Kelley v. Commissioner of Social Security
Filing
41
ORDER denying Plaintiff's 29 Motion for Summary Judgment; granting Defendant's 33 Motion for Summary Judgment. Court overrules Pla's 39 Objections to the Report. Court adopts 37 Report and Recommendation in its entirety. Pla 's request for a remand to consider new evidence submitted with her motion for summary judgment and opposition to Dft's cross-motion for summary judgment is denied. Signed by Judge Cynthia Bashant on 3/27/2015. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service) (jah)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
DORRAINE R. KELLEY,
Plaintiff,
12
13
14
15
16
Case No. 13-cv-01125-BAS(KSC)
ORDER:
(1)
OVERRULING PLAINTIFF’S
OBJECTIONS (ECF NO. 39);
(2)
ADOPTING REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION IN ITS
ENTIRETY (ECF NO. 37);
(3)
DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT (ECF NO. 29);
AND
(4)
GRANTING DEFENDANT’S
MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT (ECF NO. 33)
v.
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL
SECURITY,
Defendant.
17
18
19
20
21
22
On May 10, 2013, plaintiff Dorraine R. Kelley (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro
23
se, filed a complaint against Carolyn W. Colvin (“Defendant”), Acting
24
Commissioner of Social Security, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) of the Social
25
Security Act (“SSA”) to obtain judicial review of a final decision by the
26
Commissioner of Social Security denying her disability insurance benefits. The
27
Court then referred this matter to Magistrate Judge Karen S. Crawford, who issued
28
a Report and Recommendation (“Report”) on February 26, 2015 recommending
–1–
13cv1125
1
that this Court: (1) deny Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, (2) grant
2
Defendant’s cross-motion for summary judgment, and (3) deny Plaintiff’s request
3
for a remand to consider new evidence submitted with her motion for summary
4
judgment and with her opposition to Defendant’s motion for summary judgment.
5
Thereafter, Plaintiff filed objections to the Report, and the Commissioner filed a
6
response to the objections.
7
I.
BACKGROUND1
8
A.
Procedural History
9
On or about February 22, 2010, Plaintiff filed an application for
10
supplemental security income (“SSI”). (ECF No. 23-5 at pp. 3-13.) In a Disability
11
Report (Form SSA-3368) completed in connection with her application, Plaintiff
12
stated she has degenerative disc disease, diabetes, and spinal stenosis and cannot
13
work for the following reasons: “lack of motivation, can’t stand longer than 10
14
minutes, trouble bending or twisting, can only lift 10 lbs, [and] pain level is 10.”
15
(ECF No. 23-6 at pp. 3-12.)
16
A Work History Report dated April 7, 2010 states that Plaintiff worked as a
17
receptionist from November 1992 through June 1994. She worked five days a
18
week for eight hours each day and was paid $10 per hour. Her duties included
19
answering telephones and working on a computer. From January 1990 through
20
April 1992, Plaintiff worked five days per week in food service. She worked five
21
hours a day and was paid $8.50 per hour. Her duties included making food, taking
22
food orders at a cash register, and working in the stock room. She carried boxes of
23
canned food from the truck to the shelves and trash bags from the restaurant to a
24
trash receptacle. (Id. at pp. 41-43, 52.) In the “Remarks” section of the Work
25
History Report dated April 7, 2010, Plaintiff wrote that she has “severe pain 24/7”
26
27
1
28
Plaintiff did not object to the following procedural and factual
summaries presented in the Report.
–2–
13cv1125
1
and “cannot get out of bed to even look for a job.” (Id. at p. 52.)
2
On June 23, 2010, Plaintiff was notified by letter that she did not qualify for
3
disability benefits. (ECF No. 23-4 at p. 8.) The letter provides the following
4
explanation for the denial of benefits: “We have determined that your condition is
5
not severe enough to keep you from working. We considered the medical and other
6
information, your age, education, training, and work experience in determining how
7
your condition affects your ability to work. [¶]You said you are unable to work
8
because of degenerative disc disease, diabetes, and spinal stenosis. ¶We have
9
determined that your condition is not so severe as to prevent you from working ....”
