Kelly J. Maese v. Andrew Saul

Filing 29

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER AFFIRMING DECISION OF THE COMMISSIONER by Magistrate Judge Alexander F. MacKinnon. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Judgment be entered affirming the decision of the Commissioner of Social Security and dismissing this action with prejudice. [See Order for details.] (es)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

KELLY J. M., 1

11
12

Case No. 5:20-cv-02035-AFM

Plaintiff,

13

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND
ORDER AFFIRMING DECISION
OF THE COMMISSIONER

v.

14

KILOLO KIJAKAZI, Acting
Commissioner of Social Security,

15
16

Defendant.

17
18

Plaintiff filed this action seeking review of the Commissioner’s final decision

19

denying her application for supplemental security income. In accordance with the

20

case management order, the parties have filed briefs addressing the merits of the

21

disputed issues. The matter is now ready for decision.
BACKGROUND

22
23

On September 14, 2017, Plaintiff filed an application for supplemental security

24

income. (AR 15.) Plaintiff’s application was denied initially and on reconsideration.

25

On February 21, 2020, Plaintiff appeared with counsel at a hearing conducted before

26
27
28

Plaintiff’s name has been partially redacted in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
5.2(c)(2)(B) and the recommendation of the Committee on Court Administration and Case
Management of the Judicial Conference of the United States.
1

1

an Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”). At the hearing, Plaintiff and a vocational

2

expert (“VE”) testified. (AR 36-63.) On March 31, 2020, the ALJ issued a decision

3

denying Plaintiff’s claims. (AR 12-35.)

4

rendering the ALJ’s decision the final decision of the Commissioner. Plaintiff now

5

seeks judicial review of the Commissioner’s decision.

2

The Appeals Council denied review,

DISPUTED ISSUES

6

1. Whether the ALJ failed to fully and fairly develop the record by not

7

obtaining consultative examinations.

8

2. Whether the ALJ failed to properly consider degenerative changes of

9

Plaintiff’s right shoulder.

10

STANDARD OF REVIEW

11
12

Under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), this Court reviews the Commissioner’s decision to

13

determine whether the Commissioner’s findings are supported by substantial

14

evidence and whether the proper legal standards were applied. See Treichler v.

15

Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 775 F.3d 1090, 1098 (9th Cir. 2014). Substantial

16

evidence means “more than a mere scintilla” but less than a preponderance. See

17

Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389, 401 (1971); Lingenfelter v. Astrue, 504 F.3d

18

1028, 1035 (9th Cir. 2007). Substantial evidence is “such relevant evidence as a

19

reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.” Richardson, 402

20

U.S. at 401. In the social security context, the substantial evidence threshold is “not

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2

The five-step sequential evaluation process was followed in the ALJ’s decision here and consists
of the following: Step one: Is the claimant engaging in substantial gainful activity? If so, the
claimant is found not disabled. If not, proceed to step two. Step two: Does the claimant have a
“severe” impairment? If so, proceed to step three. If not, then a finding of not disabled is
appropriate. Step three: Does the claimant’s impairment or combination of impairments meet or
equal an impairment listed in 20 C.F.R., Pt. 404, Subpt. P, App. 1? If so, the claimant is
automatically determined disabled. If not, proceed to step four. Step four: Is the claimant capable
of performing his past work? If so, the claimant is not disabled. If not, proceed to step five. Step
five: Does the claimant have the residual functional capacity to perform any other work? If so, the
claimant is not disabled. If not, the claimant is disabled. See Lester v. Chater, 81 F.3d 821, 828
n.5 (9th Cir. 1995).
2

1

high.” Biestek v. Berryhill, 139 S. Ct. 1148, 1153 (2019). This Court must review the

2

record as a whole, weighing both the evidence that supports and the evidence that

3

detracts from the Commissioner’s conclusion. Lingenfelter, 504 F.3d at 1035. Where

4

evidence is susceptible of more than one rational interpretation, the Commissioner’s

5

decision must be upheld. See Orn v. Astrue, 495 F.3d 625, 630 (9th Cir. 2007).
DISCUSSION

6
7

I.

Whether the ALJ Sufficiently Developed the Record.

8

Plaintiff contends that the ALJ erred by not sufficiently developing the record.

9

In particular, Plaintiff argues that issues regarding her severe pain and her shoulder

10

impairments required the ALJ to obtain consultative examinations. After review of

11

the record and the ALJ’s decision, the Court is not persuaded by Plaintiff’s

12

arguments.

