Thornsberry v. Astrue
Filing
23
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 21 . Plaintiff's 17 Motion for Summary Judgment is denied. Defendant's 18 Motion for Summary Judgment is granted. Signed by Judge Janis L. Sammartino on 2/27/12.(kaj)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
JILL THORNSBERRY,
Plaintiff,
12
13
CASE NO. 10CV2459 JLS (WVG)
ORDER (1) ADOPTING R&R;
(2) DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT; AND (3) GRANTING
DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT
vs.
14
15
MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of
Social Security,
(ECF Nos. 17, 18, 21)
16
Defendant.
17
18
Presently before the Court is Magistrate Judge Mitchell D. Dembin’s report and
19
recommendation (“R&R”) advising the Court to deny Plaintiff Jill Thornsberry’s (“Plaintiff”)
20
motion for summary judgment, (Pl.’s MSJ, ECF No. 17), and grant Defendant Michael J. Astrue’s
21
(“Defendant”) motion for summary judgment, (Def.’s MSJ, ECF No. 18). (R&R, ECF No. 21)
22
Also before the Court are Plaintiff’s objections to the R&R. (Obj., ECF No. 22).
23
24
BACKGROUND
Magistrate Judge Dembin’s R&R contains a thorough and accurate recitation of the facts
25
and procedural history underlying Plaintiff’s appeal of the denial of her application for
26
supplemental security income under Title XVI of the Social Security Act. (R&R 1–2, ECF No.
27
21) This Order incorporates by reference the facts as set forth in the R&R. Defendant did not file
28
objections to the R&R. Plaintiff objected to the R&R on February 13, 2012. (Obj., ECF No. 22)
-1-
10cv2459
1
2
LEGAL STANDARDS
1. District Court Review of a Report and Recommendation
3
Rule 72(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) set forth a
4
district court’s duties regarding a magistrate judge’s R&R. The district court “shall make a de
5
novo determination of those portions of the report . . . to which objection is made,” and “may
6
accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the
7
[magistrate judge].” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(c); see also United States v. Raddatz, 447 U.S. 667,
8
673–76 (1980). However, in the absence of a timely objection, “the court need only satisfy itself
9
that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.” Fed.
10
R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee’s note (citing Campbell v. U.S. Dist. Ct., 501 F.2d 196, 206 (9th
11
Cir. 1974)).
12
2. Review of Denial of Disability Claim
13
When an applicant’s claim for disability benefits under the Social Security Act has been
14
denied, she may seek judicial review of the Commissioner’s decision. 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). The
15
reviewing Court will reverse the Commissioner’s decision only if “it is based upon legal error or is
16
not supported by substantial evidence.” Bayliss v. Barnhart, 427 F.3d 1211, 1214 n.1 (9th Cir.
17
2005) (citing Tidwell v. Apfel, 161 F.3d 599, 601 (9th Cir. 1999)). “Substantial evidence is such
18
relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion” and is
19
“more than a mere scintilla but less than a preponderance.” Webb v. Barnhart, 433 F.3d 683, 686
20
(9th Cir. 2005) (citing Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389, 401 (1971)); Tidwell, 161 F.3d at 601
21
(citing Jamerson v. Chater, 112 F.3d 1064, 1066 (9th Cir.1997)). This inquiry looks to the record
22
as a whole. Sample v. Schweiker, 694 F.2d 639, 642 (9th Cir. 1982). However, if the evidence
23
supports more than one interpretation, the Court must uphold the Administrative Law Judge’s
24
(“ALJ”) decision. Tackett v. Apfel, 180 F.3d 1094, 1098 (9th Cir. 1999). “Where, as here, the
25
Appeals Council denies a request for review of an ALJ’s decision, the decision of the ALJ
26
represents the final decision of the Commissioner.” Batson v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 359
27
F.3d 1190, 1193 n.1 (9th Cir 2004) (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.981).
28
//
-2-
10cv2459
1
In order to qualify for disability benefits, an applicant must show that she is “disabled,”
2
meaning (1) that she suffers from a medically determinable impairment that can be expected to last
3
for a continuous period of twelve months or more, or would result in death, and (2) the impairment
4
renders the applicant incapable of performing the work she previously performed or any other
5
substantially gainful employment that exists in the national economy. 42 U.S.C. §§ 423(d)(1)(A),
6
(2)(A). To evaluate the applicant’s claim, an ALJ must apply a five-step analysis. 20 C.F.R.
