Garcia v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration
Filing
14
ORDER - The final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security is vacated and this case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this order. The Clerk shall enter judgment accordingly and terminate this action. Signed by Senior Judge David G Campbell on 8/10/18. (DXD)
1
WO
2
3
4
5
6
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
8
9
Jonathan Garcia,
Plaintiff,
10
11
ORDER
v.
12
No. CV-18-00091-PHX-DGC
Commissioner of Social Security
Administration,
13
Defendant.
14
15
16
Plaintiff Jonathan Garcia seeks review under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) of the final
17
decision of the Commissioner of Social Security, which denied him disability insurance
18
benefits under sections 216(i) and 223(d) of the Social Security Act.
19
administrative law judge’s (“ALJ”) opinion contains reversible error, the Court will
20
remand for further proceedings.
21
I.
Because the
Background.
22
Plaintiff is a 55 year old male who previously worked as an account manager,
23
financial counselor, food preparer, lab technician, material handler, singer, and polisher.
24
A.R. 129, 176. Plaintiff applied for disability insurance benefits on September 20, 2013,
25
alleging disability beginning on February 19, 2013. A.R. 129-31. On May 3, 2016,
26
Plaintiff appeared and testified at a hearing before an ALJ.
27
August 25, 2016, the ALJ issued a decision that Plaintiff was not disabled within the
28
meaning of the Social Security Act. A.R. 13-23. This became the Commissioner’s final
A.R. 30-41.
On
1
decision when the Appeals Council denied Plaintiff’s request for review on
2
November 14, 2017. A.R. 1-3.
3
II.
Legal Standard.
4
The district court reviews only those issues raised by the party challenging the
5
ALJ’s decision. See Lewis v. Apfel, 236 F.3d 503, 517 n.13 (9th Cir. 2001). The Court
6
may set aside the Commissioner’s disability determination only if the determination is
7
not supported by substantial evidence or is based on legal error. Orn v. Astrue, 495
8
F.3d 625, 630 (9th Cir. 2007). Substantial evidence is more than a scintilla, less than a
9
preponderance, and relevant evidence that a reasonable person might accept as adequate
10
to support a conclusion considering the record as a whole. Id. In determining whether
11
substantial evidence supports a decision, the Court must consider the record as a whole
12
and may not affirm simply by isolating a “specific quantum of supporting evidence.” Id.
13
(internal citations and quotation marks omitted). As a general rule, “[w]here the evidence
14
is susceptible to more than one rational interpretation, one of which supports the ALJ’s
15
decision, the ALJ’s conclusion must be upheld.” Thomas v. Barnhart, 278 F.3d 947, 954
16
(9th Cir. 2002) (citations omitted). Harmless error principles apply in the Social Security
17
context. Molina v. Astrue, 674 F.3d 1104, 1115 (9th Cir. 2012). An error is harmless if
18
there remains substantial evidence supporting the ALJ’s decision and the error does not
19
affect the ultimate nondisability determination. Id.
20
The ALJ is responsible for resolving conflicts in medical testimony, determining
21
credibility, and resolving ambiguities. Andrews v. Shalala, 53 F.3d 1035, 1039 (9th
22
Cir. 1995). In reviewing the ALJ’s reasoning, the Court is “not deprived of [its] faculties
23
for drawing specific and legitimate inferences from the ALJ’s opinion.” Magallanes v.
24
Bowen, 881 F.2d 747, 755 (9th Cir. 1989).
25
III.
The ALJ’s Five-Step Evaluation Process.
26
To determine whether a claimant is disabled for purposes of the Social Security
27
Act, the ALJ follows a five-step process. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a). The claimant bears
28
the burden of proof on the first four steps, and the burden shifts to the Commissioner at
-2-
1
step five. Tackett v. Apfel, 180 F.3d 1094, 1098 (9th Cir. 1999). To establish disability,
2
the claimant must show that (1) he is not currently working, (2) he has a severe
3
impairment, and (3) this impairment meets or equals a listed impairment or (4) his
4
residual functional capacity (“RFC”) prevents his performance of any past relevant work.
