James Trujillo v. Carolyn W Colvin

Filing 19

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

JAMES TRUJILLO,

12
13
14
15

Plaintiff,
vs.
CAROLYN W. COLVIN,
Acting Commissioner of Social Security,
Defendant.

16
17
18

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CASE NO. ED CV 14-00253 RZ
MEMORANDUM OPINION
AND ORDER

Plaintiff James Trujillo seeks review of the Social Security Commissioner’s
decision denying his disability benefits. The Court finds no error, and affirms.

19

Plaintiff makes two arguments: that the Administrative law Judge wrongly

20

discounted the opinions of the physicians, and that the Administrative Law Judge erred in

21

discrediting Plaintiff’s own testimony. Neither argument has merit.

22

The Administrative Law Judge gave little weight to the opinion of Dr. Pashi,

23

described as Plaintiff’s family practitioner, which limited Plaintiff to lifting 10 pounds

24

occasionally and frequently, and sitting or standing only two hours in an eight hour day.

25

The Administrative Law Judge thought that this opinion was both conclusory and belied

26

by the record. [AR 37]

27

An administrative law judge can reject a physician’s opinion if he gives

28

reasons that are appropriate under governing law. Magallanes v. Bowen, 881 F.2d 747, 751

1

(9th Cir. 1989). Whether or not the opinion was conclusory, the Administrative Law Judge

2

was justified in rejecting it on the basis that it was belied by the record. Contrary to

3

Plaintiff’s assertion that this was a “blanket statement” that was not specific and legitimate,

4

the Administrative Law Judge identified the portions of the record that he felt made Dr.

5

Pashi’s opinion unacceptable.

6

examinations” and “mild x-ray examinations” “as discussed above.” [AR 37] He

7

described those examinations and the x-ray results [AR 35-36], and his characterizations

8

of them are accurate. Indeed, even his descriptions of Plaintiff’s impairments — a

9

description Plaintiff does not challenge — supports the notion that the record belied the

10

opinion of Dr. Pashi. Plaintiff had a hernia that was repaired, arthritis in one foot,

11

degenerative disc disease and mild scoliosis. These were all mild impairments, and the

12

Administrative Law Judge acted appropriately in finding that Dr. Pashi overstated the

13

limitations that they would impose on Plaintiff.

Thus, he referenced the “unremarkable physical

14

Plaintiff also complains that the Administrative Law Judge did not accept the

15

opinion of consultant Dr. Lim. (Plaintiff’s Memorandum 7-8.) Plaintiff appears to have

16

mis-read the decision. The Administrative Law Judge gave Plaintiff the benefit of the

17

doubt, and adopted a less restrictive residual functional capacity than Dr. Lim proposed.

18

[AR 37] Thus, Plaintiff has no basis to complain as to Dr. Lim, and Plaintiff’s arguments

19

about rejection of the physician evidence have no merit.

20

Plaintiff also complains that the Administrative law Judge discredited his own

21

testimony. Again, the Court disagrees. The Administrative Law Judge was more nuanced

22

in his comments than Plaintiff suggests. He did not find that Plaintiff’s testimony was

23

completely unbelievable, but rather that it was not believable to the extent that Plaintiff

24

suggested his symptoms were totally disabling. So understood, the matters he identified

25

— that Plaintiff’s treatment was conservative, that Plaintiff had worked some, and that

26

Plaintiff had pursued activities that were, at times, indicative of greater capability than he

27

asserted — were all matters that an administrative law judge appropriately can look to in

28

assessing the impact of a claimant’s testimony. Johnson v. Shalala, 60 F.3d 1428, 1433
-2-

1

(9th Cir. 1995); Bunnell v. Sullivan, 947 F.2d 341 (9th Cir. 1991) (en banc). There was no

2

error in his having done so here.
In accordance with the foregoing, the decision of the Commissioner is

3
4

affirmed.

5
6

DATED: January 15, 2015

7
8
9

RALPH ZAREFSKY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-3-