Mark S Johanson v. Michael J Astrue

Filing 18

ORDER Affirming Decision of Commissioner by Magistrate Judge Robert N. Block. (twdb)

Download PDF
1 o 2 FILED CLERK, U.S.D.C. SOUTHERN DIVlSION 3 Al.k3 2 4 2811 4 5 CALIFORNIA DEPUTY 6 7 8 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MARK S. JOHANSON, 12 Plaintiff, 13 vs. 14 Case No. SACV 10-1598 RNB ORDER AFFIRMING DECISION OF COMMISSIONER MICHAEL J. ASTRUE Commissioner of Social Security, 15 Defendant. 16 17 18 19 20 The Court now rules as follows with respect to the sole disputed issue listed in the Joint Stipulation.) 21 Based on its review of Dr. Rath's administrative hearing testimony, the Court 22 rejects plaintiffs contention that the Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ") erred in 23 24 25 26 27 28 As the Court advised the parties in its Case Management Order, the decision in this case is being made on the basis of the pleadings, the administrative record ("AR"), and the Joint Stipulation ("Jt Stip") filed by the parties. In accordance with Rule 12(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Court has determined which party is entitled to judgment under the standards set forth in 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). 1 1 failing to fully credit Dr. Rath's opinions regarding plaintiffs mental limitations in 2 the absence of substance abuse. Rather, the Court finds that the ALl's residual 3 functional capacity ("RFC") is consistent with Dr. Rath's opinions. Specifically, the 4 Court finds that the ALl's preclusion ofintense interpersonal interaction (see AR 16) 5 comports with Dr. Rath's testimony, on cross-examination, regarding plaintiffs 6 prospective problems with co-workers, if plaintiff perceived he was being 7 disrespected. (See AR 113-14, 116.) 8 The Court further finds that, because the hypothetical posited to the vocational 9 expert comported with the limitations that the ALJ found to exist (compare AR 16 10 with AR 122), and because the vocational expert testified that such a person was 11 capable of performing jobs that existed in the regional and national economies (see 12 AR 123-24), the ALJ did not err in finding that plaintiffs substance abuse was a 13 contributing factor material to the determination of his disability. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 14 404.1535,416.935; see also Parra v. Astrue, 481 F.3d 742, 748 (9th Cir. 2007), cert. 15 denied, 552 U.S. 1141 (2008) (holding that "the claimant bears the burden ofproving 16 that drug or alcohol addiction is not a contributing factor material to his disability"). 17 ******************* 18 19 IT THEREFORE IS ORDERED that Judgment be entered affirming the decision of the Commissioner and dismissing this action with prejudice. 20 21 DATED: August 23, 2011 22 23 24 ROBERT N. BLOCK UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 25 26 27 28 2

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?