De Jean v. Commissioner of Social Security
Filing
31
FINAL JUDGMENT AND ORDER regarding Plaintiff's Social Security Complaint signed by Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean on 12/1/2017. CASE CLOSED. (Lundstrom, T) .
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
12
13
14
15
LUERETHER DE JEAN,
Plaintiff,
v.
NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Commissioner
of Social Security,
Case No.: 1:16-cv-00319-EPG
FINAL JUDGMENT AND ORDER
REGARDING PLAINTIFF’S SOCIAL
SECURITY COMPLAINT
Defendant.
16
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s complaint for judicial review of an
17
unfavorable decision of the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration regarding her
18
application for period of disability, supplemental security income, and disability insurance
19
benefits. (ECF No. 1.) The parties have consented to entry of final judgment by the United States
20
Magistrate Judge under the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) with any appeal to the Court of
21
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. (ECF Nos. 7, 8.)
22
Plaintiff argues that the ALJ improperly rejected the medical evidence from an examining
23
physician, Dr. Sarah Song, M.D. Dr. Song had performed a neurologic consultation on June 4,
24
2012. (A.R. 501). Following an examination, Dr. Song diagnosed the Plaintiff with “Reported
25
history of Parkinson’s disease, increased tone noted,” and “Lumbago.” (A.R. 503). Dr. Song
26
then provided the following opinion:
27
28
From a functional standpoint, the claimant can lift and carry 20 pounds
occasionally and 10 pounds frequently. The claimant can stand and walk for two
1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
to four hours in an eight hour work day. The claimant can sit six hours in an eight
hour work day. Exertional limitations include occasional climbing, stooping,
kneeling, balancing, crouching and crawling.
(A.R. 503).
The ALJ discussed the opinion of Dr. Song in her opinion denying benefits. (A.R. 12).
The ALJ summarized Dr. Song’s report and medical observations, as well as her opinions about
Plaintiff’s functional limitations. (A.R. 12-13). The ALJ then concluded “I give little weight to
Dr. Song’s opinion, as it is overly restrictive considering the relatively normal examination.
There is no objective evidence that the claimant has Parkinson’s.” (A.R. 13).
“[T]his circuit distinguish among the opinions of three types of physicians: (1) those who
treat the claimant (treating physicians); (2) those who examine but do not treat the claimant
(examining physicians); and (3) those who neither examine nor treat the claimant
(nonexamining physicians).” Lester v. Chater, 81 F.3d 821, 830 (9th Cir. 1995), as
amended (Apr. 9, 1996). Generally, the opinion of treating physicians should be afforded greater
weight than that of both examining physicians and nonexamining physicians. Id. In turn, the
opinion of examining physicians should be afforded greater weight than that of
nonexamining physicians. Id.
An ALJ “must provide ‘clear and convincing’ reasons for rejecting the uncontradicted
opinion of an examining physician.” Id. (citing Pitzer v. Sullivan, 908 F.2d 502, 506 (9th
Cir.1990). “If a treating or examining doctor’s opinion is contradicted by another doctor’s
opinion, an ALJ may only reject it by providing specific and legitimate reasons that are supported
by substantial evidence.” Bayliss v. Barnhart, 427 F.3d 1211, 1216 (9th Cir. 2005). “The ALJ can
meet this burden by setting out a detailed and thorough summary of the facts and conflicting
clinical evidence, stating his interpretation thereof, and making findings.” Magallanes v. Bowen,
881 F.2d 747, 751 (9th Cir. 1989) (citing Cotton v. Bowen, 799 F.2d 1403, 1408 (9th Cir.1986)).
Here, Dr. Song is an examining doctor whose opinion was contradicted by examining
physician Dr. Englen, (A.R. 656), as well as state consulting physicians. This Court thus
evaluated whether the ALJ provided specific and legitimate reasons that are supported by
substantial evidence.
2
1
The Court finds that the ALJ’s reasoning that Dr. Song’s opinion was overly restrictive
2
given the relatively normal examination, and that there was no objective evidence of Parkinson’s,
3
satisfies this requirement. The examination, which was summarized in some detail by the ALJ,
4
(A.R. 12), showed normal findings, which did not support a diagnosis of Parkinson’s or the
5
functional limitations given by Dr. Song. For example, the mental status examination revealed,
6
“The claimant is awake, alert, oriented to time, place, person and situation. Normal attention,
7
normal fluent speech, naming repetition. Normal comprehension. Euthymic without delusion or
8
hallucination.” (A.R. 502). Motor examination reflected “slightly increased tone in bilateral
9
upper extremities. Full 5/5 power in four extremities.” (A.R. 502). Coordination was normal.
10
(A.R. 502). Gait was normal. (A.R. 503). Dr. Song does not point to any test result that
11
supported either the diagnosis of Parkinson’s or functional limitations. Notably, while Plaintiff
12
argues that the ALJ’s reasons were insufficient, her brief similarly fails to cite to any objective
13
finding in Dr. Song’s examination that would support such limitations.
14
15
16
The Court finds that the ALJ has set forth specific and legitimate reasons supported by
substantial evidence for rejecting Dr. Song’s opinion.
Accordingly, the Court finds that the decision of the Commissioner of Social Security is
17
supported by substantial evidence, and the same is hereby affirmed.
18
The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case.
19
IT IS SO ORDERED.
20
21
Dated:
December 1, 2017
/s/
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
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?