Searching over 5,500,000 cases.

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.

Rojas v. Colvin

United States District Court, C.D. California, Eastern Division

January 6, 2015

CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant.


STEPHEN J. HILLMAN, Magistrate Judge.

This matter is before the Court for review of the decision by the Commissioner of Social Security denying plaintiff's applications for Disability Insurance Benefits. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, the parties have consented that the case may be handled by the undersigned. The action arises under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), which authorizes the Court to enter judgment upon the pleadings and transcript of the record before the Commissioner. The plaintiff and the defendant have filed their pleadings (Plaintiff's Brief; Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support Thereof; Defendant's Brief in Opposition; Plaintiff's Reply; Memorandum of Points and Authorities); and the defendant has filed the certified transcript of record. After reviewing the matter, the Court concludes that the decision of the Commissioner should be affirmed.


On August 6, 2007, plaintiff Margaret Y. Rojas filed an application for a period of disability and Disability Insurance Benefits, alleging an inability to work since April 1, 2007 due to bipolar and a deteriorated disk. (See Administrative Record ["AR"] 179-89). On December 9, 2009 (following a hearing on July 2, 2009, see AR 57-89), an Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ") issued a decision. The ALJ determined that the plaintiff had severe impairments - "degenerative disc disease of the lumbrosacral spine with residual pain; status-post two surgeries; and a depressive disorder" - but found that plaintiff was not disabled within the meaning of the Social Security Act. (See AR 41-50).

Following the Appeals Council's denial of plaintiff's requests for a review of the hearing decision (see AR1-8, 23-28), plaintiff filed this action in this Court.

Plaintiff solely alleges the ALJ erred in rejecting plaintiff's treating physician's opinion.

For the reasons discussed below, the Court concludes that the ALJ's Decision should be affirmed.


Plaintiff asserts that the ALJ failed to give any reason for rejecting the opinion of Dr. Paladugu, plaintiff's treating psychiatrist. Defendant asserts that the ALJ's failure to discuss Dr. Paladugu's opinion was harmless error.

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. Batson v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 359 F.3d 1190, 1195 (9th Cir. 2004). The weight given a treating physician's opinion depends on whether it is supported by sufficient medical data and is consistent with other evidence in the record. 20 C.F.R. § 416.927(b)-(d). The ALJ "may disregard a treating physician's opinion whether or not that opinion is contradicted." Magallanes v. Bowen, 881 F.2d 747, 751 (9th Cir. 1989). Where the treating physician's opinion is not contradicted by another doctor, it may be rejected only for "clear and convincing" reasons. Lester v. Chater, 81 F.3d 821, 830 (9th Cir. 1995)(as amended). If a treating physician's opinion is contradicted by another doctor, the ALJ must provide "specific and legitimate reasons" for rejecting the treating physician's opinion. Orn v. Astrue, 495 F.3d 625, 632 (9th Cir. 2007); Reddick v. Chater, 157 F.3d 715, 725 (9th Cir. 1998).

In a form entitled "Work Capacity Evaluation (Mental)" dated September 3, 2009, Dr. Geetha K. Paladugu of Inland Psychiatric Medical Group stated that plaintiff had the following limitations: extreme ("Severe Limitations in this area. No useful ability to function in this area.") with respect to the ability to maintain attention and concentration for extended periods; marked ("Serious limitations in this area. The ability to function in this area is severely limited but not precluded.") with respect to the ability to perform activities within a schedule, maintain regular attendance, and be punctual within customary tolerances, the ability to work in coordination with or in proximity to others without being distracted by them, the ability to make simple work-related decisions, the ability to interest appropriately with the general public, the ability to accept instructions and respond appropriately to criticism from supervisors, the ability to get alone with co-workers or peers without distracting them or exhibiting behavioral extremes; moderate ("More than slight but less than marked.") with respect to the ability to respond appropriately to changes in the work setting; and slight ("Some mild limitation in this area, but generally functions pretty well.") with respect to the ability to set realistic goals or make plans independently of others. Dr. Paladugu further stated that plaintiff was not a malinger, that plaintiff's impairment lasted or could be expected to last at least 12 months; and that she anticipated plaintiff's impairments would cause plaintiff to be absent from work an average of 3 or more days a month. (See AR 583-84).

After discussing plaintiff's testimony (noting that her treating psychiatrist was Dr. Paladugu, see AR 73-74) and the medical record, including the opinions of Dr. Smith, the consultative psychiatric examiner, and Drs. Paxton, Swan and Loomis, the State Agency psychiatric consultants (see AR 45-48), the ALJ stated:

I have given consideration and weight to the findings and conclusions of the psychiatric consultative examiner, Dr. Smith and the State agency review physicians (mental). However, I find that the claimant would have more significant limitations based on her history and complaints. Therefore, I do not give their (sic) conclusions great weight. [¶] I have given the claimant's mental health limitations based on her history and subjective complaints related to concentration and allegations she does not like to be around people. However, the medical records show current treatment to be very minimal and her symptoms to be stable and controlled with medication. Therefore the limitations for non public non complex tasks considers her treatment and subjective complaints. (AR 48-49).

The ALJ found that plaintiff had the Residual Functional Capacity ("RFC")[1] to perform sedentary work "except she is limited to occasional postural activities; she is precluded from working at heights; she is precluded from working on hazardous machinery; she is precluded from climbing ladders, ropes, and scaffolds; ...

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.