Woodin 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. See formal OPINION AND ORDER. Signed on 6/24/2015 by Chief Judge Ann L. Aiken. (rh)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
Case No. 6:14-CV-00753-AA
BYRUM WOODIN,
OPINION AND ORDER
Plaintiff,
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 supplemental security income
SecurityAct
(SSI) benefits under the Social
(the Act). See 42 U.S.C.
Commissioner's decision is
405(g), 1383(c)(3). The
§§
affirmed.
BACKGROUND
On
January
24,
2011;
plaintiff
protectively
filed
an
application for SSI, tr. 22, 152; it was denied initially and on
reconsideration.
vocational
Tr.
expert
1 - OPINION AND ORDER
89,
(VE)
99.
On August 8,
appeared
and
2012,
plaintiff and a
testified
before
an
administrative law judge
(ALJ). Tr.
38-73. On September 4,
2012,
the ALJ issued a decision finding plaintiff not disabled within the
meaning of the Act.
Tr.
Council denied review,
19-37.
On March 11,
2014,
the Appeals
rendering the ALJ's decision as the final
agency decision. Tr. 2-6. Plaintiff now seeks judicial review.
Plaintiff was forty-nine years old at the time of the ALJ's
decision, with a limited education and no past relevant work. Tr.
31, 152. Plaintiff alleges disability since November 22, 2010, due
to attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), post-traumatic
stress disorder (PTSD), drug dependency, and blurry vision. Tr. 4243, 176.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
This court must affirm the Commissioner's decision if it is
supported by substantial evidence in the record and the correct
application of the law. Valentine v. Comm'r Soc. Sec. Admin,
F.2d 685, 690
574
(9th Cir. 200~). ~'Substantial evidence' means more
than a mere scintilla, but less than a preponderance. It means such
relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to
support
a
conclusion."
Desrosiers
v.
Servs., 846 F.2d 573, 576 (9th Cir. 1988)
Sec' y
of
Health
&
Human
(internal quotation marks
and citations omitted). In determining whether substantial evidence
supports the decision, the court must weigh "both the evidence that
supports
and
detracts
from
the
[Commissioner] 's
Martinez v. Heckler, 807 F.2d 771, 772
2 - OPINION AND ORDER
conclusions."
(9th Cir. 1986). Where the
evidence "is susceptible to more than one rational interpretation,"
the Commissioner's conclusion must be upheld. Burch v. Barnhart,
400 F. 3d 676, 679 (9th Cir. 2005).
COMMISSIONER'S DECISION
The
ALJ
evaluated
plaintiff's
allegation
of
disability
pursuant to the relevant sequential process. See Bowen v. Yuckert,
482 U.S. 137, 140 (1987); 20 C.F.R.
found
that
activity 11
C.F.R.
§
At
plaintiff
had
not
§
416.920. At step one, the ALJ
engaged
in
11
substantial
during the period of alleged disability.
Tr.
gainful
24;
20
416.920(b).
step
two,
the
ALJ
found
that
plaintiff
had medically
determinable impairments of ADHD, PTSD, a history of depression, an
antisocial
personality
strain/sprain,
disorder,
a
history
chronic hip and back pain,
hands. Tr. 24; 20 C.F.R.
§
of
right
shoulder
and tingling in
the
416.920(c). However, at step three, the
ALJ found that these impairments did not meet or equal
11
0ne of a
number of listed impairments that the [Commissioner] acknowledges
are
so severe as
C.F.R.
At
§
to preclude gainful
activity." Tr.
25-26;
20
416.920(d).
step
four,
the
ALJ
determined
plaintiff's
residual
functional capacity (RFC) and found that plaintiff retained the RFC
to perform medium work. Tr. 26. The ALJ also found that plaintiff
is limited to routine and repetitive tasks and only occasional
interaction with the public and coworkers.
3 - OPINION AND ORDER
Tr.
26;
20 C.F.R.
§
416.920(e). Based on plaintiff's limited work history, the ALJ did
not consider plaintiff's ability to perform past relevant work. Tr.
31; 20 C. F.R.
§
416.920 (f).
At step five,
the ALJ found that plaintiff was capable of
performing
other
work
in
the
national
economy
attendant,
room cleaner, and garment sorter. Tr.
as
a
32; 20
cafeteria
C.F~R.
