Mitia Lynn Lansburg-Cochran v. Carolyn Colvin

Filing 25

MEMORANDUM AND OPINION by Magistrate Judge Alka Sagar. The decision of the Commissioner is affirmed. (See Order for complete details) (afe)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA-WESTERN DIVISION

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17

MITIA LYNN LANSBURG-COCHRAN,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
CAROLYN W. COLVIN,
)
Acting Commissioner of the
)
Social Security Administration,)
)
Defendant.
)
)

Case No. CV 13-5173-AS
MEMORANDUM OPINION

18
PROCEEDINGS

19
20

On July 25, 2013, Plaintiff filed a Complaint seeking review of the

21 denial of her application for Supplemental Security Income.
22 Entry No. 3).

(Docket

The parties have consented to proceed before the

23 undersigned United States Magistrate Judge. (Docket Entry Nos. 13-14).
24 On November 7, 2013, Defendant filed an Answer along with the
25 Administrative Record (“AR”).
26 23,

2013

Plaintiff

filed

27 (“Plaintiff’s Brief”).

(Docket Entry Nos. 13-14).
a

Brief

in

Support

(Docket Entry No. 21).

of

On December

the

Complaint

On January 22, 2014,

28 Defendant filed a Brief in Support of the Answer (“Defendant’s Brief”).

1 (Docket Entry No. 22). On January 29, 2014, Plaintiff filed a Reply to
2 Defendant’s Brief (“Plaintiff’s Reply”).

(Docket Entry No. 23).

3
4

The Court has taken this matter under submission without oral

5 argument.

See C.D. Cal. L.R. 7-15; “Case Management Order Including

6 Mandatory Settlement Conference Procedures,” filed July 29, 2013 (Docket
7 Entry No. 7).
8
9

BACKGROUND AND SUMMARY OF ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION

10
11

On

September

23,

2008,

Plaintiff,

formerly

employed

as

a

12 bookkeeper/general merchandise sales representative (see AR 50, 52, 86,
13 180), filed an application for Supplemental Security Income, alleging a
14 disability since September 23, 2008.

(See AR 66, 74, 78, 158-59).

On

15 June 21, 2010, the Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”), Sally C. Reason,
16 heard testimony from Plaintiff, medical expert Betty Bourden, and
17 vocational expert Gregory Jones. (See AR 41-64). On July 8, 2010, the
18 ALJ issued a decision denying Plaintiff’s application.

(See AR 78-8).

19 After determining that Plaintiff had severe impairments –- asthma and a
20 mood disorder (AR 80-81)1 --, the ALJ found that Plaintiff had the
21 residual functional capacity (“RFC”)2 to “perform a full range of work
22 at all exertional levels with the following nonexertional limitations:
23 avoidance of concentrated exposure to dust, fumes, odors, etc.; no more
24 than limited public contact; and can do simple, unskilled tasks.

(AR

25
1

The
26 impairments –- ALJ found that Plaintiff had several non-severe
acute renal failure secondary to diuretics and
hypertensive urgency, hypertension, acute gastritis, irritable bowel
27 syndrome, and a heart murmur. (AR 80-81).

28

2

A Residual Functional Capacity is what a claimant can still
do despite existing exertional and nonexertional limitations. See 20
C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(1).
2

1 82).

After finding that Plaintiff is unable to perform past relevant

2 work as a general merchandise sales representative (AR 86), the ALJ
3 found that jobs existed in significant numbers in the national economy
4 that Plaintiff could perform, and therefore found that Plaintiff was not
5 disabled within the meaning of the Social Security Act. (AR 87-88).
6
7

Plaintiff requested that the Appeals Council review the ALJ’s

8 decision.
9 19).

The

(AR 37).
ALJ’s

The request was denied on May 24, 2012.

decision

then

became

the

final

decision

(AR 13of

the

10 Commissioner, allowing this Court to review the decision. See 42 U.S.C.
11 §§ 405(g), 1383(c).
12
13

PLAINTIFF’S CONTENTIONS

14
15

Plaintiff alleges that the ALJ erred in failing to properly: (1)

16 evaluate the opinions of Plaintiff’s treating physicians; and (2)
17 determine Plaintiff’s credibility.

(See Plaintiff’s Brief at 3-9;

18 Plaintiff’s Reply at 1-4).
19
20

DISCUSSION

21
22 A.

The ALJ Properly Assessed Plaintiff’s Credibility

23
24

Plaintiff

asserts

25 Plaintiff’s credibility.

that

the

ALJ

failed

to

properly

assess

(See Plaintiff’s Brief at 7-9; Plaintiff’s

26 Reply at 3-4). Defendant asserts that the ALJ properly evaluated
27 Plaintiff’s credibility.

(See Defendant’s Brief at 8-9).

28
3

1

Plaintiff made the following statements in a Function Report-Adult

2 dated October 16, 2008:
3
4

(1) she lives at home with friends; (2) with respect to daily

5

activities, she wakes up, has coffee, takes her pills, yells

6

at her girls to go to school, takes a nap, has lunch, takes

7

more pills, asks her older daughter to pick up her sister from

8

school, asks her older daughter to go to the store, either

9

makes dinner or has her older daughter make dinner, takes more

10

pills, watches television, and goes to bed; if she feels good,

11

she washes her face, combs her hair and brushes her teeth, if

12

she does not feel good, she just watches television or sits in

13

a quiet place; (3) she takes care of her two daughters (she

14

feeds them); (4) she does not take care of pets (her daughters

15

do); (5) her daughters care for pets, clean the house, and

16

sometimes her older daughter makes dinner; (6) she used to be

17

able, but is no longer able, to care for her house and

18

daughters, to work and to go shopping; (7) with respect to

19

personal care, she is able to dress (but stays in her pajamas

20

most of the time), to bathe (but sometimes goes weeks without

21

bathing), to care for hair (her daughters braid it), to shave

22

her legs (rarely), to brush her teeth (but sometimes goes for

23

a week without brushing or flossing); but she is not able to

24

feed

25

reminders to take care of her personal needs and grooming and

26

to take medicine (she forgets); (8) she is able to make

27

sandwiches and frozen food a couple times a week, which takes

28

30 minutes to 3 hours (her daughters make real food); she used

herself

or

use

the

toilet,

4

and

she

needs

special

1

to make homemade foods, such as salad; (9) she does one

2

household chore –- laundry –- once or twice a month; it takes

3

her all day, and she needs a reminder to do it (she cannot do

4

other house or yard work because she has allergies and she

5

gets sick and is usually too tired); (10) she does not go

6

outside often because she has difficulty in crowded places and

7

just wants to sit in her chair; when she goes out, her

8

daughter drives her (she drives but only when necessary); (11)