5
If the claimant meets his burden through step three, the Commissioner must find him
6
disabled. If the inquiry proceeds to step four and the claimant shows that he is incapable
7
of performing past relevant work, the Commissioner must show at step five that the
8
claimant is capable of other work suitable for his RFC, age, education, and work
9
experience. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4).
10
At step one, the ALJ found that Plaintiff met the insured status requirements of the
11
Social Security Act through September 30, 2018, and had not engaged in substantial
12
gainful activity since February 19, 2013. A.R. 15. At step two, the ALJ found that
13
Plaintiff had the following severe impairments: diabetes mellitus II, peripheral
14
neuropathy, ischemic heart disease, and bilateral carpal tunnel. Id. The ALJ also noted
15
the
16
hypertension, obesity, depression, and anxiety. A.R. 16-17. At step three, the ALJ
17
determined that Plaintiff did not have an impairment or combination of impairments that
18
meets or medically equals a listed impairment. A.R. 17. At step four, the ALJ found that
19
Plaintiff had the RFC to perform light work with some additional limitations, and
20
Plaintiff was unable to perform his past relevant work. A.R. 17-21. At step five, the ALJ
21
concluded that, considering Plaintiff’s age, education, work experience, and RFC, he
22
could perform a significant numbers of jobs in the national economy. A.R. 22.
23
IV.
24
25
following
medically
determinable
but
non-severe
impairments:
essential
Analysis.
Plaintiff argues that the ALJ erred by discrediting his symptom testimony and the
opinion of his treating orthopedist, Dr. Humberto Galleno. Doc. 11.
26
A.
27
Dr. Galleno saw Plaintiff multiple times in 2013 to evaluate and treat pain in his
28
Dr. Galleno.
right hand and wrist.
A.R. 409-36; 548-75.
-3-
In May 2013, Dr. Galleno diagnosed
1
Plaintiff with bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome that was greater on the right side and
2
limited Plaintiff to lifting no more than five pounds and no repetitive grasping, gripping,
3
or torsional movements of his right hand or wrist. A.R. 413. In September 2013, Dr.
4
Galleno issued a final report opining that Plaintiff had “achieved maximal medical
5
improvement” and was limited to lifting ten pounds with his right hand and no repetitive
6
grasping, gripping, or torsional movements of his right hand or wrist. A.R. 417.
7
The ALJ’s decision does not mention Dr. Galleno by name, but briefly mentions
8
his opinion, stating:
9
precluded from lifting, pushing, carrying with the right hand over 10 pounds with no
10
repetitive grasping and gripping, no repetitive torsional movements of the right hand and
11
no use of laboratory instruments.” A.R. 19. This sentence appears in a paragraph where
12
the ALJ summarizes various medical records and findings regarding Plaintiff’s carpal
13
tunnel syndrome.
14
limitations were not included in Plaintiff’s RFC.
Id.
“On September 12, 2013, the record shows the claimant was
The ALJ provides no explanation as to why Dr. Galleno’s
15
Defendant does not dispute that Dr. Galleno is a treating physician, but argues that
16
any error in failing to address Dr. Galleno’s opinions is harmless because the ALJ
17
“credited the reliable later opinion of examining physician Afra Sohail, M.D.,” who
18
found that Plaintiff had no restrictions in the use of his hands.
19
A.R. 469-74. The Court does not agree.
Doc. 12 at 4; see
20
“Where an ALJ does not explicitly reject a medical opinion or set forth specific,
21
legitimate reasons for crediting one medical opinion over another, he errs.” Garrison v.
22
Colvin, 759 F.3d 995, 1012 (9th Cir. 2014).
23
physician’s opinion that supports the RFC does not discharge the ALJ’s obligation to
24
provide reasons for rejecting a treating physician’s opinion. See id.; Nguyen v. Chater,
25
100 F.3d 1462, 1464 (9th Cir. 1996) (“We hold that the ALJ erred because he neither
26
explicitly rejected the opinion of [the examining physician], nor set forth specific,
27
legitimate reasons for crediting [the non-examining physician] over [the examining
28
physician].”)). The ALJ failed to indicate how much weight he assigned to Dr. Galleno’s
-4-
Thus, an ALJ’s crediting of another
1
medical opinions or give any reason for rejecting his functional limitations. This was
2
clear error.
3
The Court cannot find the error harmless.
