Draggoo v. Kijakazi, No. 2:2021cv00273 - Document 16 (E.D. Wash. 2022)

Court Description: ORDER denying Plaintiff's 11 Motion for Summary Judgment and granting Defendant's 14 Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by Judge Thomas O. Rice. (BF, Paralegal)

Download PDF

Draggoo v. Kijakazi Doc. 16 Case 2:21-cv-00273-TOR ECF No. 16 filed 06/23/22 PageID.1010 Page 1 of 16 1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 6 7 DARCEY D. NO: 2:21-CV-0273-TOR Plaintiff, 8 9 10 v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT 11 Defendant. 12 BEFORE THE COURT are the parties’ cross motions for summary 13 14 judgment (ECF Nos. 11, 14). The motions were submitted for consideration 15 without oral argument. The Court has reviewed the administrative record and the 16 parties’ completed briefing and is fully informed. For the reasons discussed below, 17 Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 11) is DENIED, and 18 Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 14) is GRANTED. 19 // 20 // ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT~ 1 Dockets.Justia.com Case 2:21-cv-00273-TOR 1 2 3 4 ECF No. 16 filed 06/23/22 PageID.1011 Page 2 of 16 JURISDICTION The Court has jurisdiction over this case pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). STANDARD OF REVIEW A district court’s review of a final decision of the Commissioner of Social 5 Security is governed by 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). The scope of review under § 405(g) is 6 limited: the Commissioner’s decision will be disturbed “only if it is not supported 7 by substantial evidence or is based on legal error.” Hill v. Astrue, 698 F.3d 1153, 8 1158 (9th Cir. 2012) (citing 42 U.S.C. § 405(g)). “Substantial evidence” means 9 relevant evidence that “a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a 10 conclusion.” Id. at 1159 (quotation and citation omitted). Stated differently, 11 substantial evidence equates to “more than a mere scintilla[,] but less than a 12 preponderance.” Id. In determining whether this standard has been satisfied, a 13 reviewing court must consider the entire record as a whole rather than searching 14 for supporting evidence in isolation. Id. 15 In reviewing a denial of benefits, a district court may not substitute its 16 judgment for that of the Commissioner. If the evidence in the record “is 17 susceptible to more than one rational interpretation, [the court] must uphold the 18 ALJ’s findings if they are supported by inferences reasonably drawn from the 19 record.” Molina v. Astrue, 674 F.3d 1104, 1111 (9th Cir. 2012) (citation omitted). 20 Further, a district court “may not reverse an ALJ’s decision on account of an error ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT~ 2 Case 2:21-cv-00273-TOR ECF No. 16 filed 06/23/22 PageID.1012 Page 3 of 16 1 that is harmless.” Id. An error is harmless “where it is inconsequential to the 2 [ALJ’s] ultimate nondisability determination.” Id. at 1115 (quotation and citation 3 omitted). The party appealing the ALJ’s decision generally bears the burden of 4 establishing that it was harmed. Shinseki v. Sanders, 556 U.S. 396, 409–10 (2009). 5 FIVE-STEP SEQUENTIAL EVALUATION PROCESS 6 A claimant must satisfy two conditions to be considered “disabled” within 7 the meaning of the Social Security Act. First, the claimant must be “unable to 8 engage in any substantial gainful activity by reason of any medically determinable 9 physical or mental impairment which can be expected to result in death or which 10 has lasted or can be expected to last for a continuous period of not less than twelve 11 months.” 42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(1)(A). Second, the claimant’s impairment must be 12 “of such severity that he is not only unable to do his previous work[,] but cannot, 13 considering his age, education, and work experience, engage in any other kind of 14 substantial gainful work which exists in the national economy.” 42 U.S.C. 15 § 423(d)(2)(A). 16 The Commissioner has established a five-step sequential analysis to 17 determine whether a claimant satisfies the above criteria. See 20 C.F.R. § 18 404.1520(a)(4)(i)–(v). At step one, the Commissioner considers the claimant’s 19 work activity. