Dotson v. Commissioner Social Security Administration
Filing
20
Opinion and Order.The ALJ's findings are supported by substantive evidence in the record, and the decision of the Commissioner is AFFIRMED. Signed on 8/1/2013 by Chief Judge Ann L. Aiken. (lg)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
KENNETH D. DOTSON,
Case No. 2:12-CV-00486-AA
Plaintiff,
OPINION AND ORDER
v.
CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting
Commissioner of Social Security,
Defendant.
Aiken, Chief Judge:
Plaintiff brings this proceeding to obtain judicial review of
the Commissioner's final decision denying plaintiff's application
for disability insurance benefits. See 42 U.S.C. ยง 405(g).
Plaintiff alleges disability since February 28, 2008, due to
physical impairments resulting from migraines and regarding his
hands,
neck,
and back.
Tr.
37,
255.
His application was denied
initially and on reconsideration. After hearings at which plaintiff
1 - ORDER
and
vocational
experts
testified,
administrative
law
judge
plaintiff
not
disabled
was
(ALJ)
issued
within
14-30,
50-90,
the
decision
finding
that
tr.
a
the
meaning
of
the
Social
Security Act. Tr. 34-44.
Plaintiff asserts that the ALJ erred by: 1) failing to credit
the opinions of a treating physician; and 2) rejecting plaintiff's
testimony.
I find no error.
First,
opinion
I
of
do not find that the ALJ improperly rejected the
plaintiff's
accepted several
treating
statements
physician.
Notably,
of the physician,
Dr.
the
Sandefur,
ALJ
in
assessing plaintiff's residual functional capacity and rejected the
assessment
of
an
examining
physician
who
found
no
basis
for
functional limitations. Tr. 40-41. Plaintiff appears to challenge
the fact that the ALJ gave "almost no weight to Dr.
medical
source
Plaintiff
statement
specifically
from September 2010." Tr.
objects
to
the
ALJ' s
Sandefur's
41,
rejection
644-48.
of
Dr.
Sandefur's opinion that plaintiff cannot lift more than ten pounds.
Tr. 645. The ALJ found that the 2010 opinion was inconsistent with
plaintiff's
demonstrated
abilities
and
based
on
plaintiff's
subjective reports, which were deemed not credible. Tr. 41. The ALJ
further noted that Dr. Sandefur's 2010 opinion "appeared to be more
restrictive than his previous opinions, even though he repeatedly
described the claimant's conditions as stable or improved." Tr. 41.
I find that the ALJ's findings regarding Dr. Sandefur's 2010
2 - ORDER
opinion
are
clear,
particularly
in
convincing,
light
of
and
other
supported
medical
by
the
evidence
record,
supporting
plaintiff's ability to lift more than ten pounds and the nature of
his daily activities. Tr. 41-42, 750-51, 763-64; Morgan v. Comm'r
of Soc. Sec. Admin., 169 F. 3d 595, 599-600,
Further,
602
(9th Cir. 1999).
the ALJ provided a thorough discussion of the medical
evidence and his findings,
evidence
cannot
support
and a differing interpretation of the
reversal.
Batson
v.
Comm' r
Soc.
Sec.
Admin., 359 F.3d 1190, 1197-98 (9th Cir. 2004).
Second,
support
his
the ALJ provided clear and convincing
reasons
finding
not
that
credible. Carmickle v.
1160
found
(9th Cir.
that
testing,
Comm'r,
provided
demonstrated
Soc.
testimony was
Sec. Admin.,
wholly
533 F.3d 1155,
2008). The ALJ noted that an examining physician
plaintiff's
he
plaintiff's
to
pain
"presentation
an
inaccurate
behaviors
was
inconsistent
medical
incongruent
history,
with
his
during
and
he
underlying
impairments." Tr. 42, 745-46. The ALJ further noted that plaintiff
reported varying descriptions of his head injury,
daily activities,
five-mile
alleged.
hike,
Tr.
42,
and that his
including household chores, photography, and a
conflicted
2 67,
2 69,
with
38 7,
the
662.
degree
of
disability
These reasons are legally
sufficient to support the ALJ's adverse credibility finding.
Ill
Ill
3 - ORDER
he
CONCLUSION
The ALJ's findings are supported by substantive evidence in
the record, and the decision of the Commissioner is AFFIRMED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED this
~
Jay of
2013.
Ann Aiken
United States District Judge
4 - ORDER
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?