Vryhof v. Colvin
Filing
15
ORDER adopting 14 Report and Recommendation on cross-motion for summary judgment. The court denies Plaintiffs motion for summary judgment and grants Defendants motion for summary judgment. Signed by Judge Jeffrey T. Miller on 8/30/2017. (jpp) (sjt).
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
ELAINE VRYHOF,
Case No.: 16cv1825 JM (DHB)
Plaintiff,
12
13
14
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION ON CROSSMOTIONS FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT
v.
NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Acting
Commissioner of Social Security,
15
16
Defendant.
17
18
19
On July 15, 2016, Plaintiff Elaine Vryhof filed a complaint, pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
20
§ 405(g), asking for judicial review of the denial of Social Security disability benefits.
21
(Doc. No. 1.) On January 26, 2017, Plaintiff moved for summary judgment. (Doc. No.
22
10.) Five days later, Defendant Nancy A. Berryhill, Acting Commissioner of Social
23
Security, did the same. (Doc. No. 11.) Magistrate Judge Louisa S. Porter issued a Report
24
and Recommendation (“R&R”) recommending that this court deny Plaintiff’s motion and
25
grant Defendant’s motion. (Doc. No. 14.) Neither party filed objections to the R&R by
26
the date required. Now, having carefully considered the thorough and thoughtful R&R,
27
the record before the court, the applicable authorities, and the absence of any objections
28
to the R&R, the court adopts the R&R in its entirety and grants summary judgment in
1
16cv1825 JM (DHB)
1
favor of Defendant.
2
3
BACKGROUND
The court hereby incorporates by reference the procedural background, (Doc. No.
4
14 at 2), and factual background, including the review of the administrative record, (id. at
5
5–12), as presented in the R&R.
6
LEGAL STANDARDS
7
A.
8
The duties of the district court in connection with a magistrate judge’s R&R are
District Court Review of R&R
9
governed by 28 U.S.C. § 636 and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b). The district
10
court “shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report . . . to which
11
objection is made. A judge of the court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part,
12
the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1);
13
see also United States v. Raddatz, 447 U.S. 667, 676 (1980); McDonnell Douglas Corp.
14
v. Commodore Bus. Machines, Inc., 656 F.2d 1309, 1313 (9th Cir. 1981). If neither party
15
contests the magistrate judge’s proposed findings of fact, “the court may assume their
16
correctness and decide the motion on the applicable law.” Orand v. United States, 602
17
F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are reviewed
18
de novo, however, regardless of whether any party filed objections thereto. See Robbins
19
v. Carey, 481 F.3d 1143, 1146–47 (9th Cir. 2007).
Judicial Review of the Commissioner’s Decision
20
B.
21
The R&R properly identifies the limited scope of judicial review applicable to a
22
final agency decision, (Doc. No. 14 at 4–5), and the court incorporates those standards by
23
reference. In short, a federal court must affirm the decision unless it “is not supported by
24
substantial evidence or it is based upon legal error.” Tidwell v. Apfel, 161 F.3d 599, 601
25
(9th Cir. 1999).
26
C.
27
As indicated in the R&R, a claimant must show two things to qualify for disability
28
Determination of Disability
benefits under the Social Security Act: that (1) he or she suffers from a medically
2
16cv1825 JM (DHB)
1
determinable physical or mental impairment that can be expected to last for a continuous
2
period of twelve months or more, or would result in death, and (2) the impairment
3
renders the claimant incapable of performing the work he or she previously performed or
4
any other substantial gainful employment which exists in the national economy.
5
42 U.S.C. §§ 423(d)(1)(A), 423(d)(2)(A). And as more thoroughly discussed in the
6
R&R, (Doc. No. 14 at 3–4), and incorporated herein, the administrative law judge
7
(“ALJ”) must employ the five-step sequential process laid out in 20 C.F.R. § 416.920 to
8
make a determination of disability.
9
DISCUSSION
10
Plaintiff advances one primary argument in support of her motion for summary
11
judgment: that the ALJ impermissibly disregarded Dr. Margarita Alonso’s opinion—
12
specifically Dr. Alonso’s answers to a checklist-style mental impairment Residual
13
Functional Capacity questionnaire (“RFC”). In her R&R, Magistrate Judge Porter
14
rejected Plaintiff’s argument and found that the ALJ did not err in determining that the
15
RFC had no probative value. This court agrees.
16
To begin, the RFC contained conclusions with no underlying analysis. See Batson
17
v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 359 F.3d 1190, 1195 (9th Cir. 2004) (affirming denial of benefits
18
where ALJ discounted two treating doctors’ opinions because they were in the form of a
19
checklist, did not have supportive objective evidence, were contradicted by other
20
statements and assessments of the claimant’s medical condition, and were based on the
21
claimant’s subjective descriptions of pain); see also Vertigan v. Halter, 260 F.3d 1044,
22
1049 (9th Cir. 2001) (stating that, although “an ALJ cannot reject a claimant’s testimony
23
without giving clear and convincing reasons,” “it is the responsibility of the ALJ, not the
24
claimant’s physician, to determine residual functional capacity”). And although Plaintiff
25
argues that the RFC is supported “by treatment records and years of treatment,” the court
26
finds that even those records contradict, in many places, the cursory answers of the RFC.
27
More importantly (given the applicable scope of review), the ALJ provided
28
specific and legitimate reasons for rejecting the RFC, and those specific and legitimate
3
16cv1825 JM (DHB)
1
reasons were supported by substantial evidence in the record. (See A.R. 30–37
2
(discussing—in a lengthy analysis with citations to the record—the applicable standard of
3
decision, the details of Plaintiff’s testimony, the credibility of Plaintiff’s testimony, the
4
medical opinions, evaluations, and records involved in the case along with the weight
5
given to each, and the ALJ’s ultimate reasons for rejecting Dr. Alonso’s RFC).) That
6
being the case, the ALJ did not err. See Lester v. Chater, 81 F.3d 821, 830 (9th Cir.
7
1995), as amended (Apr. 9, 1996) (observing that an ALJ may reject a treating doctor’s
8
opinion if the ALJ provides “specific and legitimate reasons” supported by “substantial
9
evidence in the record”).
10
In sum, the court finds that the agency’s decision is not based on legal error or
11
unsupported by substantial evidence. Therefore, it will not be disturbed. Tidwell, 161
12
F.3d at 601.
13
14
CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated, the court adopts the R&R in its entirety. Accordingly, the
15
court denies Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and grants Defendant’s motion for
16
summary judgment. The Clerk of Court is directed to close the file.
17
IT IS SO ORDERED.
18
19
20
DATED: August 30, 2017
JEFFREY T. MILLER
United States District Judge
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4
16cv1825 JM (DHB)
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?