10
(Id. at p. 8.) Three reports from the following medical providers were used to
11
decide Plaintiffs claim for SSI benefits: (1) Dr. Noli Cava; (2) Sharp Memorial
12
Hospital; and (3) Seagate Medical Group (Dr. Ajit Raisinghani).
13
Plaintiff also completed a Disability Report Questionnaire2 which states as
14
follows: “It is very hard to get even out of bed without pain medication. I would be
15
hospitalized without pain medications. I cannot clean, drive, cook, bathe without
16
pain medications.... My day begins with waking up to pain medications [,] crawling
17
out of my bed and to the couch as soon as the medication sets in. I hurry about
18
trying to make a bed or clean the house, care for my children and be a “Mom.” My
19
daily housework assignments are limited. Each pain pill lasts 4-6 hours (if it
20
works). I am constantly chasing a remedy to relieve the pain.... My day ends with
21
pain medication, muscle relaxers and a whole bunch of denials from my insurance
22
to see the doctors.... Doctors say I will not be able to work anytime soon. I will
23
have possible surgery-pending.
24
insurance will not ‘o’k’ a visit to the neurosurgeon. We are pushing to get me in to
25
him. I have been waiting 3 months for clearance to see neurosurgeon and 3 weeks
Waiting appointment with neurosurgeon. My
26
27
28
2
Although this document is undated, bar coding indicates that it was
faxed from Myler Disability on July 28, 2010 and added to the Administrative
Record on August 8, 2010.
–3–
13cv1125
1
for clearance to get an x-ray or MRI.” (ECF No. 23-6 at p. 66.) At this time,
2
Plaintiff also represented she was taking a number of medications for an infection,
3
diabetes, back pain, and high blood pressure.
4
medications included severe nausea, fatigue, dizziness, and headaches. (Id. at p.
5
67.)
Reported side effects for these
6
Although Plaintiff submitted a request for reconsideration, her request was
7
denied on August 12, 2010. (ECF No. 23-4 at pp. 14-19.) On September 12, 2010,
8
Plaintiff requested a hearing before an administrative law judge (“ALJ”). (Id. at pp.
9
21-27.) A hearing was scheduled and held on August 11, 2011. (ECF No. 23-2 at
10
pp. 26-51; ECF No. 23-4 at pp. 42, 53, 78.) At the hearing, the ALJ considered
11
testimony by (1) Plaintiff; (2) John R. Morse, M.D., a medical expert; and (3) John
12
P. Kilcher, a vocational expert. (ECF No. 23-2 at pp. 26-50; ECF No. 23-4 at pp.
13
70-77.)
14
On August 31, 2011, the ALJ issued a written opinion concluding that
15
Plaintiff did not qualify for disability insurance benefits under the SSA. (ECF No.
16
23-2 at pp. 1-21.) Plaintiff requested review of the ALJ’s decision, arguing that the
17
ALJ “did not rule in accordance [with] the weight of the evidence.” (Id. at pp. 7-8.)
18
Plaintiffs request for review was denied by the Appeals Council on March 8, 2013.
19
(Id. at pp. 2-4.) Plaintiff then filed her Complaint in this action on May 10, 2013.
20
(ECF No. 1.)
21
B.
22
The following is a summary of the medical evidence in the Administrative
23
Record that was submitted in support of Plaintiff s disability claim and considered
24
by the ALJ in reaching his decision to deny benefits on August 31, 2011:
25
Medical Evidence
1.
Sharp Memorial Hospital
26
On October 21, 2009, Plaintiff went to Sharp Memorial Hospital complaining
27
of pain radiating down both legs “for the past 3 months.” (ECF No. 23-7 at p. 18.)
28
Plaintiff said she had been taking Motrin “without significant change.” (Id. at p.
–4–
13cv1125
1
18.) An x-ray of the spine revealed “slight scoliosis.” (Id. at p. 25.)
