Naomi Lynn Sheaffer v. Carolyn W Colvin

Filing 16

MEMORANDUM AND OPINION by Magistrate Judge Victor B. Kenton. This 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 and thismatter will 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

NAOMI LYNN SHEAFFER,

12
13
14

Plaintiff,
v.

15

CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting
Commissioner of Social
Security,

16

Defendant.

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

No. ED CV 13-00724-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

considered

2

Plaintiff’s ability to work.

3

the

treating

physician’s

opinion

regarding

(JS at 2-3.)

4
5

This Memorandum Opinion will constitute the Court’s findings of

6

fact and conclusions of law.

After reviewing the matter, the Court

7

concludes that the decision of the Commissioner must be affirmed.

8
9

I

10

THE ALJ PROPERLY CONSIDERED OPINION OF TREATING PHYSICIAN DR. HUDSON

11

Following a hearing before the ALJ, an unfavorable Decision was

12

issued on March 19, 2012. (AR 18-29.)

The ALJ determined that

13

Plaintiff’s residual functional capacity (“RFC”) restricted her from

14

contact with the public; limited her to performing simple repetitive

15

tasks; and limited her to having frequent contact with coworkers and

16

supervisors. (AR 23.)

17

In evaluating the evidence and determining Plaintiff’s RFC, the

18

ALJ considered evidence in the record including the opinion of

19

Plaintiff’s treating psychiatrist, Dr. Hudson. (AR 26, 359.)

20

Plaintiff’s position that the ALJ improperly and inadequately rejected

21

Dr. Hudson’s opinion, contained in a letter to the Department of

22

Social Services dated February 24, 2012. (AR 359.)

23

indicated that Dr. Hudson has been Plaintiff’s treating psychiatrist

24

since June 12, 2006. It contains a diagnosis and a recitation of the

25

psychotropic drugs which Plaintiff was taking as of the time of the

26

letter.

27

been

28

hospitalized four times since 2005 for “exacerbation of psychiatric

It is

That letter

In part, Dr. Hudson’s letter indicates that Plaintiff has

compliant

with

all

treatment

2

in

the

clinic,

but

has

been

1

symptoms, ...”

2

includes severely limited concentration and attention and that she

3

becomes easily agitated, has a limited ability to handle even the most

4

mild everyday stressors, has poor social interactions, is socially

5

withdrawn with poor capacity to interact appropriately with family,

6

friends, and the general public. (Id.) Dr. Hudson thus concludes that

7

Plaintiff’s chronic condition prevents her from performing any type of

8

work and also severely affects her ability to perform daily functions

9

due to her poor concentration, poor memory, mood swings, agitation,

10

Dr. Hudson assessed that Plaintiff’s dysfunction

depressed mood, racing thought, paranoia, and irritability. (Id.)

11

The ALJ considered and determined to give little weight to this

12

opinion

because

13

inadequately supported by clinical findings.” (AR 26.)

14

found

15

Commissioner as to disability; and that Dr. Hudson’s letter was

16

primarily based upon Plaintiff’s subjective complaints “but did not

17

provide

18

support the functional assessment.” (Id.)

19

Hudson’s opinion is “inconsistent with the treatment records that show

20

the

21

medications.” (Id., citing Exhibit C14F at 8-14.)

22

indicated

23

findings from mental status examinations.

that

it

Dr.

Hudson

medically

claimant’s

that

was

found

had

acceptable

mental

Dr.

state

Hudson’s

to

be

“brief,

provided

clinical

was

opinions

or

The

was

and

The ALJ also

reserved

diagnostic

stabilized

opinion

conclusory,

to

findings

the

to

ALJ found that Dr.

with

adherence

The A L J

contradicted

by

to

a l s o
benign

24

The ALJ noted that the RFC as determined comports with the

25

opinions of various psychological practitioners which found that when

26

Plaintiff is compliant with her psychotropic medications, she has

27

minimal psychiatric symptoms. (AR 26.)

28

While the opinion of a treating physician is generally accorded
3

1

the most weight, an ALJ is free to depreciate or even ignore it based

2

on evidence in the record.

3

opinion if it is brief, conclusory, and inadequately supported by

4

clinical evidence.

5

2002).

6

Plaintiff’s treating psychiatrist for a substantial period of time,

7

nevertheless, the opinion she rendered in her short letter is in fact

8

brief and conclusory, and cites no clinical evidence.

Here,

As one reason, an ALJ may reject an

Thomas v. Barnhart, 278 F.3d 947, 957 (9th Cir.

although

Dr.

Hudson

indicates

that

she

has

been

9

The ALJ went beyond this factor as a basis to reject Dr. Hudson’s

10

opinion. In detail, she pointed out that the medical records indicate

11

that Plaintiff’s psychiatric symptoms were controlled when she was

12

compliant with her medication treatment and that she did not exhibit

13

significant mental impairment while properly treating. (AR 25-27.)

14

The records cited by the ALJ in fact corroborate this conclusion. (See

15

AR at 325-332.)

16

office visits indicates that she in fact did not display symptoms of

17

mental impairment from a bipolar disorder when she was compliant with

18

her medications.

19

span a calendar period from March 2010 through September 2011, a

20

period of approximately 18 months.

21

Plaintiff admitted to Dr. Hudson that in October 2010 she had been

22

noncompliant with her medication. (AR 25, 273.)

23

detracts from the credibility of Dr. Hudson’s statement in her

24

February 24, 2012 letter to the Department of Social Services

25

Plaintiff has been compliant with all treatment in the clinic.

Plaintiff’s own subjective reporting during these

These reports of improvement and stable functioning

Moreover, the ALJ noted that

This fact squarely

that

26

Some of the hospitalizations were correlated with Plaintiff going

27

off her medications, and upon discharge from these hospitalizations,

28

when Plaintiff was medicated, her psychiatric symptoms had dissipated.
4

1

(AR 277, 340, 347, 353.)

2

With regard to her activities of daily living (“ADL”), while

3

Plaintiff contends in this litigation that these are not relevant as

4

transferable to work functions, nevertheless, because of the limited

5

RFC which provided that Plaintiff would only be capable of performing

6

simple repetitive tasks and having no contact with the public, the

7

ALJ’s consideration of Plaintiff’s ADLs, and her conclusion that they

8

are inconsistent with an inability to perform work within Plaintiff’s

9

RFC, are proper considerations.

10

The ALJ was justified in giving weight to the opinions of four

11

State Agency reviewing psychiatrists who reviewed the evidence and

12

opined that Plaintiff could perform non-public, non-detailed unskilled

13

work. (AR 26, 170-180, 181-183, 184-185, 186-187, 283-286, 287-300,

14

301-302.)

15

For the foregoing reasons, the Court concludes that the ALJ did

16

not improperly reject or depreciate Dr. Hudson’s opinion, and did

17

provide specific and legitimate reasons in the Decision to support the

18

evaluation.

19

issue.

20
21
22

Thus, the Court does not find merit in Plaintiff’s sole

The final decision of the Commissioner will be affirmed, and this
matter will be dismissed with prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

23
24
25

DATED: January 9, 2014

/s/
VICTOR B. KENTON
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

26
27
28
5