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(i). If the claimant is engaged in 20 “substantial gainful activity,” the Commissioner must find that the claimant is not ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT~ 3 Case 2:21-cv-00273-TOR 1 2 ECF No. 16 filed 06/23/22 PageID.1013 Page 4 of 16 disabled. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(b). If the claimant is not engaged in substantial gainful activities, the analysis 3 proceeds to step two. At this step, the Commissioner considers the severity of the 4 claimant’s impairment. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(ii). If the claimant suffers 5 from “any impairment or combination of impairments which significantly limits 6 [his or her] physical or mental ability to do basic work activities,” the analysis 7 proceeds to step three. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(c). If the claimant’s impairment 8 does not satisfy this severity threshold, however, the Commissioner must find that 9 the claimant is not disabled. Id. 10 At step three, the Commissioner compares the claimant’s impairment to 11 several impairments recognized by the Commissioner to be so severe as to 12 preclude a person from engaging in substantial gainful activity. 20 C.F.R. § 13 404.1520(a)(4)(iii). If the impairment is as severe, or more severe than one of the 14 enumerated impairments, the Commissioner must find the claimant disabled and 15 award benefits. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(d). 16 If the severity of the claimant’s impairment does meet or exceed the severity 17 of the enumerated impairments, the Commissioner must pause to assess the 18 claimant’s “residual functional capacity.” Residual functional capacity (“RFC”), 19 defined generally as the claimant’s ability to perform physical and mental work 20 activities on a sustained basis despite his or her limitations (20 C.F.R. § ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT~ 4 Case 2:21-cv-00273-TOR 1 2 ECF No. 16 filed 06/23/22 PageID.1014 Page 5 of 16 404.1545(a)(1)), is relevant to both the fourth and fifth steps of the analysis. At step four, the Commissioner considers whether, in view of the claimant’s 3 RFC, the claimant is capable of performing work that he or she has performed in 4 the past (“past relevant work”). 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(iv). If the claimant is 5 capable of performing past relevant work, the Commissioner must find that the 6 claimant is not disabled. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(f). If the claimant is incapable of 7 performing such work, the analysis proceeds to step five. 8 At step five, the Commissioner considers whether, in view of the claimant’s 9 RFC, the claimant is capable of performing other work in the national economy. 10 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(v). In making this determination, the Commissioner 11 must also consider vocational factors such as the claimant’s age, education and 12 work experience. Id. If the claimant is capable of adjusting to other work, the 13 Commissioner must find that the claimant is not disabled. 20 C.F.R. § 14 404.1520(g)(1). If the claimant is not capable of adjusting to other work, the 15 analysis concludes with a finding that the claimant is disabled and is therefore 16 entitled to benefits. Id. 17 The claimant bears the burden of proof at steps one through four above. 18 Bray v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 554 F.3d 1219, 1228 (9th Cir. 2009). If the 19 analysis proceeds to step five, the burden shifts to the Commissioner to establish 20 that (1) the claimant is capable of performing other work; and (2) such work ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT~ 5 Case 2:21-cv-00273-TOR ECF No. 16 filed 06/23/22 PageID.1015 Page 6 of 16 1 “exists in significant numbers in the national economy.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1560(c); 2 Beltran v. Astrue, 700 F.3d 386, 389 (9th Cir. 2012). 