2
On December 22, 2009, Plaintiff was once again examined in the emergency
3
room at Sharp Memorial Hospital because of “progressively worsening lower back
4
discomfort” and pain in her legs. She reported to medical personnel at the hospital
5
that the pain began “3 months ago without antecedent trauma or exertion.” (Id. at
6
p. 3.) The results of an MRI “of the lumbosacral spine ... showed mild disk bulging
7
at L3-4, mild disk protrusion at L4-5, and mild to moderate spinal stenosis at L4-5
8
secondary to disk and hypertrophy of the ligamentum flavum.” (Id. at pp. 5, 13.)
9
The emergency room physician concluded the MRI revealed “significant disk
10
disease, particularly on the left, likely accounting for patient’s [symptoms]. As she
11
showed no signs of cord compression [or other conditions] warranting ... surgical
12
intervention,” the emergency room doctor prescribed pain medication and referred
13
Plaintiff to her primary care physician. (Id. at p. 5.)
14
2.
Dr. Noli A. Cava
15
Dr. Noli A. Cava (“Dr. Cava”) was Plaintiff’s treating physician beginning
16
January 5, 2010. (ECF No. 23-7, at pp. 27, 41.) In support of Plaintiff’s disability
17
claim, Dr. Cava provided medical records and/or treatment notes from January 5,
18
2010 through May 4, 2011. (Id. at pp. 38-41, 79-90, et seq.) Although these notes
19
are somewhat illegible, many mention chronic low back pain, which Dr. Cava was
20
treating with pain medication. (Id. at pp. 39-41, 80, 85-86, 88, 90.) Plaintiff was
21
also being treated for diabetes at Dr. Cava’s office. (Id. at pp. 40-41, 43, 89, 91.)
22
Dr. Cava’s treatment notes indicate that he referred Plaintiff to physical
23
therapy and a pain clinic for her low back pain. (Id. at pp. 39, 80, 81, 83, 90.) One
24
note in the record from May 4, 2010 suggests that Plaintiff was receiving physical
25
therapy for low back pain and would not be able to consult with a pain clinic until
26
she completed the physical therapy. (Id. at p. 88.) The Administrative Record does
27
not include evidence that Plaintiff actually had physical therapy. Although Dr.
28
Cava’s notes from June 10, 2010 state that Plaintiff was “denied” a neurosurgery
–5–
13cv1125
1
evaluation, his later notes from June 29, 2010 state that Plaintiff had been approved
2
to obtain an evaluation by a neurosurgeon. On August 23, 2010, Dr. Cava’s notes
3
say that Plaintiff was still waiting to see a neurosurgeon. (Id. at pp. 85, 86, 87.)
4
However, there is nothing in Dr. Cava’s treatment notes or the remainder of the
5
Administrative Record indicating whether Plaintiff actually had a neurosurgery
6
evaluation.
7
On March 23, 2010, Plaintiff complained to Dr. Cava of pain in her right
8
foot. (Id. at pp. 38, 90.) From May 4, 2010 through May 4, 2011, Dr. Cava’s notes
9
indicate Plaintiff was being treated for an open toe wound on her right foot that was
10
causing pain and not healing. (Id. at pp. 79, 85, 86, 88.) During this time, on
11
August 3, 2010, Plaintiff’s right foot was evaluated by Dr. David W. Buckley at
12
Imaging Healthcare Specialists. Dr. Buckley noted there was some soft tissue
13
swelling and mild degenerative changes in the “first MTP joint,” but he concluded
14
there was “[n]o acute bony abnormality.” (Id. at p. 106.)
15
On April 1, 2010 and again on August 1, 2011, Dr. Cava completed and
16
submitted a Residual Functional Capacity Questionnaire in support of Plaintiff s
17
disability claim. In both of these Questionnaires, Dr. Cava stated that Plaintiff had
18
been diagnosed with spinal stenosis, bulging discs, and displaced discs. Dr. Cava
19
listed the following symptoms and side effects from Plaintiff’s medications: chronic
20
pain, drowsiness, dizziness, fatigue, and nausea. Dr. Cava also indicated on both
21
Questionnaires that Plaintiffs symptoms were severe enough to constantly interfere
22
with the attention and concentration necessary to perform simple, work-related
23
tasks. (Id. at pp. 27,121.) In the Questionnaire dated April 1, 2010, Dr. Cava noted
24
that Plaintiff “has many other health issues [including] diabetes and migraines.”
