Lewis v. Commissioner of Social Security
Filing
22
FINAL JUDGMENT and ORDER Regarding Plaintiff's Social Security Complaint signed by Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean on 07/11/2018. CASE CLOSED.(Flores, E)
1
2
3
4
5
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
6
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
7
8
9
DOROTHY M. LEWIS,
Plaintiff,
10
v.
11
12
Case No. 1:17-cv-00903-EPG
FINAL JUDGMENT AND ORDER
REGARDING PLAINTIFF’S SOCIAL
SECURITY COMPLAINT
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL
SECURITY,
13
Defendant.
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
On July 7, 2017, Dorothy M. Lewis (“Plaintiff”) commenced this matter for judicial
review of an unfavorable decision of the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration
regarding her 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,
and the applicable law, and having heard oral argument, finds as follows:
Plaintiff contends that the Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) failed to properly consider
evidence of her ability to perform the mental requirements for work. Specifically, Plaintiff argues
that the ALJ erred in giving little weight to the opinion of Dr. Hawkins and the findings of Dr.
Golkaney.
The ALJ did not find that any mental impairment was severe because they did not
significantly limit Plaintiff’s ability to perform basic work activities. The ALJ discussed her
1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
findings regarding anxiety and depression at length, including as follows:
[T]he record reveals a lack of support for the finding of severity for
the alleged anxiety and depression. First, the claimant testified that
she is taking Xanax and is a “bit better” on medication. Treatment
records reveal that the claimant had minimal mental treatment in
2015 with no prior history of psychiatric treatment (Ex. 8F/4).
Records reveal that the claimant told treatment sources that her
anxiety symptoms had improved (Ex. 8F/2). The claimant also
denied suicidal ideas, intentions, behavioral changes, or mood
changes (Ex. 8F/2; 10F/6, 9, 11-12; 11F/4, 9). Moreover, the
examining source noted that the claimant scored 26 out of 30 on the
mini mental status examination, which is in the normal range (Ex.
4F/5).
8
9
10
State agency mental consultant B. Moura, Psy. D., opined on July 6,
2015 that the claimant’s mental impairments caused no more than
mild limitations and therefore were non-severe (Ex. 1A). On
reconsideration, State agency mental consultant B. Dalton, Psy. D.,
affirmed this opinion on September 4, 2015. (Ex. 4A) . . .
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
The consultative psychologist, Kimball Hawkins, Ph. D., opined the
claimant’s ability to understand, remember, and carry out complex
instructions is probably adequate, although she makes some errors.
Her ability to understand, remember, and carry out simple
instructions is adequate. Her ability to maintain concentration and
attention is considered to be good, but her persistence can be poor
when she has chronic pain. Her ability to perform activities within a
schedule mid [sic] maintain regular attendance depends on the
chronic pain. She states that she cannot get out of bed frequently.
Her ability to complete a normal workday and work week without
interruptions from psychologically based symptoms is poor because
of anxiety and chronic pain. Her ability to respond appropriately to
changes in the work setting is adequate. Her ability to manage her
own money is considered adequate.
The undersigned gives Dr. Hawkins’ opinion little weight because
the assessed limitations are vague. The limitations appear to stem
from the claimant’s physical pain, which is beyond the scope and
specialty of the consultative psychological evaluation and examiner.
Moreover, there are no clear limitations caused by anxiety or
depression. Additionally, the record as a whole does not support the
assessed mental limitations.
23
(A.R. 20-21). The ALJ went on to evaluate each functional areas related to mental performance.
24
The ALJ also made an adverse credibility finding against Plaintiff elsewhere. (A.R. 25).
25
26
Plaintiff does not challenge that finding.
The Court has reviewed the ALJ’s decision and the records cited therein. It finds that the
27
ALJ correctly cited to the record and thoroughly examined the evidence before it. Substantial
28
evidence supports the ALJ’s findings regarding mental capacity, including the conclusions of
2
1
state consulting experts and relatively normal mental status examinations. (A.R. 303, 304). That
2
is not to say that all of the record evidence supported the ALJ’s conclusions. For example, the
3
Court is troubled by the “scores in the low average to borderline deficit range” in the Wechsler
4
Memory Scale-IV used by Dr. Hawkins. (A.R. 305). The Court and the parties discussed this and
5
other evidence at oral argument. Suffice to say that there was medical evidence supporting the
6
ALJ’s conclusion as well as contrary medical evidence.
7
The district court reviews the Commissioner’s final decision under the substantial
8
evidence standard—the decision will be disturbed only if it is not supported by substantial
9
evidence or is based on legal error. See 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) (“findings of the Commissioner of
10
Social Security as to any fact, if supported by substantial evidence, shall be conclusive”); Smolen
11
v. Chater, 80 F.3d 1273, 1279 (9th Cir. 1996); Andrews v. Shalala, 53 F.3d 1035, 1039 (9th Cir.
12
1995). “Substantial evidence is such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as
13
adequate to support a conclusion.” Webb v. Barnhart, 433 F.3d 683, 686 (9th Cir. 2005).
14
“‘Substantial evidence’ means ‘more than a scintilla,’ but ‘less than a preponderance.’” Smolen,
15
80 F.3d at 1279 (quoting Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389, 401 (1971) and Sorenson v.
16
Weinberger, 514 F.2d 1112, 1119 n.10 (9th Cir. 1975)) (internal citations omitted); see also Bray
17
v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 554 F.3d 1219, 1222 (9th Cir. 2009); Vasquez v. Astrue, 572 F.3d
18
586, 591 (9th Cir. 2009). Where the evidence is susceptible to more than one rational
19
interpretation, one of which supports the ALJ's decision, the ALJ's conclusion must be upheld.
20
Thomas v. Barnhart, 278 F.3d 947, 954 (9th Cir. 2002).
21
Under these legal standards, the Court will affirm the ALJ’s decision as supported by
22
substantial evidence.
23
The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
24
25
26
Dated:
July 11, 2018
/s/
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
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?