Berline Williams v. Carolyn W Colvin

Filing 21

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER by Magistrate Judge Stephen J. Hillman (sbu)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

10

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA-WESTERN DIVISION

11
12
13
14
15

BERLINE WILLIAMS,

16
17
18
19

v.

Plaintiff,

CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Commissioner,
Social Security Administration,
Defendant.

20
21

) CV 13-02168-SH
)
) MEMORANDUM DECISION
) AND ORDER
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

This matter is before the court for review of the decision by the

22

Commissioner of Social Security denying plaintiff’s application for Disability

23

Insurance Benefits. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), the parties have consented

24

that the case may be handled by the undersigned. The action arises under 42

25

U.S.C. §405(g), which authorized the Court to enter judgment upon the

26

pleadings and transcript of the record before the Commissioner. Plaintiff and

27

defendant have filed their pleadings, defendant has filed the certified transcript of

28
1

1

record, and each party has filed its supporting brief. After reviewing the matter,

2

the Court concludes the Decision of the Commissioner should be affirmed.
I. BACKGROUND

3
4

Plaintiff, Berline Williams, applied for Disability Insurance Benefits on

5

February 21, 2011. (AR 10, 99-100). Plaintiff alleges disability commencing

6

November 10, 2010. (AR 99).

7

The Commissioner denied the application initially. (AR 58-60). A hearing

8

on the claim was conducted on August 12, 2012 (AR 33-48). On August 17,

9

2012, the administrative law judge (“ALJ”) issued an unfavorable Decision (AR

10

7-20). The Appeals Council denied the request of review. (AR 1-6). Plaintiff

11

commenced this civil action seeking judicial review of her case.

12
13
14
15

II. DISCUSSION
A. The ALJ Properly Evaluated Plaintiff’s Credibility
Plaintiff asserts that the ALJ failed to properly evaluate her credibility and

16

assess her subjective complaints. In response, Defendant argues that the ALJ

17

articulated clear and convincing reasons why Plaintiff’s statements of disability

18

were inapposite with the administrative record.

19

When assessing the residual functional capacity, the ALJ must evaluate

20

the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of the individual symptoms to

21

determine the extent to which the symptoms limit the individual’s ability to do

22

basic work activities. Reddick v. Chater, 157 F.3d 715 (9th Cir. 1998).

23

Subjective symptoms are highly idiosyncratic and sometimes suggest a greater

24

severity of impairment than is demonstrated by objective and medical findings

25

alone. Bunnell v. Sullivan, 947 F.2d 341, 345 (9th Cir. 1991). Therefore, once

26

the claimant produces medical evidence of an underlying impairment, the ALJ

27

may not discredit the claimant's testimony as to subjective symptoms merely

28
2

1

because they are unsupported by objective evidence. Id. at 343. Unless there is

2

affirmative evidence showing that the claimant is malingering, the ALJ’s reasons

3

for rejecting the claimant's testimony must be “clear and convincing.” Valentine

4

v. Commissioner Social Security Admin., 574 F.3d 685, 693 (9th Cir. 2009).
At the hearing, Plaintiff alleged she was unable to work due to tremors and

5
6

pain in her hands and legs as well as numbness in her hands and fingers

7

associated with multiple sclerosis. (AR 12-13; AR 38). The ALJ determined that

8

Plaintiff’s “medically determinable impairments could reasonably be expected to

9

cause some of the alleged symptoms, however the claimant’s testimony

10

concerning the intensity, persistence and limiting effect of these symptoms are

11

not credible to the extent they are inconsistent with the above medical functional

12

capacity assessment.” (AR14).
The ALJ provided the following reasons for finding Plaintiff not credible:

13
14

(1) Plaintiff’s somewhat normal level of daily activity and interactions; (2)

15

Plaintiff’s routine, conservative, and non-emergency treatment; (3) and the

16

objective medical and diagnostic findings since the alleged onset date. (AR 13-

17

16).

18

In determining Plaintiff’s credibility, the first factor the ALJ considered

19

was Plaintiff’s report of daily activities. The Plaintiff testified to living in a two-

20

story home with her twelve-year old son. (AR36-37). She reads a book for a

21

couple hours a day. (AR 41). She claimed difficulties with personal care. (AR

22

43). She stated that she is often visited with her niece and together they “do

23

laundry or clean house or just average day stuff, in between… the kids going to

24

school and house.” (AR 40). She stated that she sometimes went out to eat. (AR

25

42). She attends church on occasion, cooking sometimes, and grocery shopping.

26

(AR 13, 40-44).

27
28
3

1

Although Plaintiff has carried on certain daily activities, such as grocery

2

shopping, driving a car, or limited walking for exercise, these do not necessarily

3

detract from her credibility as to her overall disability. Vertigan v. Halter, 260

4

F.3d 1044, 1050 (9th Cir. 2001). Nevertheless, they may be grounds for

5

discrediting the claimant's testimony to the extent that they contradict claims of a

6

totally debilitating impairment. Molina v. Astrue, 674 F.3d 1104, 1113 (9th Cir.

7

2012).

8

The ALJ determined,

9

12

Despite claimant’s impairment, she engaged in a somewhat normal
level of daily activities and interaction… Some of the physical and
mental abilities and social interaction required in order to perform
these activities are the same as those necessary for obtaining and
maintaining employment. The undersigned finds the claimant’s
ability to participate in such activities diminished the credibility of
claimant’s allegation of functional limitations. (AR 14).

13

Although Plaintiff’s testimony was somewhat equivocal about how

14

regularly she was able to keep up with all these activities, and there may be other

15

reasonable interpretations, if the ALJ’s interpretation is reasonable and supported

16

by substantial evidence then it is not Court’s role to second-guess it. Rollins v.