25
(Id. at p. 28.) In the later Questionnaire dated August 1, 2011, Dr. Cava stated that
26
Plaintiff “also has diabetes and that [a]ffects her vision and causes fatigue. She also
27
has migraine headaches.” (Id. at p. 122.)
28
Dr. Cava also indicated in both Questionnaires that Plaintiff was extremely
–6–
13cv1125
1
limited in her ability to function in a work situation. In the earlier Questionnaire
2
dated April 1, 2010, Dr. Cava stated that Plaintiff could sit for two hours and stand
3
or walk for one hour in an eight-hour day. (Id. at p. 27.) However, in the later
4
Questionnaire dated August 1,2011, it was Dr. Cava’s opinion that Plaintiff could
5
sit for six hours and stand or walk for two hours in an eight-hour day. (Id. at p.
6
121.) In both Questionnaires, Dr. Cava stated that Plaintiff could only sit or stand
7
for ten minutes at a time, would need to take frequent and lengthy breaks, could not
8
lift more than 10 pounds occasionally, and could not use her hands, fingers or arms
9
for repetitive tasks. (Id. at pp. 27-28,121-122.) In addition, Dr. Cava estimated that
10
Plaintiff would be absent from work more than four times per month as a result of
11
her medical condition. (Id. at p. 28, 122.)
12
3.
Dr. Ajit Raisinghani (Seagate Medical Group)
13
At the request of the Department of Social Services, Dr. Ajit Raisinghani
14
examined Plaintiff, reviewed her prior medical records, and prepared a report dated
15
June 8, 2010. (Id. at pp. 49-54.) During the examination, Plaintiff reported that she
16
suffers from chronic pain in her lower back and legs, and “the only time the pain
17
eases up is when she takes pain medications.” (Id. at p. 50.) Plaintiff also said that
18
she “feels a throbbing type pain in both feet around her toes,” and she has been
19
using a cane for the last month. (Id.)
20
Based on his examination, Dr. Raisinghani reported that the range of motion
21
in Plaintiff’s lumbar spine, upper extremities (shoulders, elbows, hands, and
22
wrists), and lower extremities (hips, knees, feet, and ankles) “is within normal
23
limits.” She also had a “full range of motion” in her neck. (Id. at p. 52.) Although
24
Dr. Raisinghani acknowledged that Plaintiff had previously had an MRI showing
25
“some mild spinal stenosis and mild disc protrusion,” he concluded that her
26
symptoms were “not typical for spinal stenosis.” (Id. at p. 53.) He also concluded
27
that the severity of her diagnosis was “not clear as the MRI was performed without
28
contrast” and the results “mentioned only mild stenosis.” (Id.) As a result of his
–7–
13cv1125
1
examination, Dr. Raisinghani concluded that Plaintiff could stand, walk, or sit for
2
six hours in an eight-hour day; lift and carry 20 pounds occasionally and 10 pounds
3
frequently; and bend and crouch occasionally. (Id.)
4.
4
Other Medical Evaluations
5
Plaintiff’s medical records were reviewed by Dr. A. Wong on June 18, 2010
6
and by S. Brodsky, a Disability Officer, on August 11, 2010. Both concluded based
7
on the medical records that there is insufficient evidence in the record to support
8
Plaintiff’s claim that she is disabled by degenerative disc disease, diabetes, and/or
9
spinal stenosis. Both noted inconsistencies between the evidence in the medical
10
records and Dr. Cava’s assessment of Plaintiff’s functional capacity. (Id. at pp. 62-
11
64; 72-73.)
12
13
C.
Expert Testimony at the August 11.2010 Hearing
1.