§
416.920(g). Therefore, the ALJ found plaintiff not disabled under
the meaning of the Act. Tr. 33.
DISCUSSION
Plaintiff
asserts
that
the
ALJ
erred
by:
1)
rejecting
plaintiff's subjective complaints; 2) failing to credit lay witness
statements;
3)
discounting
the
opinion
of
an
examining
psychologist, Dr. Duvall; and 4) finding that plaintiff retains the
ability to perform other work. I find no error.
A. Credibility Finding
At the administrative hearing, plaintiff testified that he is
unable to work because he is forgetful and becomes anxious around
people. Tr. 50. Plaintiff also testified that he gets distracted,
leaves projects unfinished, and has paranoia. Tr. 59-60. Plaintiff
reported that his ability to focus is better and his moods stable
when he takes his medication. Tr. 52. Plaintiff also testified that
he has 20/40 vision with blurry eyesight, and that his eyesight has
deteriorated in the three months and he can no longer see clearly
with his eyeglasses.
4 - OPINION AND ORDER
Tr.
60-61.
Finally,
he testified that his
shoulder pops out of place once a month, causing his hip to drop,
pinching the sciatic nerve in his left leg,
and causing partial
paralysis and numbness in his fingertips and arm. Tr. 62.
The ALJ found that plaintiff's complaints about his physical
limitations were not supported by the medical evidence reflecting
little treatment for chronic hip or back condition,
conservative treatment with medication.
conservative
treatment
is
sufficient
Tr.
to
27-28.
discount
aside from
"Evidence of
a
claimant's
testimony regarding severity of an impairment." Parra v. Astrue,
481 F.3d 742,
751
(9th Cir.
2007).
For example,
when plaintiff
sought chiropractic treatment for a shoulder sprain between June 10
and June 23,
treatment
2010,
and
incarcerated,
he reported that he experienced relief with
exercised
regularly.
Tr.
"409-10,
plaintiff complained of hip pain,
423.
While
back pain,
and
right hand weakness and numbness. Tr. 307, 313, 316, 317. For these
ailments, he was prescribed medication. Tr. 311, 319. The ALJ also
noted that when asked why he could not work, plaintiff focused on
his mental issues and did not mention his alleged back or hip pain.
Tr. 28, 50. Thus, the ALJ's findings are supported by substantial
evidence in the record.
The ALJ similarly found plaintiff's complaints of disabling
mental impairments not credible, because his medications have been
effective
in
treating
his
symptoms
when
he
takes
them
as
prescribed. Tr. 28. "Impairments that can be controlled effectively
5 - OPINION AND ORDER
with medication are not disabling for the purpose of determining
eligibility for SSI benefits." Warre ex rel. E.T. IV v. Comm'r of
Soc.
Sec. Admin.,
439 F. 3d 1001,
1006
(9th Cir.
2006).
The ALJ
noted plaintiff's testimony that Wellbutin helps him focus
controls his mood swings.
plaintiff
attention,
reported
that
following
Tr.
he
2 7,
has
directions
52.
Similarly,
difficulty
and
and
in May 2 00 9,
"with
and
without
sleeping"
focus
his
'~
medication,
but
that
he
is
stable
when
on
his
medication
and
suffers no side effects. Tr. 28, 438. In 2010, plaintiff reported
that without his medications he experiences hallucinations,
that his medications improved his restlessness,
but
poor attention,
focus, and concentration. Tr. 259, 275. In 2011, plaintiff reported
he that his moods were stable,
he was sleeping well,
and he had
improved attention, focus, and concentration with his medication.
Tr. 506. Finally, the ALJ noted that an examining psychologist, Dr.
Duvall,
found
no
significant
psychological
issues
that
would
interfere with plaintiff's ability to work. Tr. 29, 541.
The ALJ also noted plaintiff's work history in making her
credibility findings. Tr. 29. Although plaintiff's work·history has
been affected by his incarcerations, after his release from prison
in February 2009 he worked at Labor Ready and performed demolition
work for two months. Tr. 210. Shortly after that, he worked for Sky
Chef prepping airplane meals before being laid off. Tr. 201, 538.
In 2010, plaintiff worked as a seasonal produce sorter before he
6 - 'OPINION AND ORDER
was laid off. Tr. 46, 176. Thus, the ALJ appropriately found that
this work history indicated an ability to perform some type of
work. Tr. 30. The fact that plaintiff stopped working for reasons
other
than
his
alleged
disregard his testimony.
