Nathaniel T Shasteen v. Carolyn W Colvin
Filing
20
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER by Magistrate Judge Ralph Zarefsky. (ib)
O
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
NATHANIEL T. SHASTEEN,
Plaintiff,
12
13
14
15
16
vs.
CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting
Commissioner of Social Security,
Defendant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
CASE NO. ED CV 13-02376 RZ
MEMORANDUM OPINION
AND ORDER
17
Plaintiff Nathaniel T. Shasteen, who has a bad back, asserts that the
18
Administrative Law Judge wrongly discounted his complaints of pain, while determining
19
that he was not disabled. Plaintiff asserts no other errors.
20
The law in this circuit is familiar, and settled. If a claimant alleges “excess
21
pain” and produces medical evidence of an impairment which reasonably could be
22
expected to produce the pain alleged, then the Administrative Law Judge may reject the
23
claims of pain only if he makes specific findings stating clear and convincing reasons for
24
doing so. Bunnell v. Sullivan, 947 F.2d 341 (9th Cir. 1991) (en banc); Smolen v. Chater,
25
80 F.3d 1273 (9th Cir. 1996). Plaintiff did present evidence of impairments to his back,
26
and the Administrative Law Judge did find that he had such impairments. [AR 12] Strains
27
to one’s back, and degenerative joint disease, can produce pain, so the only issue is whether
28
1
the Administrative Law Judge acted within his authority in discounting the extent of the
2
pain that Plaintiff claimed.
3
The Administrative Law Judge identified a number of factors that legitimately
4
impeached Plaintiff’s assertions about the extent of his pain. Objective medical evidence,
5
in the form of conclusions of a physician following an examination, suggested a greater
6
capability — and therefore a greater tolerance for pain — than Plaintiff asserted. [AR 258-
7
63, cited by the Administrative Law Judge, AR 17-18] Objective evidence alone, of
8
course, cannot disprove an assertion of excess pain, for excess pain is, by definition, that
9
which exceeds norms, but objective evidence is a relevant factor that can combine with
10
other factors to justify discrediting Plaintiff. Rollins v. Massanari, 261 F. 3d 853, 857 (9th
11
Cir. 2001).
12
Added to the inconsistency with the objective evidence were other credibility
13
determinations that the Administrative Law Judge could properly make. These included
14
Plaintiff’s having a spotty prior work history, which suggested a motive other than pain for
15
not working; a criminal record which impeached his veracity; his own inconsistent
16
statements about his capability; and his failure to undergo treatment commensurate with
17
the claimed level of pain. These were all factors the Administrative Law Judge was
18
authorized to consider, for normal techniques of assessing credibility are appropriate. Fair
19
v. Bowen, 885 F.2d 597, 604 n.5 (9th Cir. 1989) (normal techniques, including evaluating
20
reputation as a liar); Thomas v. Barnhart, 278 F.3d 947, 959 (9th Cir. 2002) (work history,
21
inconsistent statements); Bunnell, supra, 947 F.2d at 346 (relevant character evidence,
22
unexplained absence of treatment). The fact that there may be other interpretations of the
23
evidence that are reasonable does not mean that the Administrative Law Judge erred. As
24
long as the interpretation is reasonable and is supported by substantial evidence, it is not
25
the role of the Court to second-guess it. Rollins v. Massanari, supra, 261 F. 3d at 857.
26
///
27
///
28
///
-2-
1
2
The Administrative Law Judge did not err. Accordingly, the decision of the
Commissioner is affirmed.
3
4
DATED: October 8, 2014
5
6
7
RALPH ZAREFSKY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-3-
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?