Ramos v. Commisioner of Social Security
Filing
21
MEMORANDUM, OPINION and ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Craig M. Kellison on 8/27/2018 ORDERING Plaintiff's 13 Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED. Defendant's 18 Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED. The Clerk of the Court is directed to enter judgment and close this file. CASE CLOSED. (Zignago, K.)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
MARISELA RAMOS,
12
Plaintiff,
13
14
No. 2:17-CV-1007-CMK
vs.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL
SECURITY,
15
Defendant.
16
/
17
18
Plaintiff, who is proceeding with retained counsel, brings this action under
19
42 U.S.C. § 405(g) for judicial review of a final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security.
20
Pursuant to the written consent of all parties, this case is before the undersigned as the presiding
21
judge for all purposes, including entry of final judgment. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). Pending
22
before the court are plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment (Doc. 13) and defendant’s cross-
23
motion for summary judgment (Doc. 18).
24
///
25
///
26
///
1
1
I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Plaintiff applied for social security benefits on May 14, 2014. See CAR 28.1 In
2
3
the application, plaintiff claims that disability began on April 26, 2014. See id. Plaintiff’s claim
4
was initially denied. Following denial of reconsideration, plaintiff requested an administrative
5
hearing, which was held on November 13, 2015, before Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”)
6
Christopher C. Knowdell. See id. In a December 10, 2015, decision, the ALJ concluded that
7
plaintiff is not disabled based on the following relevant findings:
8
1.
The claimant has the following severe impairment(s): schizophrenia and
schizoaffective disorder;
2.
The claimant does not have an impairment or combination of impairments
that meets or medically equals an impairment listed in the regulations;
3.
The claimant has the following residual functional capacity: full range of
work at all exertional levels, except the claimant is limited to simple
routine repetitive work and is not capable of working with the public;
4.
Considering the claimant’s age, education, work experience, residual
functional capacity, and vocational expert testimony, there are jobs that
exist in significant numbers in the national economy that the claimant can
perform.
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
See id. at 30-39.
16
17
After the Appeals Council declined review on March 17, 2017, this appeal followed.
18
19
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
20
The court reviews the Commissioner’s final decision to determine whether it is:
21
(1) based on proper legal standards; and (2) supported by substantial evidence in the record as a
22
whole. See Tackett v. Apfel, 180 F.3d 1094, 1097 (9th Cir. 1999). “Substantial evidence” is
23
more than a mere scintilla, but less than a preponderance. See Saelee v. Chater, 94 F.3d 520, 521
24
(9th Cir. 1996). It is “. . . such evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to
25
1
26
Citations are to the Certified Administrative Record lodged on September 5, 2017
(Doc. 12).
2
1
support a conclusion.” Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389, 402 (1971). The record as a whole,
2
including both the evidence that supports and detracts from the Commissioner’s conclusion, must
3
be considered and weighed. See Howard v. Heckler, 782 F.2d 1484, 1487 (9th Cir. 1986); Jones
4
v. Heckler, 760 F.2d 993, 995 (9th Cir. 1985). The court may not affirm the Commissioner’s
5
decision simply by isolating a specific quantum of supporting evidence. See Hammock v.
6
Bowen, 879 F.2d 498, 501 (9th Cir. 1989). If substantial evidence supports the administrative
7
findings, or if there is conflicting evidence supporting a particular finding, the finding of the
8
Commissioner is conclusive. See Sprague v. Bowen, 812 F.2d 1226, 1229-30 (9th Cir. 1987).
9
Therefore, where the evidence is susceptible to more than one rational interpretation, one of
10
which supports the Commissioner’s decision, the decision must be affirmed, see Thomas v.
11
Barnhart, 278 F.3d 947, 954 (9th Cir. 2002), and may be set aside only if an improper legal
12
standard was applied in weighing the evidence, see Burkhart v. Bowen, 856 F.2d 1335, 1338 (9th
13
Cir. 1988).
14
15
III. DISCUSSION
16
17
In her motion for summary judgment, plaintiff argues that the ALJ failed to
articulate sufficient reasons for rejecting the opinions of treating psychiatrist, Dr. Koike.
18
The weight given to medical opinions depends in part on whether they are
19
proffered by treating, examining, or non-examining professionals. See Lester v. Chater, 81 F.3d
20
821, 830-31 (9th Cir. 1995). Ordinarily, more weight is given to the opinion of a treating
21
professional, who has a greater opportunity to know and observe the patient as an individual,
22
than the opinion of a non-treating professional. See id.; Smolen v. Chater, 80 F.3d 1273, 1285
23
(9th Cir. 1996); Winans v. Bowen, 853 F.2d 643, 647 (9th Cir. 1987). The least weight is given
24
to the opinion of a non-examining professional. See Pitzer v. Sullivan, 908 F.2d 502, 506 & n.4
25
(9th Cir. 1990).
26
///
3
1
In addition to considering its source, to evaluate whether the Commissioner
2
properly rejected a medical opinion the court considers whether: (1) contradictory opinions are
3
in the record; and (2) clinical findings support the opinions. The Commissioner may reject an
4
uncontradicted opinion of a treating or examining medical professional only for “clear and
5
convincing” reasons supported by substantial evidence in the record. See Lester, 81 F.3d at 831.