John R. Morse. M.D. Medical Expert
14
Based on the record, Dr. Morse testified that he did not believe any of
15
Plaintiff’s documented medical impairments or combination of impairments
16
justified a finding that Plaintiff is disabled under the SSA. (ECF No. 23-2, at pp.
17
32-33.) Based on the available medical records, Dr. Morse acknowledged that
18
Plaintiff does “have chronic back pain probably due to some arthritic or
19
degenerative disc disease” and/or spinal stenosis. However, in his opinion, the
20
degree of spinal impairment indicated by the medical records is “relatively mild.”
21
(Id. at pp. 32-33, 36.) According to Dr. Morse, Plaintiff’s MRI report was “very
22
non-specific,” and there was no evidence in the record of “neurological deficits” or
23
loss of motor strength. (Id. at p. 36.) Dr. Morse also did not find any evidence in
24
the record to indicate Plaintiff’s diabetes is serious enough to meet Social Security
25
disability requirements. (Id. at pp. 33-34.)
26
In Dr. Morse’s opinion, the medical evidence indicates that Plaintiff is
27
capable of work at the “light level,” because he believes she can sit, stand, or walk
28
for six hours in an eight-hour day and lift 20 pounds occasionally and 10 pounds
–8–
13cv1125
1
frequently. He was unable to locate any evidence in the record to support
2
manipulative, visual, communicative, or environmental limitations. However, Dr.
3
Morse believes Plaintiff should be limited to occasional climbing, balancing,
4
stooping, kneeling, crouching or crawling. (Id. at pp. 34-36.)
2.
5
John P. Kucher, Vocational Expert
6
A vocational expert testified that light level, unskilled work is available
7
locally and nationally for a person with the limitations described by the medical
8
expert, Dr. Morse. (Id. at pp. 47-48.) In addition, jobs are available at a lower level
9
(unskilled, sedentary) in the national economy but not locally. (Id. at pp. 48-49.) If
10
the vocational expert relied solely on the Plaintiff’s testimony and other
11
representations that she has extreme limitations, it would be accurate to say she
12
could not sustain a 40-hour week in the work place. (Id. at pp. 49-50.)
13
II.
LEGAL STANDARD
14
The Court reviews de novo those portions of the Report to which objections
15
are made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The Court may “accept, reject, or modify, in
16
whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.”
17
Id. But “[t]he statute [28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(c)] makes it clear that the district
18
judge must review the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations de novo if
19
objection is made, but not otherwise.” United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d
20
1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (emphasis in original); see also Schmidt v.
21
Johnstone, 263 F. Supp. 2d 1219, 1226 (D. Ariz. 2003) (concluding that where no
22
objections were filed, the district court had no obligation to review the magistrate
23
judge’s report). “Neither the Constitution nor the statute requires a district judge to
24
review, de novo, findings and recommendations that the parties themselves accept
25
as correct.” Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d at 1121. This rule of law is well-established in
26
the Ninth Circuit and this district. See Wang v. Masaitis, 416 F.3d 992, 1000 n.13
27
(9th Cir. 2005) (“Of course, de novo review of a [Report and Recommendation] is
28
only required when an objection is made to the [Report and Recommendation].”);
–9–
13cv1125
1
Nelson v. Giurbino, 395 F. Supp. 2d 946, 949 (S.D. Cal. 2005) (Lorenz, J.)
2
(adopting report in its entirety without review because neither party filed objections
3
to the report despite the opportunity to do so); see also Nichols v. Logan, 355 F.
4
Supp. 2d 1155, 1157 (S.D. Cal. 2004) (Benitez, J.).
5
III.
DISCUSSION
6
The Commissioner’s decision must be affirmed upon review if it is supported
7
by substantial evidence and if the Commissioner applied the correct legal standards.
8
42 U.S.C. § 405(g); Batson v. Comm’r of the Soc. Sec. Admin., 359 F.3d 1190,
9
1193 (9th Cir. 2004); Ukolov v. Barnhart, 420 F.3d 1002, 1004 (9th Cir. 2005).