9

she shops by computer for everything but food; she does not

10

shop often because she is poor and it takes a long time; (12)

11

she does not pay bills and does not handle a savings account

12

or use checkbook/money orders, but she can count (she does not

13

have a bank account, but she goes on spending sprees to feel

14

better); she used to have checking and savings accounts prior

15

to her conditions; (13) her interests are watching television

16

(which she does every day, but never did before due to lack of

17

time); (14) she spends time with others on the phone (she

18

tries to call her mom at least one time a week); she does not

19

go to any places regularly, and she avoids other people

20

because she does not want to deal with their problems; (15)

21

her conditions affect her squatting, bending, reaching and

22

kneeling (she falls over doing them), talking, hearing, stair-

23

climbing (she gets dizzy), seeing (she gets blurred vision),

24

memory (she cannot remember short-term), completing tasks (she

25

gets

26

understanding and following instructions (1/2 of her normal);

27

(16) she does not know how far she can walk before needing to

28

rest; (17) she cannot pay attention for long because her mind

sidetracked),

concentration

5

(1/4

of

her

normal),

1

wanders; (18) she does not finish what she starts because she

2

gets

3

instructions

4

distracted); she is not good at following spoken instructions;

5

(20) she does not get along with authority figures (she

6

panics); she does not handle stress well (she yells and has to

7

leave the room); she does not handle changes in routine well;

8

(21) her unusual fears include a fear of being crazy, a fear

9

of large places; and a fear of a place with a lot of people;

10

and (22) she uses a breathing machine (nebulizer), which was

11

prescribed in March/April 2008.

distracted;
(but

(19)
gets

she

is

angry

okay
and

at

following

confused

when

written
she

is

12
13 (See AR 223-30).
14
15

At the hearing, Plaintiff testified as follows:

16
17

She completed high school.

She last worked in 2006,

18

selling on the sales floor and performing “sort of managerial

19

work.”

20

too much stress and problems with dealing with the public (she

21

does not deal with people who get upset or aggressive).

22

1988 to approximately 1998, she owned a billiard supply

23

company which apparently was shut down based on the failure to

24

pay taxes to the Internal Revenue Service.

25

her to have a nervous breakdown.

26

but her doctor told her she was over-stressed.

27

54).

She was only able to work for a few months because of

28
6

From

That event caused

She was not hospitalized,
(See AR 50-

1

Following the 1998 event, she got some treatment, but she

2

did not really improve.

She tried to go back to work, but she

3

was not able to do it.

She did not think about finding a job

4

in an environment where she would be away from people because

5

she was not trained to do anything else, she did not know what

6

else she could do, and she has problems thinking, remembering,

7

concentrating, and gets frustrated.

8

concentration, if she tries to read something, she gets to a

9

point where she cannot see or think, so she becomes frustrated

10

and has to take a pill which makes her fall sleep. (See AR 54-

11

55).

With respect to her

12
13

When she worked in 2006, she got along with her co-

14

workers and supervisors. She gets along with her family. She

15

has one friend only, and she and her friend presently are not

16

friends.

(See AR 55-56).

17
18

When she gets depressed, she sits at home on the couch.

19

When her daughters talk over everything and turn on the

20

television,

21

complicated, and she has to go to her room and turn out the

22

lights. She gets anxiety attacks almost every day. Sometimes

23

she bursts out in anger and starts screaming. She does not go

24

to crowds of people because she gets confused and lost.

25

also goes from being compulsive (i.e., constant flossing,

26

brushing her teeth) to not doing anything (i.e., showering

27

once a week, wearing pajamas for a week).

watching

everything

28
7

gets

too

clouded

and

She

She has more bad

1

days than good days; a typical bad day consists of a lot of

2

confusion, anxiety and noise.

(See AR 56-58).

3
4

Her daughters (20 and 17 years old) do the house work

5

(vacuuming, mopping, grocery shopping).

6

unless she has to (i.e., picking up her daughter from school

7

if her daughter misses the bus). If she takes medication, she

8

cannot drive or function.

She does not drive

(See AR 58-59).

9
10

Her medication causes her to be a little lethargic and

11

not be able to focus.

12

She is not able to estimate how much time she spends lying

13

down during the day. She can remember things from a long time

14

ago, but not from a short time ago.

She always lies down during the day.

(See AR 59).

15
16

After briefly summarizing Plaintiff’s testimony, as well as the

17 statements of Plaintiff’s friend in a Third Party Function Report (AR
18 82), the ALJ concluded:

“After careful consideration of the evidence,

19 the undersigned finds that the claimant’s medically determinable
20 impairments could reasonably be expected to cause the alleged symptoms;
21 however, the claimant’s statements concerning the intensity, persistence
22 and limiting effects of these symptoms are not credible to the extent
23 that they are inconsistent with the above residual functional capacity
24 assessment.”

(Id.).

25
26

The ALJ then provided the following assessment of Plaintiff’s

27 credibility:
28
8

1

To start, the claimant’s allegations that she is unable

2

to sustain the demands of competitive employment due to asthma

3

and depression are less than fully credible in light of the

4

medical evidence. The medical record establishes the claimant

5

has a history of asthma that has been primarily treated with

6

nebulizer therapy.

7

exacerbations,

8

hospitalized.

9

November 2008 and required a regimen of steroid therapy, there

10

is no mention of any asthma related complaints until April

11

2009 (Exhibits 2F/9 & 14F/15).

12

the claimant’s asthma has been fairly controlled with no

13

changes in her medication and only one reported exacerbation

14

in January 2010 due to sinusitis (Exhibit 22F/9).

15

2010, the claimant’s asthma was noted to be under “good

16

control” (Exhibit 22F/9).

17

generally credible allegations and testimony, the undersigned

18

has included limitations in the residual functional capacity

19

finding

20

claimant’s alleged limitations.

the

While the claimant has experienced asthma
evidence

shows

she

has

never

been

Additionally, although her asthma worsened in

contained

herein

Subsequent to that episode,

By March

Nevertheless, given the claimant’s

which

are

consistent

with

the

21
22

With regards to the claimant’s depressive disorder, the

23

record reveals that while the claimant was intermittently

24

prescribed antidepressants by her general practitioner, she

25

did not seek treatment with a mental specialist until August

26

2008

27

However, the undersigned notes the claimant has not sought an

28

individual therapist.

when

she

saw

Stephen

Simonian,

M.D.

