Crider v. Commissioner Social Security Administration
OPINION AND ORDER. Signed on 10/24/2017 by Judge Ann L. Aiken. (ck)
1N THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
MELISSA K. CRIDER,
Case No. 2:16-cv-01809
OPINION AND ORDER
Commissioner of Social Security,
Plaintiff Melissa K. Crider brings this action pursuant to the Social Security Act ("Act"),
42 U.S.C. § 405(g), to obtain judicial review of a final decision of the Commissioner of Social
Security ("Commissioner"). The Commissioner denied plaintiffs applications for Disability
Insurance Benefits ("DIB") and Supplemental Security Income ("SSI"). For the reasons set forth
below, the Commissioner's decision is AFFIRMED.
On November 28, 2012, plaintiff applied for DIB and SSL
She alleged disability
beginning April 4, 2012, due to a coagulation disorder, other diseases of the circulatory system,
and affective disorders.
Page 1 - OPINION AND ORDER
Plaintiffs applications were denied initially and upon reconsideration. On May 7, 2015,
plaintiff appeared at a hearing before an ALJ. The ALJ found plaintiff not disabled in a written
decision issued August 8, 2016. After the Appeals Council denied review, plaintiff filed a
complaint in this Court.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
The district comt must affirm the Commissioner's decision if it is based upon proper
legal standards and the findings are supported by substantial evidence in the record. 42 U.S.C. §
405(g); Beny v. As/rue, 622 F.3d 1228, 1231 (9th Cir. 2010). "Substantial evidence is more than
a mere scintilla but less than a preponderance; it is such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind
might accept as adequate to support a conclusion." Gutierrez v. Comm 'r Soc. Sec., 740 F.3d
519, 522 (9th Cir. 2014) (citation and quotation marks omitted). The court must weigh "both the
evidence that supp01ts and the evidence that detracts from the ALJ' s conclusion." lviayes v.
i'vfassanari, 276 F.3d 453, 459 (9th Cir. 2001). If the evidence is subject to more than one
interpretation but the Commissioner's decision is rational, the Commissioner must be affomed,
because "the comt may not substitute its judgment for that of the Commissioner." Edlund v.
iVJassanari, 253 F.3d 1152, 1156 (9th Cir. 2001).
THE ALJ'S FINDINGS
The initial burden of proof rests upon the plaintiff to establish disability. Howard v.
Heckler, 782 F.2d 1484, 1486 (9th Cir. 1986).
To meet this burden, the plaintiff must
demonstrate an "inability to engage in any substantial gainful activity by reason of any medically
determinable physical or mental impairment which can be expected ... to last for a continuous
period of not less than 12 months[.]" 42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(l)(A).
Page 2 - OPINION AND ORDER
The Commissioner has established a five-step sequential process for determining whether
a person is disabled. Bowen v. Yuckert, 482 U.S. 137, 140 (1987); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4);
id. § 416.920(a)(4). At step one, the ALJ found plaintiff had not engaged in "substantial gainful
activity" since the alleged disability onset date. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404. l 520(a)(4)(i), (b); id. §§
416.920(a)(4)(i), (b). At step two, the ALJ found plaintiff had the following severe impairments:
prothrombin gene mutation with pulmonary embolism; right knee degenerative
arthritis with spondopalatia; right shoulder tendonitis; thoracic spine disc
protrusion at T7-8; obesity; obstructive sleep apnea; status post hysterectomy;
status post traumatic head injury with headaches; major depressive disorder; panic
disorder; pain disorder secondary to psychological factors and general medical
condition (20 CFR 404.1520(c) and 416.920(c)).
Tr. 23; 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(ii), (c); id. §§ 416.920(a)(4)(ii), (c). At step three, the ALJ
determined plaintiffs impairments, whether considered singly or in combination, did not meet.or
equal "one of the listed impairments" that the Commissioner acknowledges are so severe as to
preclude substantial gainful activity.
