United States District Court, C.D. California
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
JAY C. GANDHI, Magistrate Judge.
Alejandro Hernandez Bernal ("Plaintiff") challenges the Social Security Commissioner ("Defendant")'s decision denying his application for disability benefits. In particular, Plaintiff contends that the Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ") erred in determining Plaintiff's residual functional capacity ("RFC"). ( See Joint Stip. at 5-10, 14-16.) The Court addresses, and rejects, Plaintiff's contention below.
A. The ALJ Properly Determined Plaintiff's RFC
Plaintiff argues that the ALJ improperly determined his RFC. ( See id. ) Specifically, the ALJ erred by rejecting the medical opinions of Plaintiff's treating and examining physicians, as well as the "other source" opinions provided by Plaintiff's chiropractors. ( Id. ) The Court takes each argument in turn.
I. The ALJ Properly Evaluated the Opinion of Plaintiff's Treating Physician
First, Plaintiff argues that the ALJ improperly rejected the opinion of his treating physician, Dr. Brent Pratley. ( See id. at 7-10.)
"Although a treating physician's opinion is generally afforded the greatest weight in disability cases, it is not binding on an ALJ with respect to the existence of an impairment or the ultimate determination of disability." Tonapetyan v. Halter, 242 F.3d 1144, 1149 (9th Cir. 2001) (citation omitted); see Morgan v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 169 F.3d 595, 600 (9th Cir. 1999) ("[T]he opinion of the treating physician is not necessarily conclusive as to either a physical condition or the ultimate issue of disability."). Nevertheless, "the ALJ must present specific and legitimate reasons' for discounting the treating physician's opinion, supported by substantial evidence." Bray v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 554 F.3d 1219, 1228 (9th Cir. 2009) (quoting Lester v. Chater, 81 F.3d 821, 830 (9th Cir. 1995)).
Here, the ALJ properly gave limited weight to Dr. Pratley's treating opinion for two reasons.1/
First, the ALJ properly gave limited weight to Dr. Pratley's opinion because he prescribed conservative treatment. (Administrative Record ("AR") at 30); see Rollins v. Massanari, 261 F.3d 853, 856 (9th Cir. 2001) (ALJ properly rejected opinion of treating physician who prescribed conservative treatment). Specifically, the ALJ noted that "Dr. Pratley opined that [Plaintiff] would benefit from a conservative course of treatment, including physiotherapy, home exercises, and pain medication." (AR at 30, 408.) Dr. Pratley further advised Plaintiff to visit a 1/ Although the ALJ did not explicitly state that he rejected Dr. Pratley's opinion for the reasons discussed below, he incorporated them into his analysis of Dr. Pratley's opinion. (AR at 30); see Magallanes v. Bowen, 881 F.2d 747, 755 (9th Cir. 1989) ("As a reviewing court, we are not deprived of our faculties for drawing specific and legitimate inferences from the ALJ's opinion."). chiropractor. ( Id. ); see Lane v. Colvin, 2013 WL 3449631, at *2 (C.D. Cal. July 9, 2013) (describing chiropractic treatment as conservative).
Next, the ALJ properly rejected the more extreme limitations imposed by Dr. Pratley in light of his relatively benign findings. (AR at 30-31); see Burkhart v. Bowen, 856 F.2d 1335, 1339-40 (9th Cir. 1988) (ALJ properly rejected treating physician's opinion which was unsupported by treatment notes, personal observations, or test reports). For instance, findings from physical examinations included that Plaintiff ambulated well, and the range of motion of his lumbar spine was only slightly diminished. (AR at 30, 402-11.) While there was some evidence of tenderness in the paraspinal muscles bilaterally, "there was no guarding or spasm noted." ( Id. ) Furthermore, a nerve conduction study was normal, "indicating no evidence of radiculopathy or neuropathy." ( Id. at 30, 454-59.)
As such, the ALJ properly weighted Dr. Pratley's opinion.
II. The ALJ Properly Evaluated the Opinion of Plaintiff's Examining Physician
Next, Plaintiff contends that the ALJ improperly rejected the opinion of his examining physician, Dr. Anthony T. Fenison. ( See Joint Stip. at 6-7.)
An ALJ may reject the controverted opinion of an examining physician only for "specific and legitimate reasons that are supported by substantial evidence." Carmickle v. Comm'r, Soc. Sec. Admin., 533 F.3d 1155, ...