Hartill v. Commissioner of Social Security, No. 2:2018cv00397 - Document 15 (E.D. Wash. 2019)
Court Description: ORDER GRANTING 13 DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT; denying 12 Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by Senior Judge Robert H. Whaley. (SG, Case Administrator)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Hartill v. Commissioner of Social Security Doc. 15 1 2 FI LED I N THE U.S. DI STRI CT COURT EASTERN DI STRI CT OF WASHI NGTON 3 Dec 30, 2019 SEAN F. MCAVOY, CLERK 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 6 7 TABITHA ANN H., 8 Plaintiff, No. 2:18-CV-00397-RHW 9 v. ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT 10 11 12 13 COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant. Before the Court are the parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment. ECF 14 Nos. 12, 13. Plaintiff brings this action seeking judicial review pursuant to 42 15 U.S.C. § 405(g) of the Commissioner of Social Security’s final decision, which 16 denied her application for Disability Insurance Benefits under Title II of the Social 17 Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 401-434, and her application for Supplemental Security 18 Income under Title XVI of the Act, 42 U.S.C. §1381-1383F. See Administrative 19 Record (AR) at 537-541, 545-564. After reviewing the administrative record and 20 briefs filed by the parties, the Court is now fully informed. For the reasons set forth ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ~ 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 below, the Court GRANTS Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment and 2 DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment. 3 I. Jurisdiction and Procedural History 4 Plaintiff filed applications for Disability Insurance Benefits and 5 Supplemental Security Income on June 23, 2011. AR 84-85, 204-217. In both 6 applications, she alleged disability beginning on November 25, 2009. 1 AR 204, 7 211. Plaintiff’s application was initially denied on July 29, 2011, AR 126-129, and 8 on reconsideration on October 31, 2011. AR 132-135. 9 A hearing with Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) R.J. Payne occurred on 10 March 13, 2013. AR 41-53. At the hearing, the psychological expert opined that 11 there was not enough information to determine psychological impairments and 12 requested a consultative psychological evaluation. AR 51-53. Following the 13 evaluation, the ALJ held a supplemental hearing on August 20, 2013. AR 54-83. 14 On September 16, 2013, the ALJ issued a decision concluding that Plaintiff was 15 not disabled as defined in the Act and was therefore ineligible for disability 16 benefits or supplemental security income. AR 18-36. The Appeals Council denied 17 Plaintiff’s request for review on March 21, 2015, AR 1-6, and Plaintiff filed a 18 complaint in this district challenging the denial of benefits. AR 654-655; see 19 20 1 However, for claims under Title XVI, the month after the application’s filing date is the earliest that SSI benefits are payable. See 20 C.F.R. § 416.335. ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ~ 2 1 Tabitha Ann H. v. Carolyn W. Colvin, 2:15-cv-00132-RHW, ECF No. 3 (E.D. 2 Wash. 2015). 3 Plaintiff moved for summary judgment, arguing the ALJ erred by: (1) 4 improperly discrediting her subjective symptom complaints; (2) failing to properly 5 consider and weigh the medical opinion evidence, specifically the opinions of 6 treating physician Duncan Lahtinen, D.O., examining psychologist John Arnold, 7 Ph.D., and examining psychologist John Severinghaus, Ph.D.; (3) failing to obtain 8 the testimony of a vocational expert to make the step five determination; and (4) 9 not giving controlling weight to Dr. Lahtinen’s medical opinion. See Tabitha Ann 10 H., 2:15-cv-00132-RHW, ECF No. 12, at 10-17. 11 In July 2016, the Court issued a decision rejecting most of Plaintiff’s 12 contentions but agreeing with one. AR 664-673. The Court concluded that the ALJ 13 erred in assigning little weight to Dr. Severinghaus’s opinion. AR 672-73. 