7
§ 404.1520.
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
In step one, the ALJ determines whether a claimant is currently engaged in
substantial gainful activity. If so, the claimant is not disabled. If not, the ALJ
proceeds to step two and evaluates whether the claimant has a medically severe
impairment or combination of impairments. If not, the claimant is not disabled. If
so, the ALJ proceeds to step three and considers whether the impairment or
combination of impairments meets or equals a listed impairment under 20 C.F.R. pt.
404, subpt. P, App. 1. If so, the claimant is automatically presumed disabled. If
not, the ALJ proceeds to step four and assesses whether the claimant is capable of
performing her past relevant work. If so, the claimant is not disabled. If not, the
ALJ proceeds to step five and examines whether the claimant has the residual
functional capacity (“RFC”) to perform any other substantial gainful activity in the
national economy. If so, the claimant is not disabled. If not, the claimant is
disabled.
15
Burch v. Barnhart, 400 F.3d 676, 679 (9th Cir. 2005). A claimant bears the burden of proof with
16
respect to the first four steps, but for the fifth step the burden shifts to the Commissioner. Id.
17
(citing Swenson v. Sullivan, 876 F.2d 683, 687 (9th Cir. 1989)).
18
ANALYSIS
19
In her motion and objections, Plaintiff asserts that the ALJ erred in (1) rejecting the
20
opinions of Plaintiff’s treating physicians and (2) rejecting Plaintiff’s testimony regarding her
21
disability. (Pl.’s MSJ, ECF No. 17); (Obj., ECF No. 22) The Court reviews de novo those
22
portions of the R&R to which Plaintiff objects.
23
1. Treating Physicians’ Opinions
24
A. Summary of the R&R’s Conclusions
25
The R&R concluded that “the ALJ provided specific and legitimate reasons for rejecting
26
the opinions of Plaintiff’s physicians,” (R&R 6–7, ECF No. 21), based on the ALJ’s conclusion
27
that Plaintiff’s treating physicians’ “assessments were inconsistent with the evidence on record
28
and Plaintiff’s daily activities,” (id. at 7). Specifically, the R&R found that the ALJ correctly
-3-
10cv2459
1
determined that the treating physicians’ opinions were not supported by any clinical findings in
2
Plaintiff’s treatment notes, and that Dr. Tabacaru’s finding that Plaintiff suffered from extreme
3
side effects from her medication was likewise uncorroborated by the treatment notes. (Id.) Given
4
these ambiguities in the record, the R&R concluded that “the ALJ was within his discretion to
5
discount the opinions of the treating physicians, and adopt the opinions of the non-examining state
6
physicians.” (Id. (citing Administrative R. (“AR”) 12–14, ECF No. 12-2))
7
The R&R further concluded that Chavez v. Bowen, 844 F.2d 691 (9th Cir. 1988), provided
8
additional support for the ALJ’s decision to reject the opinions of Plaintiff’s treating physicians.1
9
Under Chavez, the R&R found that plaintiff bore the burden of rebutting the presumption of
10
continuing nondisability created by a November 2004 unfavorable decision. (R&R 7, ECF No. 21
11
(citing AR 71, ECF No. 12-3)) Finding that the ALJ explicitly relied on Chavez, the R&R
12
determined that Chavez “further supports the ALJ’s decision to reject the opinions of Plaintiff’s
13
examining physicians,” (id. at 9), because Plaintiff was unable to demonstrate that her condition
14
had worsened or that there were any other changes in her circumstances indicating greater
15
limitations, (id. at 7).
16
B. Objections to the R&R’s Conclusions
17
Plaintiff asserts that the ALJ improperly credited the opinion of the nonexamining state
18
agency doctors rather than crediting the assessments of Plaintiff’s treating physicians. (Obj. 2–4,
19
ECF No. 22) She contends that Magistrate Judge Dembin erred in rejecting the assessments from
20
Plaintiff’s treating physicians due to the fact that the treatment records “lacked ongoing, in-depth
21
mental status examinations” because such evaluations are not required under the applicable
22
regulations or Ninth Circuit case law, and because such evaluations are included in the record. (Id.