20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(iii), (d); id
The ALJ then assessed plaintiffs residual functional capacity ("RFC"). 20 C.F.R. §
404.1520(e); id § 416.920(e). The ALJ found that plaintiff has:
the [RFC] to perform sedentary work as defined in 20 CFR 404.1567(a) and
416.967(a) except the individual can lift or carry 10 pounds occasionally and 5
pounds frequently; no limitation on sitting; stand or walk two hours total, in any
combination, per eight-hour workday with normal breaks, but no more than 15
minutes standing at a time every hour; no climbing ladders, ropes, or scaffolds;
occasional climbing ramps or stairs, stooping, crouching, kneeling, crawling, and
balancing; occasional overhead reaching with the right upper extremity; avoid
concentrated exposure to extreme heat or cold; and no exposure to unprotected
heights or hazardous machinery. The individual would have the following mental
nonexe1iional limitations: can perfo1m simple and more complex tasks; would do
best working independently but can have superficial contact with coworkers in a
non-teamwork setting; would do best with supportive supervision, which would
allow flexibility to take normal break times outside the normally structured break
times (e.g., take the breaks 15 minutes earlier than the n01mal times or 15 minutes
later than the normal times); and no stressful public environments where the
Page 3 - OPINION AND ORDER
individual would have to deal with member of the public who are confrontational
Tr. 23. At step four, the ALJ concluded plaintiff is capable performing past relevant work as a
receptionist, accounting clerk, data entry clerk, and manicurist. The ALJ concluded that such
work would "not require the perfo1mance of work-related activities precluded by [plaintiffs]
[RFC]." 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(iv), (f). At step five the ALJ found that plaintiff could
perform work existing in the national economy; specifically, plaintiff could work as a call out
operator or a sewing machine operator. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(v), (g)(l). Accordingly,
the ALJ found plaintiff not disabled and denied her applications for benefits.
Plaintiff contends that the ALJ committed four hmm:ful errors with respect to properly
crediting key evidence in making his decision. First, plaintiff argues that the ALJ erred by not
providing clear and convincing reasons for finding plaintiff less than fully credible. Second,
plaintiff asserts that the ALJ failed to correctly assess lay testimony causing legal error. Third,
plaintiff asserts that the ALJ failed to provide clear and convincing reasons to reject or omit
medical opinions. Finally, plaintiff avers the ALJ failed to incorporate all medical findings into
plaintiffs RFC causing legal error.
Plaintiff's Subjective Symptom Statements
I begin by addressing plaintiffs argument that the ALJ failed to provide clear and
convincing reasons for finding plaintiff testimony less than fully credible.
When a claimant's medically documented impairments reasonably could be expected to
produce some degree of the symptoms complained of, and the record contains no affirmative
evidence of malingering, "the ALJ can reject the claimant's testimony about the severity of ...
symptoms only by offering specific, clear and convincing reasons for doing so." Smolen v.
Page 4 - OPINION AND ORDER
Chater, 80 F.3d 1273, 1281 (9th Cir. 1996); see also lvfolina v. Astrue, 674 F.3d 1104, 1112 (9th
Three examples of specific, clear and convincing reasons for discounting a
claimant's testimony include (1) inconsistency with objective medical records, Connett v.
Barnhart, 340 F.3d 871, 874 (9th Cir. 2003); Batson v. Comm 'r Soc. Sec. Admin., 359 F.3d
1190, 1196 (9th Cir. 2004); (2) conservative and/or effective treatment, Tommasetti v. Astrue,
533 F.3d 1035, 1040 (9th Cir. 2008); Orteza v. Shala/a, 50 F.3d 748, 750 (9th Cir. 1995); and (3)
testimony of symptoms is inconsistent with activities of daily living, A1o/ina, 674 F.3d at 1113.
A general assertion that the claimant is not credible is insufficient; the ALJ must "state
which ... testimony is not credible and what evidence suggests the complaints are not credible."
Dodrill v. Shala/a, 12 F.3d 915, 918 (9th Cir. 1993). The reasons proffered must be "sufficiently
specific to permit the reviewing court to conclude that the ALJ did not arbitrarily discredit the
claimant's testimony." Orteza v. Shala/a, 50 F.3d 748, 750 (9th Cir. 1995). If the "ALJ's
credibility finding is supported by substantial evidence in the record, [the court] may not engage
in second-guessing." Thomas v. Barnhart, 278 F.3d 947, 959 (9th Cir. 2002).
Here, the ALJ held that plaintiffs statements concerning the intensity, persistence and
limiting effects of her symptoms "are not entirely credible." (Tr. 26) In discrediting plaintiffs
symptom statements, the ALJ offered specific, clear and convincing reasons for doing so.
First, the ALJ pointed to inconsistency with objective medical records, specifically that
radiographic evidence showed mild or no issues with regard to plaintiffs alleged impairments.