14 Accordingly, the Court remanded this case to the Commissioner with instructions 15 to credit the opinion of Dr. Severinghaus. AR 674. Upon crediting Dr. 16 Severinghaus’s opinion, the Court instructed the ALJ to recalculate the residual 17 functional capacity and then evaluate Plaintiff’s ability to perform 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). 8 9 III. Standard of Review A district court’s review of a final decision of the Commissioner is governed 10 by 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). The scope of review under § 405(g) is limited, and the 11 Commissioner’s decision will be disturbed “only if it is not supported by 12 substantial evidence or is based on legal error.” Hill v. Astrue, 698 F.3d 1144, 13 1158-59 (9th Cir. 2012) (citing § 405(g)). In reviewing a denial of benefits, a 14 district court may not substitute its judgment for that of the ALJ. Matney v. 15 Sullivan, 981 F.2d 1016, 1019 (9th Cir. 1992). When the ALJ presents a reasonable 16 interpretation that is supported by the evidence, it is not the role of the courts to 17 second-guess it. Rollins v. Massanari, 261 F.3d 853, 857 (9th Cir. 2001). Even if 18 the evidence in the record is susceptible to more than one rational interpretation, if 19 inferences reasonably drawn from the record support the ALJ’s decision, then the 20 ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ~ 4 1 court must uphold that decision. Molina v. Astrue, 674 F.3d 1104, 1111 (9th Cir. 2 2012); see also Thomas v. Barnhart, 278 F.3d 947, 954 (9th Cir. 2002). 3 IV. 4 Statement of Facts The facts of the case are set forth in detail in the transcript of proceedings 5 and only briefly summarized here. Plaintiff was 41 years old on the alleged date of 6 onset, which the regulations define as a younger person. AR 86; see 20 C.F.R. § 7 404.1563(c). She attended school through the ninth grade, obtained her GED, and 8 can communicate in English. AR 64, 230-31. Plaintiff has past work as a motel 9 housekeeper and janitor. AR 35, 245-49, 783. 10 VI. 11 Issues for Review2 Plaintiff argues that the Commissioner’s decision is not free of legal error 12 and not supported by substantial evidence. ECF No. 12 at 18. Specifically, she 13 argues the ALJ: (1) failed to credit Dr. Severinghaus’s opinion as required by the 14 Court’s prior remand order, and (2) improperly evaluated and weighed the medical 15 opinion evidence. Id. 16 /// 17 /// 18 /// 19 20 2 The Court would ordinarily outline the Commissioner’s five-step sequential evaluation process as well as the ALJ’s findings with respect to each step. However, because Plaintiff raises issues that are not substantively related to the sequential evaluation process, this recitation is unnecessary in this case. ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ~ 5 1 2 VII. Discussion A. The ALJ Credited Dr. Severinghaus’s Opinion as Required by this Court’s Remand Order 3 Plaintiff argues that the ALJ did not credit Dr. Severinghaus’s opinion. ECF 4 No. 12 at 15. Specifically, Plaintiff contends that the psychological medical expert 5 who testified at the most recent hearing, Nancy Winfrey, Ph.D., was not aware 6 that: (1) Dr. Severinghaus diagnosed Plaintiff with posttraumatic stress disorder, 7 and (2) treating physician Dr. Lahtinen documented Plaintiff’s depression and also 8 agreed with Dr. Arnold’s findings. Id. at 15-16. 9 However, the ALJ credited Dr. Severinghaus’s opinion. See AR 562 (“Per 10 the remand order, “credit” is being given to the opinions and findings of Dr. 11 Severinghaus.”). Plaintiff does not identify any portion of the ALJ’s updated 12 residual functional capacity finding that conflicts with Dr. Severinghaus’s opinion. 13 See ECF No. 12 at 15-16 14 In order to fully incorporate Dr. Severinghaus’s report into the residual 15 functional capacity pursuant to the remand order, the ALJ asked Dr. Winfrey to 16 explain portions of his report. See AR 584-587. Dr. Winfrey testified that Dr. 17 Severinghaus’s testing was “very good” but that his test results simply did not 18 reveal significant impairments. AR 584 (“There isn’t much wrong here”). 19 Accordingly, Dr. Winfrey opined that, assuming the truth of Dr. Severinghaus’s 20 ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ~ 6 1 findings and opinions, Plaintiff did not have any work restrictions stemming from 2 her mental impairment. AR 586. 