10
Under the substantial evidence standard, the Commissioner’s findings are upheld if
11
supported by inferences reasonably drawn from the record. Batson, 359 F.3d at
12
1193.
13
interpretation, the district court must defer to the Commissioner’s decision. Id.
14
“Substantial evidence means more than a scintilla but less than a preponderance.
15
Substantial evidence is relevant evidence which, considering the record as a whole,
16
a reasonable person might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.” Thomas v.
17
Barnhart, 278 F.3d 947, 954 (9th Cir. 2002) (internal citations and quotations
18
omitted). A court must consider the record as a whole and weigh both the evidence
19
that supports and detracts from the Commissioner’s decision. Tackett v. Apfel, 180
20
F.3d 1094, 1097 (9th Cir. 1999) (citing Penny v. Sullivan, 2 F.3d 953 956 (9th Cir.
21
1993).
If there is evidence in the record to support more than one rational
22
After applying this standard of review, the Report recommended that this
23
Court: (1) deny Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, (2) grant Defendant’s
24
cross-motion for summary judgment, and (3) deny Plaintiff’s request for a remand
25
to consider new evidence submitted with her motion for summary judgment and
26
with her opposition to Defendant’s cross-motion for summary judgment.
27
A.
New Evidence Objection
28
Plaintiff attached documents to her motion for summary judgment and in
– 10 –
13cv1125
1
support of her opposition to Defendant’s cross-motion for summary judgment that
2
were not included in the Administrative Record and not considered by the ALJ or
3
the Appeals Council. (See ECF Nos. 29 at pp. 3-19; 35 at pp. 5-26.) Plaintiff’s
4
new evidence consists of medical information dated from in or about December
5
2012 through September 2014, and various financial and personal documentation
6
dated in 2014. (Id.)
7
Plaintiff objects to the Report claiming that she “has clearly demonstrated
8
through initial evidence and subsequent evidence [that] she most definitely comes
9
under the definition of being totally disabled.” (ECF No. 39 at p. 1.) Plaintiff urges
10
the Court to consider her “new evidence” which is “clearly relevant” and
11
“material.” (Id. at pp. 1-2.) Plaintiff argues there was good cause for her failure to
12
incorporate such evidence into the Administrative Record because, as her
13
conditioned worsened, the “required diligence and energy to acknowledge and
14
pursue all relevant evidence simply did not exist.” (Id. at p. 2.) Instead, she relied
15
on third party professionals “to convey the relevancy of all medications and
16
treatments.” (Id.) However, “[a]s time progressed and conversations surrounding
17
her case magnified she began investigating all the related evidence which [she has]
18
subsequently submitted.”
19
evidence to her objection. (Id. at p. 4.) The Court construes this objection as
20
challenging the Report’s recommendation to deny Plaintiff’s request for a remand
21
to consider new evidence.
(Id. at p. 2.)
Plaintiff also attaches additional new
22
Under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), a district court “may at any time order additional
23
evidence to be taken before the Commissioner of Social Security, but only upon a
24
showing that there is new evidence which is material and that there is good cause
25
for the failure to incorporate such evidence into the record in a prior proceeding.”
26
42 U.S.C. § 405(g); Brewes v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 682 F.3d 1157, 1164
27
(9th Cir. 2012). The Report properly construed the submission of new evidence as
28
a request for remand under Section 405(g). (Report at pp. 23-24.) For a court to
– 11 –
13cv1125
1
order a remand, Plaintiff must demonstrate (1) the materiality of the new evidence,
2
and (2) good cause for failing to incorporate such evidence into the prior
3
proceeding. 42 U.S.C. § 405(g); Booz v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 734 F.2d
4
1378, 1380 (9th Cir. 1984).
5
For new evidence to be material under section 405(g), the new evidence must
6
bear “directly and substantially on the matter in dispute.” Mayes v. Massanari, 276
7
F.3d 453, 462 (9th Cir. 2001). “At a minimum, such evidence must be probative of
8
mental or physical impairment.” Key v. Heckler, 754 F.2d 1545, 1551 (9th Cir.