3 4 ALJ’S FINDINGS Plaintiff initially applied for a period of disability and disability insurance 5 benefits (Title II) on October 24, 2016, alleging disability beginning April 1, 2015. 6 Tr. 147. The claim was denied initially on July 21, 2017, and upon reconsideration 7 on October 23, 2017. Id. Plaintiff requested a hearing. Id. A telephonic hearing 8 was held before an administrative law judge (“ALJ”) on October 23, 2018. Id. On 9 November 30, 2018, the ALJ denied Plaintiff’s claim. Tr. 159. The Appeals 10 Council remanded the decision on April 29, 2020, directing the claim file be 11 updated and ordering a new hearing that included a medical expert. Tr. 15. 12 A second telephonic hearing was held on July 23, 2020 before a different 13 ALJ. Id. Plaintiff amended her alleged onset date to January 1, 2016. Id. On 14 September 18, 2020, the ALJ denied Plaintiff’s claim. Tr. 26. The Appeals 15 Council denied the request for review on July 15, 2021. Tr. 1. The ALJ’s decision 16 became the final decision and is subject to judicial review. 20 C.F.R. § 404.981. 17 As a threshold matter, the ALJ found Plaintiff met the insured status 18 requirements of the Social Security Act through December 31, 2022. Tr. 18. At 19 step one, the ALJ found that Plaintiff had not engaged in substantial gainful 20 activity since January 1, 2016, the amended alleged onset date. Id. At step two, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT~ 6 Case 2:21-cv-00273-TOR ECF No. 16 filed 06/23/22 PageID.1016 Page 7 of 16 1 the ALJ found Plaintiff had the following severe impairment: migraine headaches. 2 Id. At step three, the ALJ found Plaintiff did not have an impairment or 3 combination of impairments that meets or medically equals the severity of a listed 4 impairment. Tr. 21. The ALJ then found Plaintiff had a residual functional 5 capacity to perform a full range of light work with the following limitations: 6 [Plaintiff] is unable to climb ladders, ropes, and scaffolds and she should avoid exposure to all industrial bright lights, loud noise, and all hazards (such an unprotected heights and moving or dangerous machinery), and she cannot be consistently exposed to dusty environments or noxious fumes. 7 8 9 10 Id. At step four, the ALJ found Plaintiff was capable of performing past relevant 11 work as an assembler, dispatcher, or cashier-checker. Tr. 25. The ALJ concluded 12 Plaintiff was not under a disability, as defined in the Social Security Act, from 13 January 1, 2016, the amended alleged onset date, through September 18, 2020, the 14 date of the ALJ’s decision. Tr. 26. 15 ISSUES 16 Plaintiff seeks judicial review of the ALJ’s final decision denying her 17 disability insurance benefits under Title II of the Social Security Act. Plaintiff 18 raises the following issues: 19 20 1. Whether the ALJ erred by rejecting the medical opinion of Dr. William Bender, M.D.; and ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT~ 7 Case 2:21-cv-00273-TOR 1 filed 06/23/22 PageID.1017 Page 8 of 16 2. Whether the ALJ erred by rejecting Plaintiff’s subjective symptom 2 testimony. 3 ECF No. 11 at 5. DISCUSSION 4 5 ECF No. 16 A. Medical Opinion 6 Plaintiff argues the ALJ erred in rejecting the medical opinion of Dr. 7 William Bender, M.D. by not providing specific and legitimate reasons supported 8 by the record as a whole. ECF No. 11 at 11. 9 There are three types of physicians: “(1) those who treat the claimant 10 (treating physicians); (2) those who examine but do not treat the claimant 11 (examining physicians); and (3) those who neither examine nor treat the claimant 12 [but who review the claimant’s file] (nonexamining [or reviewing] physicians).” 13 Holohan v. Massanari, 246 F.3d 1195, 1201–02 (9th Cir. 2001) (citations omitted). 14 Generally, the opinion of a treating physician carries more weight than the opinion 15 of an examining physician, and the opinion of an examining physician carries more 16 weight than the opinion of a reviewing physician. Id. In addition, the 17 Commissioner’s regulations give more weight to opinions that are explained than 18 to opinions that are not, and to the opinions of specialists on matters relating to 19 their area of expertise over the opinions of non-specialists. Id. (citations omitted). 