The ALJ correctly pointed to three specific pieces of radiographic evidence that show this
inconsistency with plaintiffs alleged impahments: (1) a March 2015 CT scan that showed no
acute intracranial hemorrhage, no acute calvarial abnormalities and no other abnormality of
plaintiffs brain after the traumatic head injury (Tr. 775-79); (2) an August 2013 MRI of
Page 5 - OPINION AND ORDER
plaintiffs shoulder that showed tendinopathy but no rotator cuff tear and only inferior spurring
and impingement (Tr. 699-708); and (3) an April 2010 x-ray of plaintiffs right knee that showed
"minor degenerative arthrosis" (Tr. 469). The ALJ cotTectly discredited plaintiffs statements
regarding her symptoms due to these specific radiographic evidences that are inconsistent with
plaintiffs symptom statements.
The second reason the ALJ discredited plaintiffs symptom statements is that there were
more inconsistencies with objective medical records, that is, physical and mental status
examinations showed that plaintiff is not significantly limited. (Tr. 26) In giving evidence of
this inconsistency, the ALJ correctly pointed to medical records describing plaintiffs range of
motion in her upper right extremity as "limited active." (Tr. 747) Another medical record
describes plaintiffs muscle strength as "5/5 in all major muscle groups of arms/legs." (Tr. 794)
Mental health records also show inconsistencies with plaintiffs symptom statements. Medical
records describe plaintiffs psychiatric health as "appropriate" (Tr. 349, 748) and "normal" (Tr.
729). These medical records demonstrate inconsistencies with plaintiffs symptom statements
and are an appropriate reason to discredit plaintiffs statements.
The third reason the ALJ discredited plaintiffs symptom statements is because the
treatment that plaintiff has received for impairments has been essentially routine and/or
conservative in nature. (Tr. 26) For instance, although one physical therapist set foith goals and
a plan of treatment, medical records indicate that plaintiff only attended physical therapy
appointments for less than three months and canceled a number of appointments and "never
called back for further [physical therapy]." (Tr. 711) This conservative route of treatment by
plaintiff is a specific, clear and convincing reason for discounting plaintiffs symptom
Page 6 - OPINION AND ORDER
The fou1ih reason the ALJ discredited plaintiffs symptom statements is because the
record revealed that some of the forms of the plaintiffs treatment options and medication have
been successfol in controlling the allegedly disabling symptoms. (Tr. 26) Medical records
indicate that treatment options and medications have been successfol including physical therapy
that decreased pain (Tr. 712) ("[Pain] is getting better."); weight loss of26 pounds since staiiing
Phente1mine (Tr. 749); "good results" in treating depression with Zoloft (Tr. 773); and notation
that plaintiff is "making progress" due to mental health treatment (Tr. 838). This evidence of
effective treatment is another specific, clear and convincing reason for discounting plaintiffs
The fifth reason the ALJ discredited plaintiffs symptom statements is because plaintiffs
described daily activities are inconsistent with what would be expected given plaintiffs
complaints of disabling symptoms and limitations. (Tr. 26) Inconsistent daily activities include
coaching softball and volleyball (Tr. 659), otherwise participating in softball (Tr. 681), and
"walking 1.5-2 miles/day" (Tr. 751).
Together, these inconsistencies between plaintiffs
testimony of symptoms and her activities of daily living constitute a specific, clear and
convincing reason for discounting plaintiffs symptom statements.
Again, the ALJ gave at least five specific, clear and convincing reasons to discount the
testimony of plaintiff. The ALJ did not simply give a general assertion that plaintiff is not
credible. Rather, the ALJ pointed to these instances of plaintiffs testimony not being credible
coupled with specific evidence in the record for not finding the testimony credible. I find that
the ALJ did not err in discounting plaintiffs testimony.
Page 7 - OPINION AND ORDER
Evaluation ofLay Witness Statements
Plaintiff further challenges the ALJ decision because she alleges that the ALJ failed to
correctly assess lay testimony causing legal en-or.