(Exhibit

3F).

While Dr. Simonian noted on mental
9

1

examination that the claimant was labile with occasional

2

crying spells, all other findings were unremarkable including

3

intact memory of remote and recent events (Exhibit 3F/5). The

4

claimant was started on several mood stabilizers and by

5

October 2008, reported that the medications were “helpful” and

6

that

7

Concurrently,

8

statement where he noted the claimant was unlimited in her

9

ability

she

was

to

“generally
Dr.

doing

Simonian

understand,

good”

completed

remember

and

(Exhibit

3F/8).

medical

source

a

carry

out

simple

10

instructions;

11

understanding,

12

instructions; and that she was somewhat impaired in her

13

ability to maintain concentration, attention, and persistence,

14

perform

15

workday and workweek, and respond appropriately to changes in

16

work setting (Exhibit 4F).

17

asserted the claimant’s general condition was stable (Exhibit

18

3F/8).

19

Simonian that her current medication was “helpful and keeps

20

her anger and impulsive behavior in check” (Exhibit 11F/3).

that

she

was

not

remembering

activities

within

significantly

and

a

carrying

schedule,

limited

out

complete

in

complex

a

normal

In November 2008, Dr. Simonian

In December 2008, the claimant reported to Dr.

21
22

At

the

request

of

the

State

Agency,

a

psychiatric

23

consultation was performed on December 16, 2008 by Edward

24

Ritvo, M.D., where the claimant reported feeling depressed and

25

having “anger issues” (Exhibit 6F/3).

26

hallucinations, morbid mood changes, suicidal ideation and any

27

evidence of psychosis; however, she reported having to washing

28

[sic] her hands at least 10 times a day.
10

She denied delusions,

A mental statuts

1

examination revealed patently normal results.

2

diagnosed the claimant with obsessive-compulsive neurosis due

3

to her persistent symptoms of repetitive urgent hand washing.

Dr. Ritvo

4
5

The claimant continued treating with Dr. Simonian on a

6

monthly basis for what appears to be medication management and

7

sporadic cognitive psychotherapy.

8

reveal that while the claimant did report some depression as

9

well as isolating herself from people, a majority of the

Progress notes from 2009

10

appointments

11

combination of medications she was prescribed for it (Exhibits

12

11F).

13

motivation and anxiety, the record reveal [sic] that no

14

changes were made to the claimant’s psychotropic medications

15

since February 2009 (Exhibit 11F/4).

16

Dr.

combination

[of

17

medication] has been more than helpful” (Exhibit 19F/2).

The

18

undersigned also notes that prior to this appointment the

19

claimant had not been seen by Dr. Simonian for 3 months.

20

Therefore, although the claimant has received various forms of

21

treatment for the allegedly disabling symptoms, which would

22

normally weigh somewhat in the claimant’s favor, the record

23

reveals that the treatment has been generally successful in

24

controlling those symptoms.

deal

with

her

“medical

condition”

and

the

Additionally, despite reports of feeling sad, poor

Simonian

opined

that

the

In fact, in March 2010,

“present

25
26

Despite the allegations of being unable to be around

27

people

28

reflects that the claimant went on a vacation since the

and

limitations

preventing

11

all

work,

the

record

1

alleged onset date. In July 2009, she was capable of going on

2

vacation to Hawaii for approximately 12 days (Exhibit 22F/19).

3

Although a vacation and a disability are not necessarily

4

mutually

5

vacation tends to suggest that the alleged symptoms and

6

limitations may have been overstated.

exclusive,

the

claimant’s

decision

to

go

on

a

7
8

The undersigned has also considered the claimant’s work

9

history in assessing her credibility in accordance with the

10

Regulations (20 CFR 404.1529 and 416.929).

The evidence of

11

record

the

12

unemployment

13

actually due to her medical condition.

14

that she had stopped working in approximately 1998 because she

15

had become “disabled”, the record is conspicuously devoid of

16

corroborating medical evidence.

17

working due to serious problems in 1998 as alleged, then one

18

might reasonably expect to see some evidence of medical

19

treatment for those problems in or around that period.

20

a review of the record reveals that the claimant did not

21

consistently

22

disabling problem until 2008, two years after she stopped

23

working.

24

that she was not able to work or even attempt to get a job

25

except for a short period in 2006; however, in August 2008,

26

the claimant reported to Dr. Simonian that she stopped taking

27

her antidepressant medications in 2002 because she “felt

28

better” (Exhibit 3F/5).

raises

a

question

since

seek

the

as

to

alleged

medical

whether
onset

of

claimant’s

disability

was

Although she alleged

If the claimant did stop

attention

for

the

Yet,

allegedly

Additionally, the claimant testified at the hearing

12

1 (AR 83-84).
2
3

After summarizing and assessing the opinion evidence in the record

4 (see AR 84-86), the ALJ concluded:
5
6

In reaching the conclusion as to the claimant’s residual

7

functional capacity, the undersigned finds that the claimant

8

is credible to the extent she would experience some shortness

9

of breath with exposure to fumes, odors, dusts, gases, poor

10

ventilation,

etc.

11

accordingly

reduced

12

However,

13

allegations that she is incapable of all work activity to be

14

credible because of significant inconsistencies in the record

15

as a whole.

the

The

residual

to

functional

accommodate

undersigned

cannot

capacity

those

find

the

was

limitations.
claimant’s

16
17 (AR 86).
18
19

A

claimant

initially

must

produce

objective

medical

evidence

20 establishing a medical impairment reasonably likely to be the cause of
21 the subjective symptoms. Smolen v. Chater, 80 F.3d 1273, 1281 (9th Cir.
22 1996); Bunnell v. Sullivan, 947 F.2d 341, 345 (9th Cir. 1991).