6
While a treating professional’s opinion generally is accorded superior weight, if it is contradicted
7
by an examining professional’s opinion which is supported by different independent clinical
8
findings, the Commissioner may resolve the conflict. See Andrews v. Shalala, 53 F.3d 1035,
9
1041 (9th Cir. 1995). A contradicted opinion of a treating or examining professional may be
10
rejected only for “specific and legitimate” reasons supported by substantial evidence. See Lester,
11
81 F.3d at 830. This test is met if the Commissioner sets out a detailed and thorough summary of
12
the facts and conflicting clinical evidence, states her interpretation of the evidence, and makes a
13
finding. See Magallanes v. Bowen, 881 F.2d 747, 751-55 (9th Cir. 1989). Absent specific and
14
legitimate reasons, the Commissioner must defer to the opinion of a treating or examining
15
professional. See Lester, 81 F.3d at 830-31. The opinion of a non-examining professional,
16
without other evidence, is insufficient to reject the opinion of a treating or examining
17
professional. See id. at 831. In any event, the Commissioner need not give weight to any
18
conclusory opinion supported by minimal clinical findings. See Meanel v. Apfel, 172 F.3d 1111,
19
1113 (9th Cir. 1999) (rejecting treating physician’s conclusory, minimally supported opinion);
20
see also Magallanes, 881 F.2d at 751.
21
The ALJ summarized Dr. Koike’s findings and opinions as follows:
22
The claimant’s treating psychiatrist, Alan Koike, M.D., wrote a letter on
03/30/2015 that stated the claimant was seen at Adult Psychiatric Support
Services Clinic on 03/24/2015, suffers from schizoaffective disorder, and
her treatment plan includes case management and medication management
(Exhibit 8F). Additionally, Dr. Koike completed a medical opinion ability
to do work related activities (mental) on 04/25/2015 and opined the
claimant was seriously limited but not precluded in her ability to
understand, remember and carry out very short and simple instructions,
and adhere to the standards of neatness and cleanliness (Exhibit 7F). Dr.
23
24
25
26
4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Koike opined the claimant was unable to meet competitive standards to
remember work-like procedures; maintain attention for 2-4 hour segment;
maintain regular attendance and be punctual within customary, usually
strict tolerances; sustain an ordinary routine without special supervision;
work in coordination with or proximity to others without being unduly
distracted; make simple work related decisions; complete a normal
workday and workweek without interruptions from psychologically based
symptoms; perform at a consistent pace without an unreasonable number
and length of rest periods; ask simple questions or request assistance;
accept instructions and respond appropriately to criticism from
supervisors; get along with coworkers or peers without unduly distracting
them or exhibiting behavioral extremes; respond appropriately to changes
in a routine work setting; deal with normal work stress; be aware of
normal hazards and take appropriate precautions; understand, remember
and carry out detailed instructions; set realistic goals or plans
independently of others; deal with stress of semiskilled and skilled work;
interact appropriately with the general public; maintain socially
appropriate behavior; travel to unfamiliar places; and use public
transportation (Exhibit 7F). Dr. Koike opined the claimant was disabled
and unable to work in any capacity (Exhibit 8F).
11
CAR 34.
12
13
The ALJ then discussed the opinions of Dr. Kathleen Marshall, also with Adult Psychiatric
14
Support Services Clinic and as to whom plaintiff raises no argument, see id. at 34-35, and
15
continued as follows:
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
. . .Only acceptable medical sources can provide medical opinions to
establish the existence of a medically determinable impairment and how it
affects the individual’s physical and mental functioning (citation omitted)
Here, Dr. Koike and Dr. Marshall are acceptable medical sources under
the Regulations. While the Regulations require consideration of medical
sources who are not “acceptable medical sources,” the Regulations provide
detailed rules for such an evaluation. One factor we consider is
supportability, i.e., the degree to which the “acceptable medical source”
presents an explanation and relevant evidence to support an opinion,
particularly medical signs and laboratory findings (citations omitted).
Here, a review of the records showed the claimant was seen my [sic] four
different medical students under Dr. Koike supervision and never
personally treated by Dr Koike. Dr. Koike’s opinion was solely based on
the claimant’s subjective complaints regarding her mental symptoms as he
never treated her and the mental health notes in her file were created with
the medical student and Dr. Koike showed effectiveness of psychotropic
medication with compliance and mental status exams within normal limits
(Exhibit 6F). . . .
25
Id. at 35.
26
5
1
Plaintiff argues that the ALJ erred in stating that Dr. Koike had never treated plaintiff because,
2
contrary to the ALJ’s statement, Dr. Koike saw plaintiff on two occasions in March 2015.
3
Plaintiff’s argument is unpersuasive. Even assuming that the ALJ was incorrect
4
in stating that Dr. Koike never treated plaintiff, the fact remains that Dr. Koike’s opinions are set
5
forth on a check-the-box form and none of the opinions are explained with specific references to
6
objective evidence. Plaintiff’s only response to this issue is set forth in her reply brief as follows:
7
8
9
. . .In this modern age, the size of medial files is simply exploded.
To take that explosion and two square it for the purposes of litigation by
attaching chart notes to a medical opinion where those chart notes already
appear in the record is not only objectionable even in the administrative
law setting, it is obnoxious.
10
While plaintiff may find it obnoxious, the law is clear that the Commissioner need not give
11
weight to conclusory opinions. See Meanel, 172 F.3d at 1113. Because Dr. Koike’s opinions are
12
not supported with reference to objective evidence, they are conclusory and the ALJ did not err in
13
rejecting them as such.
14
15
16
IV. CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, the court concludes that the Commissioner’s final
17
decision is based on substantial evidence and proper legal analysis. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY
18
ORDERED that:
19
1.
Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment (Doc. 13) is denied;
20
2.
Defendant’s cross-motion for summary judgment (Doc. 18) is granted; and
21
3.
The Clerk of the Court is directed to enter judgment and close this file.
22
23
24
25
DATED: August 27, 2018
______________________________________
CRAIG M. KELLISON
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
26
6
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?