In general, "lay witness testimony as to a claimant's symptoms or how an impainnent
affects ability to work is competent evidence ... and therefore cannot be disregarded without
comment." Nguyen v. Cater, 100 F.3d 1462, 1467 (9th Cir. 1996) (emphasis omitted). This is
because "[a]n eyewitness can often tell whether someone is suffering or merely malingering,"
patticularly if the witness "view[s] the claimant on a daily basis[.]" Dodrill, 12 F.3d at 919. An
ALJ may discount lay witness testimony only by providing reasons that are "getmane" to each
Reasons that are at least germane in which an ALJ may discount lay witness
testimony include (1) inconsistencies or contradictions with medical evidence, Lewis v. Apfel,
236 F.3d 503, 511 (9th Cir. 2001), and (2) internal inconsistencies in a statement. Robinson v.
Benyhill, 690 F. App'x 520, 524 (9th Cir. 2017); see also Oregon v. Barnhart, 26 F. App'x 691,
693 (9th Cir. 2002) (internal inconsistencies between statements is a clear and convincing reason
to discount credibility). Clear and convincing reasons to discount lay witness credibility also
constitute germane reasons. Kha! v. Benyhill, 690 F. App'x 499, 502 (9th Cir. 2017).
Fmther, the ALJ need not "discuss every witness's testimony on an individualized,
witness-by-witness basis. Rather, if the ALJ gives germane reasons for rejecting testimony by
one witness, the ALJ need only point to those reasons when rejecting similar testimony by a
different witness." !Vfolina, 674 F.3d at 1114.
Here, the ALJ considered non-medical opinions from plaintiffs friends, Marilyn Savage
and Kathie Stoddard, but only gave those lay witness opinions "some weight". (Tr. 28) The
ALJ noted that these lay witness opinions are consistent with each other but not consistent with
Page 8 - OPINION AND ORDER
mental health treatment records. Id
Both opinions state that plaintiff has difficulty with
memory and concentration (Tr. 290, 298), but medical records state that plaintiffs memory is
"intact" and concentration is "normal" (Tr. 794).
Fu1iher, there is some internal inconsistency with the opinion of Marilyn Savage which
stated that plaintiff had many physical limitations but also admitted plaintiff participated in daily
activities like shopping and driving. (Tr. 28-29; Tr. 285-90)
The ALJ held that the lay witnesses' testimonies are inconsistent or contradict with
mental health treatment records. (Tr. 28) This germane reason alone is likely sufficient for
discounting the lay witness testimony. However, the ALJ gives a further reason for discounting
lay witness Marilyn Savages's testimony, that is, it is internally inconsistent. (Tr. 28-29)
Because the ALJ offered at least gennane reasons for doing so, the ALJ properly
discounted lay witnesses' testimony.
Evaluation of the }vfedica/ Opinion Evidence
Plaintiff fmiher challenges the ALJ decision because the ALJ failed to provide clear and
convincing reasons to reject or omit medical opinions.
There are three types of medical opinions in Social Security disability cases: those of
treating, examining, and reviewing physicians. Holohan v..Massanari, 246 F.3d 1195, 1201-02
(9th Cir. 2001).
"Generally, a treating physician's opinion can-ies more weight than an
examining physician's, and an examining physician's opinion carries more weight than a
reviewing physician's." Id. at 1202; accord 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d). "[C]lear and convincing"
reasons are required to reject a treating doctor's ultimate conclusions. Lester v. Chafer, 81 F.3d
821, 830 (9th Cir. 1995). When a treating doctor's opinion is contradicted by another doctor, the
Commissioner may not reject this opinion unless the Commissioner provides "specific and
Page 9 - OPINION AND ORDER
legitimate reasons" supported by substantial evidence in the record for so doing. Id. (citing
lvfurray v. Heckler, 722 F.2d 499, 502 (9th Cir.1983).
Non-acceptable medical sources are commonly categorized as "other sources."
}vfo/ina, 674 F.3d at 1111. An ALJ may discount testimony from other sources if the ALJ gives
germane reasons for doing so. Id. Qualified Mental Health Professionals ("QMHP") are defined
as "other sources," are not acceptable medical sources, and are thus entitled to lesser
deference. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1513(d) (2013); i\10/ina, 674 F.3d at 1111; JV!oon v. Colvin, 139 F.
Supp. 3d 1211, 1222 (D. Or. 2015). Again, the ALJ need only give germane reasons to discount
such opinions. M.olina, 674 F.3d at 1111. Germane reasons to discount opinions include lack of
support, Thomas, 278 F.3d at 957, and internal inconsistencies in the opinion, Robinso/, 690 F.
App'x at 524.