(9th Cir. 2001)
impairments
is
a
sufficient
Bruton v. Massanari,
basis
268 F.3d 824,
to
828
(upholding credibility finding where the claimant
"stated at the administrative hearing and to at least one of his
doctors that he left his job because he was laid off, rather than
because he was injured.").
In
sum,
I
find
that
the
ALJ provided
legally
sufficient
reasons to support her credibility findings.
B. Lay Witness Statements
Next plaintiff argues that the ALJ improperly rejected the lay
witness statements of Goldie Woodin, plaintiff's spouse, and Sally
Hayden, a friend. Tr. 213-16. I find that the ALJ provided adequate
reasons
to
discount
these
statements.
Generally,
statements cannot be disregarded without comment;
lay
witness
"the ALJ must
give reasons that are germane to each witness." Molina v. Astrue,
674
F.3d 1104,
omitted);
discounted
see
1114
(9th Cir.
also Valentine,
the
statements
of
2012)
(internal quotation marks
574
F. 3d at
Ms.
Goldin
694.
and
Here,
Ms.
the
Hayden
ALJ
as
inconsistent with the medical record and plaintiff's improvement
with
medication.
Tr.
30.
Such
reasons
are
germane
to
their
statements and fairly supported by the record, as noted above.
7 - OPINION AND ORDER
C. Dr. Duvall's Opinion
Plaintiff maintains that the ALJ erred by failing to adopt the
limitations found by Dr. Duvall, an examining psychologist.
In a
medical source statement, Dr. Duvall indicated that plaintiff would
have moderate to marked limitations interacting appropriately with
the public, and moderate limitations interacting appropriately with
supervisors and co-workers. Tr. 543. Dr. Duvall also commented that
"conflict
with
authority
figures
[is]
a
central
feature"
of
antisocial personality disorder. Tr. 543. Plaintiff argues that the
ALJ erred by rejecting these aspects of Dr. Duvall's opinion.
However, in his written report, Dr. Duvall opined that, while
plaintiff "does not have great social skills," he is "personable
enough to get along adequately with supervisors and co-workers."
541. Moreover, Dr. Duvall wrote that "any obstacles to [plaintiff]
working currently would have to be medical in nature." Tr.
Thus,
by
Dr.
Duvall's
own
report,
plaintiff's
541.
limitations
in
interacting appropriately with supervisors would not prevent him
from adequately performing work duties. Tr. 541. Therefore, I find
no error.
Plaintiff also contends that the ALJ erred because she limited
plaintiff to "routine and repetitive" rather than "simple" tasks
and failed to recognize plaintiff's limited math abilities. Tr. 26.
In
the
medical
source
statement,
Dr.
Duvall
indicated
that
plaintiff would have no limitations understanding, remembering, and
8 - OPINION AND ORDER
carrying
out
simple
instructions,
and moderate
limitations
in
understanding, remembering, and carrying out complex instructions.
Tr. 542. It is unclear whether Dr. Duvall restricted plaintiff to
"simple" tasks by this assessment, given his opinion that plaintiff
"is employable in those jobs for which his personal capabilities
suit
him."
plaintiff's
Tr.
541.
mental
Likewise,
status
while
Dr.
examination
problems with arithmetic skills," Dr.
Duvall
noted
"suggested
some
that
minor
Duvall did not assess any
limitation with respect to math skills. Tr. 540. 1
Regardless,
even
if
the
ALJ
erroneously
excluded
these
limitations from plaintiff's RFC, the error was harmless. Molina,
674
F.3d
at
1115
inconsequential
to
("[A]n ALJ's
the
ultimate
error
is
harmless
nondisability
where
it
is
determination.")
(citation and internal quotation marks omitted); Stubbs-Danielson
v. Astrue, 539 F.3d 1169, 1174 (9th Cir. 2008).
The ALJ found that plaintiff could perform work as a garment
sorter, cafeteria attendant, and room cleaner. The Dictionary of
Occupational Titles
(DOT)
cafeteria
include
attendant
job descriptions of garment sorter and
Reasoning Levels
of
02,
while
the
description of a room cleaner includes a Reasoning Level of 01. DOT
1
Plaintiff also suggests that the ALJ erred with respect to
plaintiff's concentration, persistence or pace. However, Dr. Duvall
found that plaintiff "is able to concentrate sufficiently, persist
in work tasks, and pace himself through the day." Tr. 541.