23
at 2–3 (citing (R&R 7, ECF No. 21); (AR 599, 601, 610, ECF No. 12-9))) Additionally, Plaintiff
24
argues that to the extent “the ALJ or the magistrate believed that the record[s] from the treating
25
sources were ambiguous then the ALJ should have attempted to re-contact the treating source,”
26
rather than “summarily reject or draw inferences from such ambiguous, inconsistent or incomplete
27
28
1
The R&R noted, however, that it found “that the ALJ’s decision was proper regardless of
Chavez.” (R&R 8, ECF No. 21)
-4-
10cv2459
1
opinions.” (Id. at 3) Additionally, Plaintiff argues that Magistrate Judge Dembin’s reliance on
2
Chavez was flawed given that “[t]here is new and material evidence in this case that was not
3
before the previous ALJ evidencing a deterioration in Ms. Thornsberry’s condition.” (Id. at 3–4)
4
C. Analysis
5
(1) Rejection of Treating Physicians’ Opinions
6
Generally, a treating physician’s opinion is given more weight than a nontreating
7
physician’s opinion. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527; Orn v. Astrue, 495 F.3d 625, 631 (9th Cir. 2007)
8
(“Generally, the opinions of examining physicians are afforded more weight than those of non-
9
examining physicians, and the opinions of examining non-treating physicians are afforded less
10
weight than those of treating physicians.”). An ALJ may reject opinions of treating physicians
11
under certain circumstances, however. See Batson v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 359 F.3d 1190,
12
1195 (9th Cir. 2004).
13
If the treating physician’s opinion is contradicted by another physician the ALJ may reject
14
the treating physician’s opinion if the ALJ provides “‘specific and legitimate reasons’ supported
15
by substantial evidence in the record.” Lester v. Chater, 81 F.3d 821, 830 (9th Cir. 1995). “The
16
findings of a nontreating, nonexamining physician can amount to substantial evidence, so long as
17
other evidence in the record supports those findings.” Saelee v. Chater, 94 F.3d 520, 522 (9th Cir.
18
1996); see also Morgan v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 169 F.3d 595, 600 (9th Cir. 1999) (stating
19
that a nonexamining physician’s opinion must be “supported by other evidence in the record and
20
[be] consistent with it”). Furthermore, “an ALJ may discredit treating physicians’ opinions that
21
are conclusory, brief, and unsupported by the record as a whole . . . or by objective medical
22
findings.” Batson, 359 F.3d at 1195 (citations omitted).
23
24
Here, the ALJ gave “very little weight” to the opinions of Plaintiff’s treating physicians
because they were “inconsistent with the evidence of record.”2 (AR at 14, ECF No. 12-2) As to
25
26
27
28
2
The ALJ also gave little weight to the treating physicians’ opinions to the extent they
“concern[ed] issues specifically reserved to the Commissioner,” namely, whether Plaintiff was unable
to work or was disabled. (AR 14, ECF No. 12-2) The R&R upheld the decision to reject these
determinations, noting that “[a] finding, even by a treating physician, that the plaintiff is ‘disabled’
or ‘unable to work’ is not entitled to any special significance.” (R&R 6, ECF No. 21 (citing 20 C.F.R.
§ 404.1527(e)(3)) Plaintiff does not object to this portion of the R&R, and the Court adopts is as it
-5-
10cv2459
1
Dr. Tabacaru, the ALJ discounted Dr. Tabacaru’s mental functional capacity assessment and
2
global assessment of functioning (“GAF”) scale score because they were “inconsistent with the
3
evidence of record and inconsistent with the claimant’s activities of daily living functioning
4
levels.” (Id. at 13–14) Specifically, Dr. Tabacaru reported that Plaintiff’s “anxiety manifests
5
through racing thoughts, constant worry, & poor sleeping habits that reduce/slow the effectiveness
6
of recovery efforts, self care, and daily functioning,” assigning a GAF score of 50. (AR 602, ECF
7
No. 12-9) The extreme signs and symptoms that a GAF score of 50 represents is not reflected by
8
the objective medical record, however, including Dr. Tabacaru’s own treatment notes. (See id.
