Teverbaugh v. Berryhill
Filing
19
ORDER Adopting Report and Recommendation; Denying Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment; and Granting Defendant's Motion For Summary Judgment re 11 Motion for Summary Judgment by Lerita Teverbaugh; 12 Motion for Summary Judgment by Nancy A. Berryhill; 16 Report and Recommendation. Signed by Judge Jeffrey T. Miller on 9/21/2018. (sjm)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
LERITA TEVERBAUGH,
11
v.
12
13
14
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
Plaintiff,
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION DENYING
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND
GRANTING DEFENDANT’S
MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT
NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Acting
Commissioner of Social Security,
Defendant.
15
16
CASE NO. 17cv1522 JM(RNB)
Plaintiff Lerita Teverbaugh has filed Objections to the Report and
Recommendation Granting Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment and Denying
Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment (“R & R”). Defendant did not file a
response to the Objections. Pursuant to Local Rule 7.1(d)(1), the court finds the
matters presented appropriate for resolution without oral argument. For the reasons set
forth below, the court denies the Objections and adopts the R & R in its entirety.
DISCUSSION1
Plaintiff raises two objections to the R & R.2
First, Plaintiff argues that the ALJ failed to adequately assess the medical
evidence in determining her Residual Functional Capacity (“RFC”). Specifically,
1
The court reviews objections to the R & R de novo. Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(3).
2
The court incorporates the R & R.
28
-1-
17cv1522
1 Plaintiff argues that the ALJ failed to consider her obesity and its impact on RFC,
2 failed to mention Social Security Ruling 02-1 (dealing with obesity), improperly relied
3 on the medical opinions of record to support the RFC, and improperly analyzed the
4 medical record in assessing her mental RFC. These arguments were specifically
5 addressed in the R & R and rejected. Dr. Doa, the consultive examiner, and the State
6 agency physicians, considered her medical conditions, impairments, and limitations and
7 concluded that Plaintiff could stand/walk for 6 hours per day.3 These opinions were
8 properly considered by the ALJ and constitute substantial evidence supportive of the
9 ALJ’s RFC determination. See Thomas v. Barnhart, 278 F.3d 947, 957 (9th Cir. 2002).
10
Second, Plaintiff contends that the ALJ failed to properly evaluate Plaintiff’s
11 subjective complaints and that the ALJ’s determinations are not supported by objective
12 evidence. (Objections at p.6:1-2). In assessing the severity of claimant’s pain and
13 other symptoms, the ALJ may reject such testimony only if the ALJ makes specific
14 findings stating clear and specific reasons for doing so. See Cotton v. Bowen, 799 F.2d
15 1403, 1407 (9th Cir. 1993). Here, the ALJ cited to Plaintiff’s daily activities,
16 Plaintiff’s ability to work part-time as a paid care giver for her disabled grandson, the
17 lack of medical evidence supporting the pain testimony, and concluded that the
18 objective medical evidence is not reasonably consistent with Plaintiff’s subjective
19 complaints of pain. See Bray v. Commissioner of Social Security Admin., 554 F.3d
20 1219, 1227 (9th Cir. 2009) (“In reaching a credibility determination, an ALJ may weigh
21 consistencies between the claimant’s testimony and his or her conduct, daily activities,
22 and work record among other factors.”).
23 / / /
24 / / /
25 / / /
26
27
3
The court also rejects Plaintiff’s argument that the “ALJ improperly played
doctor in assessing Teverbaugh’s mental RFC.” (Objections at p.5:1). Plaintiff fails
28 to support this argument with citations to the record thereby preventing the court from
adequately assessing this argument.
-2-
17cv1522
1
In sum, the court denies the Objections and adopts the R & R in its entirety.
2
IT IS SO ORDERED.
3 DATED: September 21, 2018
4
Hon. Jeffrey T. Miller
United States District Judge
5
6
cc:
All parties
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-3-
17cv1522
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?