Gruenenfelder v. Colvin
Filing
27
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS - denying 13 Motion for Summary Judgment and adopting 23 Findings and Recommendations. Signed by Judge Donald W. Molloy on 10/31/2014. (APP, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA
MISSOULA DIVISION
FILED
OCT 3 1 2014
Clerk, u.s. District Court
District Of Montana
Missoula
CV 13-162-M-DWM-JCL
RONALDL.GRlffiNENFELDER
Plaintiff,
vs.
ORDER
CAROLYN W. COLVIN,
Acting Commissioner of Social
Security,
Defendant.
Plaintiff Ronald Gruenenfelder ("Gruenenfelder") brings this action under
42 U.S.C. § 405(g) seeking judicial review of the decision of the Commissioner of
Social Security ("Commissioner") denying his application for disability insurance
benefits under Title II of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 401-433.
Gruenenfelder filed his application in November 2007, alleging disability since
January 1, 1998. (Tr.223.) After the Commissioner denied his application,
Gruenenfelder requested a reconsideration hearing, which took place on
September 14,2009. (Tr. 163-165, 166, 107.) The Administrative Law Judge
("ALJ") also denied Gruenenfelder's application, but the Appeals Council granted
1
- ---_._-_.,---------------------
his request for review and remanded the case for a new decision. (Tr. 144-153,
159-161.) On June 26, 2012, the ALJ issued a second decision, again finding
Gruenenfelder was not disabled on or before the expiration of his insured status on
December 31,2002. (Tr. 15-37.) The Appeals Council denied Gruenenfelder's
second request for review, making the ALJ's decision final for purposes ofjudicial
review. (Tr. 1-3.) This matter comes before the Court on Gruenenfelder's motion
for summary judgment. (Doc. 13.) Magistrate Judge Jeremiah C. Lynch entered
findings and recommendations on September 4, 2014, recommending that the
Court deny Gruenenfelder's motion and affirm the Commissioner's decision.
(Doc. 23.) No party objected to any of the findings and recommendations.
The court reviews findings and recommendations on nondispositive motions
for clear error. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A); McDonnell Douglas Corp. v.
Commodore Bus. Mach., Inc., 656 F.2d 1309, 1313 (9th Cir. 1981). On
dispositive motions, the parties are entitled to de novo review of the specified
findings or recommendations to which they object, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1);
McDonnell Douglas Corp., 656 F.2d at 1313, and where there are no objections,
the court is to give the level of consideration it deems appropriate, Thomas v. Arn,
474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985) ("It does not appear that Congress intended to require
district court review of a magistrate's factual or legal conclusions, under a de novo
2
or any other standard, when neither party objects to those findings."). This Court
reviews for clear error.
In making the determination that Gruenenfelder was not disabled, the ALJ
relied on his assessment of Gruenenfelder's credibility and the opinions of Dr.
Kendrick Blais and Dr. Harvey Swanson, Gruenenfelder's treating physicians.
The ALl's reasoning here achieves the level of specificity required by the Ninth
Circuit. "The [ALJ] must do more than offer his conclusions. He must set forth
his own interpretations and explain why they, rather than the doctors' are correct."
Embrey v. Bowen, 849 F .2d 418, 421-422 (9th Cir. 1988); accord Reddick v.
Chater, 157 F.3d 715, 725 (9th Cir. 1998). "Where the treating doctor's opinion is
not contradicted by another doctor, it may be rejected only for 'clear and
convincing' reasons supported by substantial evidence in the record. Even if the
treating doctor's opinion is contradicted by another doctor, the [ALJ] may not
reject this opinion without providing 'specific and legitimate reasons' supported
by substantial evidence in the record." Reddick, 157 F.3d at 725 (quoting Lester v.
Chater, 81 F.3d 821,830 (9th Cir. 1995)) (internal citations omitted). The ALJ
may accomplish this by setting forth "a detailed and thorough summary of the
facts and conflicting clinical evidence, stating his interpretation thereof, and
making findings." Magallanes v. Bowen, 881 F.2d 747, 751 (9th Cir. 1998).
3
The ALJ gave little weight to Dr. Blais's current opinion as to
Gruenenfelder's functional limitations on or before December 31, 2002, because
Dr. Blais's opinion is not consistent with the treatment notes he made at the time.
(Tr.29.) As the ALJ noted, "[t]here is no indication in the medical record that any
of claimant's treating sources stated on or before December 31, 2002, that he was
unable to work or had any significant functional limitations." (Tr.30.) The record
supports this assessment. In March 2000, Dr. Blais encouraged Gruenenfelder to
try "voc rehab" because he seemed "very able to participate in office level work at
least." (Tr.425.) In December 2000, Dr. Blais noted that "[Gruenenfelder's]
apparent clinical presentation is not consistent with his stated complete disability."
(Tr.421.) And in May 2002, Dr. Blais noted that "[Gruenenfelder'sJ recent acute
exacerbation of back pain has diminished back to baseline," and Dr. Blais
"[e]ncouraged [GruenenfelderJ to increase his activity gradually by walking." (Tr.
416.) Almost ten years later, Dr. Blais completed a questionnaire provided by
Gruenenfelder's counsel and marked "yes" to the question "Did Mr.