Moreover, the ALJ also found that plaintiff would not be able to
work ~at a rapid production pace." Tr. 69. Therefore, I find no
error.
9 - OPINION AND ORDER
§§
222.687-014 (garment sorter), 311.677-010 (cafeteria attendant),
323.687-014
found that a
(room cleaner)
~reasoning
level 2 is generally consistent with the
ability to perform simple,
2013 WL 6284389,
Astrue,
at *6
305 Fed. Appx.
This court and the Ninth Circuit have
routine tasks." Delatorre v.
(D.
Or.
Dec 3,
2014);
324,
326
(9th Cir.
Colvin,
see also Lara v.
2008).
Thus,
the
the
jobs identified at step five are consistent with a limitation to
simple work.
Similarly,
as discussed below,
the jobs identified at step
five do not involve extensive mathematical skills. I therefore find
no error that warrants reversal.
8 81,
8 88
(9th
Cir.
2 011)
See McLeod v. As true,
(plaintiff
must
show
a
64 0 F. 3d
"substantial
likelihood of prejudice" resulting from error).
D. Ability to Perform Other Work
Finally, I find no error in the ALJ's finding that plaintiff
can perform other work in the national economy. Plaintiff maintains
that the DOT descriptions for the jobs identified at step five
require math skills beyond his capabilities.
Plaintiff contends
that because Dr. Duvall opined that plaintiff had poor math skills,
the ALJ erred in relying on the jobs identified by the vocational
expert, because they all require Mathematical Development Level 02.
As with Reasoning Levels, Mathematical Development levels are
part of the DOT General Educational Development
"embraces those aspects of education
10 - OPINION AND ORDER
(GED)
scale that
(formal and informal) which
are required of the worker for satisfactory job performance." DOT
Appx. C,
§
III. "This is education of a general nature which does
not have a recognized, fairly specific occupational objective." Id.
Thus, the GED definition trailers describe the relevant education
levels "based on the curricula taught in schools throughout the
United States"; the GED trailers may inform but do not necessarily
impose job requirements. Id.
The job descriptions for cafeteria attendant and room cleaner
include Mathematical
Development Level
01,
DOT
311.677-010,
§§
323.687-014; the garment sorter description includes Mathematical
Development Level 02. DOT
§
222.687-014. Level 01 includes adding
and subtracting two-digit numbers, multiplying and dividing lOs and
lOOs by 2, 3, 4, and 5, and performing basic arithmetic operations
involving
currency
Mathematical
and
measurements.
Development) .
DOT
Notably,
Appx.
there
C,
is
no
III
(01
level
of
§
Mathematical Development lower than 01. Regardless, as described in
the DOT,
the duties for garment sorter,
cafeteria attendant,
and
room cleaner do not involve extensive math skills.
For example, a garment sorter: "Sorts finished garments, such
as shirts, dresses, and pajamas, according to lot and size numbers
recorded on tags and labels attached to garments.
package garments in boxes and bags.
folding." DOT
rooms
and
§
halls
222.687-014.
in
11 - OPINION AND ORDER
May iron garments prior to
Similarly,
commercial
May fold and
a room cleaner:
establishments,
such
as
"Cleans
hotels,
restaurants, clubs, beauty parlors, and dormitories, performing any
combination of following duties:
Sorts, counts,· folds, marks, or
carries linens. Makes beds. Replenishes supplies, such as drinking
glasses and writing supplies.
assistance to patrons.
carpets."
DOT
§
Checks wraps and renders personal
Moves furniture,
323.687-014.
Finally,
hangs drapes,
a
cafeteria
and rolls
attendant:
"Carries trays from food counters to tables for cafeteria patrons.
Carries
dirty
dishes
dampened cloth.
to
kitchen.
Wipes
tables
Sets tables with clean linens,
and
seats
sugar bowls,
with
and
condiments. May wrap clean silver in napkins. May circulate among
diners and serve coffee." DOT
§
311.677-010.
Thus, none of the specific duties for these jobs require math
skills inconsistent with the evidence of record.
Therefore,
the
record supports the ALJ's reliance on the VE's testimony and the
finding that plaintiff is able to perform other work.
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
day of June, 2015.
Ann Aiken
United States District Judge
12 - 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?