Kyniston v. Commissioner Social Security Administration
Filing
43
Opinion and Order. The decision of the Commissioner is affirmed pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. 405(g). Signed on 12/20/2018 by Magistrate Judge Thomas M. Coffin. (plb)
- -~
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
JANET K.,
Plaintiff,
v.
2:14-CV-00049-TC
Opinion and Order
Commissioner of Social Security,
Defendant.
Plaintiff brings this proceeding to obtain judicial review of
the Commissioner's final decision denying plaintiff's application
for Disability Insurance Benefits.
1 - OPINION AND ORDER
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
This case has been before this court before.
Plaintiff
submitted evidence to this court that defendant conceded was new
and material.
This court remanded the matter for consideration of
the new and material evidence.
The ALJ had a new hearing where
plaintiff, through her attorney, amended her alleged onset date to
November 30, 2005.
The ALJ issued a new decision finding plaintiff
not disabled.
Although plaintiff was represented at her first hearing, and
was represented in her second hearing, she appears prose in this
appeal of that second hearing.
As discussed in more detail below, she makes several arguments
in her opening brief.
Defendant addressed all of these in a brief
and persuasively demonstrated that the period in question in the
present appeal is 31 days.
Plaintiff did not file an optional
reply brief.
DISCUSSION
1.
Plaintiff's Subjective Complaints
Defendant
has
persuasively
appropriately
considered
compared
to
them
the
demonstrated
plaintiff's
evidence
of
record,
sufficient reasons for discounting them.
2 - OPINION AND ORDER
subjective
and
that
the
ALJ
complaints,
gave
legally
Plaintiff's degree of
medical
care during the alleged period of disability,
lack of
significant ongoing complaints leading up to the alleged period of
disability,
and
contradictory
statements
about
symptoms
like
diarrhea were clear and convincing reasons for finding that her
complaints
about her symptoms
from November 30,
December 31, 2005 were not reliable.
2005
through
It is also noteworthy that
plaintiff states in her Brief:
I admit I have not been a model patient. If a doctor had
given me a medication that caused bad side effects, I
stopped mentioning those symptoms.
If a Physical
Therapist was causing me additional pain, I told them
what they wanted to hear so I could get away from them.
This may not have been the best policy, but at the time
it was my only recourse. I also failed to inform my past
doctors of all my symptoms.
P.p. 3-4, Plaintiff's Brief (#39).
regard to the physical therapist
Plaintiff also states with
"I admit I lied to her about my
pain levels decreasing so that I could get away from her.
not helping my hip pain at all."
She was
Id. at p. 19.
2. The Medical Opinions
Defendant has persuasively demonstrated in great detail that
the ALJ appropriately resolved the conflicts in the medical opinion
evidence and gave the greatest weight to the opinions of the nonexamining State agency medical consultants because their opinions
were the most consistent with the relevant treatment records.
3 - OPINION AND ORDER
3. The Consideration of All of Plaintiff's Impairments at Step Two
Defendant has persuasively demonstrated that the ALJ properly
considered
the
severity
of
all
of
plaintiff's
medically
determinable impairments at Step Two and, in addition,
if there
As to the
was an error as to fibromyalgia, that it was harmless.
latter,
the
non-examining
State
agency
medical
consultant
accounted for this diagnosis when formulating his opinions about
plaintiff's RFC.
4.
Tr. 74.
Duty to Develop Record
Defendant
adequately
evidence,
has
developed
and
the
persuasively
the
record
record
was
as
demonstrated
there
adequate
to
evaluation of the record. See McLeod v. Astue,
was
that
not
allow
the
ALJ
ambiguous
for
proper
640 F.3d 881, 885
( 9th Cir. 2011) . The lack of corroborating medical records from the
relevant period does not reflect a failure by the ALJ to develop
the record.
Plaintiff sought treatment in 2005 for relatively
minor medical issues, like spider bites.
was
insµred
and
capable
of
Tr. 311, Tr. 763.
seeking medical
attention
impairments she alleged were disabling, but did not do so.
did not fail
to sufficiently develop the record.
plaintiff's argument to the contrary,
for
She
the
The ALJ
And despite
the ALJ did not have an
obligation to reorganize the medical records into a more logical
manner.
Such does not amount a failure to adequately develop the
4 - OPINION AND ORDER
'
.
record.
5.
Lay Witness Testimony
Defendant
has
persuasively
demonstrated
appropriately considered lay witness testimony,
that
and ,
the
ALJ
if error
occurred it was harmless.
Plaintiff's husband, mother and sister drafted letters in
2014 in support of her disability claim.
These letters generally
describe pain, fatigue, and depression, but they do not discuss the
31 day relevant period with any specificity.
Tr. 245-46, 1247-48,
1307.
The ALJ found that these letters did not have probative
value
because
plaintiff's
contemporaneous
documented unremarkable and benign findings.
medical
Tr.
974.
records
As noted
above, the medical records and defendant's argument support this
conclusion.
issue
is
And any possible error in this particular case on this
harmless
because
the
ALJ' .s
reasons
for
discounting
plaintiff's subjective complaints are equally applicable to the lay
witness statements.
1122
(9 th Cir.
See Molina v. Commissioner,
674 F.3d
1104,
2012) (when an ALJ errs in considering lay witness
evidence, the error is harmless where the same evidence that the
ALJ referred to in discrediting plaintiff's claims also discredits
the lay witness's claims).
5 - OPINION AND ORDER
. ..
'
6. A Remand for Consideration of New Evidence is Not Appropriate
Defendant persuasively demonstrates that a remand for
consideration
demonstrates
of
that
new
the
evidence
new
is
not
treatment
appropriate.
record
Defendant
evidence
is
not
material in that it does not bear directly and substantially on
plaintiff's functioning in late 2005.
Similarly, plaintiff's citations referring to Giardia do not
establish the existence of functional limitations in late 2005.
Additionally,
plaintiff has not established good cause for not
bringing this evidence to the attention of the Agency when her
application was being adjudicated.
CONCLUSION
The
decision of
the
Commissioner
is
affirmed pursuant to
sentence four of 42 U.S.C. §405(g)
DATED this
;)_(J
day of December, 2018.
Judge
6 - OPINION AND 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?