17

Massanari, 261 F.3d 853, 857 (9th Cir. 2001). Here, the reports of daily activities

18

affected Plaintiff’s credibility because the somewhat normal level of her daily

19

activity and interactions were inconsistent with Plaintiff’s allegedly disabling

20

impairments. In addition, if the Plaintiff engaged in numerous daily activities

21

involving skills that could be transferred to the workplace, the ALJ may discredit

22

the claimant's allegations upon making specific findings relating to the claimant's

23

daily activities. Fair v. Bowen, 885 F.2d 597, 603 (9th Cir.1989). Therefore,

24

there was no reversible error in the ALJ’s consideration of Plaintiff’s report of

25

daily activities as one factor to discredit her allegations of disabling functional

26

limitations.

10
11

27
28
4

1

In addition to Plaintiff’s somewhat normal level of reported daily

2

activities, the ALJ properly considered Plaintiff’s infrequent, conservative, and

3

non-restrictive treatment as relevant factors in determining Plaintiff’s credibility

4

regarding the severity of her symptoms. The ALJ found the following:

5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

“The record reveals relatively infrequent trips to a doctor for the
allegedly disabling symptoms. Although the claimant alleged an
inability to afford medical treatment due to lack of health insurance,
there is no evidence the claimant could not have obtained low cost or
no cost treatment alternatives, such as treatment at a public health
clinic.
Further when the claimant has received treatment for the
allegedly disabling impairments, that treatment has been essentially
routine and conservative in nature, primarily in the form of
medications. The lack of more aggressive treatment or even a referral
to a specialist suggests the claimant’s symptoms and limitations were
not as severe as she alleged. The credibility of the claimant’s allegation
regarding the severity of her symptoms as limitations is diminished
because those allegations are greater than expected in light of the
objective evidence of record.
Lastly given the claimant’s allegation of totally disabling
symptoms, one might expect to see some indication in the treatment
records of restriction placed on claimant by the treating doctors. Yet,
a review of the record in this case reveals no restrictions recommended
by the treating doctors.” (AR 14) (emphasis added).
Plaintiff implies that the ALJ should not have considered that the objective
medical findings did not support Plaintiff’s testimony. Pl.’s Br. 9. However, the
ALJ properly considered Plaintiff’s lack of objective medical evidence when
assessing Plaintiff’s credibility regarding the severity of the symptoms. Burch v.
Barnhart, 400 F.3d 676, 680 (9th Cir. 2011). Though it cannot be the sole basis
for discounting testimony, an ALJ may consider “minimal objective evidence” as
one factor in the credibility analysis. Id. Here, the ALJ considered the
conservative treatment as a relevant factor that diminished a Plaintiff’s
credibility. Parra v. Astrue, 481 F.3d 742, 750-51(9th Cir. 2007). Another
relevant factor is “unexplained, or inadequately explained, failure to seek
treatment or follow a prescribed course of treatment.” Fair v. Bowen, 885 F.2d
597, 603 (9th Cir.1989). Therefore, ALJ properly considered Plaintiff’s

27
28
5

1

infrequent, conservative, and non-restrictive treatment as evidence to discredit

2

Plaintiff’s testimony.

3

Lastly, the ALJ considered the objective clinical and diagnostic findings as

4

a factor in determining Plaintiff’s credibility. The ALJ found the following

5

medical findings:

6

1.

On January 24, 2011, a neurological examination of the Plaintiff

7

revealed normal gait, normal speech, no sensory deficits, and

8

normal strength in the upper right extremity (AR 15, 195).

9

2.

On February 23, 2011, Dr. Deborah Fisher recommended the

10

Plaintiff undergo Tysabri infusion to treat her multiple sclerosis

11

symptoms. (AR 15, 207). At a later physical examination on May

12

19, 2011, Dr. Fisher’s notes showed reduced sensation in the right

13

upper extremity and left lower extremity, but were otherwise

14

unremarkable. (AR 15,322-323)

15

3.

On May 2, 2012, consultative examiner Sara L. Maze, M.D., Board

16

eligible neurologist, conducted a complete consultative neurological

17

evaluation of the claimant. (AR 15, 375-386). The findings from the

18

physical examination included: the claimant’s coordination was

19

normal bilaterally, as were her reflexes and motor strength; she

20

stood from a seated position, consistent with her level of obesity,

21

and she was able to ambulate independently. (AR 15, 377). Dr.

22

Maze diagnosed the Claimant with clinically stable multiple

23

sclerosis. (AR 15, 377).

24

The ALJ determined the objective clinical and diagnostic findings do not

25

support Plaintiff’s claim of disabling impairment. (AR 15). While the evidence

26

may support another conclusion, this Court’s role in reviewing whether the

27

ALJ’s decision was support by substantial evidence and based on proper legal

28
6

1

grounds. Magallanes v. Bowen, 881 F. 2d 747, 750 (9th Cir. 1989). Therefore, in

2

determining the Plaintiff’s credibility the ALJ properly considered that the

3

positive objective clinical and diagnostic findings do not support the alleged

4

severity of Plaintiff’s subjective complaints.

5

Overall, the ALJ provided the following clear and convincing reasons to

6

find Plaintiff’s subjective complaints were less than fully credible: (1) Plaintiff’s

7

somewhat normal level of daily activity and interactions; (2) Plaintiff’s routine,

8

conservative, and non-emergency treatment; (3) and the objective medical and

9

diagnostic findings since the alleged onset date.
ORDER

10
11

The Court finds the ALJ properly evaluated Plaintiff’s credibility when

12

assessing her subjective complaints. For the foregoing reasons, the Decision of

13

the Commissioner is affirmed and the Complaint is dismissed.

14

DATED: September 9, 2014

15
16
17

____________________________________
STEPHEN J. HILLMAN
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
7