Hauth v. Commissioner Social Security Administration
OPINION and ORDER - Based on the record, the Commissioner's decision is AFFIRMED and this case is DISMISSED. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED this 11th day of October, 2017, by United States Magistrate Judge John V. Acosta. (peg)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
Case No.: 3:16-CV-01003-AC
OPINION AND ORDER
NANCY A. BERRYHILL,
Acting Commissioner of Social Security,
ACOSTA, Magistrate Judge:
Monique Hauth ("plaintiff') seeks judicial review of a final decision by the Commissioner
of Social Security ("Commissioner") denying her application for Title XVI Supplemental Security
Income ("SSI") under the Social Security Act ("Act"). Because the Commissioner's decision is
suppmied by substantial evidence, his decision is AFFIRMED and this case DISMISSED.
Plaintiff protectively filed her application for SSI on October 25, 2012, alleging disability
Page 1 - OPINION AND ORDER
as of January 20, 2012. (Tr. 145-51.) 1 The Commissioner denied her application initially and upon
reconsideration, and she requested a hearing before an Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ"). (Tr. 8891, 94-95, 100-02.) An administrative hearing was held on December 17, 2014. (Tr. 15-31.) After
the hearing, the ALJ issued an unfavorable decision on January 14, 2015, finding plaintiff not
disabled. (Tr. 18-27.) The Appeals Council denied plaintiffs subsequent request for review,
making the ALJ's decision final. (Tr. 1-4.)
Born on December 3, 1965, plaintiff was 46 years old on the alleged onset date of disability
and 49 years old at the time of the hearing. (Tr. 143, 145.) She speaks English, completed the
eleventh grade, and attended special education classes. (Tr. 162, 164.) Plaintiff alleges disability
due to fibromyalgia, scoliosis, kidney infections, and bladder infections. (Tr. 64, 72, 163.)
The court must affirm the Commissioner's decision if it is based on proper legal standards
and the findings are supported by substantial evidence in the record. Hammock v. Bowen, 879 F.2d
498, 501 (9th Cir. 1989). Substantial evidence is "more than a mere scintilla. It means such relevant
evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion." Richardson v.
Perales, 402 U.S. 389, 401 (1971) (citation and internal quotations omitted). The court must weigh
"both the evidence that supports and detracts from the [Commissioner's] conclusions." Martinez
v. Heckler, 807 F.2d 771, 772 (9th Cir. 1986). "Where the evidence as a whole can support either
a grant or a denial, [the court] may not substitute [its] judgment for the ALJ's." Massachi v. Astrue,
Plaintiff also applied for Disability Insurance Benefits ("DIB") on December 13, 2012,
but her application was denied after the SSA determined she did not have enough quarters to
qualify for coverage. (Tr. 84-87, 143-44.)
Page 2 - OPINION AND ORDER
486 F.3d 1149, 1152 (9th Cir. 2007) (citation omitted).
The initial burden of proofrests upon the claimant to establish disability. Howardv. Heckler,
782 F.2d 1484, 1486 (9th Cir. 1986). To meet this burden, the claimant 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).
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. § 416.920. First, the
Commissioner determines whether a claimant is engaged in "substantial gainful activity." Yuckert,
482 U.S. at 140; 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(b). Ifso, the claimant is not disabled.
At step two, the Commissioner evaluates whether the claimant has a "medically severe
impairment or combination of impairments." Yuckert, 482 U.S. at 140-41; 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(c).
If the claimant does not have a medically determinable, severe impairment, he is not disabled.
At step three, the Commissioner determines whether the claimant's impairments, either
singly or in combination, meet or equal "one of a number of listed impairments that the
[Commissioner] acknowledges are so severe as to preclude substantial gainful activity." Yuckert,
482 U.S. at 140-41; 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(d). If so, the claimant is presumptively disabled; if not, the
Commissioner proceeds to step four. Yuckert, 482 U.S. at 141.
At step four, the Commissioner resolves whether the claimant can still perform "past relevant
work." 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(f). If the claimant can work, he is not disabled; ifhe cannot perform
Effective March 27, 2017, updates were made to the regulations and some sections of the
regulations were renumbered. The C.F.R. sections referenced throughout this opinion are the
versions of the C.F .R. that were in effect at the time plaintiff requested judicial review.