9
1985). In addition, the plaintiff must “demonstrate that there is a ‘reasonable
10
possibility’ that the new evidence would have changed the outcome of the
11
administrative hearing.” Mayes, 276 F.3d at 462.
12
“An implicit requirement is that the new evidence pertain to the time period
13
for which benefits are sought, and that it not concern later-acquired disabilities or
14
subsequent deterioration of a previously non-disabling condition.”
15
Callahan, 122 F.3d 1148, 1154 (8th Cir. 1997); see also Sanchez v. Sec’y of Health
16
& Human Servs., 812 F.2d 509, 511-12 (9th Cir. 1987) (plaintiff failed to show that
17
the new evidence was material to and probative of his condition “at the relevant
18
time—at or before the disability hearing”); Ward v. Schweiker, 686 F.2d 762, 765
19
(9th Cir. 1982). Therefore, “[a]dditional evidence showing a deterioration in a
20
claimant’s condition significantly after the date of the Commissioner’s final
21
decision is not a material basis for remand, although it may be grounds for a new
22
application for benefits.” Id. (emphasis added); see also Sanchez, 812 F.2d at 511-
23
12.
Jones v.
24
The ALJ determined that Plaintiff “has not been under a disability within the
25
meaning of the Social Security Act since February 22, 2010, the date the
26
application was filed.” (ECF No. 23-2 at p. 14.) The disability hearing took place
27
on August 11, 2011, and the ALJ issued a written opinion concluding that Plaintiff
28
did not qualify for disability insurance benefits on August 31, 2011. (ECF No. 23-2
– 12 –
13cv1125
1
at pp. 12, 26.) Plaintiff’s request for review was denied by the Appeals Council on
2
March 8, 2013. (Id. at pp. 2-3.)
3
Plaintiff’s new medical evidence includes a letter dated July 18, 2013 from
4
her treating physician for the six prior years, Dr. Cava, purportedly attaching
5
several documents. (ECF No. 29 at p. 3; see also ECF No. 35 at p. 23.) The letter
6
states that Plaintiff’s “prognosis for progress in her overall health is at best
7
negligible” given her advancing age, increase in prescribed medication, the need for
8
additional specialists, including Dr. Navarro and Dr. White, and an overall decline
9
in medical condition. (Id.) Plaintiff also provides a medical record documenting an
10
office visit with Dr. Rosa Navarro of Navarro Pain Control Group, Inc. on February
11
25, 2013 noting:
12
13
14
15
16
17
50 year with low back pain that radiates to bilateral lower extremities
for four years. The pain is severe in the legs. The ultrasound for clot
in the legs was negative. MRI 10.30.12 mild central spinal stenosis
L34 and L45. The possible impingement of the exiting left L3 nerve
root. I will ask for urine tox screen authorization. I will also ask for
caudal epidural injection authorizations. In addition, the lumbar spine
back brace authorization will be requested. The patient will start with
gabapentin 100mg PO qhs. The primary care physician [was]
prescribing Lortab.
18
19
(Id. at pp. 9-10.) Another MRI occurred on January 28, 2013 finding “Multilevel
20
cervical spondylosis. No central stenosis. Maybe impingement of the exiting right
21
C4 nerve root.” (Id. at p. 13.) Dr. Navarro evaluated Plaintiff “upon request from
22
Dr. Dan White for consultation for low back pain.” (Id. at p. 10.) Dr. Navarro
23
evaluated Plaintiff again on June 18, 2013 and documents Plaintiff’s first caudal
24
epidural injection. (Id. at pp. 15-16; see also ECF No. 35 at p. 12.) Plaintiff
25
received another caudal epidural injection on or around July 16, 2013. (Id. at p.