9
607–626)3
10
As to Dr. Patel, the ALJ discounted his opinions because they were “not supported by his
11
own treatment/progress notes.” (AR 14, ECF No. 12-2); see also Weetman v. Sullivan, 877 F.2d
12
20, 23 (9th Cir. 1989) (upholding an ALJ’s rejection of a treating physician’s opinion because it
13
was “clearly inconsistent with the medical notes that [the physician] had made during
14
examinations”). For example, Dr. Patel wrote in an August 13, 2008, letter that Plaintiff was
15
“unable to work” due to “her multiple medical problems” and because “her condition at this time
16
has worsened.” (AR 385, ECF No. 12-7) But Dr. Patel’s July 2008 and August 2008 treatment
17
notes paint a different picture: they indicate that Plaintiff’s pain was improving through
18
medication, that she was reducing her medication, and that she was participating in physical
19
therapy. (AR 388, 391, ECF No. 12-7)
20
Finally, as to Dr. Sivtsov, the ALJ found that though Dr. Sivtsov indicated that Plaintiff’s
21
“depression resulted in moderate to marked limitations and repeated episodes of decompensation,”
22
the objective medical record lacked evidence to support this. (AR 14, ECF No. 12-2) Indeed, in
23
24
25
26
27
28
is not clearly erroneous.
3
In addition, and as noted by the R&R, Dr. Tabacaru indicated that Plaintiff experienced
medication side effects of “drowsiness, lethargy, fatigue, dizziness, stomach upset, nausea.” (AR 602,
ECF No. 12-9) To the contrary, however, Dr. Tabacaru’s treatment notes indicate that Plaintiff either
did not have medication side effects, (id. at 612 (treatment notes indicating that Plaintiff is
experiencing no medication side effects); (see also id. at 599, 619, 622, 623, 625 (treatment notes
silent as to any medication side effects)), or those side effects do not match those listed in Dr.
Tabacaru’s mental functional capacity assessment, (id. at 610 (“wired up”)); id. at 613 (“agitated and
anxious”)).
-6-
10cv2459
1
Dr. Sivtsov’s March 2008 through May 2008 treatment notes, he consistently reported that
2
Plaintiff had “no [symptoms] of depression or mania,” and that her mood was “fair.” (AR 283–85,
3
ECF No. 12-7) This is directly contradictory with his indication in an April 29, 2008, Psychiatric
4
Review Form that Plaintiff was “depressed, overwhelmed, sad.” (AR 532, ECF No. 12-8); see
5
also Pirtle v. Astrue, 479 F.3d 931, 933 (8th Cir. 2007) (“When a treating physician’s notes are
6
inconsistent with his or her residual functional capacity assessment, we decline to give controlling
7
weight to the residual functional capacity assessment.”)
8
9
Based on the above noted inconsistencies between the objective medical record and the
treating physicians’ opinions, the Court finds that there is substantial evidence to support the
10
ALJ’s decision to give little weight to the opinions of Plaintiff’s treating physicians. The ALJ’s
11
noting that “claimant was often a no show” to her scheduled appointments and that “the record is
12
lacking ongoing, in-depth mental status evaluations” merely supported his conclusion that the
13
treating physicians’ opinions did not reflect what the objective medical evidence indicated. (AR
14
14, ECF No. 12-2) Accordingly, Plaintiff’s objection on this basis is OVERRULED.
15
(2) Failure to Re-Contact Treating Physicians
16
Plaintiff also objects to the ALJ’s rejection of the treating physicians’ opinions, arguing
17
that “the ALJ should have attempted to re-contact the treating source,” under 20 C.F.R.
18
§ 404.1512(e).4 That section provides that the ALJ will recontact the treating phsyician “[w]hen
19
the evidence [the ALJ] receive[s] from [the] treating physician or psychologist or other medical
20
source is inadequate for [the ALJ] to determine whether [the claimant is] disabled.” 20 C.F.R.
21
§ 404.1512(e).5 This does not place a mandatory duty on the ALJ, but rather “[a]n ALJ is required
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4
Though Plaintiff raised this argument in her motion, (Pl.’s MSJ 8, ECF No. 17), Defendant
did not address it in his response, (see Resp. in Opp’n to Pl.’s MSJ, ECF No. 19), and Magistrate
Judge Dembin did not consider it in the R&R, (see R&R, ECF No. 21).
5
The section further provides that
[The ALJ] will seek additional evidence or clarification from [the claimant’s]
medical source when the report from [the claimant’s] medical source contains a
conflict or ambiguity that must be resolved, the report does not contain all the
necessary information, or does not appear to be based on medically acceptable
clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques. [The ALJ] may do this by requesting
copies of [the claimant’s] medical source’s records, a new report, or a more detailed
-7-
10cv2459
1
to recontact a doctor only if the doctor’s report is ambiguous or insufficient for the ALJ to make a
2
disability determination.” Bayliss, 427 F.3d at 1217 (citing Thomas v. Barnhart, 278 F.3d 947,
3
958 (9th Cir. 2002) (“[T]he requirement for additional information is triggered only when the
4
evidence from the treating medical source is inadequate to make a determination as to the
5
claimant’s disability.”)).
