medical opinion(s) or prior administrative medical finding(s) will be. 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 20 C.F.R. § 416.920c(c). Plaintiff argues the ALJ improperly found the state agency opinions to be 15 persuasive, despite these sources only reviewing some of the medical records, and 16 instead should have found the treating and examining sources to be more 17 persuasive, as they were consistent with each other and indicated more severe 18 impairments than found by the ALJ. ECF No. 18 at 15-16. Defendant argues the 19 ALJ reasonably considered the supportability and consistency factors in assessing 20 each of the medical opinions, and notes that Plaintiff did not specifically challenge 21 the ALJ’s rationale for each of the persuasiveness evaluations. ECF No. 21 at 9-13. 22 The Court finds the ALJ did not err. In assessing the opinions from Dr. 23 Genthe, Dr. Harmon, and PA-C Diaz, the ALJ considered the consistency and 24 supportability of each of the opinions. Tr. 23-24. The ALJ reasonably found Dr. 25 Genthe’s opinion to be unsupported by his own exam findings, which were largely 26 within normal limits. Tr. 329-30. The ALJ found Dr. Harmon’s opinion 27 unpersuasive for similar reasons, as Dr. Harmon only reviewed Dr. Genthe’s 28 opinion. Tr. 1045. The ALJ noted Mr. Diaz documented normal physical exam ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION . . . - 8 1 findings the day he opined Plaintiff was limited to sedentary work. Tr. 336-37. 2 While Plaintiff argues the ALJ should have found these opinions more persuasive, 3 she does not specifically challenge the ALJ’s rationale. “When the evidence is 4 susceptible to more than one rational interpretation, we must uphold the ALJ’s 5 findings if they are supported by inferences reasonably drawn from the record.” 6 Molina v. Astrue, 674 F.3d 1104, 1111 (9th Cir. 2012). 7 3. 8 9 10 Schizophrenia Plaintiff argues the ALJ erred in failing to find schizophrenia to be a severe impairment at step two. At step two of the sequential evaluation process, the ALJ must determine 11 whether the claimant has any medically determinable severe impairments. 12 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(a)(ii). An impairment is “not severe” if it does not 13 “significantly limit” the ability to conduct “basic work activities.” 20 C.F.R. 14 § 416.922(a). Basic work activities are “abilities and aptitudes necessary to do 15 most jobs.” 20 C.F.R. § 416.922(b). “An impairment or combination of 16 impairments can be found not severe only if the evidence establishes a slight 17 abnormality that has no more than a minimal effect on an individual’s ability to 18 work.” Smolen v. Chater, 80 F.3d 1273, 1290 (9th Cir. 1996) (internal quotation 19 marks omitted). The claimant bears the burden of demonstrating that an 20 impairment is medically determinable and severe. Valentine v. Comm’r Soc. Sec. 21 Admin., 574 F.3d 685, 689 (9th Cir. 2009). 22 Plaintiff argues the record establishes that she suffers from schizophrenia, 23 and that the ALJ erred in failing to mention the diagnosis or include it as a severe 24 impairment at step two. She asserts the ALJ thus formulated an RFC that does not 25 fully account for all of her limitations. ECF No. 18 at 6-10. Plaintiff further argues 26 that the ALJ failed to discuss schizophrenia at step three, and asserts that the record 27 establishes that her condition meets Listing 12.03. Id. at 9. Defendant argues that 28 schizophrenia is not a medically determinable impairment. ECF No. 21 at 2-3. In ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION . . . - 9 1 the alternative, Defendant argues that any error was harmless, as the ALJ offered 2 sufficient reasons for disregarding Dr. Genthe’s opinion (which was the only 3 medical opinion that included any more significant limitations), and that the ALJ’s 4 assessment of the Paragraph B criteria were supported. Id. at 3-4. 5 The Court finds any error on the part of the ALJ in failing to discuss 6 schizophrenia at Step 2 or Step 3 was harmless. Step 2 was resolved in Plaintiff’s 7 favor, with the ALJ finding bipolar disorder to be a severe impairment. Tr. 18. The 8 ALJ made Step 3 findings regarding the Paragraph B criteria that apply to all of the 9 mental listings. Tr. 18-19. The ALJ limited Plaintiff to no more than simple, 10 routine, repetitive tasks and no more than superficial contact with the public or 11 coworkers. Tr. 20. As discussed above, the ALJ gave adequate reasons for finding 12 Dr. Genthe’s opinion not to be persuasive. Plaintiff fails to identify any credited 13 limitation associated with schizophrenia that was not considered by the ALJ and 14 incorporated into the RFC. See Stout v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 454 F.3d 15 1050, 1055 (9th Cir. 2006); Burch v. Barnhart, 400 F.3d 676, 682 (9th Cir. 2005). 16 Therefore, any error in not identifying schizophrenia as a severe impairment was 17 harmless at most. 18 4. 19 RFC and Step Five Plaintiff argues that the ALJ erred in her step five determination because the 20 testimony of the vocational expert was premised on an incomplete hypothetical 21 stemming from an inaccurate residual functional capacity determination. ECF 22 No. 18 at 16-20. Plaintiff’s argument is based on successfully showing that the 23 ALJ erred in her treatment of the symptom statements and medical opinions. Id. 24 Because the Court finds that the ALJ did not harmfully err in her treatment of 25 Plaintiff’s symptom statements and the medical opinions, Plaintiff’s argument is 26 without merit. 27 28 ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION . . . - 10 1 CONCLUSION 2 Having reviewed the record and the ALJ’s findings, the Court finds the 3 ALJ’s decision is supported by substantial evidence and free of legal error. 4 Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 5 6 1. Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 21, is GRANTED. Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 18, is DENIED. 7 2. 8 The District Court Executive is directed to file this Order and provide a copy 9 10 11 to counsel for Plaintiff and Defendant. Judgment shall be entered for Defendant and the file shall be CLOSED. DATED March 31, 2022. 12 13 14 _____________________________________ JAMES A. GOEKE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION . . . - 11

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.