(SS) Rivera v. Commissioner of Social Security

Filing 29

ORDER ADOPTING 26 Findings and Recommendations; Denying Plaintiff's 20 Motion for Summary Judgment; Granting Defendant's 24 Request to Affirm; and Directing Entry of Judgment in Favor of Defendant Leland Dudek, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, and Against Plaintiff Rosa Isela Rivera signed by District Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 03/12/2025.CASE CLOSED. (Deputy Clerk EF)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

ROSA ISELA RIVERA,

12

Plaintiff,

13

v.

14

LELAND DUDEK,
Acting Commissioner of Social Security,1

15

Defendant.

16
17

Case No. 1:23-cv-0900 JLT BAM
ORDER ADOPTING THE FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS; DENYING
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT; GRANTING DEFENDANT’S
REQUEST TO AFFIRM; AND DIRECTING
ENTRY OF JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF
DEFENDANT LELAND DUDEK, ACTING
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,
AND AGAINST PLAINTIFF ROSA ISELA
RIVERA
(Docs. 20, 24, 26)

18

Rosa Isela Rivera initiated this action seeking judicial review of a final decision of the

19
20

Commissioner of Social Security denying her application for supplemental security income under

21

Title XVI of the Social Security Act. Plaintiff contends the mental residual functional capacity

22

identified by the administrative law judge “is not supported by substantial evidence of record,”

23

and the ALJ had a duty to develop the record related to her mental impairments. (Doc. 20 at 2, 8

24

[emphasis omitted]; id. at 9.) In addition, she contends the ALJ failed to identify “clear and

25

convincing reasons” to reject her subjective statements concerning her “psychiatric

26
27
28

1

Leland Dudek became the Acting Commissioner of Social Security in February 2025. Pursuant to Rule
25(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Court substitutes Leland Dudek as the defendant in this
suit.

1

1
2

symptomology.” (Id. at 14.)
The assigned magistrate judge determined that “[t]o the extent Plaintiff challenges the

3

record as incomplete, this issue is not properly preserved for appeal.” (Doc. 26 at 6.) The

4

magistrate judge also found “no indication that the record was ambiguous or inadequate to allow

5

for proper evaluation.” (Id. at 7.) Furthermore, the magistrate judge rejected Plaintiff’s argument

6

that the ALJ performed “a lay review of raw medical evidence” to determine the RFC, finding the

7

ALJ did not interpret “raw data” but instead considered medical opinions, treatment notes, and

8

Plaintiff’s subjective statements. (Id. at 8) (quotation marks, citation omitted); see also id. at 8-

9

11.) Finally, the magistrate judge determined “the ALJ provided clear and convincing reasons for

10

discounting Plaintiff’s subjective complaints.” (Id. at 11; see also id. at 11-13.) The magistrate

11

judge concluded that “the ALJ’s decision is supported by substantial evidence in the record as a

12

whole and is based on proper legal standards.” (Id. at 14.) Thus, the magistrate judge

13

recommended the Court deny Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, affirm the administrative

14

decision, and enter judgment in favor of the Commissioner. (Id.)

15

Plaintiff filed an “opposition” to the Findings and Recommendations, asserting the Court

16

should reject the findings of the magistrate judge. (Doc. 27.) In general, Plaintiff restates

17

arguments—and identifies medical evidence—raised in the motion for summary judgment.

18

(Compare Doc. 20 with Doc. 27.) Because the Court reviewed the arguments and evidence

19

identified, Plaintiff’s objections are unavailing.

20

As the magistrate judge observed, the Ninth Circuit determined that “when claimants are

21

represented by counsel, they must raise all issues and evidence at their administrative hearings in

22

order to preserve them on appeal.” Meanel v. Apfel, 172 F.3d 1111, 1115 (9th Cir. 1999).

23

Toward this end, district courts have repeatedly determined that when counsel represents a

24

claimant at the hearing and indicates the record is “complete,” the claimant waived any challenge

25

that the ALJ erred by not developing the record. See, e.g., Gonzalez v. Kijakazi, 2023 WL

26

6164086, at *5 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 21, 2023) (“because counsel stated that the record was complete,

27

the issue is not properly preserved for appeal”); Findley v. Saul, 2019 WL 4072364 at *6 (E.D.