Page 3 - OPINION AND ORDER
past relevant work, the burden shifts to the Commissioner. At step five, the Commissioner must
establish that the claimant can perform other work existing in significant numbers in the national or
local economy. Yuckert, 482 U.S. at 141-42; 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(g). If the Commissioner meets
this burden, the claimant is not disabled. 20 C.F.R. § 416.966.
The ALJ's Findings
The ALJ performed the sequential analysis. At step one of the five-step process outlined
above, the ALJ found that plaintiff had not engaged in substantial gainful activity since October 25,
2012, the application date. (Tr. 20.) At step two, theALJ concluded thatplaintiffhad the following
severe impairments: chronic cystitis, 3 status post transurethral fulguration, and chronic back pain.
(Tr. 20-21.) At step three, the ALJ dete1mined that plaintiff did not have an impairment or
combination of impairments that met or medically equaled a listed impairment. (Tr. 21.)
The ALJ next assessed plaintiffs residual functional capacity ("RFC") and found that
plaintiff has the RFC to
perform light work as defined in 20 CFR 416.967(b), except: she is limited to
standing and walking two to four hours total of eight; sitting without specific
limitations; she may lift and carry up to twenty pounds occasionally and ten pounds
frequently; and should work in an environment with ready access to a restroom.
At step four, the ALJ found that plaintiff had no past relevant work. (Tr. 25.) At step five,
the ALJ concluded that there were jobs that existed in significant numbers in the national economy
that plaintiff could perform. (Id.) Specifically, the ALJ found that plaintiff could "perform the
Cystitis is "the medical term for inflammation of the bladder. Most of the time,
bacterial infection is the cause of the inflammation, refened to as a urinary tract infection (UTI).
Page 4 - OPINION AND ORDER
requirements of representative occupations such as Assembly (DOT 706.684-022)" and
"Packing/Sorting (DOT 753.687-038)." (Tr. 26.) The ALJ therefore concluded plaintiff was not
Plaintiff argues that the ALJ erred by failing to: (1) provide a clear and convincing reason
to reject her subjective symptom testimony; and (2) pose a hypothetical to the VE that included all
of her alleged limitations. (Pl.'s Opening Br. 11-16, Pl.'s Reply Br. 3-6.)
Plaintiffs Subjective Symptom Testimony.
Plaintiff argues the ALJ erred by failing to provide a clear and convincing reason for rejecting
her subjective symptom testimony concerning her pain from her chronic cystitis and her
genitourinary disorders. (Pl.'s Opening Br. 6-11, Pl.'s Reply Br. 1-3.)
If "there is no affirmative evidence of malingering, 'the ALJ can reject the claimant's
testimony about the severity of her symptoms only be offering specific, clear and convincing reasons
for doing so."' Tommasetti v. Astrue, 533 F.3d 1035, 1039 (9th Cir. 2008) (quoting Smolen v.
Chafer, 80 F.3d 1273, 1281, 1283-84 (9th Cir. 1996)). The reasons proffered must be "sufficiently
specific to pennit the reviewing court to conclude that the ALJ did not arbitrarily discredit the
claimant's testimony." Orteza v. Shalala, 50 F.3d 748, 750 (9th Cir. 1995) (internal citation
At the hearing, plaintiff testified that she is unable to work due to urinary frequency
associated with her urinary tract infections and constant pain. (Tr. 52-53.) She testified that when
she has a urinaiy tract infection she uses the bathroom ten times in an hour, and that her back,
shoulder, and hand pain make lifting, bending, and handling objects difficult. (Tr. 49-50, 52.)
Page 5 - OPINION AND ORDER
Finally, plaintiff testified that she spends a lot of time laying in the fetal position to help alleviate the
pain. (Tr. 50.) The ALJ rejected plaintiffs testimony regarding her symptoms and limitations and
provided at least one clear and convincing reason for doing so.
The ALJ gave three reasons to discredit plaintiffs subjective symptom testimony, which
include: (1) her activities of daily living were inconsistent with her "allegations of total disability";
(2) she received only conservative treatment for her impairments; and (3) she had good pain control
on medications. The court rejects the first two of these reasons, but finds the third is a clear and
convincing reason supported by substantial evidence for discrediting plaintiffs subjective symptom
testimony. Each reason is discussed in detail below.