20 ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT~ 8 Case 2:21-cv-00273-TOR 1 ECF No. 16 filed 06/23/22 PageID.1018 Page 9 of 16 If a treating or examining physician’s opinion is uncontradicted, an ALJ may 2 reject it only by offering “clear and convincing reasons that are supported by 3 substantial evidence.” Bayliss v. Barnhart, 427 F.3d 1211, 1216 (9th Cir. 2005). 4 “However, the ALJ need not accept the opinion of any physician, including a 5 treating physician, if that opinion is brief, conclusory, and inadequately supported 6 by clinical findings.” Bray v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec, 554 F.3d 1229, 1228 (9th Cir. 7 2000) (internal quotation marks and brackets omitted). An ALJ may only reject 8 the opinion of a treating or examining doctor by providing specific and legitimate 9 reasons that are supported by a substantial weight of the evidence, even if that 10 opinion is contradicted by another doctor. Lester v. Chater, 81 F.3d 821, 830–831 11 (9th Cir. 1995). The opinion of a nonexamining physician may serve as substantial 12 evidence if it is supported by other independent evidence in the record. Andrews v. 13 Shalala, 53 F.3d 1035, 1041 (9th Cir. 1995). 14 Dr. Bender was a treating physician who opined in two medical reports from 15 2017 and 2018 that Plaintiff would miss more than four days of work per month, 16 would be off task and unproductive 25% or more of the workday, and had typical 17 environmental limitations associated with migraine headaches. Tr. 25. The ALJ 18 gave partial or limited weight to Dr. Bender’s assessment, finding Plaintiff’s 19 medical records as a whole did not support the assessment. Id. Specifically, the 20 ALJ noted Plaintiff reported in 2017 she was able to care for her dog, engage in ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT~ 9 Case 2:21-cv-00273-TOR ECF No. 16 filed 06/23/22 PageID.1019 Page 10 of 16 1 out-of-state travel and long drives, and perform household chores, which was not 2 consistent with the limitations outlined by Dr. Bender. Id. (citations to the record 3 omitted). The record also lacked related neurological defects, such as gait 4 abnormalities, strength deficits, or sensation deficits. Id. (citations to the record 5 omitted). Additionally, Plaintiff’s other care providers rarely observed her to be in 6 more than mild distress. Id. (citations to the record omitted). 7 The ALJ further noted the frequency and duration of Plaintiff’s headaches, 8 as reported by Dr. Bender, was not consistent with other reports in the record, and 9 therefore, it was difficult to determine precisely how many days per month she 10 would not be able to work. Tr. 24. Relevant factors to evaluating any medical 11 opinion include the amount of relevant evidence that supports the opinion, the 12 quality of the explanation provided in the opinion, and the consistency of the 13 medical opinion with the record as a whole. Lingenfelter v. Astrue, 504 F.3d 1028, 14 1042 (9th Cir. 2007); Orn v. Astrue, 495 F.3d 625, 631 (9th Cir. 2007). 15 Finally, Dr. Bender’s opinion was provided in a check-mark form and 16 contained very little explanation to support his findings. See Tr. 455, 815–819. As 17 the Ninth Circuit has stated, an ALJ may “permissibly reject . . . check-off reports 18 that do not contain any explanation of the bases of their conclusions.” Molina, 674 19 F.3d at 1111 (internal brackets and citation omitted). Thus, the Court finds the 20 ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT~ 10 Case 2:21-cv-00273-TOR ECF No. 16 filed 06/23/22 PageID.1020 Page 11 of 16 1 ALJ properly gave limited weight to Dr. Bender’s opinion and provided “specific, 2 legitimate reasons based on substantial evidence in the record” for doing so. Id. 3 4 B. Plaintiff’s Symptom Testimony Plaintiff argues the ALJ erred in rejecting her subjective symptom testimony 5 and failed to provide specific, clear and convincing reasons supported by 6 substantial evidence. ECF No. 11 at 19. 