26
17.) Plaintiff also attaches four “Consultation Reports” from Dr. Daniel V. White
27
of “Brain & Spine Surgery” dated in or about December 2012, March 26, 2013,
28
May 28, 2013, and August 28, 2013. (Id. at pp. 11-12, 14; ECF No. 35 at p. 26.) In
– 13 –
13cv1125
1
the August 28, 2013 report, Dr. White quotes, presumably, Plaintiff stating “none
2
of the injections helped . . . not even 1 minute.” (ECF No. 35 at p. 26.) Lastly,
3
Plaintiff attaches a letter from Dr. Cava addressed “To Whom It May Concern”
4
dated September 26, 2014 indicating Plaintiff needs to see a pain management
5
specialist but her referrals have been denied. (Id. at p. 22.)3
6
While the new evidence relates to a condition – low back pain – considered
7
by the ALJ, it does not relate to the time period under consideration, that is, the
8
time period on or before August 11, 2011.4 The new evidence indicates, at most,
9
deterioration after the disability hearing, which would be material to a new
10
application, but not probative of Plaintiff’s condition at the hearing. Sanchez, 812
11
F.2d at 511-12. Therefore, the Report properly determined the new evidence is not
12
material. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s objection to the Report’s recommendation to
13
deny Plaintiff’s request for a remand to consider new evidence is OVERRULED.
14
B.
General Objection
15
Plaintiff also appears to object generally to the Report’s conclusion that
16
substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s decision. (Report at p. 26.) Plaintiff
17
argues that she “has clearly demonstrated through initial evidence . . . she most
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
Plaintiff also submits an estimate of benefits allegedly owed dated
February 13, 2014 (ECF No. 29 at p. 19), an affidavit by her husband dated
September 27, 2014 (ECF No. 35 at pp. 14-18), and an affidavit by her financial
advisor dated September 27, 2014 (id. at pp. 20-21). However, these documents are
not probative of any mental or physical impairment; therefore, the Court will not
consider them in evaluating the request for remand. See Key, 754 F.2d at 1551.
4
As the Report discusses, there is an illegible note on the letterhead of
Dr. White dated in or about December 2012, and a second MRI of the cervical spine
dated January 28, 2013, both of which occurred while Plaintiff’s appeal was
pending. (Report at p. 25.) However, these documents still do not relate to the time
period under consideration, and the results of the MRI, as noted in the Report,
appear equivocal at best. (Id.) Plaintiff also submits a “Follow-up Note” dated
January 19, 2015 with her objections relating to her lower back pain. (ECF No. 39
at p. 4.) For the reasons stated herein, this evidence is also not material to the
ALJ’s decision.
– 14 –
13cv1125
1
definitely comes under the definition of being totally disabled” and asks the Court
2
to “re-evaluate the case.” (ECF No. 39 at pp. 1, 3.) It is well-settled, under Rule
3
72(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, that a district court may adopt those
4
parts of a magistrate judge’s report to which no specific objection is made, provided
5
they are not clearly erroneous. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 153 (1985); Fed. R.
6
Civ. P. 72 Advisory Comm. Notes (1983) (citing Campbell v. U.S. Dist. Ct., 501
7
F.2d 196, 206 (9th Cir. 1973)). While this objection to the Report is not specific, in
8
an abundance of caution, this Court conducted a de novo review of the Report.
9
Upon review, the Court OVERRULES this objection and ADOPTS the Report in
10
its entirety.
11
IV.
CONCLUSION & ORDER
12
Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
13
(1)
Plaintiff’s Objections to the Report (ECF No. 39) are OVERRULED;
14
(2)
The Report (ECF No. 37) is ADOPTED IN ITS ENTIRETY;
15
(3)
Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 29) is DENIED;
16
(4)
Defendant’s cross-motion for summary judgment is GRANTED (ECF
No. 33); and
17
18
(5)
Plaintiff’s request for a remand to consider new evidence submitted
19
with her motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 29) and with her
20
opposition to Defendant’s cross-motion for summary judgment (ECF
21
No. 35) is DENIED.
22
IT IS SO ORDERED.
23
24
DATED: March 27, 2015
25
26
27
28
– 15 –
13cv1125
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?