First, the ALJ found plaintiffs activities of daily living were inconsistent with her
"allegations of total disability." (Tr. 23.) A plaintiffs activities of daily living may suppo1i an
ALJ's decision to discredit the intensity and persistence of plaintiffs symptoms if they: (1)
contradict a plaintiffs previous testimony, or (2) show that activities "meet the threshold for
transferable work skills[.]" Orn v. Astrue, 495 F.3d 625, 639 (9th Cir. 2007). Here, the ALJ noted
that plaintiff spent time preparing simple meals, washing dishes, doing laund1y, shopping, learning
to use the computer, caring for her disabled husband, and socializing over the phone and online. (Tr.
23.) Although plaintiff testified to performing these activities, they did not contradict her overall
testimony that she "tr[ies] to do some household chores if the pain doesn't affect [her]," but spends
most days "in bed or sit[ting] down for long periods of time." (Tr. 186.) The ALJ also failed to
show how plaintiffs activities met the threshold for transferable work skills. For these reasons,
plaintiffs performance of activities of daily living is not a clear and convincing reason to reject her
subjective symptom testimony.
Page 6 - OPINION AND ORDER
Second, the ALJ discredited plaintiffs subjective symptom testimony because he found
plaintiff received only conservative treatment for her impairments. (Tr. 23.) '"[C]onservative
treatment' is sufficient to discount a claimant's testimony regarding the severity of an impairment."
Parra v. Astrue, 481 F.3d 742, 751 (9th Cir. 2007) (citing Johnson v. Shala/a, 60 F.3d 1428, 1434
(9th Cir. 1995)). However, an independent review of the record shows plaintiff did not receive
conservative treatment for her impairments, and was returning numerous times for recuning urinmy
tract infections that caused discomfort and pain. (See Tr. 293, 428, 504, 526, 533, 535, 543, 584,
63 7, 64 3, 64 7.) . Therefore, this is not a clear and convincing reason supported by substantial
evidence to discredit plaintiffs subjective symptom testimony.
Finally, the ALJ found plaintiff had good pain control on medications. (Tr. 23.) The ALJ
noted that in Februmy 2013, plaintiff reported having improved pain with Vicodin and reported
adequate pain control in June 2013. (Tr. 24, citing Tr. 365, 387.) Additionally, the ALJ found that
in September 2014 plaintiff reported to Mr. Richard Powers, treating FNP, that Norco and Flexeril
made pain control satisfactory. (Tr. 24, citing Tr. 542.) An ALJ may consider the effectiveness or
adverse side effects of any pain medication when making a credibility determination. Orteza, 50
F.3d at 750 (citation omitted). Indeed, plaintiff reported that she was "satisfied with her current pain
management" and rated her pain as a three out often when taking Vicodin. (See Tr. 387, 542.)
While variable interpretations of this evidence may exist, the ALJ' s analysis was nonetheless
reasonable, such that it must be upheld. See Batson v. Comm 'r ofSoc. Sec. Admin., 359 F.3d 1190,
1198 (9th Cir. 2004). In sum, the ALJ provided at least one clear and convincing reason, supported
by substantial evidence, for rejecting plaintiffs subjective symptom testimony. There is no error.
Plaintiffs RFC and Step Five Findings.
Page 7 - OPINION AND ORDER
Next, plaintiff argues that the ALJ erred by failing to pose a hypothetical to the VE that
included all of her imitations. (Pl. 's Opening Br. 11-16, Pl. 's Reply Br. 3-6.) Essentially, plaintiff
argues the ALJ' s RFC finding and subsequent step five findings are not based on substantial
evidence in the record because they did not include limitations associated with her toileting,
handling, and reading and writing, which if credited, would require a finding that plaintiff is
disabled. (Pl.'s Opening Br. 16, Pl.'s Reply Br. 3.)
The RFC is the maximum a claimant can do despite his limitations. See 20 C.F.R. § 416.945.
