Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Cynthia Estrada v. Michael J. Astrue

October 18, 2011

CYNTHIA ESTRADA, PLAINTIFF,
v.
MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, COMMISSIONER OF THE SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION,
DEFENDANT.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Patrick J. Walsh United States Magistrate Judge

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

I. INTRODUCTION

Before the Court is Plaintiff's appeal of a decision by Defendant Social Security Administration ("the Agency"), denying her applications for Supplemental Security Income ("SSI") and Disability Insurance Benefits ("DIB"). She claims that the Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ") erred by: 1) failing to develop the record regarding her hearing loss; 2) failing to properly rate the severity of her mental impairment; and 3) determining that she could work as an office helper and clerk. For the following reasons, the Court concludes that the ALJ erred and remands the case to the Agency for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

II. BACKGROUND

Plaintiff applied for SSI and DIB in August 2008, alleging that she had been unable to work since August 2001, due to carpal tunnel syndrome and problems with her shoulders, arms and hands. (Administrative Record ("AR") 94-101, 109.) The Agency denied the applications initially and again on reconsideration. (AR 55-59, 62-66.) Plaintiff then requested and was granted a hearing before an ALJ. (AR 67-68.) On May 18, 2010, Plaintiff appeared without counsel at the hearing and testified. (AR 20-46.) On July 20, 2010, the ALJ issued a decision, denying benefits. (AR 11-19.) After the Appeals Council denied Plaintiff's request for review (AR 1-3), she commenced this action.

III. ANALYSIS

A. Plaintiff's Alleged Hearing Loss In her first claim of error, Plaintiff contends that the ALJ failed to discharge his duty to fully develop the record because he did not investigate her alleged hearing loss. (Joint Stip. 2-6.) For the following reasons, the Court agrees.

Plaintiff testified that she is "completely deaf in [her] right ear." (AR 26.) The ALJ noted Plaintiff's testimony but concluded that there was no objective evidence to support this claim and, therefore, her alleged hearing loss was not a medically determinable impairment. (AR 14.)

The ALJ erred in reaching this conclusion. In fact, there was some arguably objective evidence in the record establishing that Plaintiff had hearing loss: Plaintiff apparently had a hearing test, an audiogram, and, after reviewing the findings from this test, her treating doctor concluded that she was a candidate for a hearing aid. (AR 363.) This evidence provided objective support for Plaintiff's claim that she was experiencing hearing loss and triggered the ALJ's duty to develop the record. See Breen v. Callahan, 1998 WL 272998, at *3 (N.D. Cal. May 22, 1998) ("[T]he presence of some objective evidence in the record suggesting the existence of a condition which could have a material impact on the disability decision" generally triggers the ALJ's duty to develop the record further") (citing Smolen v. Chater, 80 F.3d 1273, 1288 (9th Cir. 1996)); Wainwright v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 939 F.2d 680, 682 (9th Cir. 1991)). This is particularly true here, where Plaintiff was representing herself before the Agency. See Tonapetyan v. Halter, 242 F.3d 1144, 1150 (9th Cir. 2001); Smolen, 80 F.3d at 1288. Further, the error was not harmless because the ALJ's ultimate conclusion that Plaintiff could work as an information clerk is called into question if she is unable to hear.*fn1 See Carmickle v. Comm'r, 533 F.3d 1155, 1162 (9th Cir. 2008) (holding ALJ's error is harmless if it was inconsequential to the ultimate non-disability determination).

The Agency contends that the ALJ did not err. It cites cases and regulations which stand for the proposition that the burden is on the claimant to prove that she is disabled. (Joint Stip. at 7-8.) It argues that, because Plaintiff failed to submit proof of a hearing impairment and because there was no ambiguity in the record, the ALJ's duty to supplement the record was not called into play.

Thus, as in many social security cases involving this issue, the Court is confronted with competing arguments, both supported by seemingly contradictory yet controlling authority, that it was the other side's obligation to obtain the records supporting the claimant's alleged impairment. Plaintiff argues that the ALJ has a duty to fully and fairly develop the record, citing cases like Smolen, 80 F.3d at 1288. (Joint Stip. at 5.) And the Agency counters that Plaintiff has the burden to produce evidence that she is disabled, citing cases like Meanel v. Apfel, 172 F.3d 1111, 1113 (9th Cir. 1999). (Joint Stip. at 7.) In the face of these competing claims and competing authority, the Court sides with Plaintiff here because she complained that she was hard of hearing, there was objective medical evidence that this was true, and she was representing herself before the Agency.

B. Plaintiff's Alleged Mental Impairment Plaintiff argues that the ALJ erred in evaluating her alleged mental impairment, too, by: 1) determining that she did not have a severe mental impairment; 2) failing to properly rate the severity of the impairment; and 3) failing to develop the record further regarding the impairment. (Joint Stip. 9-16.) For the following reasons, the Court concludes that there is no merit to this claim.

Plaintiff testified that she experienced "anxiety attacks"---caused by pain and worries about her husband not working--but was not taking any medication to treat her condition. (AR 32, 35.) It also appears that she had never been treated for anxiety attacks or anxiety in general. In spite of Plaintiff's testimony about anxiety attacks, the ALJ found that Plaintiff did not have a medically determinable severe mental impairment. (AR 13-17.) Plaintiff contends that this was error. The Court disagrees. The ALJ did not fail to discharge his duty to develop the record here because Plaintiff did not present any objective medical evidence documenting a mental impairment. See, e.g., Breen, 1998 WL 272998, at *3. Plaintiff's testimony alone did not trigger the ALJ's duty to develop the record on this issue, either, because, unlike the issue of Plaintiff's hearing impairment, there was no objective evidence that she suffered from anxiety attacks. Thus, the only arguable "evidence" in the record was Plaintiff's testimony. But the ALJ found that she was not credible and Plaintiff has not challenged that finding. As a result, there was no credible evidence in the record that Plaintiff suffered from anxiety and the ALJ was not obligated to further develop the record on this issue. See Ukolov v. Barnhart, 420 F.3d 1002, 1005 (9th Cir. 2005); 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1508, 416.908 ("A physical or mental impairment must be established by medical evidence consisting of signs, symptoms, and laboratory findings, not only by your statement of symptoms . . . ."); Social Security Ruling 96-4p ("[R]egardless of how many symptoms an individual alleges, or how genuine the individual's complaints may appear to be, the existence of a medically determinable physical or mental impairment cannot be established in the absence of objective medical abnormalities; i.e., medical signs and laboratory findings."). Nor did the ALJ err in failing to rate the severity of Plaintiff's alleged mental impairment. The ALJ was not required to undergo the "special technique" for rating mental impairments because Plaintiff did not establish that she had a medically determinable mental impairment. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520a(b), 416.920a(b).

C. The ALJ's Finding That Plaintiff Could Work As An Office Helper And Reception Information Clerk Plaintiff contends that the ALJ erred when he concluded that she could work as an office helper and reception information clerk because these jobs require her to perform functions that she is not capable of doing. (Joint ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.