Once a

23 claimant produces objective medical evidence of an underlying impairment
24 that could reasonably be expected to produce the pain or other symptoms
25 alleged, and there is no evidence of malingering, the ALJ may reject the
26 claimant’s testimony regarding the severity of her pain and symptoms
27 only by articulating specific, clear and convincing reasons for doing
28 so. Brown-Hunter v. Colvin,

F.3d
13

, 2015 WL 4620123 *5 (August 5,

1 2015) (citing Lingenfelter v. Astrue, 504 F.3d 1028, 1036 (9th Cir.
2 2007)); see also Smolen, supra; Reddick v. Chater, 157 F.3d 715, 722
3 (9th Cir. 1998); Light v. Social Sec. Admin., 119 F.3d 789, 792 (9th
4 Cir. 1997).
5
6

Here,

substantial

evidence

supports

the

ALJ’s

finding

that

7 Plaintiff’s testimony about the intensity, persistence and limiting
8 effects of her symptoms was not fully credible.
9
10

The

ALJ

properly

discredited

Plaintiff’s

testimony

about

her

11 symptoms and limitations because it was not supported by the objective
12 medical evidence.

See Burch v. Barnhart, 500 F.3d 676, 681 (9th Cir.

13 2005)(“Although lack of medical evidence cannot form the sole basis for
14 discounting pain testimony, it is a factor that the ALJ can consider in
15 his credibility analysis); Rollins v. Massanari, 261 F.3d 853, 857 (9th
16 Cir. 2001)(“While subjective pain testimony cannot be rejected on the
17 sole ground that it is not fully corroborated by objective medical
18 evidence, the medical evidence is still a relevant factor in determining
19 the severity of the claimant’s pain and its disabling effects); Morgan
20 v. Commissioner, 169 F.3d 595, 599-60 (9th Cir. 1999).
21
22

The ALJ properly found that Plaintiff’s asthma symptoms were less

23 serious than Plaintiff claimed or had been effectively treated. As the
24 ALJ noted, the record reflects that, although on November 17, 2008,
25 Plaintiff complained of more frequent asthma attacks and received
26 treatment for her asthma (see AR 281 [Plaintiff was placed on steroids
27 and advised to continue Albuterol and Advair and nebulizer therapy]),
28 Plaintiff did not further complain about her asthma until April 10, 2009
14

1 (see AR 594), Plaintiff’s medication appeared to fairly control
2 Plaintiff’s asthma (see AR 738-39 [Progress Note dated January 27, 2010,
3 noting that Plaintiff was still taking Albuterol and Advair, and
4 increased use of Albuterol was necessary for her asthma], 736 [Progress
5 Note dated February 2, 2010, stating that Plaintiff’s asthma is “often
6 essentially asymptomatic”], and 734 [Progress Note date March 23, 2010,
7 noting that Plaintiff’s “[a]sthma [is] under good control”]), and
8 Plaintiff was never hospitalized for her asthma attacks.
9 Comm’r

of

Soc.

Sec.

Admin.,

439

F.3d

1001,

1008

See Warre v.
(9th

Cir.

10 2006)(“Impairments that can be controlled effectively with medication
11 are not disabling for the purpose of determining eligibility for
12 [disability] benefits.”).
13
14

The ALJ also properly found that treatment, including medication,

15 “had been generally successful in controlling [the] symptoms” caused by
16 Plaintiff’s mental condition. As noted by the ALJ, the record reflects
17 that: Plaintiff did not seek help with a mental health specialist
18 (Stephan Simonian, M.D.) until August 6, 2008, at which time Plaintiff’s
19 mental exam was mostly unremarkable (i.e., Plaintiff was alert and
20 oriented, there was no disorder of speech, thought process was coherent,
21 there was no tangentiality or looseness of association, affect was full
22 range and appropriate, there was no delusional thinking, hallucination,
23 or suicidal or homicidal ideation, and intellectual function, memory for
24 recent and remote events, comprehension, calculation and abstract
25 thinking were intact and average) and Plaintiff was prescribed a mood
26 stabilizer to be added to her previously prescribed antidepressants (see
27 AR 318-20; see also AR 321 [Progress Note dated August 6, 2008, noting
28 that “[g]enerally her condition seems stable”]); Plaintiff appeared to
15

1 be improving by October 2008 (see AR 322 [Progress Note dated October 6,
2 2008, noting that Plaintiff was “generally doing good” and that
3 Plaintiff reported that “Abilify and Paxil are helpful”], 326-28 [In a
4 Short-Form Evaluation for Mental Disorders, completed on October 27,
5 2008, Dr. Simonian, after noting inter alia that Plaintiff had normal
6 speech,

was

cooperative,

was

oriented,

had

slightly

distracted

7 concentration, had normal memory, had dysphoric mood, had appropriate
8 affect, had no hallucinations or illusions, and had goal directed
9 associations and intact judgment, and was making “good” progress in
10 treatment, stated that Plaintiff was “unlimited” in her ability to
11 understand, remember, and carry out simple instructions, was “good” in
12 her ability to understand, remember, and carry out complex instructions,
13 and was “fair” in her abilities to maintain concentration, attention and
14 persistence, to perform activities within a schedule and maintain
15 regular attendance, to complete a normal workday and workweek without
16 interruptions from psychologically based symptoms, and to respond
17 appropriately to changes in a work setting]; and Plaintiff’s mental
18 health continued to improve though 2010 (see AR 322 [Progress Note dated
19 November 14, 2008, noting that Plaintiff “[g]enerally manifests good
20 affect and improvement of insight; Progress Note dated November 25,
21 2008, noting that “[g]enerally condition is stable], 376 [Progress Note
22 dated December 8, 2008, noting that Plaintiff reported that Abilify “is
23 helpful and keeps her anger and impulsive behavior in check”], 333-37
24 [In

a

report

dated

December

16,

2008,

Edward

Ritvo,

M.D.,

a

25 psychiatrist, stated that the results of the mental examination were
26 unremarkable, diagnosed Plaintiff with obsessive-compulsive neurosis,
27 and found that Plaintiff was not impaired in her abilities to
28 understand, remember or complete simple commands or complex commands, to
16

1 interact appropriately with supervisors, coworkers or the public, to
2 comply with job rules such as safety and attendance, to respond to
3 change in the normal workplace setting, and to maintain persistence and
4 pace in a normal workplace setting], 377 [Progress Note dated February
5 18, 2009, noting that Plaintiff reported that “present combination of
6 medication seems to be better” (although she continues to complain of
7 depression and feeling sad) and that Plaintiff “is complaining of her
8 medical condition”; Progress Note dated March 3, 2009, noting that
9 Plaintiff “is complaining of her medical condition” and of the
10 “combination

of

medication

that

she

is

taking

for

her

medical

11 condition”], 716-17 [Progress Note dated March 22, 2010 (three months
12 after her last visit), noting that the “present combination (of
13 medication) has been more helpful”]).
14
15

To the extent that Plaintiff asserts that Plaintiff’s symptoms

16 continue

despite

her

medications,

as

reflected

in

the

17 Psychiatric/Psychological Impairment Questionnaire completed on October
18 12, 2011 by Fawzy Basta, M.D., a psychiatrist who purportedly treated
19 Plaintiff from March 31, 2011 to May 12, 2011 (see Plaintiff’s Brief at
20 7, citing AR 793-800)3, Dr. Basta’s statements about Plaintiff’s
21 continuing symptoms (see AR 794-95) are not supported by any objective
22 medical evidence, such as a mental status examination.

