Holt v. Colvin

Filing 12

ORDER affirming Commissioner's final decision and dismissing case with prejudice by Judge Richard A Jones. (PM)

1
2
3
4
5
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

6
7
ALEISHA HOLT,
8

Plaintiff,
9
v.
10
NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Acting
Commissioner of Social Security, 1

11

CASE NO. 16-1537-RAJ
ORDER AFFIRMING THE
COMMISSIONER AND DISMISSING
THE CASE

Defendant.

12
13

Alisha Holt seeks review of the denial of her applications for Supplemental Security

14

Income and Disability Insurance Benefits. Dkt. 1. The ALJ found Ms. Holt’s deep vein

15

thrombosis, degenerative disc disease, depressive disorder, and anxiety related disorder are

16

severe impairments; that she retains the residual functional capacity to perform light work with

17

some additional limitations; and that Ms. Holt cannot perform past relevant work but she is not

18

disabled because she can perform other jobs in the national economy. Tr. 23-34. The Appeals

19

Council denied Ms. Holt’s request for review making the ALJ’s decision the Commissioner’s

20

final decision. Tr. 1.

21
22
23

1

Nancy A. Berryhill is now the Acting Commissioner of the Social Security Administration. Pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 25(d), Nancy A. Berryhill is substituted for Carolyn W. Colvin as
defendant in this suit. The Clerk is directed to update the docket, and all future filings by the parties
should reflect this change.

ORDER AFFIRMING THE COMMISSIONER AND DISMISSING THE
CASE - 1

1

Ms. Holt contends the ALJ erred by “failing to properly consider the medical opinion of

2

Plaintiff’s examining nurse practitioner.” Dkt. 10 at 1. As discussed below, the Court

3

AFFIRMS the Commissioner’s final decision and DISMISSES the case with prejudice.

4
5
DISCUSSION
6
Katherine Hester, an Advanced Registered Nurse Practitioner examined Ms. Holt and
7
completed a physical functional evaluation form in July 2013. Tr. 400-02. Ms. Hester opined
8
Ms. Holt was markedly limited in her ability to sit, stand, walk, lift, carry, handle, push, pull,
9
reach, stoop and crouch; that Ms. Holt could not perform even sedentary work; and that her
10
“current limitation on work activities will persist with available treatment for 3-6 months.” Tr.
11
401-02. Ms. Holt argues the Court should reverse the case because “the ALJ gave no reason at
12
all for rejecting the [July 2013] opinion of Ms. Hester’s professional opinion.” Dkt. 3. The
13
record contradicts this argument.
14
The ALJ rejected Ms. Hester’s opinions for two reasons. First, the ALJ found Ms.
15
Hester’s opinions did not include “a detailed functional assessment or diagnostic testing results
16
which support the limitations.” Tr. 30. This is a germane reason to reject Ms. Holt’s opinions
17
because an ALJ may give less weight to a medical opinion that is “brief, conclusory, and
18
inadequately supported by clinical findings.” Bayliss v. Barnhart, 427 F.3d 1211, 1216 (9th Cir.
19
2005). Substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s finding because Ms. Holt’s July opinion
20
provides no explanation as to how she arrived at her opinions and she did not attach or list any
21
“chart notes detailing examination findings,” or list any test results. Tr. 401.
22
The ALJ also rejected Ms. Hester’s opinions on the grounds that “treatment notes from
23
the same time period reflect essentially normal physical examinations and include a statement by
ORDER AFFIRMING THE COMMISSIONER AND DISMISSING THE
CASE - 2

1

nurse Hester that she sees ‘no reason why [the claimant] won’t be able to be fully functional and

2

working soon.’” Tr. 30, 397, 398, 412. An ALJ may properly reject a medical opinion that is

3

inconsistent with the record. Batson v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 359 F.3d 1190, 1195 (9th

4

Cir. 2004). Further, an ALJ may reject a medical opinion where the source’s opinion is not

5

supported by her own medical records or objective findings. Tommasetti v. Astrue, 533 F.3d

6

1035, 1041 (9th Cir.2008).

7

In sum, the ALJ gave two valid reasons for rejecting Ms. Hester’s opinions. Ms. Holt

8

offers no evidence or argument demonstrating the ALJ’s reasoning is incorrect and thus fails to

9

carry her burden of establishing the ALJ harmfully erred. See Shinseki v. Sanders, 556 U.S. 396,

10
11
12

409 (2009).
For the foregoing reasons, the Commissioner’s final decision is AFFIRMED and this
case is DISMISSED with prejudice.

13
14

DATED this 11th day of July, 2017.

15
16
17
18
19

A
The Honorable Richard A. Jones
United States District Judge

20
21
22
23

ORDER AFFIRMING THE COMMISSIONER AND DISMISSING THE
CASE - 3