6
Here, the Court finds that the record was adequate and allowed the ALJ to make a proper
7
evaluation of Plaintiff’s disability claim. Specifically, the objective medical evidence and the
8
nonexamining physicians’ opinions, combined with the Chavez presumption of continuing
9
nondisability, see infra, constitute substantial evidence to uphold the ALJ’s decision. Moreover,
10
to the extent that the ALJ may have erred by failing to recontact Plaintiff’s treating physicians,
11
such error was harmless as there is substantial evidence in the record to support the ALJ’s
12
decision. Thus, Plaintiff’s objection on this basis is OVERRULED.
13
(3) Reliance on Chavez6
14
Finally, Plaintiff contends that Magistrate Judge Dembin’s reliance on the Chavez
15
presumption of continuing disability was flawed because Plaintiff presented evidence that her
16
condition had worsened since the prior disability determination.7 (Obj. 3–4, ECF No.22) Under
17
Chavez, “[t]he claimant, in order to overcome the presumption of continuing nondisability arising
18
from the first administrative law judge’s findings of nondisability, must prove ‘changed
19
circumstances’ indicating a greater disability.” 844 F.2d at 693.
20
//
21
report from [the claimant’s] medical source, including [the claimant’s] treating
source, or by telephoning [the claimant’s] medical source.
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
20 C.F.R. § 404.1512(e)(1).
6
Although the R&R determined that the ALJ’s decision could be upheld without regard to the
Chavez presumption, (id. at 9), the Court considers it here as additional support for the ALJ’s decision
not to recontact the treating physicians under 20 C.F.R. § 404.1512(e).
7
The Court notes that Plaintiff provides no supporting argument for this contention, and does
not point to any evidence in the record to support her assertion that there was new evidence before the
ALJ “evidencing a deterioration in [her] condition.” (Obj. 4, ECF No. 22) Moreover, Plaintiff does
not object to Magistrate Judge Dembin’s decision to credit Defendant’s Chavez argument. Finding
no clear error, the Court adopts the R&R to the extent it determined that the ALJ relied on Chavez to
support his disability determination. (See R&R 8–9, ECF No. 21)
-8-
10cv2459
1
In November 2004, Plaintiff was denied disability benefits at a separate hearing based on a
2
finding that she had “not been under a ‘disability,’ as defined in the Social Security Act.” (AR 72,
3
ECF No. 12-3) This created a presumption of continuing nondisability, which Plaintiff bore the
4
burden to rebut. However, Plaintiff identifies no evidence in the record suggesting changed
5
circumstances or that her condition had worsened since her previous denial. Accordingly, the
6
Court OVERRULES Plaintiff’s objection on this basis. The Chavez presumption provides
7
additional support to uphold the ALJ’s disability determination.
8
2. Plaintiff’s Credibility
9
A. Summary of the R&R’s Conclusions
10
The R&R concluded that “the ALJ provided specific and cogent reasons to support finding
11
Plaintiff not credible.” (R&R 10, ECF No. 21) Specifically, Magistrate Judge Dembin determined
12
that “Plaintiff’s ability to live alone, take care of her dogs, do dishes and laundry, drive herself,
13
shop, handle her own finances, and interact with others . . . all undermine Plaintiff’s claims that
14
she suffers disabling pain.” (Id. (citations omitted)) Moreover, the R&R noted that “Plaintiff’s
15
failure to follow a prescribed course of treatment is a valid reason for questioning Plaintiff’s
16
credibility.” (Id.)
17
B. Objections to the R&R’s Conclusions
18
Plaintiff objects to the R&R’s upholding the ALJ’s finding that Plaintiff was not credible.
19
(Obj. 4–5, ECF No. 22) She contends that Magistrate Judge Dembin erred in concluding that
20
Plaintiff’s medication improved her condition, and in assuming that Plaintiff’s ability to perform
21
daily activities would transfer to the workplace. (Id.)
22
C. Analysis
23
The ALJ’s reasons for rejecting a plaintiff’s testimony must be clear and convincing.
