Jason N Neri v. Michael J Astrue
Filing
17
MEMORANDUM AND OPINION by Magistrate Judge Victor B. KentonThis Memorandum Opinion will constitute the Courts findings of fact and conclusions of law. After reviewing the matter, the Court concludes that the decision of the Commissioner must be affirmed. The matterwill be dismissed with prejudice. (rh)
1
2
3
4
5
6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
WESTERN DIVISION
7
8
9
10
11
JASON M. NERI,
12
13
14
Plaintiff,
v.
15
CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting
Commissioner of Social
Security,
16
Defendant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
No. ED CV 13-00508-VBK
MEMORANDUM OPINION
AND ORDER
(Social Security Case)
17
18
This matter is before the Court for review of the decision by the
19
Commissioner of Social Security denying Plaintiff’s application for
20
disability benefits.
21
consented that the case may be handled by the Magistrate Judge.
22
action arises under 42 U.S.C. §405(g), which authorizes the Court to
23
enter judgment upon the pleadings and transcript of the record before
24
the Commissioner.
25
(“JS”), and the Commissioner has filed the certified Administrative
26
Record (“AR”).
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §636(c), the parties have
The
The parties have filed the Joint Stipulation
27
Plaintiff raises the following issues:
28
1.
Whether
the Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) properly
1
2
considered the treating physician’s opinion.
(JS at 2.)
3
4
This Memorandum Opinion will constitute the Court’s findings of
5
fact and conclusions of law.
After reviewing the matter, the Court
6
concludes that the decision of the Commissioner must be affirmed.
7
8
I
9
THE ALJ PROPERLY CONSIDERED THE MEDICAL EVIDENCE, INCLUDING THE
10
11
OPINION OF A TREATING PHYSICIAN
Plaintiff asserts that the ALJ failed to consider the opinion of
12
treating
physician
Dr.
Prather,
who
completed
a
Mental
Health
13
Narrative Report on February 8, 2011. (AR 760.)
14
Plaintiff in his portion of the JS, Dr. Prather’s report concludes
15
that Plaintiff suffers from numerous severe mental impairments which
16
affect his functioning.
17
report would indicate that Plaintiff is disabled.
18
the Court is to determine whether the ALJ properly considered Dr.
19
Prather’s report, which, in fact, he ultimately rejected on several
20
bases. (See AR 22.)
21
is that Dr. Prather utilized terms of art such as “disabled” and
22
“unable to work.”
23
not a dispositive reason to reject in its entirety a physician’s
24
opinion.
25
determine whether his companion statement, that the record does not
26
support Dr. Prather’s opinion, is supported by substantial evidence.
27
For the reasons to be stated, the Court concludes that it is so
28
supported.
As summarized by
Essentially, if accepted, Dr. Prather’s
The question for
One basis, which Plaintiff addresses in the JS,
Plaintiff’s counsel correctly notes that this is
The Court has carefully examined the ALJ’s Decision to
2
1
In determining Plaintiff’s mental residual functional capacity
2
(“MRFC”), the ALJ relied upon numerous discrete sources summarized and
3
cited in his Decision.
4
testifying Medical Expert (“ME”), Dr. Wells.
5
the evidence in the record, and his conclusions as to Plaintiff’s
6
mental functioning were distinct from those of Dr. Prather’s.
7
Wells indicated that Plaintiff’s only “real limitation would be
8
dealing with the public.” (AR 38.)
First, the ALJ relied upon the opinion of the
Dr. Wells had reviewed
Dr.
9
The ALJ also substantially relied upon a consultative psychiatric
10
examination performed on January 14, 2010 by Dr. Abejuela. (AR 426-
11
433, 18-19.)
12
correlate with the extreme mental functional limitations assessed by
13
Dr. Prather. (See, AR at 432.)
14
Abejuela performed a thorough examination, and his conclusions in
15
numerous spheres are detailed.
16
As the ALJ noted, Dr. Abejuela’s conclusions did not
Additional
evidence
It is apparent to the Court that Dr.
supported
the
ALJ’s
opinion
and
in
17
particular, his rejection of Dr. Prather’s conclusions. This evidence
18
includes various treatment records including July 1, 2010, where
19
Plaintiff was shown to have a full range of affect and normal thought
20
process, was oriented and alert, and was symptomatic but stable (AR
21
853); November 4, 2010, when Plaintiff “appeared to be stable, sober,
22
functioning well, paid attention, and participated in group topics;”
23
and other records which demonstrate that Plaintiff was functioning
24
within normal limits after a period when he was not using drugs. (See,
25
e.g., AR at 338, 571, 705, 708, 716, 829, 838, 856.)]
26
In addition to these sources, the ALJ relied on the opinions of
27
non-examining State Agency physicians, who also found that Plaintiff
28
had very limited restrictions in mental functioning. (See AR at 20,
3
1
citing reports of Drs. Smith and Masters from January 25, 2010 and
2
June 4, 2010, respectively.)
3
Finally,
the
ALJ
considered
opinion
evidence
of
Mr.
Wade,
4
Plaintiff’s friend, but rejected certain of Mr. Wade’s conclusions and
5
opinions because he is not a qualified mental health professional.
6
(See AR at 21-22.)
7
In sum, it is apparent that the ALJ did not simply reject Dr.
8
Prather’s opinion because Dr. Prather was purporting to cross over
9
into areas reserved to the Commissioner; rather, the ALJ concluded
10
that Dr. Prather’s opinions as to Plaintiff’s mental functioning were
11
extreme, and not in line with the opinions of examining and non-
12
examining physicians.
13
upon substantial evidence in the record in determining Plaintiff’s
14
mental residual functional capacity, and the Court finds no error.
15
Therefore, the decision of the ALJ will be affirmed and the matter
16
will be dismissed with prejudice.
17
The Court thus concludes that the ALJ relied
IT IS SO ORDERED.
18
19
20
DATED: December 20, 2013
/s/
VICTOR B. KENTON
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4
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?