In dete1mining the RFC, the ALJ must consider limitations imposed by all of a claimant's
impairments, even those that are not severe, and evaluate "all of the relevant medical and other
evidence," including the claimant's testimony. SSR 96-Sp. The ALJ is responsible for resolving
conflicts in the medical testimony and translating the claimant's impahments into concrete
functional limitations in the RFC. Stubbs-Danielson v. Astrue, 539 F.3d 1169, 1174 (9th Cir. 2008).
Only limitations supported by substantial evidence must be incorporated into the RFC and, by
extension, the dispositive hypothetical question posed to the VE. Osenbrockv. Apfel, 240 F.3d 1157,
1163-65 (9th Cir. 2001).
Plaintiff argues that the ALJ erred by failing to address the "frequency or duration of
batluoom visits" when assessing her RFC, specifically arguing that the ALJ' s RFC limitation that
plaintiff have ready access to a restroom does not account for the time that she would be away from
her work station because of her urinary frequency. (Pl.'s Opening Br. 14-15, Pl.'s Reply Br. 3-6.)
Here, the ALJ found plaintiffs chronic cystitis was a severe impairment and, in evaluating
Page 8 - OPINION AND ORDER
her RFC, considered plaintiffs testimony concerning her urinary tract infections. (Tr. 20, 22.) The
ALJ noted plaintiffs testimony that she uses the bathroom ten times an hour when suffering from
an urinmy tract infection, wears a diaper, and cannot perfonn full-time work because she needs to
use the restroom frequently. (Tr. 22.) Additionally, the ALJ noted that plaintiff reported to Dr.
Stanley Myers that her urinmy urgency had improved after he perfo1med a transurethral fulguration
of the left bladder diverticulum in August 2014. (Tr. 24, citing Tr. 637.) Based on this evidence,
the ALJ included in plaintiffs RFC that she "should work in an environment with ready access to
a restroom." (Tr. 21.)
Plaintiff argues the RFC limitation does not address the "frequency or duration of bathroom
visits," which she argues is of"critical importance" to determine whether she can sustain work. (Pl.' s
Opening Br. 14.) Although the ALJ does not specifically address the duration of plaintiffs batlu·oom
visits, the court overall finds no error. The ALJ reasonably assessed plaintiffs limitations relating
to her toileting needs, including in the RFC the requirement that plaintiff"work in an environment
with ready access to a restroom." (Tr. 21.) Although plaintiff argues that the duration of her
toileting requirements were not addressed, at step four the burden of proof lies on the plaintiff, and
this court fails to see any evidence provided by plaintiff to show she is spending extended periods
of time in the restroom that require any additional RFC limitations. See Pinto v. Massanari, 249
F.3d 843, 844 (9th Cir. 2001) (burden ofproofat step four lies with the claimant). For these reasons
plaintiffs argument fails and there is no error.
Next, plaintiff argues that the ALJ erred by failing to account for limitations caused by her
hand pain. (Pl.'s Opening Br. 15-16, Pl.'s Reply Br. 6.) The ALJ discussed plaintiffs rep01is of
Page 9 - OPINION AND ORDER
hand pain causing her to drop items, but found no functional limitations in handling, noting that xrays of plaintiffs right hand showed only "mild right wrist osteoarthritis." (Tr. 20, 22, 25.)
Additionally, the ALJ noted that although FNP Powers opined that plaintiff had functional
limitations in reaching, grasping, pushing, pulling and manipulation, the ALJ reasonably dismissed
these limitations finding that "no specialist has fully examined [plaintiffj's hands," that plaintiff's
wrist pain began "after she was active with organizing and lifting around the home," and FNP
Power's limitations were based on plaintiff's subjective statements, which the ALJ reasonably
rejected. (Tr. 25, citing Tr. 543.)
The court notes plaintiffs x-rays show osteoarthritis, with the overall findings of "mild
narrowing and marginal spurring affects all of the interphalangeal joints of both hands," and "mild
narrowing of the trapezium first metacarpal joint bilaterally." (Tr. 558.) The ALJ reasonably
interpreted these findings showed only mild osteoarthritis. Additionally, an independent review of
the record shows plaintiff's complaints of hand pain came after she reported doing heavy lifting, and
there are no records showing she sought any additional relief for her hand pain. (See Tr. 228, 543.)
