Thomas v. Commissioner of Social Security

Filing 29

FINAL JUDGMENT and ORDER Regarding Plaintiff's Social Security Complaint signed by Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean on 11/13/2017. CASE CLOSED. (Sant Agata, S)

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

3
4

ERIC BRIAN THOMAS,
Plaintiff,

5
6
7

v.

Case No. 1:16-cv-01044-EPG
FINAL JUDGMENT AND ORDER
REGARDING PLAINTIFF’S SOCIAL
SECURITY COMPLAINT

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL
SECURITY,

8
Defendant.
9
10

This matter is before the Court on the Plaintiff’s complaint for judicial review of an

11

unfavorable decision of the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration regarding his

12

application for Disability Insurance Benefits and Supplemental Security Income. The parties have

13

consented to entry of final judgment by the United States Magistrate Judge under the provisions

14

of 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), with any appeal to the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

15
16
17

The court, having reviewed the record, administrative transcript, the briefs of the parties,
the applicable law, and having heard oral argument, finds as follows:
At step two of the five-step sequential disability analysis, the Administrative Law Judge

18

(“ALJ”) found severe impairments, including degenerative disc disease of the lumbar spine,

19

degenerative joint disease involving both knees, amputated left index finger, and post-traumatic

20

stress disorder. AR 14. The ALJ formulated a residual functioning capacity (“RFC”) assessment

21

finding physical and mental limitations. AR 16-17. The incorporated mental limitations were as

22

follows: “He can perform simple routine tasks, maintain concentration and attention in 2 hour

23

increments, sustain an 8-hour day and 40-hour work schedule, relate to and accept direction from

24

supervisors, and remain socially appropriate with co-workers and the public.” Id. At step four,

25

the ALJ determined that Plaintiff could perform his past work of a flagger, and therefore, Plaintiff

26

was not disabled. AR 20.

27
28

In formulating the RFC, ALJ gave “great weight” to the medical opinions of State Agency
psychiatric consultant, P.M. Balson, M.D., and State Agency consultant, Judy K. Martin, M.D.
1

1

AR 19. These doctors opined that Plaintiff would be limited to jobs with one to two-step

2

instructions. AR 142 (providing that Plaintiff would be able to “understand and remember work

3

locations and procedures or a simple, routine nature involving 1-2 step job tasks and

4

instructions”), AR 181 (same). However, the ALJ did not incorporate the limitation regarding

5

one to two-step job tasks. Instead, the ALJ used a less restrictive limitation that Plaintiff would

6

be limited to “simple routine tasks.” AR 16. Plaintiff argues this was error.

7

“Residual functional capacity is an administrative finding reserved to the Commissioner.”

8

Lynch Guzman v. Astrue, 365 F. App'x 869, 870 (9th Cir. 2010) (citing 20 C.F.R. §

9

404.1527(e)(2)). The ALJ’s RFC determination should be affirmed “if the ALJ applied the

10

proper legal standard and his decision is supported by substantial evidence.” Bayliss v. Barnhart,

11

427 F.3d 1211, 1217 (9th Cir. 2005). “Substantial evidence is more than a mere scintilla but less

12

than a preponderance.” Orn v. Astrue, 495 F.3d 625, 630 (9th Cir. 2007) (providing that

13

substantial evidence is “such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to

14

support a conclusion,” and the ALJ's decision should be upheld “[w]here evidence is susceptible

15

to more than one rational interpretation,” Bayliss v. Barnhart, 427 F.3d 1211, 1214 n. 1 (9th Cir.

16

2005)). “A decision of the ALJ will not be reversed for errors that are harmless.” Burch v.

17

Barnhart, 400 F.3d 676, 679 (9th Cir. 2005) (citing Curry v. Sullivan, 925 F.2d 1127, 1131 (9th

18

Cir.1991)).

19

The ALJ’s RFC finding was supported by substantial evidence. In formulating his RFC,

20

the ALJ also gave great weight to and discussed the medical opinion of consultative psychologist

21

Steven C. Swanson, Ph.D. AR 19. Dr. Swanson opined that Plaintiff would have the ability to

22

understand, carry out, and remember simple instructions but did not limit Plaintiff to one to two-

23

step job tasks. AR 1116. The relevant testimony also supported the RFC. Plaintiff testified that

24

his main work-related limitations were physical in nature, rather than mental. AR 43.

25

While error can be found in the ALJ’s decision not to separately address limitations

26

resulting from Plaintiff’s obesity, the omission was harmless as there was no evidence in the

27

record that the obesity caused more significant limitations than those adopted by the ALJ and

28

implemented into the RFC finding.
2

1

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

2

the parties’ oral argument on October 30, 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:

November 13, 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
3