Jaime Ellen Florman-Goforth v. Carolyn W. Colvin

Filing 22

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER by Magistrate Judge Patrick J. Walsh. The Court finds that the ALJ set forth legitimate reasons for questioning Plaintiffs testimony and that those reasons are supported by substantial evidence in the record. For that reason, the ALJs credibility determination is affirmed. (See document for further details). (sbou)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

JAIME ELLEN FLORMAN-GOFORTH,
Plaintiff,

11
12
13
14
15

v.
CAROLYN W. COLVIN, ACTING
COMMISSIONER OF THE
SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.

CV 13-8508-PJW

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

16
17
18

I. INTRODUCTION
This matter is before the Court following remand.

See Florman-

19

Goforth v. Astrue, CV 10-2895-PJW.

20

Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) erred when she found that Plaintiff

21

was not credible.

22

concludes that the ALJ did not err.

23
24

Plaintiff claims that the

For the reasons explained below, the Court

II. SUMMARY OF PROCEEDINGS
On April 10, 2006, Plaintiff applied for DIB, alleging that she

25

became disabled on September 17, 1997, when she was hit in the head by

26

a window she was trying to close in her classroom, causing dizziness,

27

headaches, slurred speech, disorientation, pain, and depression.

28

(Administrative Record (“AR”) 71-75, 92, 151.)

Her claim was denied

1

initially and on reconsideration.

2

a hearing before an ALJ.

3

and her request to reschedule was denied.

4

27, 2008, the ALJ issued a decision, finding that she was not credible

5

and denying her application for benefits.

6

appealed to the Appeals Council, which denied review.

7

appealed to this court.

8

decision, reversing the ALJ’s decision and remanding the case to the

9

Social Security Administration (“the Agency”) for reconsideration of

10
11

the credibility issue.

She then requested and was granted

Plaintiff failed to appear for the hearing
(AR 18, 45-49.)

(AR 18-26.)

On March

Plaintiff
She then

On September 9, 2011, the Court issued its

(AR 437-44.)

On remand, the case was assigned to a different ALJ, who held a

12

hearing on April 16, 2012, in which Plaintiff appeared and testified.

13

(AR 411-35.)

14

finding that Plaintiff was not credible and denying her application

15

for DIB.

On April 18, 2012, the second ALJ issued a decision,

(AR 385-96.)

16
17

This appeal followed.
III. DISCUSSION

Plaintiff argues that the ALJ erred when she found that Plaintiff

18

was not credible.

19

the prior ALJ had said–-which Plaintiff notes was already rejected by

20

this Court–-and, not unexpectedly, arrived at the same conclusion.

21

The record does not support Plaintiff’s argument.

22

She contends that the ALJ simply regurgitated what

Plaintiff maintains that the head injury she suffered in 1997

23

prevents her from performing any work to this day.

24

claims that she suffers from vertigo, fuzzy cognitive problems, an

25

inability to focus, headaches, dizziness, and memory loss.

26

According to her testimony, these symptoms prevent her from leaving

27

the house four or five days a week.

28
2

(AR 426.)

(AR 425-27.)

She

(AR 425.)

1

The ALJ did not believe this testimony.

She noted, for example,

2

that, though Plaintiff had been working part-time as a teacher in June

3

2005, she stopped working, not because she was disabled, but because

4

she wanted to train to be a masseuse.

5

this finding (AR 92), and it is a legitimate reason for questioning

6

Plaintiff’s claims that she was unable to work due to pain.

7

Drouin v. Sullivan, 966 F.2d 1255, 1258 (9th Cir. 1992) (upholding

8

ALJ’s finding that claimant’s testimony that pain precluded work was

9

not credible where claimant left jobs not because of pain but for

10
11

(AR 392.)

The record supports

See

other, unrelated reasons).
The ALJ also noted that, despite her claims of debilitating pain,

12

Plaintiff drove herself to college, attended classes and clinics, and

13

studied for her classes, ultimately earning her massage therapist

14

license.

15

(AR 107.)

16

though she may have had trouble with some tests due to her condition,

17

she successfully completed the curriculum.

18

undermines her testimony that she was unable to perform any work and

19

that, in fact, she was so infirm that she was unable to leave her

20

house four to five days a week.

21

F.3d 678, 679-80 (9th Cir. 1993) (affirming ALJ’s finding that

22

claimant’s testimony that pain precluded all work was inconsistent

23

with her ability to attend school three days a week).

24

(AR 392.)

This finding, too, is supported by the record.

Plaintiff attended college four to six hours a day and,

(AR 100, 423-24.)

This

See, e.g., Matthews v. Shalala, 10

The ALJ also noted the contradiction between Plaintiff’s claim

25

that she spent most of her time alone and avoided noise and lights and

26

the fact that she went to coffeehouses with her friends to listen to

27

music/comedy and attended Overeaters Anonymous meetings several times

28

a week.

(AR 392.)

Similarly, the ALJ focused on the fact that
3

1

Plaintiff testified that she depended on friends to walk her dogs,

2

help around the house, and take her places (AR 392), but told the

3

examining doctor that she spent her time walking, attending Al-Anon

4

meetings, getting together with friends, and gardening.

5

Plaintiff also told this doctor that she did her own cooking,

6

shopping, and housework and that the only thing she could not do as a

7

result of her injury was teach because the noise bothered her.

8

171.)

9

for questioning Plaintiff’s testimony.

(AR 171.)

(AR

These reasons are supported by the record and are valid reasons
See Batson v. Comm’r of Soc.

10

Sec., 359 F.3d 1190, 1196 (9th Cir. 2004) (upholding ALJ’s finding

11

that claimant’s professed inability to work because of pain was

12

contradicted by his testimony that he tended to his animals, walked

13

outdoors, went out for coffee, and visited with neighbors); and Smolen

14

v. Chater, 80 F.3d 1273, 1284 (9th Cir. 1996) (explaining ALJ may

15

consider claimant’s daily activities and prior inconsistent statements

16

in evaluating testimony about severity of symptoms).

17

Finally, the ALJ found that the treatment records, or lack

18

thereof, undermined Plaintiff’s claims of debilitating pain and

19

limitations.

20

primarily by a chiropractor and an acupuncturist and that her visits

21

to medical doctors were few and far between.

22

a valid reason for questioning Plaintiff’s testimony, Orn v. Astrue,

23

495 F.3d 625, 638 (9th Cir. 2007) (explaining claimant’s unexplained

24

failure to seek medical treatment is a valid reason for questioning

25

claim of debilitating pain), and is supported by the record.

26

medical records in this case span 15 years.

27

records from medical doctors.

28

debilitating that 15 years after her injury she was still unable to

She noted, for example, that Plaintiff was treated

(AR 392.)

This, too, is

The

There are very few

Presumably, if Plaintiff’s pain was so

4

1

leave her house four or five days a week, she would have exhausted

2

every available avenue to treat her condition.

3

records in the file support the ALJ’s finding that she failed to do

4

that and calls into question the sincerity of her claims.

5

The dearth of medical

In the end, the Court finds that the ALJ set forth legitimate

6

reasons for questioning Plaintiff’s testimony and that those reasons

7

are supported by substantial evidence in the record.

8

the ALJ’s credibility determination is affirmed.

9
10

For that reason,

IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: March 17, 2015

11
12
13

________________________________
PATRICK J. WALSH
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

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

S:\PJW\Cases-Social Security\FLORMAN-GOFORTH, 8508\memo opin and order.wpd

5