Garcia v. Commissioner Social Security Administration

Filing 35

ORDER: Adopting Magistrate Judge Clarke's Report and Recommendation 27 . Signed on 7/9/2010 by Judge Owen M. Panner. (dkj)

Garcia v. Commissioner Social Security Administration

Doc. 35

FILEn'10JL:L FILEn'10JL:L 9

1.3:~:6USDC·O~~t1

I N THE UNITED STATES D I S T R I C T COURT FOR THE D I S T R I C T OF OREGON ALBERT GARCIA, Plaintiff, Civ. No. 08-1422-CL ORDER

v.
COMMISSIONER, S o c i a l S e c u r i t y Administration, Defendant.

PANNER, D i s t r i c t J u d g e :

M a g i s t r a t e J u d g e M a r k D. C l a r k e f i l e d a R e p o r t a n d Recommendation ("R and R") this court. S e e 28 U . S . C . [ # 2 7 J , a n d t h e m a t t e r i s now b e f o r e
§

6 3 6 ( b ) ( 1 ) ( B ) , F e d . R. C i v . P . 7 2 ( b ) . Defendant filed a I have
§

P l a i n t i f f f i l e d o b j e c t i o n s [ # 3 1 J t o t h e R & R. response [#32J to p l a i n t i f f ' s objections. reviewed the f i l e of this .case de novo. 1 - ORDER

Accordingly, See 28 U.S.C.

Dockets.Justia.com

636(b) 636(b) ( 1 ) ( c ) ; M c D o n n e l l D o u g l a s C o r p . v . C o m r n o d o r e . B u s . M a c h . , I n c . , 656 F.2d 1309, 1313 (9th Cir. 1981). is correct. Although p l a i n t i f f objects to five alleged e r r o r s made by Judge Clarke, p l a i n t i f f fails to demonstrate the ALJ's decision was not supported by s u b s t a n t i a l evidence in the record. In I conclude the R & R

making t h i s conclusion, I note t h a t the ALJ i s charged with making credibility determinations and resolving conflicts and ambiguities in the medical record. (9th Cir. 1995) Andrews v. Shalala, 53 F.3d 1035, 1039 Here, the ALJ

(internal citation omitted).

provided specific, clear and convincing reasons for finding p l a i n t i f f not credible as to the extent of his symptoms. 46. Tr. 45-

I "must uphold the ALJ's decisions where the evidence i s

s u s c e p t i b l e t o more than one r a t i o n a l i n t e r p r e t a t i o n . " Andrews, 53 F.3d at 1039-40. A d d i t i o n a l l y , the ALJ provided s u f f i c i e n t l e g a l reasons, supported by substantial evidence in the record, for rejecting Dr. S o l o t a r o f f ' s opinion t h a t p l a i n t i f f was not capable of sustaining any activity, even sedentary activity. For example, the ALJ noted

that another t r e a t i n g doctor - Dr. Lehtinen - s p e c i f i c a l l y opined t h a t although p l a i n t i f f "may not be able to do the physical labor that he previously had done as a landscaper due to his current shoulder inj ury [, ] . 46 ( c i t i n g Tr. 770). . he may b e n e f i t from job r e t r a i n i n g . " A d d i t i o n a l l y , t h e ALJ noted t h a t Dr. Tr.

Solotaroff's opinion conflicted with p l a i n t i f f ' s periodic work as a landscaper. Tr. 47.

2

- ORDER

Plaintiff Plaintiff a l s o a r g u e s t h a t b e c a u s e p l a i n t i f f ' s d i s a b l i n g conditions arose from a 2002 accident, there i s no " r a t i o n a l e t h a t logically and rationally supports the determination of disability on 4/4/08 and not before." (Objections, 7.) However, as

explained in the October 24, 2008 Appeals Council decision and in Judge Clarke's Report and Recommendation, the April 4, 2008 d i s a b i l i t y determination was based on p l a i n t i f f ' s "borderline age situation." Tr. 16.

2 0 C . F . R . § 4 1 6 . 9 6 3 s t a t e s "We w i l l n o t a p p l y t h e a g e categories mechanically in a borderline situation. I f you are

within a few days to a few months of reaching an older age category, and using the older age category would result in a d e t e r m i n a t i o n o r d e c i s i o n t h a t y o u a r e d i s a b l e d , we w i l l c o n s i d e r whether to use the older age category after evaluating the overall impact of a l l the factors of your case." The Appeals Council

found adverse vocational factors existed and thus applied the higher age category as of the date of the ALJ's decision. (citing Social Security Administration Office of Disability A d j u d i c a t i o n a n d R e v i e w H e a r i n g s , A p p e a l s a n d L i t i g a t i o n Law Manual, Volume 11-5-3-2, i d e n t i f y i n g " s l i d i n g scale" and adverse vocational adversities). Thus, the Appeals Council found Tr. 18. Without this TR. 16

p l a i n t i f f became disabled on April 4, 2008.

regulation concerning borderline age situations, the Appeals Council would have found p l a i n t i f f disabled on August 8, 2008, when p l a i n t i f f turned 55 years old and entered the next age category.

3 - ORDER

Because Because t h e A L J ' s d e c i s i o n i s s u p p o r t e d b y s u b s t a n t i a l evidence in the record and not based on legal error, t h i s court must affirm the ALJ's decision. 679 (9th Cir. 2005) Burch v. Barnhart, 400 F.3d 676,

(quoting Andrews, 53 F.3d a t 1039-40).

CONCLUSION
Magistrate Judge Clarke's Report and Recommendation (#27) adopted. I T I S SO ORDERED. is

DATED t h i s

___C~/_

day of July, 2010.

(!tLt:~ / : f { r2iu~u-zOWEN M. PANNER U . S . D I S T R I C T JUDGE

i

.

--)

4 - ORDER