28

Cal. Aug. 28, 2019 (“the ALJ was not obligated to further develop the record” where counsel
2

1

indicated the record was “indeed” complete at the hearing); see also Shannon F. v. O'Malley,

2

2024 WL 4213600, at *5 (S.D. Cal. Sept. 17, 2024) (by counsel “representing to the ALJ that the

3

record was complete, Plaintiff waived the issue for appeal and relieved the ALJ of any special

4

duty of diligence”); Chavez v. Berryhill, 2019 WL 4738235 at *10 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 27, 2019)

5

(where counsel stated “unequivocally” that “[t]he record is complete,” the court found the

6

plaintiff waived her argument that “the Commissioner failed to develop the record”). It is

7

indisputable that Plaintiff was represented by counsel at the administrative hearing, and when the

8

ALJ inquired whether the record was complete, counsel responded: “Yes, I consider the record

9

complete.” (Doc. 12-2 at 38.) Consequently, Plaintiff is now unable to claim the record was

10

incomplete or that the ALJ had a duty to develop it.

11

Plaintiff also fails to show the ALJ improperly interpreted “raw evidence” and “play[ed]

12

doctor” (Doc. 27 at 2-3) to determine her mental residual functional capacity. The ALJ

13

considered medical opinions, treatment records, and Plaintiff’s subjective statements to evaluate

14

Plaintiff’s mental impairments and determine the RFC. (See Doc. 12-2 at 23-29.) Such evidence

15

is not “raw data” that falls beyond the scope of the ALJ’s purview. See Mills v. Comm’r of Soc.

16

Sec., 2014 WL 4195012, at *4 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 22, 2014) (finding argument that the ALJ was

17

improperly attempted to “play doctor’” lacked merit where the ALJ “carefully analyzed the

18

various medical opinions, treatment records, and plaintiff's own testimony in formulating an

19

RFC”); Ann M. v. Berryhill, 2019 WL 1171160, at *6 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 12, 2019) (“Contrary to the

20

cases cited by Plaintiff, the records in this case provided the ALJ with ample support for his RFC,

21

which was based not on raw data but on treatment notes, which included Plaintiff’s subjective

22

complaints, observations by physicians, and the treatment plans”).

23

Finally, the ALJ identified “clear and convincing reasons” to support his decision to

24

discount Plaintiff’s subjective statements. The ALJ considered the objective medical record; the

25

effectiveness of treatment provided; noncompliance with treatment such as counseling, “despite

26

admitting that it was helpful”; and inconsistencies between Plaintiff’s testimony and adult

27

function report. (Doc. 12-2 at 25-27.) These were all proper factors to evaluate Plaintiff’s

28

subjective complaints. See, e.g., Fair v. Bowen, 885 F.2d 597, 603 (9th Cir. 1989); Thomas v.
3

1

Barnhart, 278 F.3d 947, 958-59 (9th Cir. 2002).

2

According to 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1), this Court conducted a de novo review of the case.

3

Having carefully reviewed the entire matter— including Plaintiff’s objections and Defendant’s

4

response—the Court concludes the Findings and Recommendations are supported by the record

5

and proper analysis. The ALJ applied the proper legal standards, and substantial evidence in the

6

record supports the administrative decision. Although the evidence may be “susceptible to more

7

than one rational interpretation,” the Court must defer to the ALJ’s interpretation. See Terry v.

8

Saul, 998 F.3d 1010, 1013 (9th Cir. 2021) (citation omitted). Thus, the Court ORDERS:

9

1.

The Findings and Recommendations (Doc. 26) are ADOPTED.

10

2.

Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment (Doc. 20) is DENIED.

11

3.

Defendant’s request to affirm the administrative decision (Doc. 24) is GRANTED.

12

4.

The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment in favor of Defendant Leland

13

Dudek, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, and against Plaintiff Rosa Isela

14

Rivera, and to close this case.

15
16
17

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

March 12, 2025

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4