13

The ALJ “is not a mere umpire” at an administrative proceeding. Higbee v.

14

Sullivan, 975 F.2d 558, 561 (9th Cir. 1992) (per curiam); see also Sims v. Apfel, 530

15

U.S. 103, 110-111 (2000) (“Social Security proceedings are inquisitorial rather than

16

adversarial.”). Thus, an ALJ has a “duty to fully and fairly develop the record and to

17

assure that the claimant’s interests are considered.” Tonapetyan v. Halter, 242 F.3d

18

1144, 1150 (9th Cir. 2001) (quoting Smolen v. Chater, 80 F.3d 1273, 1288 (9th Cir.

19

1996)). This duty arises when the evidence in the record is ambiguous or is

20

“inadequate to allow for a proper evaluation.” Mayes v. Massanari, 276 F.3d 453,

21

459-460 (9th Cir. 2001). “An ALJ’s duty to develop the record further is triggered

22

only when there is ambiguous evidence or when the record is inadequate to allow for

23

proper evaluation of the evidence.” Mayes, 276 F.3d at 460. See also 20 C.F.R.

24

§ 404.1519a (a consultative examination should be purchased when additional

25

evidence is needed which is not in the medical record; there is a conflict,

26

inconsistency, ambiguity or insufficiency in the evidence which must be resolved; or

27

when there is an indication that there is a change in a claimant’s condition which is

28

likely to affect their ability to work).
3

1

Here, the record does not reveal ambiguity or insufficient evidence that

2

prevented proper evaluation of the evidence by the ALJ. With regard to the issue of

3

her severe pain, Plaintiff points to records from 2017 (e.g., AR 690, 980, 988, 993-

4

994) that refer to questions about the source of the pain and the possibility of somatic

5

symptom disorder (i.e., excessive focus on physical symptoms, such as pain, that

6

causes emotional distress). However, later treatment records from 2018 and 2019

7

(e.g., AR 1112-1142; 1155; 1251-1259) clearly state that Plaintiff has small fiber

8

neuropathy, and the ALJ found this to be a severe impairment at Step Two of the

9

sequential evaluation (AR 17). In addition, at the beginning of the administrative

10

hearing, Plaintiff’s counsel presented the issue to the ALJ as whether “[t]he physical

11

problems suffered by [Plaintiff] would impact her ability to work at this time.” (AR

12

42.)

13

Plaintiff’s pain assertions, and there has been no showing of ambiguity that would

14

necessitate a consultative examination on this subject. As a further argument,

15

Plaintiff contends that the ALJ should have obtained a consultative examination

16

regarding her right shoulder impairment. But the medical record was clear that

17

Plaintiff has degenerative changes in that shoulder, which the ALJ found to be severe

18

at Step Two. (AR 17.) Although Plaintiff argues that a consultative examination was

19

needed to determine if a limitation on reaching should have been included in the

20

residual functional capacity (“RFC”) finding, the ALJ limited Plaintiff to light work

21

(including limits on lifting) after analysis of medical records regarding Plaintiff’s

22

condition including her shoulder and extremities, and there has been no showing of

23

an ambiguity in the evidence regarding the shoulder impairment that required further

24

development of the record by the ALJ.3

The ALJ’s decision fully reviews numerous medical records regarding

25
26
27
28

It is also noted that the ALJ kept the record open for two weeks following the February 21, 2020
administrative hearing for submission of additional medical records and a statement from Plaintiff’s
mother. (AR 62.) After that occurred, Plaintiff’s counsel wrote to the ALJ, stating “This will
confirm that our office has now submitted all requested medical evidence . . . and the record is now
complete to the best of our knowledge . . . I respectfully request that the post development period
3

4

1

II.

Whether the ALJ Properly Considered Degenerative Changes in

2

Plaintiff’s Right Shoulder.

3

In her second issue, Plaintiff contends that the ALJ did not make a proper

4

assessment of Plaintiff’s RFC. At Step Two of the sequential evaluation, the ALJ

5

determined that the plaintiff’s degenerative changes of the right shoulder were a

6

severe impairment but, according to Plaintiff, the ALJ erred by failing to provide

7

limitations in the RFC related to this impairment.

8

A claimant’s RFC is the most a claimant can still do despite his limitations.

9

Smolen v. Chater, 80 F.3d 1273, 1291 (9th Cir. 1996) (citing 20 C.F.R.