The ALJ’s ultimate nondisability
4
determination is based on an RFC that assumes Plaintiff can frequently finger with both
5
hands and lift 20 pounds occasionally and 10 pounds frequently. This is inconsistent
6
with the limitations Dr. Galleno assessed. The ALJ’s failure to weigh Dr. Galleno’s
7
opinion therefore may have affected the ultimate nondisability determination.
8
B.
9
In evaluating a claimant’s symptom testimony, the ALJ must engage in a two-step
10
analysis. First, the ALJ must determine whether the claimant presented objective medical
11
evidence of an impairment that could reasonably be expected to produce the alleged
12
symptoms. Garrison v. Colvin, 759 F.3d 995, 1014 (9th Cir. 2014). The claimant is not
13
required to show that his impairment could reasonably be expected to cause the severity
14
of the symptoms he has alleged, only that it could reasonably have caused some degree of
15
the symptoms. Id. Second, if there is no evidence of malingering, the ALJ may reject the
16
claimant’s symptom testimony only by giving specific, clear, and convincing reasons. Id.
17
at 1015. “This is not an easy requirement to meet: ‘The clear and convincing standard is
18
the most demanding required in Social Security cases.’” Id. (quoting Moore v. Comm’r
19
of Soc. Sec. Admin., 278 F.3d 920, 924 (9th Cir. 2002)).
Symptom Testimony.
20
Plaintiff testified that he could not work due to problems with his right hand and
21
weakness and fatigue as a result of his heart attack. A.R. 37. He testified that he had
22
limited grasping and gripping strength in his right hand; his lifting strength varied but
23
sometimes he could not lift a mug1; he got fatigued easily but could walk about two
24
blocks; and he had pain in his right knee. A.R. 37-39. He testified that he lived alone
25
26
27
28
1
The transcript shows that Plaintiff used an item at the hearing to demonstrate his
lifting abilities. See A.R. 38. Plaintiff referred to the item as a “picture,” but his
representative described it as a “mug,” as did the ALJ in his decision. Id.; A.R. 20.
Plaintiff also stated: “If this picture was half way full, it would be difficult [to
consistently] work in that manner.” A.R. 38. It seems most likely that Plaintiff actually
said “pitcher,” but in any event the context makes clear that it was a small, light item.
-5-
1
and was able to drive, work part time, wash dishes, do some cooking, and go on the
2
internet. A.R. 40. In a function report completed two years before the hearing, he stated
3
that he could stand or walk for 15 to 20 minutes before needing to rest; he had difficulty
4
sleeping; he had to use a support bar to maintain balance in the shower; he could drive,
5
shop for personal items two or three times per week, and attend church once per week;
6
and he lived with family and was able to prepare simple meals and help with chores such
7
as feeding the dogs, laundry, and dishes. A.R. 256-64.
8
The ALJ found that Plaintiff’s medically determinable impairments could
9
reasonably be expected to cause the alleged symptoms, but Plaintiff’s “statements
10
concerning the intensity, persistence and limiting effects of these symptoms are not
11
consistent with the medical evidence and other evidence in the record[.]” A.R. 18. The
12
ALJ reasoned that Plaintiff’s testimony was inconsistent with (1) the medical evidence
13
and (2) Plaintiff’s daily activities, and (3) that Plaintiff made “inconsistent statements . . .
14
throughout the disability process.” A.R. 19-20. The ALJ did not find that Plaintiff was
15
malingering.
16
1.
Medical Evidence.
17
After stating that Plaintiff’s testimony was not supported by the medical evidence,
18
the ALJ summarized various medical records. For example, the decision cites records
19
showing that Plaintiff’s diabetes was “without complications” and under control.
20
A.R. 18-19 (citing A.R. 68, 732). One of these records also notes that Plaintiff had
21
“uncontrolled” diabetes. See A.R. 733-34. But even assuming the evidence shows that
22
Plaintiff’s diabetes was controlled, it does not appear that this would be inconsistent with
23
Plaintiff’s testimony because he did not testify to complications resulting from diabetes.