7 An ALJ engages in a two-step analysis to determine whether a claimant’s 8 subjective symptom testimony can be reasonably accepted as consistent with the 9 objective medical and other evidence in the claimant’s record. SSR 16-3p, 2016 10 WL 1119029, at *2. “First, the ALJ must determine whether there is ‘objective 11 medical evidence of an underlying impairment which could reasonably be 12 expected to produce the pain or other symptoms alleged.’” Molina, 674 F.3d at 13 1112 (quoting Vasquez v. Astrue, 572 F.3d 586, 591 (9th Cir. 2009)). “The 14 claimant is not required to show that her impairment ‘could reasonably be expected 15 to cause the severity of the symptom she has alleged; she need only show that it 16 could reasonably have caused some degree of the symptom.’” Vasquez, 572 F.3d 17 at 591 (quoting Lingenfelter v. Astrue, 504 F.3d 1028, 1035–36 (9th Cir. 2007)). 18 Second, “[i]f the claimant meets the first test and there is no evidence of 19 malingering, the ALJ can only reject the claimant’s testimony about the severity of 20 the symptoms if [the ALJ] gives ‘specific, clear and convincing reasons’ for the ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT~ 11 Case 2:21-cv-00273-TOR ECF No. 16 filed 06/23/22 PageID.1021 Page 12 of 16 1 rejection.” Ghanim v. Colvin, 763 F.3d 1154, 1163 (9th Cir. 2014) (citations 2 omitted). General findings are insufficient; rather, the ALJ must identify what 3 symptom claims are being discounted and what evidence undermines these claims. 4 Id. (quoting Lester v. Chater, 81 F.3d 821, 834 (9th Cir. 1995)); Thomas v. 5 Barnhart, 278 F.3d 947, 958 (9th Cir. 2002) (requiring the ALJ to sufficiently 6 explain why he or she discounted claimant’s symptom claims). “The clear and 7 convincing [evidence] standard is the most demanding required in Social Security 8 cases.” Garrison v. Colvin, 759 F.3d 995, 1015 (9th Cir. 2014) (quoting Moore v. 9 Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 278 F.3d 920, 924 (9th Cir. 2002)). 10 The ALJ is instructed to “consider all of the evidence in an individual’s 11 record,” “to determine how symptoms limit ability to perform work-related 12 activities.” SSR 16-3p, 2016 WL 1119029, at *2. When evaluating the intensity, 13 persistence, and limiting effects of a claimant’s symptoms, the following factors 14 should be considered: (1) daily activities; (2) the location, duration, frequency, and 15 intensity of pain or other symptoms; (3) factors that precipitate and aggravate the 16 symptoms; (4) the type, dosage, effectiveness, and side effects of any medication 17 an individual takes or has taken to alleviate pain or other symptoms; (5) treatment, 18 other than medication, an individual receives or has received for relief of pain or 19 other symptoms; (6) any measures other than treatment an individual uses or has 20 used to relieve pain or other symptoms; and (7) any other factors concerning an ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT~ 12 Case 2:21-cv-00273-TOR ECF No. 16 filed 06/23/22 PageID.1022 Page 13 of 16 1 individual’s functional limitations and restrictions due to pain or other symptoms. 2 SSR 16-3p, 2016 WL 1119029, at *7–8; 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3). 3 Here, the ALJ found Plaintiff’s impairments could reasonably be expected to 4 cause the alleged symptoms; however, Plaintiff’s statements concerning the 5 intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of those symptoms were not entirely 6 consistent with the evidence. Tr. 22. In arriving at this conclusion, the ALJ 7 considered several of the factors described above. 8 9 First, the ALJ found there was no objective medical evidence to support the alleged duration, frequency, and intensity of Plaintiff’s headaches. Id. Plaintiff 10 argued her employment history showed her absences from work, but there was no 11 evidence to corroborate that the absences were caused by her headaches. Id. 12 Moreover, an earlier care provider indicated her headaches may have been related 13 to her mental health and recommended mental health treatment. Id. Plaintiff 14 disagreed. Id. Notably, Plaintiff has not sought any additional treatment, other 15 than medication, for her migraines. Tr. 18. An ALJ may not discredit a claimant’s 16 symptom testimony and deny benefits solely because the degree of the symptoms 17 alleged