10

§§ 404.1545(a); 416.945(a)); Social Security Ruling (“SSR”) 96–8p (an RFC

11

assessment is ordinarily the “maximum remaining ability to do sustained work

12

activities in an ordinary work setting on a regular and continuing basis,” meaning “8

13

hours a day, for 5 days a week, or an equivalent work schedule”). In determining a

14

claimant’s RFC, the ALJ must consider all relevant evidence in the record, including

15

both medical evidence and opinions. See Robbins v. Soc. Sec. Admin., 466 F.3d 880,

16

883 (9th Cir. 2006); 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1545(a)(3). If an RFC assessment conflicts

17

with an opinion from a medical source, the ALJ “must explain why the opinion was

18

not adopted.” Wiles v. Berryhill, 2017 WL 5186333, at *3 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 8, 2017)

19

(quoting SSR 96–8p); see also Vincent v. Heckler, 739 F.2d 1393, 1394-1395 (9th

20

Cir. 1984) (explaining that an ALJ is not required to discuss all the evidence

21

presented, but must explain the rejection of uncontroverted medical evidence, as well

22

as significant probative evidence). After consideration the record, the ALJ’s RFC –

23

and any resulting hypothetical presented to a vocational expert – “must set out all the

24

limitations and restrictions of the particular claimant.” Valentine v. Comm’r Social

25

Sec. Admin., 574 F.3d 685, 690 (9th Cir. 2009) (citation omitted, emphasis in

26

original).

27
28

be closed, and the case proceed to decision.” (AR 314.) Plaintiff did not seek to submit additional
evidence to the Appeals Council.
5

1

In the present case, the ALJ found that one of Plaintiff’s severe impairments

2

was “degenerative changes of the right shoulder.” (AR 17.) After a review of the

3

medical record, the ALJ also made the following finding regarding Plaintiff’s RFC:

4

After careful consideration of the entire record, I find that the claimant

5

has the residual functional capacity to perform light work as defined in

6

20 CFR 416.967(b), consisting of lifting or carrying no more than

7

twenty pounds with frequent lifting or carrying of objects weighing up

8

to ten pounds. The claimant is able to sit for six hours in an eight-hour

9

workday and stand or walk for six hours in an eight-hour workday. The

10

claimant can occasionally balance, stoop, kneel, crouch, crawl, and

11

climb ramps and stairs, but never climb ladders, ropes, or scaffolds or

12

work at unprotected heights. [AR 21.]

13

While the RFC limited Plaintiff to light work and to frequent lifting and carrying of

14

objects weighing no more ten pounds, Plaintiff urges the ALJ should have included

15

a further limitation (such as a reaching limitation) directed to Plaintiff’s upper

16

extremities – because of a January 2018 MRI. (AR 1003-1004.)

17

The Court does not agree with Plaintiff’s contention and concludes that the

18

ALJ’s RFC finding was appropriate and supported by substantial evidence. An

19

impairment is “severe” at Step Two if it more than minimally affects a claimant’s

20

ability to perform basic work activities. See SSR 85-28. Based on this standard, the

21

ALJ properly found that January 2018 MRI findings showed a “severe” right

22

shoulder impairment. In reaching the RFC finding, the ALJ’s decision at AR 23

23

discussed the January 2018 MRI findings regarding Plaintiff’s right shoulder (AR

24

1003-1004), including a small interstitial tear and a number of other mild findings.

25

The ALJ’s decision also referred to subsequent July 2018 clinical findings that

26

“confirmed normal tone in all extremities with no atrophy. [AR 939.] While manual

27

motor testing could not be tested due to ‘poor effort,’ clinical findings confirmed at

28

least antigravity in all muscles. [Id.]” (AR 23.) In addition, the ALJ credited the
6

1

opinion of state agency consultant E. Christian, M.D., who had reviewed the medical

2

records available at the time the doctor’s opinion was provided – including the

3

January 2018 MRI of Plaintiff’s right shoulder. Dr. Christian opined that Plaintiff

4

could perform light work with the same lifting limitations as the ALJ later included

5

in the RFC. (AR 76-87.) The medical records cited by the ALJ and the opinion of

6

Dr. Christian are substantial evidence supporting the ALJ’s RFC, and they did not

7

require the inclusion of further limitations as to Plaintiff’s upper extremities.

8

Moreover, it is significant that Plaintiff does not point to any medical source opinion

9

that contradicts this RFC or that adds shoulder-related limitations.
ORDER

10
11

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Judgment be entered affirming the

12

decision of the Commissioner of Social Security and dismissing this action with

13

prejudice.

14
15
16
17

DATED: 9/15/2022
____________________________________
ALEXANDER F. MacKINNON
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

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