Heather Mary Sheehan v. Andrew Saul

Filing 28

ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE 25 by Judge Andre Birotte Jr. IT THEREFORE IS ORDERED that judgment be entered affirming the Commissioner's decision and dismissing this action with prejudice. (es)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

HEATHER MARY S.,
Plaintiff,

12
13

v.

14

ANDREW SAUL, Commissioner
of Social Security,

15

Defendant.

16

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

Case No. EDCV 19-1187-AB (JPR)
ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS OF U.S.
MAGISTRATE JUDGE

17

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, the Court has reviewed the

18

Complaint, Joint Stipulation, Administrative Record, and all

19

other records on file as well as the Report and Recommendation of

20

U.S. Magistrate Judge.

21

Objections to the R. & R., in which she mostly simply repeats

22

arguments from the Joint Stipulation.

23

to the Objections on March 19, 2021.

24

On March 9, 2021, Plaintiff filed

Defendant filed a response

Plaintiff reiterates that the ALJ allegedly erred in

25

evaluating psychiatrist Julie Wareham’s opinions.

26

2-4.)

27

discounted Dr. Wareham’s opinions as devoid of any discussion of

28

Plaintiff’s functional limitations, among other reasons.

(See Objs. at

As the Magistrate Judge found, however, the ALJ correctly

1

(R. &

1

R. at 21.)

Plaintiff argues that “Dr. Wareham’s opinion

2

addressed Plaintiff’s specific ability to adhere to a work

3

schedule, maintain reliability, and complete work tasks in light

4

of her classic bipolar symptomology.”

5

749, 906).)

6

statement and treatment note cited that the stress of not being

7

able to support herself financially was “compromising her

8

emotional stability” (AR 749), her “stable periods [were]

9

frequently short lived due to continuing emotional swings” (AR

(Objs. at 2 (citing AR

But Dr. Wareham merely opined in the written

10

906), and she couldn’t “sustain even a parttime job” (id.).

11

Those general statements about Plaintiff’s emotional state and

12

the conclusory opinion of disability did not address specific

13

work functions, including the ability to adhere to a work

14

schedule, maintain reliability, or complete tasks.

15

The Magistrate Judge also correctly found that Plaintiff had

16

not challenged and therefore implicitly conceded as proper the

17

ALJ’s discounting of Dr. Wareham’s opinion because she acted as

18

an advocate.

19

this was not a proper basis for discounting the opinion because

20

nothing showed that it was “untruthful advocacy.”

21

(emphasis in original).)

22

is entitled to think a doctor’s opinion may be “untruthful”

23

precisely because the doctor is acting as an advocate — that is,

24

she has a bias.

25

1016, 1020 (9th Cir. 1992), the case relied on by the Magistrate

26

Judge (see R. & R. at 22), nothing indicated that the opinion of

27

the doctor who acted as an advocate for the plaintiff was

28

untruthful per se.

(See R. & R. at 23.)

Plaintiff now argues that

(Objs. at 2-3

Plaintiff has things backwards.

An ALJ

In Matney ex rel. Matney v. Sullivan, 981 F.2d

Rather, the ALJ properly discounted the
2

1

opinion because the doctor was “advocating” for the plaintiff.

2

Matney, 981 F.2d at 1020.

3

demonstrated that Dr. Wareham, too, had become an “advocate” for

4

Plaintiff; indeed, she admitted as much.

5

(citing AR 749).)

6

The undisputed evidence here

(See R. & R. at 22-23

The Magistrate Judge did not err.

And as she noted, the ALJ also properly discounted Dr.

7

Wareham’s opinion because it was “an overly conclusory blanket

8

statement with no objective medical findings in support.”

9

R. at 24 (citing AR 34).)

(R. &

Plaintiff argues that the ALJ erred in

10

“looking only within the four corners of Dr. Wareham’s opinion

11

. . . and failing to consider the longitudinal record.”

12

at 3.)