See Thomas v.

23 Barnhart, 278 F.3d 947, 957 (9th Cir. 2002)(An ALJ “need not accept the
24 opinion of any physician, including a treating physician, if that
25 opinion is brief, conclusory and inadequately supported by clinical
26
27
28

3

Dr. Basta’s Questionnaire was submitted to the Appeals Council
at the time Plaintiff requested review of the ALJ’s Decision. (See AR
17).
17

1 findings.”); Rollins v. Massanari, 261 F.3d 853, 856 (9th Cir. 2001)(the
2 ALJ properly discounted treating physician’s opinion for being “so
3 extreme as to be implausible” and “not supported by any findings” where
4 there was “no indication in the record what the basis for these
5 restrictions might be”).

[[Moreover, it appears that treatment for

6 Plaintiff’s mental health was generally effective from March 22, 2010
7 (the date of Plaintiff’s last treatment with Dr. Simonian, see AR 716)
8 through March 31, 2011 (the date of Plaintiff’s first treatment with Dr.
9 Basta), since there are no records concerning Plaintiff’s mental health
10 treatment during that period.]]
11
12

The ALJ’s finding that Plaintiff was able to travel to Hawaii for

13 12 days (see AR 84, citing AR 744) was a clear and convincing reason for
14 discrediting Plaintiff’s testimony. See Tommasetti v. Astrue, 533 F.3d
15 1035, 1040 (9th Cir. 2008)(“[T]he ALJ doubted Tommasetti’s testimony
16 about the extent of his pain and limitations based on his ability to
17 travel to Venezuela for an extended time to care for his sister.

The

18 ALJ could properly infer from this fact that Tommasetti was not as
19 physically limited as he purported to be.”).

As the ALJ found,

20 Plaintiff’s ability to travel “tends to suggest that the alleged
21 symptoms and limitations may have been overstated.”

See Molina v.

22 Astrue, 674 F.3d 1104, 1113 (9th Cir. 2012)(“Even where those [daily
23 activities] suggest some difficulty functioning, they may be grounds for
24 discrediting the claimant’s testimony to the extent that they contradict
25 claims of a totally debilitating impairment.”); Reddick v. Chater, 157
26 F.3d 715, 722 (9th Cir. 1998)(“Only if the level of activity were
27 inconsistent with the Claimant’s claimed limitations would these
28 activities have any bearing on Claimant’s credibility.”).
18

Moreover,

1 since Plaintiff’s ability to travel was inconsistent with Plaintiff’s
2 testimony that she rarely goes outside and that she cannot be in crowded
3 places or with crowds of people (see AR 57, 226, 229), it was a clear
4 and convincing reason for discrediting Plaintiff’s testimony. See Light
5 v. Social Security Admin., 119 F.3d 789, 792 (9th Cir. 1997)(“In
6 weighing a claimant’s credibility, the ALJ may consider his reputation
7 for truthfulness, inconsistencies either in his testimony or between his
8 testimony and his conduct, his daily activities, his work history, and
9 testimony from physicians and third parties concerning the nature,
10 severity, and effect on the symptoms of which he complains.”).
11
12

Even assuming the ALJ erred in discrediting Plaintiff’s testimony

13 because the ALJ overlooked, in her evaluation of Plaintiff’s treatment
14 and work history, the fact that Plaintiff had amended the onset date of
15 disability to September 23, 2008 (see Plaintiff’s Brief at 7-8), the
16 Court finds any such error to be harmless.

See

Carmickle

v.

17 Commissioner, 533 F.3d 1155, 1162-63 (9th Cir. 2008)(“So long as there
18 remains ‘substantial evidence supporting the ALJ’s conclusion on . . .
19 credibility’ and the error ‘does not negate the validity of the ALJ’s
20 ultimate [credibility] conclusion,’ such is deemed harmless and does not
21 warrant reversal.”)(citation omitted); Tommasetti, supra, 533 F.3d at
22 1038

(an

ALJ’s error is

harmless

“when it is clear from the record

23 . . . that it was ‘inconsequential to the ultimate nondisability
24 determination.’”); Burch v. Barnhart, 400 F.3d 676, 679 (9th Cir.
25 2005)(“A decision of the ALJ will not be reversed for errors that are
26 harmless.”).

The ALJ’s error was harmless since, as discussed above,

27 the ALJ provided clear and convincing reasons for rejecting Plaintiff’s
28 testimony about her symptoms and limitations. See Carmickle, supra, 533
19

1 F.3d at 1162-63 (finding that the ALJ’s error in giving two invalid
2 reasons for partially discrediting Plaintiff’s testimony was harmless
3 where the ALJ gave valid reasons for partially discrediting Plaintiff’s
4 testimony).
5
6 B.

The ALJ Properly Rejected the Opinions of Plaintiff’s Treating

7

Physicians

8
9

Plaintiff asserts that the ALJ failed to provide specific and

10 legitimate reasons for rejecting the opinions of Plaintiff’s treating
11 physicians, Drs. Lackman and Simonian. (Plaintiff’s Brief at 3-7; Reply
12 at 1-3).

Defendant asserts that the ALJ provided proper reasons for

13 rejecting the opinions of Drs. Lackman and Simonian. (Defendant’s Brief
14 at 2-8).
15
16

Although a treating physician's opinion is generally afforded the

17 greatest weight in disability cases, it is not binding on an ALJ with
18 respect to the existence of an impairment or the ultimate determination
19 of disability.

Batson v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 359 F.3d 1190,

20 1195 (9th Cir. 2004); Magallanes v. Bowen, 812 F.2d 747, 751 (9th Cir.
21 1989).

The weight given a treating physician’s opinion depends on

22 whether it is supported by sufficient medical data and is consistent
23 with other evidence in the record. 20 C.F.R. § 416.927(b)-(d). If the
24 treating doctor's opinion is contradicted by another doctor, the ALJ
25 must provide “specific and legitimate reasons” for rejecting the
26 treating physician’s opinion.