is not supported by objective medical evidence. Rollins v. Massanari, 261 18 F.3d 853, 857 (9th Cir. 2001); Bunnell v. Sullivan, 947 F.2d 341, 346–47 (9th Cir. 19 1991); Fair v. Bowen, 885 F.2d 597, 601 (9th Cir. 1989). However, the objective 20 medical evidence is a relevant factor, along with the medical source’s information ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT~ 13 Case 2:21-cv-00273-TOR ECF No. 16 filed 06/23/22 PageID.1023 Page 14 of 16 1 about the claimant’s pain or other symptoms, in determining the severity of a 2 claimant’s symptoms and their disabling effects. Rollins, 261 F.3d at 857; 20 3 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(2). 4 As to her daily activities, Plaintiff indicated she was independent and 5 enjoyed playing with her dog and go-carting with her husband. Tr. 18. She also 6 stated she was able to perform household chores such as laundry, cleaning, and 7 dishes, and that she was able to care for her own hygiene. Tr. 20. Plaintiff 8 testified that she attended church services. Id. While the Ninth Circuit has 9 cautioned against reliance on “certain daily activities, such as grocery shopping, 10 driving a car, or limited walking for exercise” to discount a plaintiff’s symptom 11 allegations, the ALJ here considered other factors and found additional reasons for 12 discrediting Plaintiff’s subjective symptom testimony. Vertigan v. Halter, 260 13 F.3d 1044, 1050 (9th Cir. 2001). 14 Regarding type, dosage, side effects, and efficacy of medication, the ALJ 15 noted Plaintiff had success with oxycodone. Tr. 23. In July 2019, Plaintiff 16 reported having “headache free days again.” Id. In November 2019, Plaintiff 17 stated she was grateful for the variety of medication that allowed her to have better 18 quality of life. Id. Although Plaintiff recently indicated she felt the oxycodone 19 may have become less effective due to long term use, she declined to try Vicodin 20 or Percocet as alternatives. Id. Finally, Plaintiff indicated her headaches were ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT~ 14 Case 2:21-cv-00273-TOR ECF No. 16 filed 06/23/22 PageID.1024 Page 15 of 16 1 adequately managed by the medication. Id. “Impairments that can be controlled 2 effectively with medication are not disabling for the purpose of determining 3 eligibility for SSI benefits.” Warre v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 439 F.3d 1001, 4 1006 (9th Cir. 2006). As a final consideration, the ALJ looked to SSR 19-4p, which states that 5 6 consistency and supportability between a claimant’s reported symptoms and 7 objective medical evidence is key in assessing RFC. SSR 19-4p, 2019 WL 8 4169635, at *7 (Aug. 26, 2019). The ALJ noted Plaintiff’s medical records did not 9 reflect any other listed symptomatology, such as speech/language, motor, or 10 sensory deficits associated with migraines. Tr. 23. Consequently, Plaintiff’s 11 symptoms were not supported or consistent with the objective medical evidence. 12 Id. 13 The ALJ’s conclusion that Plaintiff’s subjective symptom testimony 14 conflicted with the evidence was clear, convincing, and properly supported by 15 substantial evidence. Where the ALJ’s interpretation of the record is reasonable as 16 it is here, it should not be second-guessed. Rollins, 261 F.3d at 857. CONCLUSION 17 18 Having reviewed the record and the ALJ’s findings, this Court concludes 19 that the ALJ’s decision is supported by substantial evidence and free of harmful 20 legal error. ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT~ 15 Case 2:21-cv-00273-TOR 1 ECF No. 16 filed 06/23/22 PageID.1025 Page 16 of 16 ACCORDINGLY, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 2 1. Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 12) is DENIED 3 2. Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 13) is 4 5 6 7 GRANTED. The District Court Executive is directed to file this Order, enter Judgment for Defendant, provide copies to counsel, and CLOSE this file. DATED June 30, 2022. 8 9 THOMAS O. RICE United States District Judge 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT~ 16

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.