13

longitudinal record did not support Plaintiff’s being unable to

14

“sustain even a parttime job.”

15

The ALJ discussed this longitudinal record in the section

16

immediately preceding the discussion of the medical opinions.

17

(See AR 31-33.)

18

then repeated that lengthy discussion in discounting Dr.

19

Wareham’s opinion is not well taken.

(Objs.

But the Magistrate Judge correctly observed that the

(R. & R. at 25 (citing AR 906).)

Plaintiff’s argument that the ALJ should have

20

Plaintiff also objects that the ALJ erred in evaluating her

21

RFC and not further developing the record before formulating it.

22

(See Objs. at 4-5.)

23

inadequate about the record requiring such additional evidence,

24

as the Magistrate Judge noted.

25

Ruddock explicitly considered Plaintiff’s alcohol abuse (AR 111-

26

12), anxiety (id.), depression (AR 112), and “bipolar affective”

27

disorder (id.) and assessed functional limitations (AR 114-16,

28

131-32).

But there was nothing ambiguous or

(See R. & R. at 29-31.)

Dr. Ruddock also reviewed at least some of Dr.
3

Dr.

1

Wareham’s records and Dr. Rathana-Nakintara’s examination report,

2

which contained a complete functional assessment.

3

05, 108-09, 112-13.)

4

was somewhat dated, Plaintiff’s mental conditions remained

5

relatively stable, as the Magistrate Judge observed.

6

R. at 30 (citing AR 60, 545-47, 837, 852, 885).)

7

(See AR 103-

Although Dr. Rathana-Nakintara’s assessment

(See R. &

Plaintiff complains for the first time in her Objections

8

that the ALJ’s decision was “internally inconsistent” because it

9

both relied on Dr. Ruddock’s opinion and found that Plaintiff had

10

additional severe impairments not assessed by Dr. Ruddock.

11

(Objs. at 4-5.)

12

Ruddock’s opinion and meld those with information from other

13

evidence in the record to form the RFC.

14

374184, at *5 (July 2, 1996) (stating that Commissioner forms RFC

15

based on consideration of all relevant evidence in record); 20

16

C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(3) (same); Robbins v. Soc. Sec. Admin., 466

17

F.3d 880, 883 (9th Cir. 2006) (same).

18

reliance on Dr. Ruddock’s opinion was unwarranted because her

19

condition had worsened is also unavailing because as previously

20

explained, Plaintiff’s mental-health issues remained relatively

21

stable.

22

necessary on this issue.

23

But the ALJ was free to accept portions of Dr.

See SSR 96-8p, 1996 WL

Plaintiff’s argument that

(See AR 60, 545-47, 837, 852, 885.)

Thus, remand is not

Finally, any error in discounting the third-party statement

24

from Plaintiff’s mother was harmless.

25

found, the ALJ’s clear and convincing reasons for discounting

26

Plaintiff’s own testimony established a sufficient basis for

27

rejecting her mother’s similar statements.

28

(citing AR 31-33)); Valentine v. Comm’r Soc. Sec. Admin., 574
4

As the Magistrate Judge

(See R. & R. at 33-34

1

F.3d 685, 694 (9th Cir. 2009); Molina v. Astrue, 674 F.3d 1104,

2

1122 (9th Cir. 2012).

3

did for the first time in her reply, that the ALJ erred in

4

discounting Plaintiff’s statements (Objs. at 5), she has

5

forfeited that claim, as the Magistrate Judge observed (R. & R.

6

at 34 n.24).

7

And although Plaintiff now argues, as she

Having reviewed de novo those portions of the R. & R. to

8

which Plaintiff objects, the Court accepts the findings and

9

recommendations of the Magistrate Judge.

IT THEREFORE IS ORDERED

10

that judgment be entered affirming the Commissioner’s decision

11

and dismissing this action with prejudice.

12
13
14

DATED: __________________
April 28, 2021

______________________________
____________________
_
HON. ANDRÉ BIROTTE JR.
N
JR
U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5