3 Plaintiff first argues that Dr. Winfrey was not aware that Dr. Severinghaus 4 diagnosed Plaintiff with posttraumatic stress disorder. ECF No. 12 at 15. However, 5 Dr. Severinghaus only suspected PTSD. See AR 505. Dr. Winfrey acknowledged 6 these suspicions but explained, “Yeah, that’s not a diagnosis.” AR 590. 7 Plaintiff also argues that Dr. Winfrey was not aware that treating physician 8 Dr. Lahtinen documented Plaintiff’s depression and also agreed with Dr. Arnold’s 9 findings. ECF No. 12 at 15-16. However, it is unclear how Dr. Winfrey’s 10 awareness of or understanding of Dr. Lahtinen’s opinions is relevant. Plaintiff fails 11 to explain how this has any bearing on the way the ALJ interpreted or credited Dr. 12 Severinghaus’s opinion. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s contention that the ALJ failed to 13 credit Dr. Severinghaus’s opinion is without merit. 14 B. 15 Plaintiff argues that the ALJ erred in evaluating and weighing the medical 16 opinion evidence. ECF No. 12 at 16-17. However, Plaintiff does not provide any 17 analysis or explanation as to why she believes the ALJ improperly considered or 18 rejected any provider’s opinion. Id. Rather, Plaintiff articulates the standard for 19 rejecting the contradicted testimony of a treating or examining doctor (the “specific The ALJ did not Err in Weighing the Medical Opinion Evidence 20 ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ~ 7 1 and legitimate” standard) and then simply states, “here, that was not done.”3 ECF 2 No. 12 at 16. 3 The record, however, belies Plaintiff’s bald assertion. The ALJ, over eleven 4 single-spaced pages, summarized Plaintiff’s voluminous treatment records and the 5 findings and opinions of her many medical providers. See AR 552-562. The ALJ 6 explained in detail which medical opinions he found persuasive, which ones he did 7 not, and why he found each one either persuasive or unpersuasive. See AR 561-62. 8 For example, the ALJ assigned great weight to the opinions of providers who had 9 access to the longitudinal treatment record, who were specialists, who had 10 extensive Social Security program knowledge, or who were subject to cross- 11 examination. See AR 561. The ALJ gave less weight to the opinions of medical 12 providers whose evaluations were connected to Plaintiff’s application for state 13 welfare assistance, who gave opinions that conflicted with their own examination 14 findings, who relied on invalid or embellished assessments, who failed to 15 sufficiently explain their opinions, or who did not review Plaintiff’s historical 16 treatment records. See AR 561-62. Thus, contrary to Plaintiff’s conclusory 17 assertion, the ALJ set out a detailed and thorough summary of the facts and 18 19 3 20 Plaintiff briefly mentions, without analysis or discussion, that the ALJ erred in discounting the opinions of Drs. Lahtinen and Arnold. ECF No. 12 at 15. However, the Court specifically considered and rejected these arguments in its prior remand order. See AR 670-672. ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ~ 8 1 conflicting evidence, stated his interpretation thereof, and made findings. The ALJ 2 therefore satisfied the “specific and legitimate” standard. 3 VIII. Order 4 Having reviewed the record and the ALJ’s findings, the Court finds the 5 ALJ’s decision is supported by substantial evidence and is free from legal error. 6 Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED: 7 1. Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 12, is DENIED. 8 2. Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 13, is 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 GRANTED. 3. Judgment shall be entered in favor of Defendant and the file shall be CLOSED. IT IS SO ORDERED. The District Court Executive is directed to enter this Order, forward copies to counsel, and close the file. DATED this 30th day of December, 2019. s/Robert H. Whaley ROBERT H. WHALEY Senior United States District Judge 17 18 19 20 ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ~ 9
]]>
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.
