Boughton v. Commissioner Social Security Administration

Filing 21

OPINION AND ORDER: Adopting Findings and Recommendation 14 . Signed on 9/21/2017 by Judge Ann L. Aiken. (ck)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
MEDFORD DIVISION

RONALD D. BOUGHTON,

Case No. 6: l 5-cv-02395-CL
OPINION AND ORDER

Plaintiff,
vs.
NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Acting
Commissioner of Social Security,
Defendant.

AIKEN, Judge:
On July 13, 2017, Magistrate Judge Clarke filed his Findings and Recommendation
("F&R") (doc. 14), recommending this Court affirm defendant's denial of Social Security
benefits and dismiss plaintiff's complaint. The F&R is now before me pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
636(b) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72. I review de nova those portions of the F&R to which objection is
made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l)(C); accord Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3); Holder v. Holder, 392 F.3d
1009, I 022 (9th Cir. 2004).
The ALJ properly considered Dr. Scott's opinion.

Plaintiff argues that the two

limitations in the RFC relevant to concentration, persistence, and pace ("CPP") (the limitation to

Page 1 - OPINION AND ORDER

simple, routine tasks and the addition of two extra breaks per workday) do not adequately
account for his marked limitations in those areas. That argument would be persuasive if Dr.
Scott had broadly opined that plaintiff had marked CPP difficulties. See Stubbs-Danielson v.
Astrue, 539 F.3d 1169, 1174 (9th Cir. 2008) (explaining when remand is necessary to dete1mine

whether a restriction to simple, routine tasks adequately accounts for moderate CPP difficulties);
see also Alva v. Colvin, 2016 WL 6561452, *5 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 2, 2016) (remanding for express

consideration of whether limitations in RFC reflected marked CPP difficulties); Leon ex rel.
Leon v. Astrue, 2011 WL 1296082, *21 (N.D. Ga. Mar. 29, 2011) (same). But Dr. Scott did not

issue an undifferentiated finding of marked CPP limitations. Rather, he assessed ( 1) marked
difficulty understanding and remembering detailed instrnctions, carrying out detailed
instructions, and maintaining attention and concentration for extended periods; and (2) moderate
difficulty understanding and remembering simple instructions, can·ying out simple instructions,
and completing a normal workday and workweek while performing at a consistent pace. Those
tiered findings are consistent with the ALJ' s determination that plaintiff retains the ability to do a
job involving only simple, routine tasks so long as he is afforded additional breaks.
Moreover, even if Dr. Scott's assessment is most appropriately characterized as a global
finding of marked CPP difficulty, the ALJ adequately supported his decision to instead
categorize plaintiff's CPP limitations as moderate. The ALJ expressly considered and rejected a
finding of marked CPP difficulty. That decision rested on the ALJ's reasonable determination
that plaintiff's abilities to draw daily, ride a motorcycle on long trips, and spend up to 45 minutes
to prepare meals were inconsistent with a limitation that severe. Inconsistency with activities of
daily living is a specific, legitimate reason to reject the opinion of an examining physician. 1
1

Specific, legitimate reasons is the appropriate legal standard because "the opinion of an
examining doctor, even if contradicted by another doctor, can only be rejected for specific and
Page 2 - OPINION AND ORDER

Ghanim v. Colvin, 763 F.3d 1154, 1162 (9th Cir. 2014) (citation omitted). True, the ALJ's
explanation of why plaintiff's CPP limitations are moderate rather than marked is not contained
in the paragraph addressing Dr. Scott's opinion; it is located in the section of the decision
addressing step tln·ee of the five-step sequential evaluation. But a reviewing court may connect
the dots in an ALJ's reasoning. See Molina v. Astrue, 674 F.3d 1104, 1121 (9th Cir. 2012)
("Even when an agency explains its decision with less than ideal clarity, [a reviewing court] must
uphold it ifthe agency's path may reasonably be discerned." (internal quotation marks omitted)).
I have considered plaintiff's other arguments and find no error in Judge Clarke's
reasoning. I therefore ADOPT Judge Clarke's F&R (doc. 14). The Commissioner's denial of
Social Security benefits is AFFIRMED and this case is DISMISSED.
IT IS SO ORD?.
Dated thi~ day of September 2017.

· AnnAiken
United States District Judge

legitimate reasons that are supported by substantial evidence in the record." Lester v. Chafer, 81
F.3d 821, 830-31 (9th Cir. 1995). To the extent Dr. Scott assessed overall marked difficulties in
maintaining concentration, persistence, or pace, that assessment conflicts with the conclusions of
the agency reviewing physicians.
Page 3 - OPINION AND ORDER