24
The ALJ also summarized records regarding Plaintiff’s heart disease, including
25
records of a quadruple bypass surgery; a chest x-ray showing normal vascularity, clear
26
lung fields, and normal cardiac silhouette (A.R. 487); an echocardiogram showing normal
27
left-sided chamber sizes, mildly diminished left ventricular systolic function, mild wall
28
motion abnormality, pseudo-normal filling pattern, and mild mitral and tricuspid
-6-
1
regurgitation (A.R. 498-99); a record indicating Plaintiff stopped taking his prescription
2
Plavix and switched to aspirin (A.R. 517); a record noting that Plaintiff suffered from
3
“generalized fatigue and malaise” and chest pain, but most symptoms were “more
4
suggestive of atypical/noncardiac etiology” (A.R. 578); and a record noting that he
5
“achieved greater than 89% of the prescribed maximal target heart rate” on treadmill
6
nuclear stress testing. A.R. 19. The ALJ did not explain the significance of these
7
findings or why they would conflict with Plaintiff’s testimony that he suffered from
8
weakness in his legs and general fatigue as a result of this impairment.
9
With respect to Plaintiff’s carpal tunnel condition, the ALJ summarized records of
10
a nerve conduction study revealing bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome and an “uncertain”
11
clinical prognosis (A.R. 567-68); an MRI showing a subchondral cyst in Plaintiff’s fifth
12
metacarpal head (A.R. 295); and an indication that Plaintiff responded well to a cortisone
13
injection (A.R. 416-17).
14
symptoms at a 2014 appointment, including dry eyes, shortness of breath, arm pain,
15
abdominal pain, fever, weight gain or loss, and exercise intolerance.
16
A.R. 518, 520). The ALJ did not explain why these records or Plaintiff’s denial of the
17
noted symptoms undermines his testimony.
A.R. 19.
The ALJ also noted that Plaintiff denied many
Id. (citing
18
Although the decision summarizes medical records that might support the RFC, it
19
includes no analysis as to why the records are inconsistent with Plaintiff’s symptom
20
testimony. The Ninth Circuit has held that “providing a summary of medical evidence in
21
support of a residual functional capacity finding is not the same as providing clear and
22
convincing reasons for finding the claimant’s symptom testimony not credible.” Brown-
23
Hunter v. Colvin, 806 F.3d 487, 494 (9th Cir. 2015). Furthermore, the ALJ had already
24
determined that the symptoms could reasonably be expected to result from Plaintiff’s
25
impairments. Thus, Plaintiff was not required to produce medical records confirming the
26
severity of the symptoms. Garrison, 759 F.3d at 1014; Lester v. Chater, 81 F.3d 821,
27
834 (9th Cir. 1995), as amended (Apr. 9, 1996). The Court cannot conclude that this is a
28
-7-
1
clear and convincing reason to discredit Plaintiff’s testimony because the ALJ failed to
2
explain any specific inconsistency between the medical records and Plaintiff’s testimony.
3
2.
Daily Activities.
4
An ALJ may reject a claimant’s symptom testimony if it is inconsistent with the
5
claimant’s daily activities. See Burch v. Barnhart, 400 F.3d 676, 681 (9th Cir. 2005).
6
But “ALJs must be especially cautious in concluding that daily activities are inconsistent
7
with testimony about pain, because impairments that would unquestionably preclude
8
work and all the pressures of a workplace environment will often be consistent with
9
doing more than merely resting in bed all day.” Garrison, 759 F.3d at 1016. Thus, an
10
ALJ may use a claimant’s daily activities to discredit symptom testimony only if the
11
activities contradict the claimed limitations, or the claimant “spend[s] a substantial part
12
of [her] day engaged in pursuits involving the performance of physical functions that are
13
transferable to a work setting.” Orn, 495 F.3d at 639 (emphasis added); Reddick v.
14
Chater, 157 F.3d 715, 722 (9th Cir. 1998).
15
The ALJ found that Plaintiff’s daily activity level was “minimally limited” and
16
could not “be reconciled with the considerable severity alleged.” A.R. 20. The ALJ
17
noted that in contrast to Plaintiff’s allegation that he could not lift a mug, the record
18
showed that Plaintiff was able to make coffee and meals, shower independently, drive
19
with no problems in his hands, do chores, fill food and water bowls for pets, exercise by
20
walking, work part-time, and play guitar. Id. (citing A.R. 257, 543-44, 715). Plaintiff
21
argues that all of these activities “can easily be accomplished with his left hand[.]”