24
Lester, 81 F.3d at 834. In order to meet the clear and convincing standard, the ALJ must
25
specifically state what facts in the record discredited the plaintiff’s testimony. Smolen v. Chater,
26
80 F.3d 1273, 1284 (9th Cir. 1996); Dodrill v. Shalala, 12 F.3d 915, 918 (9th Cir. 1993). This
27
requires the ALJ to provide “specific, cogent reasons for the disbelief.” Lester, 81 F.3d at 834.
28
This assures the reviewing court that the ALJ did not arbitrarily dismiss the plaintiff’s testimony.
-9-
10cv2459
1
Bunnell v. Sullivan, 947 F.2d 341, 345–46 (9th Cir. 1991) (en banc).
2
While Plaintiff’s subjective testimony “cannot be rejected on the sole ground that it is not
3
fully corroborated by objective medical evidence, the medical evidence is still a relevant factor in
4
determining the severity of the claimant’s pain and its disabling effects.” Rollins v. Massanari,
5
261 F.3d 853, 857 (9th Cir. 2001) (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(2)). Other evidence that may be
6
relevant to the ALJ’s credibility determination includes “testimony about the claimant’s daily
7
activities,” or “unexplained, or inadequately explained, failure to seek treatment or follow a
8
prescribed course of treatment.” Fair v. Bowen, 885 F.2d 597, 603 (9th Cir. 1989); see also 20
9
C.F.R. § 404.1530(b) (“If you do not follow the prescribed treatment without a good reason, we
10
will not find you disabled . . . .”).
11
Here, the ALJ determined that “the claimant’s allegations of disabling pain and limitation
12
[were] inconsistent with the evidence of record and [were] therefore, not fully credible.” (AR 13,
13
ECF No. 12-2) The ALJ noted Plaintiff’s apparent ability to engage in normal daily activities, and
14
to interact with family and friends. (Id.) In addition, the ALJ remarked on Plaintiff’s
15
“inconsistent . . . compliance with her psychiatric medications,” and the fact that she “has a history
16
of no shows and cancelling appointments.” (Id.) Taken together, the ALJ concluded that
17
Plaintiff’s “statements concerning the intensity, persistence and limiting effects of [her] symptoms
18
[were] not credible.” (Id.)
19
The Court finds that the ALJ’s credibility determination was supported by specific and
20
cogent reasons. The evidence demonstrated that Plaintiff was able to perform light household
21
chores, handle money and pay bills, and interact with family and friends. (AR 366–67, ECF No.
22
12-7); (AR 604, ECF No. 12-9) Moreover, Dr. Tabacaru’s treatment notes indicated numerous
23
cancelled appointments, no shows, and one occasion where Plaintiff left before seeing the doctor.
24
(AR 607–609, 611, 616–17, ECF No. 12-9) And the objective medical evidence further suggest
25
that Plaintiff was not fully compliant with her medications. (Id. at 610, 613, 623, 625) Thus, the
26
ALJ’s reasons for finding Plaintiff’s testimony incredible were clear and convincing.
27
28
Plaintiff contends that her failure to comply with her medication should be overlooked
because the treatment notes indicate that her “medications were not working.” (Obj. 4, ECF No.
- 10 -
10cv2459
1
22) Even if the Court were to disregard Plaintiff’s noncompliance, however, her reported daily
2
functioning and failure to attend scheduled doctor’s appointments independently support the ALJ’s
3
credibility determination. The Court therefore OVERRULES Plaintiff’s objection on this basis.8
4
CONCLUSION
5
For the reasons stated above, the Court ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Dembin’s R&R.
6
Consequently, Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment is DENIED and Defendant’s motion for
7
summary judgment is GRANTED.
8
IT IS SO ORDERED.
9
10
DATED: February 27, 2012
11
Honorable Janis L. Sammartino
United States District Judge
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
8
Plaintiff additionally objects because “there is no evidence that Ms. Thornsberry’s daily
activities would transfer to the workplace.” (Obj. 4–5, ECF No. 22) This argument does not change
the Court’s finding as to the ALJ’s credibility determination, however. Even assuming Plaintiff’s
daily activities would not transfer to the workplace, her admitted daily activities undermine her
allegations of disabling pain and limitation, and were therefore relevant to the ALJ’s credibility
determination.
- 11 -
10cv2459
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?