Orn v. Astrue, 495 F.3d 625, 632 (9th

27 Cir. 2007); Reddick v. Chater, 157 F.3d 715, 725 (9th Cir. 1998); Lester
28
20

1 v. Chater, 81 F.3d 821, 830 (9th Cir. 1995)(as amended); Winans v.
2 Bowen, 853 F.2d 643, 647 (9th Cir. 1987).
3
4

As set forth below, the Court finds that the ALJ provided specific

5 and legitimate reasons for rejecting the opinions of Dr. Lackman and Dr.
6 Simonian about Plaintiff’s limitations.
7
8

a.

Dr. Lackman

9
10

Vernon Lackman, M.D., a general practitioner at Facey Medical

11 Group, treated Plaintiff from October 19, 2009 to May 4, 2010. (See AR
12 727-43, 784).

In a Multiple Impairment Questionnaire completed on July

13 11, 2010, Dr. Lackman diagnosed Plaintiff with hypertension, asthma and
14 migraine headaches, which were based on the clinical findings of
15 persistent elevated blood pressure and wheezing on exam.

Dr. Lackman

16 opined that Plaintiff had the following functional limitations: could
17 sit and stand/walk 1 to 2 hours in an 8-hour workday; no limitations
18 with respect to lifting, carrying, grasping, using fingers/hands for
19 fine manipulations; Plaintiff’s symptoms likely would increase if she
20 were placed in a competitive work environment; Plaintiff’s condition
21 does not interfere with the ability to keep the neck in a constant
22 position; Plaintiff’s experience of pain, fatigue and other symptoms are
23 periodically

severe

enough

to

interfere

with

attention

and

24 concentration; Plaintiff’s anxiety and stress leads to elevated blood
25 pressure and possible asthma exacerbation; Plaintiff is incapable of
26 tolerating even low work stress; Plaintiff will have to take, possibly
27 on an hourly basis, unscheduled breaks to rest at unpredictable
28 intervals; Plaintiff likely would be absent from work more than three
21

1 times a month as a result of her impairments; Plaintiff is prone to
2 infections due to asthma; and the other limitations that would affect
3 Plaintiff’s ability to work on a sustained basis are psychological
4 limitations and the need to avoid fumes, gases, humidity and dust. (See
5 AR 784-91).
6
7

After summarizing Dr. Lackman’s opinion (see AR 84), the ALJ

8 addressed Dr. Lackman’s opinion as follows:
9
10

Although Dr. Lackman asserted treating the claimant for

11

approximately seven months, his progress notes indicate he saw

12

the claimant on one occasion in May 2010 (Exhibit 22F).

13

Furthermore, the evidence does not support Dr. Lackman’s

14

assertion that the claimant cannot stand, sit or walk in

15

combination for more than 2 hours.

16

indicating

17

musculoskeletal impairments and progress reports fail to

18

indicate that the claimant suffers from any limitations as a

19

result.

20

supported his assessment to include persistent elevated blood

21

pressure and wheezing on exam. As noted above, while a review

22

of the claimant’s blood pressure reveals she experienced a

23

spike in January and May 2010 with readings of 150/99 and

24

141/98 respectively (Exhibit 22 F/3, 14), the remainder of

25

readings

26

(Exhibit 22F/11-23).

27

wheezing, the most recent progress note in the record dated

28

May 2010 reveals clear lung sounds and no complaints of

the

presence

of

There are no x-rays

medically

determinable

Moreover, Dr. Lackman asserted the findings that

from

July

2009

through

the

present

are

normal

In regards to the claimant’s alleged

22

1

wheezing (Exhibit 22F/3).

2

is inconsistent with the bulk of the evidence of record.

Overall, Dr. Lackman’s assessment

3
4 (AR 84-85).
5
6

Plaintiff correctly notes that the ALJ improperly stated that Dr.

7 Lackman’s progress notes indicate he saw Plaintiff only once, in May
8 2010.

(See Plaintiff’s Brief at 3).

The progress notes show that Dr.

9 Lackman saw Plaintiff on four occasions.

(See AR 741-43 [October 19,

10 2009], 736-37 [February 2, 2010], 734-35 [March 23, 2010], 727-28 [May
11 4, 2010]).
12
13

However, the ALJ’s misstatement about the number of times Dr.

14 Lackman treated Plaintiff was insignificant.

The record reflects that

15 the ALJ discredited Dr. Lackman’s opinion based on a consideration of
16 all of the progress notes concerning Plaintiff during that period
17 (October 2009 to May 2010), and that Dr. Lackman’s opinion about
18 Plaintiff’s limitations was inconsistent with the notations in his
19 progress notes.

See Valentine v. Commissioner Social Sec. Admin., 574

20 F.3d 685, 693 (9th Cir. 2009)(the ALJ’s decision to reject the treating
21 physician’s opinion, in part, since it was inconsistent with the
22 treating physician’s own treatment notes was a specific and legitimate
23 reason supported by substantial evidence); Tommasetti v. Astrue, 533
24 F.3d 1035, 1041 (9th Cir. 2008)(an incongruity between a treating
25 physician’s opinion and his or her medical records is a specific and
26 legitimate reason for rejecting the treating physician’s opinion of a
27 claimant’s limitations).
28
23

1

As the ALJ noted, Dr. Lackman improperly claimed that his diagnosis

2 was supported by his finding of “persistent elevated blood pressure”
3 (see AR 784).

Plaintiff did not have high blood pressure on every

4 occasion she saw Dr. Lackman or prior to her visits with Dr. Lackman.
5 (See e.g., AR 748 [July 1, 2009, blood pressure 118/88], 745 [August 12,
6 2009, blood pressure 110/70]; 742 [October 19, 2009, blood pressure
7 148/102], 739 [January 27, 2010, blood pressure 150/99], 737 [February
8 2, 2010, blood pressure 140/98], 735 [March 23, 2010 [March 23, 2010,
9 blood pressure 128/98], and AR 728 [May 4, 2010, blood pressure
10 141/98]).
11
12

Moreover, as the ALJ noted, Dr. Lackman improperly claimed that his

13 diagnosis was supported by his finding of “wheezing on exam” (AR 784).
14 On May 4, 2010 (Plaintiff’s last visit with Dr. Lackman), there is no
15 indication that Plaintiff complained of wheezing and the examination
16 showed that Plaintiff’s “[l]ungs [were] clear with equal breath sounds.”
17 (See AR 727-28).