"The ALJ is responsible for resolving conflicts in the medical record." Carmickle, 533
F.3d at 1164. "Where the evidence is susceptible to more than one rational interpretation, it is
the ALJ's conclusion that must be upheld." See J\1organ v. Comm 'r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 169
F.3d 595, 599 (9th Cir. 1999). "[T]he consistency of the medical opinion with the record as a
whole" is a relevant consideration in weighing competing evidence. Orn v. Astrue, 495 F.3d
625, 631 (9th Cir. 2007).
A. Treating Physician Andrea Janssen, MD.
The ALJ placed less-than full weight on the opinion of treating physician, Andrea
Janssen, M.D., plaintiffs primary care provider since November 2009. (Tr. 27) The ALJ placed
partial weight on the opinion regarding plaintiffs ability to perf01m light work with exceptions
including lifting or carrying 20 pounds occasionally and less than 10 pounds frequently and
never performing manipulative activities like reaching or handling.
Page 10 - OPINION AND ORDER
The ALJ placed
moderate weight on the exceptions of plaintiff occasionally perf01ming postural activities like
stooping and standing or walking two hours per eight-hour workday. Id.
The ALJ did not give the opinion of treating physician, Andrea Janssen, M.D. controlling
weight. Id. The ALJ was thus able to apply factors in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)(i)-(ii) and
(c)(3) tln·ough (c)(6) in determining the weight to give the medical opinion. The ALJ gave less
than full weight to Dr. Janssen's opinion noting concerns regarding supportability and
consistency. (Tr. 27) These are legitimate reasons for giving less than full weight to a treating
physician's opinion that is not controlling. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(4)-(5). Specifically, the
ALJ notes that Dr. Janssen's "treatment notes and other evidence of record do not supp01t the
severity of the physical limitations set f01th in much of this opinion." (Tr. 27).
The ALJ did not err in declining to give the opinion of treating physician, Andrea
Janssen, controlling weight. Regarding supp01tability, Dr. Janssen's opinion gives little to no
medical evidence to suppo1t her opinion. (Tr. 844-50) "Objective medical evidence means
signs, laboratory findings, or both." 20 C.F.R. § 404.1502(l)(f). Dr. Janssen's opinion came by
means of completing a questionnaire provided by plaintiffs attorney and was not supplemented
with objective medical evidence. (Tr. 844-50)
Further, regarding consistency, Dr. Janssen's opinion is lacking in consistency with the
record as a whole. For example, Dr. Janssen opined that plaintiff would need a cane to ambulate
(Tr. 850), but other evidence tells of plaintiff playing softball, walking two miles a day and
having generally a normal gait. (Tr. 659, 681, 751, 794)
The opinion of Dr. Janssen is contradicted with the opinion of medical expert Judy
Panek, M.D. The ALJ gave Dr. Panek's testimony "significant weight." (Tr. 27) In contrast to
Dr. Janssen, Dr. Panek found that plaintiff has an RFC of lifting and carrying ten pounds
Page 11 - OPINION AND ORDER
occasionally, five pounds frequently, and standing or walking up to two hours in an eight-hour
day. (Tr. 50) Dr. Panek also gave no restrictions on pushing or pulling of arm or leg controls.
The ALJ gave specific and legitimate reasons for giving more weight to Dr. Panek' s
opinion over the opinion of plaintiffs treating physician, Dr. Janssen. First, the ALJ notes that
Dr. Panek had the entire longitudinal record of evidence to review, whereas Dr. Janssen did not.
(Tr. 27) Second, the ALJ noted that Dr. Panek testified at the hearing and was subject to cross
examination. Id.; see Andrews v. Shalala, 53 F.3d 1035, 1042 (9th Cir. 1995) (holding that more
weight may be given to the opinion of the non-treating physician where that physician testifies at
a hearing and is subject to cross examination).
Because the ALJ offered specific, clear and convincing reasons, the ALJ did not ell' in
discounting treating physician Dr. Janssen's opinion. Furthermore, the ALJ did not ell' in giving
more weight to Dr. Panek, a medical expert and a non-treating physician, because the ALJ
provided specific and legitimate reasons supported by substantial evidence in the record.
