Banda v. Commissioner of Social Security

Filing 29

ORDER AFFIRMING Decision of the Commissioner of Social Security signed by Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean on 9/26/2017. CASE CLOSED. (Jessen, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

Plaintiff,

12
13
14
15

Case No. 1:16-cv-00572-EPG

LARRY BANDA,

v.

FINAL JUDGMENT AND ORDER
REGARDING PLAINTIFF’S SOCIAL
SECURITY COMPLAINT

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL
SECURITY,
Defendant.

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

This matter is before the Court on the Plaintiff’s complaint for judicial review of an
unfavorable decision of the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration regarding his
application for Disability Insurance Benefits and Supplemental Security Income. The parties have
consented to entry of final judgment by the United States Magistrate Judge under the provisions
of 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), with any appeal to the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
The court, having reviewed the record, administrative transcript, the briefs of the parties,
the applicable law, and having heard oral argument, finds as follows:
First, the Administrative Law Judge’s (“ALJ”) decision at step two of the five-step
sequential process for determining disability was supported by substantial evidence. The ALJ
concluded that Plaintiff did not have a severe mental impairment and, therefore, did not include
any mental limitations in his Residual Functioning Capacity (“RFC”) finding. (AR 12-13).

28
1

A “severe impairment” is an impairment or combination of impairments which

1
2

significantly limit the claimant’s physical or mental ability to do basic work activities. 20 C.F.R.

3

§ 416.920. “An impairment or combination of impairments can be found ‘not severe’ only if the

4

evidence establishes a slight abnormality that has ‘no more than a minimal effect on an

5

individuals ability to work.’” Smolen v. Chater, 80 F.3d 1273, 1290 (9th Cir. 1996) (citing SSR

6

85–28; Yuckert v. Bowen, 841 F.2d 303, 306 (9th Cir.1988) (adopting SSR 85–28)). “[T]he

7

opinion of an examining doctor, even if contradicted by another doctor, can only be rejected for

8

specific and legitimate reasons that are supported by substantial evidence in the record.” Lester v.

9

Chater, 81 F.3d 821, 830–31 (9th Cir. 1995), as amended (Apr. 9, 1996) (citing Andrews v.

10

Shalala, 53 F.3d 1035, 1043 (9th Cir. 1995)).

11

On November 4, 2013, Dr. Lance Portnoff, Ph.D performed a consultative examination of

12

Plaintiff. (AR 609-614). Dr. Portnoff diagnosed Plaintiff with: Major Depressive disorder, single

13

episode, mild to moderate with anxious features; cognitive disorder, not otherwise specified. (AR

14

613). Dr. Portnoff opined that Plaintiff has: 1) mild to moderate limitations in social functioning

15

due to deficiencies in processing speed, reasoning, memory and depression; 2) mild limitations in

16

concentration, persistence, and pace; 3) moderate limitations in ability to respond appropriately to

17

co-workers, supervisors, or public due to deficiencies in proceeding speed, language skills,

18

reasoning, memory and depression; and 4) mild to moderate limitations ability to deal with

19

unexpected changes in a routine work setting due to impaired mental flexibility, reasoning and

20

depression. (AR 613).

21

The ALJ gave little weight the opinion of Dr. Portnoff “in light of the essentially normal

22

mental status examinations contained in the medical records, as well as the claimant’s admitted

23

improvement with medications and mental health treatment.” (AR 14). The ALJ noted that Dr.

24

Portnoff’s opinion was contradicted inter alia by the medical opinions of Dr. Robert Schneider,

25

Ph.D (AR 13-14, 1123-24) and Eric Persell, Certified Physician’s Assistant (“PAC”). (AR 13,

26

994).

27
28

The Court found substantial evidence in the record supporting the ALJ’s reasoning. With
respect to the ALJ finding “essentially normal mental status examinations” in the record, Dr.
2

1

Portnoff’s November 24, 2013 mental status examination (AR 611) and PAC Persell’s March 18,

2

2015 progress notes (AR 994) specifically supported this finding. Regarding the ALJ’s finding

3

that Plaintiff’s mental impairments improved with medication and mental health treatment,

4

substantial evidence post-dating Dr. Portnoff’s November 24, 2013 examination supported this

5

finding. On March 14, 2014, Plaintiff’s progress notes by Dr. Maxim Kramer, Ph.D., indicate

6

“[s]ignificantly improved mood and attitude” and that “[patient] will not need follow-up

7

treatment since his depression has resolved.” (AR 955). On June 9, 2014, Plaintiff indicated that

8

his medication “has helped me so much. I used to worry about everything, now I am much

9

better.” (AR 924). On September 15, 2015, Leroy Egenberger, LMFT, noted that Plaintiff had

10

indicated that counseling had reduced his anxiety 30-50%. (AR 1047).

11

Second, the ALJ’s RFC finding was supported by substantial evidence. “Residual

12

functional capacity is an administrative finding reserved to the Commissioner.” Lynch Guzman v.

13

Astrue, 365 F. App'x 869, 870 (9th Cir. 2010) (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(e)(2)).

14

The ALJ’s RFC determination should be affirmed “if the ALJ applied the proper legal standard

15

and his decision is supported by substantial evidence.” Bayliss v. Barnhart, 427 F.3d 1211, 1217

16

(9th Cir. 2005).

17

In reaching his RFC finding, the ALJ thoroughly discussed the medical evidence,

18

Plaintiff’s testimony, and Plaintiff’s daily living activities. (AR 16-18). The ALJ limited Plaintiff

19

to “light” exertional work despite no medical opinion in the record with this specific limitation.

20

The ALJ reasoned that the State agency opinion of medium exertional work was too great

21

because “the medical evidence of record as a whole supports greater and/or additional physical

22

limitations, and the claimant’s subjective complaint and the combined effect of his impairments

23

were not adequately considered.” (AR 17). The ALJ further reasoned that PAC Persell’s opinion

24

that Plaintiff was limited to less than sedentary exertional work was “not supported by the

25

essentially normal physical examinations in the medical evidence of record.” (AR 17).

26

In light of the thorough explanation of his reasoning on a legal finding reserved to the

27

Commissioner, the Court does not find legal error or a lack of substantial evidence supporting the

28

ALJ’s RFC conclusion.
3

1

Accordingly, for the reasons announced by the Court on the record at the conclusion of

2

the parties’ oral argument on September 25, 2017, the court finds that the decision of the

3

Commissioner of Social Security is supported by substantial evidence, and the same is hereby

4

affirmed.

5

The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case.

6
IT IS SO ORDERED.
7
8

Dated:

September 26, 2017

/s/
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4