Moreover, on other occasions prior to and during the

18 window of Plaintiff’s treatment with Dr. Lackman, the physical exams
19 revealed somewhat minimal issues with Plaintiff’s wheezing. (See AR 748
20 [July 1, 2009, “Clear to ausculatation without wheezes, rales or
21 rhonchi.

Good respiratory effort.”], 745 [August 12, 2009, “Clear to

22 auscultation. Good respiratory effort.”], 742 [October 19, 2009, “Lungs
23 clear with equal breat[h] sounds.”], 739 [January 27, 2010, “Clear to
24 auscultation no crackles rhonci, slight wheezing.”], and 737 [February
25 2, 2010, “Lungs with end expiratory wheezes, no ronchi or rales, equal
26 breath sounds.”]; 735 [March 23, 2010, “Lungs clear with equal breath
27 sounds.”]).
28
24

1

Although Plaintiff contends that the ALJ’s assessment of Dr.

2 Lackman’s opinion was erroneous in light of earlier progress notes
3 (prepared by other medical personnel at Facey Medical Group) containing
4 notations about Plaintiff’s wheezing and high blood pressure (see
5 Plaintiff’s Brief at 3-4 and Plaintiff’ Reply at 2, citing AR 276
6 [November 24, 2008], 281 [November 17, 2008], 288 [September 15, 2008],
7 291 [July 2, 2008], 292 [April 29, 2008], 296 [April 17, 2008], 295
8 [April 18, 2008], 296 [April 16, 2008], 298 [April 11, 2008], 300 [April
9 24, 2008], 304 [March 14, 2008], 306 [January 8, 2008]), 620 [November
10 4, 2008], 642 [September 15, 2008], 673 [April 17, 2008], 678 [April 11,
11 2008], and 680 [March 24, 2008]), those treatment notes are irrelevant
12 to the ALJ’s evaluation of Dr. Lackman’s opinion because those progress
13 notes were completed long before Dr. Lackman’s treatment of Plaintiff
14 and there is no indication in the record that Dr. Lackman considered
15 them.
16
17

Finally, it is not necessary for the Court to address whether the

18 absence of x-rays of Plaintiff’s musculoskeletal impairments was a
19 specific and legitimate reason for discrediting Dr. Lackman’s opinion
20 about Plaintiff’s abilities to stand, walk or sit (see Plaintiff’s Brief
21 at 4; Plaintiff’s Reply at 2).

Dr. Lackman’s opinions about all of

22 Plaintiff’s limitations, including standing, walking and sitting, were
23 based on his clinical findings of persistent high blood pressure and
24 wheezing on exam. As discussed above, those findings were inconsistent
25 with the notations in Dr. Lackman’s progress notes.
26 ///
27 ///
28 ///
25

1

b.

Dr. Simonian

2
3

Stephan Simonian, M.D., a psychiatrist, treated Plaintiff from

4 August 6, 2008 to October 20, 2009.
5

(See AR 707, 716-18).

In a

Psychiatric/Psychological Impairment Questionnaire completed on November

6
7

30, 2009, Dr. Simonian diagnosed Plaintiff with depression disorder and
anxiety

disorder,

based

on

the

following

clinical

findings:

mood

8
disturbance,

emotional

lability,

recurrent

panic

attacks,

social

9
10
11
12
13

withdrawal or isolation, decreased energy, and generalized persistent
anxiety. (See AR 707-08).

When asked to identify the laboratory and

diagnostic test results which support the diagnosis, Dr. Simonian
stated, “Differed [sic]

to [Plaintiff’s] general physician, however

14 [Plaintiff] does not report any such abnormality.”

(See AR 708). Dr.

15 Simonian opined that Plaintiff had the following functional limitations:
16 “moderately limited (significantly affects but does not totally preclude
17 the individual’s ability to perform the activity)” with respect to
18 Plaintiff’s abilities to remember locations and work-like procedures, to
19 understand and remember one or two step instructions, and to understand
20 and remember detailed instructions (Understanding and Memory), to carry
21 out simple one or two step instructions, to carry out detailed
22 instructions, to maintain attention and concentration for extended
23 periods, to perform activities within a schedule, maintain regular
24 attendance, and be punctual within customary tolerance, to sustain
25
ordinary routine without supervision, to work in coordination with or in

26
27

proximity to others without being distracted by them, to make simple
work related decisions, and to complete a normal workweek without

28
interruptions from psychologically based symptoms and to perform at a
26

1 consistent pace without an unreasonable number and length of rest
2 periods

(Sustained

Concentration

and

Persistence),

to

accept

3 instructions and respond appropriately to criticism from supervisors, to
4 get alone with co-workers or peers without distracting them or
5 exhibiting behavioral extremes (Social Interactions), and to respond
6 appropriately to changes in the work setting, to be aware of normal
7
8
9

hazards and take appropriate precautions, to travel to unfamiliar places
or use public transportation, and to set realistic goals or make plans
independently

(Adaptation);

and

no

limitations

with

respect

to

10
Plaintiff’s abilities to interact appropriately with the general public,

11
12
13
14

to ask simple questions or request assistance, and to maintain socially
appropriate behavior and to adhere to basic standards of neatness and
cleanliness (Social Interactions). (See AR 709-12). Dr. Simonian stated

15 that under stressful situations Plaintiff might develop decompensation
16 and an exacerbation of her symptoms. (See AR 712). Dr. Simonian opined
17 that Plaintiff was capable of tolerating low and moderate work stress
18 because Plaintiff has the “intellectual and effective stability to face
19 low or moderate stress situations,” and that Plaintiff is likely to be
20 absent from work an average of about two to three times a month as a
21 result of her impairments.

(See AR 713-14).

22
23

After discussing Dr. Simonian’s opinion (see AR 85), the ALJ wrote:

24
25
26
27
28

The undersigned affords the opinion of Dr. Simonian some
weight. [¶] . . .

The medical evidence contains treatment

records from Dr. Simonian dating back to August 2008; however,
his progress notes are relatively cursory and general.
27

For

1

instance, a review of all treating notes from 2009 shows no

2

evidence that any mental status examination was performed

3

(Exhibits 11F and 19F). Additionally, Dr. Simonian has opined

4

that the claimant suffers from certain limitations; however,

5

his

6

significant clinical abnormalities one would expect if the

7
8
9

own

progress

reports

fail

to

reveal

claimant did in fact have such limitations.

the

type

of

For instance,

while Dr. Simonian opined the claimant would likely be absent
two to three times a month, he also concluded the claimant was

10
capable of handling moderately stressful work situations.