Gruenenfelder suffer from a combination of physical impairments that negatively
impacted his ability to obtain or sustain work activity on or prior to December
2002?". (Tr.570.) Dr. Blais also marked "yes" to the question "Is it your opinion
that because of the combination of Mr. Gruenenfelder's impairments he has been
4
precluded since prior to December 2002 from light work or sedentary work ... ?".
(Tr.571.) The ALJ compared Dr. Blais's answers to this questionnaire with the
treatment notes he made at the time (prior to December 2002), determined that the
two were inconsistent, and decided to give little weight to Dr. Blais's current
opinion. This is a sufficiently clear and convincing reason, supported by
substantial evidence, for rejecting Dr. Blais's opinion as set forth on the May 8,
2012 questionnaire.
The ALJ gave little weight to Dr. Swanson's opinion as to Gruenenfelder's
functional limitations on or before December 31, 2002, because Dr. Swanson did
not even begin treating Gruenenfelder until June of2007. (Tr.29.) Dr. Swanson
saw Gruenenfelder four times, in June 2007, August 2007, February 2008, and
August 2008. (Tr. 439,441,456-458.) In Gruenenfelder's patient notes, Dr.
Swanson listed ongoing lower back pain but no significant functional limitations.
(Id.) On May 28, 2012, Dr. Swanson completed a questionnaire provided by
Gruenenfelder's counsel and marked "yes" to the question "Did Mr.
Gruenenfelder suffer from a combination of physical impairments ... that
negatively impacted his ability to obtain or sustain work activity on or prior to
December 2002?". (Tr. 566.) Dr. Swanson also marked "yes" to the question "Is
it your opinion that because of the combination of Mr. Gruenenfelder's
5
impairments he has been precluded since prior to December 2002 from light work
or sedentary work ... ?". (Tr.567.) The ALJ compared Dr. Swanson's answers to
this questionnaire with the treatment notes he made at the time (from June
2007-August 2008), determined that the two were inconsistent and that Dr.
Swanson had no basis for speculating about Gruenenfelder's ability to work prior
to December 2002, and decided to give little weight to Dr. Swanson's current
opinion. This is a sufficiently clear and convincing reason, supported by
substantial evidence, for rejecting Dr. Swanson's opinion as set forth on the May
8, 2012 questionnaire.
Finally, the ALJ found Gruenenfelder's testimony not entirely credible
because his description of his back pain as debilitating and precluding work
activity prior to December 2002 is inconsistent with his limited medical treatment
and with evidence of the activities in which he engaged. (Tr. 26, 29.) If the ALJ
finds "the claimant has presented objective medical evidence of an underlying
impairment which could reasonably be expected to produce the pain or other
symptoms alleged," and "there is no evidence of malingering, the [ALJ] can reject
the claimant's testimony about the severity of [his] symptoms only by offering
specific, clear and convincing reasons for doing so." Lingenfelter v. Astrue, 504
F.3d 1028, 1036 (9th Cir. 2007) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).
6
Gruenenfelder met his initial burden because he provided evidence that he
has underlying impairments that could reasonably be expected to produce some
symptoms and the ALJ did not find that he was malingering. However, to support
his finding that Gruenenfelder's testimony was not entirely credible because his
description of his back pain is inconsistent with his limited medical treatment, the
ALJ pointed to the fact that Gruenenfelder did not provide any evidence of
medical treatment between May 29, 2002, and June 4, 2007. (Tr.26.) The ALJ
also noted that when Gruenenfelder did seek medical treatment, he "sought only
occasional prescription pain medication and [] he repeatedly declined to
participate in physical therapy or other activities recommended by his treating
physician." (Jd.) There is also no evidence that Gruenenfelder sought or received
any medical treatment for his impairment for more than a year after the alleged
onset date of January 1, 1998. (Tr.29.) The ALJ permissibly questioned
Gruenenfelder's credibility based on his limited medical treatment. See Burch v.
Barnhart, 400 F.3d 676,681 (9th Cir. 2007) ("The [ALJ] is permitted to consider
lack of treatment in his credibility determination."); Parra v. Astrue, 482 F.3d 742,
751 (9th Cir. 2007) ("evidence of 'conservative treatment' is sufficient to discount
a claimant's testimony regarding the severity of an impairment").
The ALJ also supported his finding that Gruenenfelder's testimony was not
7
entirely credible by comparing Gruenenfelder's description of his back pain with
evidence ofthe activities in which he engaged. The ALJ relied on evidence in the
record that Gruenenfelder's daily activities "included riding in a truck over bumpy
roads; cutting, loading, and lifting firewood; hunting; and hauling water." (Tr.
29.) The ALJ reasonably concluded that although these activities caused
Gruenenfelder discomfort, the fact that he engaged in these activities undermined
his testimony that his back pain is debilitating. The ALJ provided sufficiently
clear and convincing reasons for finding Gruenenfelder's testimony about the
severity of his pain and the resulting limitations not entirely credible.
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Lynch's Findings and
Recommendations (Doc. 23) are ADOPTED IN FULL.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Gruenenfelder's motion for summary
judgment (Doc. 13) is DENIED and the decision of the Commissioner is
AFFIRMED.
1ilfl
Dated this ~ day of October, 2014.
8
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?