B. Psychotherapist ,\Jairi Nielsen, Q.l'v!HP.
The ALJ placed little weight on the opinion of plaintiffs psychotherapist, Mairi Nielsen,
QMHP. (Tr. 28) Ms. Nielsen opined that plaintiff is extremely limited in almost every facet of
her ability to do work-related activities on a day-to-day basis in a regular work setting. Id. The
ALJ took issue and discounted this opinion for two reasons: (1) "The treatment notes and other
evidence of record do not support the severity of the physical limitations set forth in much of [the
Ms. Nielsen's] opinion" and (2) Ms. Nielsen's opinion is "internally inconsistent." Id.
1. Lack ofSupport
Page 12 - OPINION AND ORDER
Ms. Nielsen asserted that plaintiff is extremely limited in almost every facet in her ability
to perform unskilled work. (Tr. 840-42) However, the ALJ noted that treatment notes and other
evidence of record do not support the severity of the physical limitations set f01ih in much of Ms.
Nielsen's opinion. (Tr. 28) Evidence that does not suppoti these limitations include plaintiffs
sporting and walking activities (Tr. 659, 681, 751) and plaintiffs ability to drive and care for her
daughter (Tr. 285-300)
2. Internal Inconsistency
The ALJ found that Ms. Nielsen's opinion is internally inconsistent. (Tr. 28) Notably
Ms. Nielsen indicated that plaintiff could manage her own benefits if awarded (Tr. 842), but that·
plaintiff is extremely limited in her ability to understand short and simple instructions or deal
with normal work stress (Tr. 841-42). Ms. Nielsen indicated a GAF of 45 (Tr. 836), but her
opinion suggests an even lower score (marking "extremely limited" on 75% of plaintiffs mental
abilities and aptitudes needed to do unskilled work) (Tr. 841-42). Additionally, Ms. Nielsen
indicated that plaintiffs conditions do not deteriorate over time (Tr. 839), but then Ms. Nielsen
indicates a lowering GAF score (Tr. 836).
The lack of support for Ms. Nielsen's opinion that plaintiff is extremely limited in almost
every facet in her ability to perfo1m unskilled work is a germane reason to discount Nielsen's
opinion. Further, Ms. Nielsen's opinion is a medical source for which germane reasons are
needed to discount the opinion. The reasons of lack of suppoti and internal inconsistencies are
sufficient to discount Nielsen's opinion.
Assessment ofPlaintiff's Residual Functional Capacity
Finally, plaintiff avers that the ALJ decision erred in failing to incorporate all medical
findings into plaintiffs RFC.
Page 13 - OPINION AND ORDER
The ALJ determines a claimant's RFC. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(e). RFC is "what [one] can
still do despite [one's] limitations." 20 C.F.R. § 416.945(a)(l). It is "based on all the relevant
medical and other evidence in [the] case record." Id. If a claimant has multiple impahments,
they are all included in the assessment. § 416.920(a)(2). The ALJ mustconsider a claimant's
physical and mental abilities, § 416.920(b) and (c), as well as the total limiting effects caused by
medically determinable impainnents and the claimant's subjective experiences of pain, §
416.920(e). The RFC is used at step four to determine if a claimant can do past relevant work
and at step five to detennine if a claimant can adjust to other work. Id.
In determining the RFC, the ALJ is not required to discuss every piece of medical
evidence. Lusardi v. Astrue, 350 F. App'x 169, 173 (9th Cir. 2009). However, if the ALJ rejects
significant probative evidence, the ALJ must explain the reason for the rejection. Id. The ALJ is
not required to consider evidence that has already been discredited or discounted. Dean v.
Comm'r ofSoc. Sec., 504 F. App'x 563, 566 (9th Cir. 2013).
Here, the ALJ properly discounted medical and vocational evidence presented on
plaintiffs behalf. Plaintiff challenges the ALJ decision because the ALJ failed to incorporate all
medical findings into plaintiffs RFC. (doc. 13 at 27) However, in making this assignment of
e11'0t", plaintiff does not point to specific omissions of evidence, but simply states circularly that
the RFC is "unsupported by the evidence because it is not based upon all of the evidence." Id.
While it is true that the ALJ discounted evidence, those instances were addressed above with
explanations for the reasons for rejection or discretization.
Because the ALJ was not required to consider evidence that had previously been rejected,
discredited, or discounted, the ALJ did not err in not incorporating all medical findings into
Page 14- OPINION AND ORDER
The Commissioner's decision is AFFIRLV!ED and this case is DISMISSED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
day of October 2017.
United States District Judge
Page 15- 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?