11
12
13

Furthermore,
moderate

Dr.

Simonian

difficulties
while

noted

in

the

claimant

maintaining

15

however, he also asserted that the claimant had no “positive

16

clinical

17

concentrating

18

claimant was capable of performing simple one to two step

19

tasks.

20

assessments apparently relied quite heavily on the subjective

21

report of symptoms and limitations provided by the claimant,

22

and seemed to uncritically accept as true most, if not all, of

23

what the claimant reported.

24

this decision, there exists good reasons for questioning the

25

reliability of the claimant’s subjective complaints.

(Exhibit

difficulties
18F/6).

in

Moreover,

tasks;

thinking
he

noted

or
the

Given the lack of objective support, Dr. Simonian’s

26
27

work-related

and

persistence

of

simple

concentration

have

14

findings”

performing

would

(AR 85-86).

28
28

Yet, as explained elsewhere in

1

Dr.

Simonian’s

opinion

about

Plaintiff’s

limitations

2 inconsistent with the notations in his progress notes.

was

See Valentine,

3 supra, 574 F.3d at 693; Tommasetti, supra, 533 F.3d at 1041. As the ALJ
4 noted, Dr. Simonian’s progress notes fail to reflect the type of
5 significant clinical abnormalities that would be expected if Plaintiff
6 were functionally limited to the extent Dr. Simonian opined. On August
7
8
9

6, 2008 (Plaintiff’s first visit with Dr. Simonian), Plaintiff’s mental
status exam was mostly unremarkable and Plaintiff’s condition generally
seemed to be stable.

(See AR 318-21).

On October 6, 2008 (Plaintiff’s

10
fifth or sixth visit with Dr. Simonian), Plaintiff was “generally doing

11
12
13
14

good” and Plaintiff reported that “Abilify and Paxil are helpful”. (See
AR 321-22).

On October 27, 2008, Plaintiff’s mental status exam was

mostly unremarkable.

15 generally

continued

(See AR 326-28).
to

improve

through

Plaintiff’s mental health
the

use

of

psychotropic

16 medication through the rest of Dr. Simonian’s treatment of Plaintiff.
17 (See e.g., AR 322 [November 14, 2008, Plaintiff “[g]enerally manifests
18 good affect and improvement of insight”], 322 [November 25, 2008,
19 “Generally condition is stable”], 376 [December 8, 2008, Abilify “is
20 helpful and keeps her anger and impulsive behavior in check”], 377
21 [February 18, 2009, Plaintiff reported that “present combination of
22 medication seems to be better” (although she continues to complain of
23 depression and feeling sad);, 716-17 [March 22, 2010, the “present
24 combination (of medication) has been more helpful”]).
25
26
27

Moreover, the ALJ properly rejected Dr. Simonian’s opinion because
of internal inconsistencies.

As the ALJ noted, Dr. Simonian’s opinion

28
29

1 that Plaintiff likely would be absent from work about two to three times
2 a month (AR 714) was inconsistent with his opinion that Plaintiff was
3 capable of tolerating moderate work stress (AR 713), and Dr. Simonian’s
4 opinion that Plaintiff was moderately limited in sustained concentration
5 and persistent (AR 710-11) was inconsistent with his opinion that there
6 were no clinical findings that Plaintiff had difficulty in thinking or
7

concentration (AR 708).

8
9

In addition, the ALJ properly rejected Dr. Simonian’s opinion based

10
on Dr. Simonian’s apparent reliance on Plaintiff’s self-report of

11
12
13
14

psychiatric symptoms and limitations which the ALJ properly discredited,
as discussed above.

See Tomasetti, supra, 533 F.3d at 1041 (“An ALJ may

reject a treating physician’s opinion if it is based ‘to a large extent’

15 on a claimant’s self-reports that have been properly discounted as
16 incredible.”)(citations omitted).
17
18

To the extent that Plaintiff is alleging that the ALJ’s rejection

19 of Dr. Simonian’s opinion was erroneous because Dr. Basta (who diagnosed
20 Plaintiff

with

bipolar

disorder,

general

anxiety,

and

explosive

21 disorder, and provided Plaintiff with even more functional limitations
22 that Dr. Simonian, except for the missing work limitation, see AR 79323 800) supported Dr. Simonian’s opinion (see Plaintiff’s Brief at 6;
24 Plaintiff’s Reply at 3), the Court has noted that Dr. Basta’s opinion
25 would not have been entitled to great weight. See page 17, n. 3.
26
27

Finally, the ALJ’s rejection of Dr. Simonian’s opinion based on the

28
30

1 opinion of the testifying medical expert, Betty Bourden, Ph.D. (see AR
2 86), was also a specific and legitimate reason based on substantial
3 evidence. See Thomas, supra (“The opinions of non-treating or non4 examining physicians may also serve as substantial evidence when the
5 opinions are consistent with independent clinical findings and evidence
6 in the record.”); Magallanes v. Bowen, 881 F.2d 747, 753 (9th Cir.
7
1989)(“To the extent that other physicians’ conflicting opinions rested

8
9

on independent, objective findings, those opinions could constitute
substantial evidence.”).

As the ALJ found (AR 86), Dr. Bourden’s

10
testimony that Plaintiff should be limited to low stress work, and that

11
12
13
14

Plaintiff has moderate difficulties in remembering and carrying out
detailed instructions and in maintaining attention and concentration for
extended periods of time, difficulty interacting with the public, and

15 should be limited to brief and casual interactions with supervisors and
16 co-workers (Plaintiff can do unskilled work with limited public
17 contact)(see AR 45-46), is supported by the objective medical evidence,
18 as discussed above. Moreover, as the ALJ found (AR 86), the record also
19 supports Dr. Bourden’s testimony that Dr. Simonian’s opinion that
20 Plaintiff would likely miss 2 or 3 workdays a month was inconsistent
21 with Dr. Simonian’s finding that Plaintiff had only moderate limitations
22 and had the ability to intellectually and effectively handle moderately
23 stressful situations (see AR 47-48).
24 ///
25 ///
26 ///
27
28
31

1

ORDER

2
3

For the foregoing reasons, the decision of the Commissioner is

4 affirmed.
5
6

LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.

7
8 DATED: September 18, 2015
9
10
11

/s/
ALKA SAGAR
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
32