22
Doc. 11 at 8. But Plaintiff did not qualify his testimony with such a restriction, and the
23
ALJ’s inference that he used both hands was reasonable. See Thomas, 278 F.3d at 954
24
(“Where the evidence is susceptible to more than one rational interpretation, one of which
25
supports the ALJ’s decision, the ALJ’s conclusion must be upheld.”). The ALJ identified
26
specific testimony and daily activities that contradict it. This is a clear and convincing
27
reason to discredit Plaintiff’s testimony regarding the severity of his symptoms.
28
///
-8-
1
3.
Inconsistent Statements.
2
The ALJ stated that Plaintiff made “inconsistent statements . . . throughout the
3
disability process,” but did not elaborate. A.R. 20. The ALJ identified no inconsistencies
4
other than the inconsistency discussed in the preceding section regarding Plaintiff’s daily
5
activities. This is not a separate clear and convincing reason because the ALJ provided
6
no explanation. See Brown-Hunter, 806 F.3d at 495 (“Although the ALJ’s analysis need
7
not be extensive, the ALJ must provide some reasoning in order for us to meaningfully
8
determine whether the ALJ’s conclusions were supported by substantial evidence.”).
9
4.
Conclusion.
10
The ALJ’s first and third reasons for discrediting Plaintiff’s testimony were error.
11
Although the ALJ provided one clear and convincing reason – that specific testimony
12
was inconsistent with Plaintiff’s reported daily activities – the ALJ did not focus heavily
13
on this reason. The ALJ primarily rejected Plaintiff’s symptom testimony because it was
14
inconsistent with the medical evidence, and briefly noted the other two reasons. The
15
Court cannot find the ALJ’s two errors harmless simply because the ALJ provided one
16
legitimate reason.
17
Nor can the Court conclude that the ALJ’s erroneous rejection of Plaintiff’s
18
testimony did not affect the ultimate nondisability determination.
19
assumes that Plaintiff can lift 20 pounds occasionally and 10 pounds frequently, stand or
20
walk for six hours in an eight-hour workday, frequently balance, stoop, kneel, crouch,
21
and crawl, and frequently finger with both hands. These capabilities are inconsistent with
22
Plaintiff’s testimony.
23
conclusion.
24
V.
The ALJ’s RFC
The ALJ’s error therefore may have affected the ultimate
Remedy.
25
“When the ALJ denies benefits and the court finds error, the court ordinarily must
26
remand to the agency for further proceedings before directing an award of benefits.”
27
Leon v. Berryhill, 880 F.3d 1041, 1045 (9th Cir. 2017). Under a “rare exception” to this
28
rule, the Court may remand for an award of benefits after conducting a three-part inquiry:
-9-
1
2
3
4
5
6
The three-part analysis . . . is known as the “credit-as-true” rule. First, we
ask whether the ALJ failed to provide legally sufficient reasons for
rejecting evidence, whether claimant testimony or medical opinion. Next,
we determine whether there are outstanding issues that must be resolved
before a disability determination can be made, and whether further
administrative proceedings would be useful. When these first two
conditions are satisfied, we then credit the discredited testimony as true for
the purpose of determining whether, on the record taken as a whole, there is
no doubt as to disability.
7
8
Id. (internal citations and quotation marks omitted). The Ninth Circuit emphasized that
9
the Court has discretion to remand for further proceedings even if it reaches the third
10
step. Id. “Where an ALJ makes a legal error, but the record is uncertain and ambiguous,
11
the proper approach is to remand the case to the agency.” Id. (quotation marks omitted).
12
The ALJ failed to provide legally sufficient reasons for rejecting Plaintiff’s
13
testimony and the opinion of his treating physician, but there is no vocational expert
14
testimony or other discussion of whether Plaintiff could sustain work if his testimony or
15
Dr. Galleno’s opinions are credited. These outstanding issues must be resolved before a
16
disability determination can be made. The Court accordingly will remand for further
17
proceedings.
18
IT IS ORDERED that the final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security
19
is vacated and this case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this order.
20
The Clerk shall enter judgment accordingly and terminate this action.
21
Dated this 10th day of August, 2018.
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
- 10 -
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?