Although plaintiff requests an alternate reading ofthe evidence,"[ w]hen the evidence before the ALJ
is subject to more than one rational interpretation, we must defer to the ALJ's conclusion." Batson,
359 F.3d at 1198. There is no en-or.
Page 10- OPINION AND ORDER
Reading and Writing.
Finally, plaintiff argues that the ALJ e!Ted by failing to account for her illiteracy. (Pl.'s
Opening Br. 13.)
The Social Security regulations contain a list of categories used to evaluate a claimant's
educational level, which include categories for illiteracy and limited education. See C.F .R. §
416.964(b). Under these categories illiteracy is defined as "the inability to read or write." 20 C.F.R.
§ 416.964(b)(l). "Generally, an illiterate person has had little or no formal schooling." Id The
C.F.R. further provides: "We consider someone illiterate ifthe person cannot read or write a simple
message such as instructions or inventory lists even though the person can sign his or her name."
20 C.F.R. §416.964(b)(l). "Limited education" is defined as
ability in reasoning, arithmetic, and language skills, but not enough to allow
a person with these educational qualifications to do most of the more
complex job duties needed in semi-skilled or skilled jobs. We generally
consider that a 7th grade through the 11th grade level of formal education is
a limited education.
20 C.F.R. §416.964(b)(3). "[T]he numerical grade level that you completed in school may not
represent your actual educational abilities," but "if there is no other evidence to contradict it, we will
use your numerical grade level to determine your educational abilities." 20 C.F.R. §416.964(b).
Here, the ALJ noted that plaintifftestified she "can barely read" and obtained her commercial
driver's license and regular driver's license by studying tapes and taldng an oral examination. (Tr.
22.) The ALJ overall found that plaintiff had a "limited education" and could communicate in
English. (Tr. 25.) Based on these findings, the ALJ determined plaintiff had the RFC to complete
assembly jobs and packing and sorting jobs. (Tr. 21.) The court finds the ALJ reasonably evaluated
plaintiffs testimony and found she had a "limited education." Illiteracy means the inability to read,
Page 11 - OPINION AND ORDER
and as noted by the ALJ, plaintiff testified that she can "barely read," not that she could not read.
(Tr. 22.) Additionally, evidence of record shows plaintiff completed some high school and special
education classes, so it was reasonable for the ALJ to conclude she had a "limited education," as
opposed to being illiterate. (See Tr. 162, 164.) There is no error.
Step Five Findings.
Finally, plaintiff essentially argues that the ALJ erred by relying on the VE's testimony to
find that plaintiff had the ability to perform other jobs in the national economy because the
hypotheticals propounded to the VE were based on a flawed RFC assessment. (Pl.'s Opening Br.
11-16, Pl.'s Reply Br. 3-6.)
At step five, the burden of proof shifts to the Commissioner to demonstrate that the claimant
can engage in some type of substantial gainful activity that exists in "significant numbers" in the
national economy. Yuckert, 482 U.S. at 141-42. The step five analysis requires assessment of the
medical evidence, the claimant's daily activities, prior work record, functional restrictions and
limitations, medication and other treatment for relief of symptoms, and evidence from physicians
and third parties. 20 C.F.R. § 416.929. Typically, the ALJ propounds a hypothetical question to the
VE that is based on medical assumptions supported by the record and reflects all of the claimant's
limitations. Osenbrock, 240 F .3d at 1163-64. If the claimant fails to present evidence that she
suffers from certain limitations, the ALJ need not include those alleged impairments in the
hypothetical question to the VE. Id.
Here, the ALJ propounded a hypothetical to the VE based on the RFC finding. (Tr. 5 8-60.)
Under the hypothetical, the VE found plaintiff could perform assembly jobs, and packaging and
sorting jobs that exist in the national economy. (Tr. 59.) As discussed above, the ALJ reasonably
Page 12 - OPINION AND ORDER
assessed plaintiffs RFC. Therefore the hypothetical propounded to the VE incorporated all of
Lehman's limitations, and the ALJ did not err in relying on the VE testimony. There is no error.
Based on the foregoing discussion, the Commissioner's decision is AFFIRMED and this case
IT IS SO ORDERED.
//~day of October, 2017.
Page 13 - 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?