United States District Court, E.D. California
ORDER
KENDALL J. NEWMAN UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
Plaintiff
seeks judicial review of a final decision by the Commissioner
of Social Security (“Commissioner”) denying
plaintiff’s applications for Disability Insurance
Benefits (“DIB”) and Supplemental Security Income
(“SSI”) under Titles II and XVI, respectively, of
the Social Security Act (“Act”).[1] In her motion for
summary judgment, plaintiff principally contends that the
Commissioner erred by finding that plaintiff was not disabled
from December 15, 2000, through the date of the final
administrative decision. (ECF No. 16.) The Commissioner filed
a cross-motion for summary judgment, and plaintiff filed a
reply. (ECF Nos. 21, 24.)
For the
reasons discussed below, the court DENIES plaintiff’s
motion for summary judgment, GRANTS the Commissioner’s
cross-motion for summary judgment, and enters judgment for
the Commissioner.
I.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff
was born on May 25, 1968, completed some college, and is able
to communicate in English. (Administrative Transcript
(“AT”) 34, 54, 225.)[2] She has worked as a car
salesperson and bus driver. (AT 34, 56, 84.) Plaintiff
applied for DIB and SSI on May 12, 2012, alleging that her
disability began on December 15, 2000. (AT 225-35.) Plaintiff
alleged that she was disabled primarily due to shoulder,
knee, neck, and back injuries, and diabetes. (AT 247.) After
plaintiff’s applications were denied initially and on
reconsideration, plaintiff requested a hearing before an
administrative law judge (“ALJ”), which took
place on July 24, 2013 and at which plaintiff, represented by
an attorney, and a vocational expert (“VE”)
testified. (AT 47-92.) The ALJ issued a decision dated
December 2, 2013, determining that plaintiff had not been
under a disability, as defined in the Act, between December
15, 2000 and the date of that decision. (AT 21-35.) The
ALJ’s decision became the final decision of the
Commissioner when the Appeals Council denied
plaintiff’s request for review on May 19, 2015. (AT
1-6.) Plaintiff then filed this action in federal district
court on July 17, 2015, to obtain judicial review of the
Commissioner’s final decision. (ECF No. 1.)
II.
ISSUES PRESENTED
On
appeal, plaintiff raises the following issues: (1) whether
the ALJ erroneously discounted plaintiff’s own
testimony regarding the extent of her symptoms and functional
limitations; and (2) whether the ALJ improperly rejected the
opinion of plaintiff’s treating physician Dr. Siy.
III.
LEGAL STANDARD
The
court reviews the Commissioner’s decision to determine
whether (1) it is based on proper legal standards pursuant to
42 U.S.C. § 405(g), and (2) substantial evidence in the
record as a whole supports it. Tackett v. Apfel, 180
F.3d 1094, 1097 (9th Cir. 1999). Substantial evidence is more
than a mere scintilla, but less than a preponderance.
Connett v. Barnhart, 340 F.3d 871, 873 (9th Cir.
2003) (citation omitted). It means “such relevant
evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to
support a conclusion.” Orn v. Astrue, 495 F.3d
625, 630 (9th Cir. 2007) (quoting Burch v. Barnhart,
400 F.3d 676, 679 (9th Cir. 2005)). “The ALJ is
responsible for determining credibility, resolving conflicts
in medical testimony, and resolving ambiguities.”
Edlund v. Massanari, 253 F.3d 1152, 1156 (9th Cir.
2001) (citation omitted). “The court will uphold the
ALJ’s conclusion when the evidence is susceptible to
more than one rational interpretation.” Tommasetti
v. Astrue, 533 F.3d 1035, 1038 (9th Cir. 2008).
IV.
DISCUSSION
A.
Summary of the ALJ’s Findings
The ALJ
evaluated plaintiff’s entitlement to DIB and SSI
pursuant to the Commissioner’s standard five-step
analytical framework.[3] As an initial matter, the ALJ found that
plaintiff remained insured for purposes of DIB through
September 30, 2002. (AT 23.) At the first step, the ALJ
concluded that plaintiff had not engaged in substantial
gainful activity since December 15, 2000, the alleged onset
date. (Id.) At step two, the ALJ found that
plaintiff had the following severe impairments:
“impingement syndrome of the left shoulder, calcium
deposits in the left shoulder rotator cuff, history of left
cubital tunnel syndrome, cervical disk bulge, fibromyalgia
(or myofascial pain syndrome), diabetes mellitus, and
obesity.” (AT 24.) However, at step three, the ALJ
determined that plaintiff did not have an impairment or
combination of impairments that met or medically equaled the
severity of an impairment listed in 20 C.F.R. Part 404,
Subpart P, Appendix 1. (AT 25.)
Before
proceeding to step four, the ALJ assessed plaintiff’s
residual functional capacity (“RFC”) as follows:
“[a]fter careful consideration of the entire record,
the undersigned finds that the claimant has the residual
functional capacity to perform the full range of sedentary
work as defined in 20 CFR 404.1567(a) and 416.967(a).”
(Id.)
At step
four, the ALJ found, based on the VE’s testimony, that
plaintiff was not capable of performing any past relevant
work. (AT 34.) At step five, the ALJ determined that, in
light of plaintiff’s age, education, work experience,
and residual functional capacity, there were jobs that
existed in significant numbers in the national economy that
plaintiff could perform. (AT 34-35.) Thus, the ALJ concluded
that plaintiff had not been under a disability, as defined in
the Act, from December 15, 2000, through the date of the
ALJ’s decision. (AT 35.)
B.
Plaintiff’s Substantive Challenges to the
Commissioner’s Determinations
1.
Whether the ALJ Erred in Finding Plaintiff’s
Testimony Regarding the Extent of the Symptoms and Limiting
Effects of Her Impairments Less than Fully Credible
First,
plaintiff contends that the ALJ improperly rejected
plaintiff’s own testimony regarding the extent of the
symptoms and limiting effects of her impairments.
In
Lingenfelter v. Astrue, 504 F.3d 1028 (9th Cir.
2007), the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals summarized the
ALJ’s task with respect to assessing a claimant’s
credibility:
To determine whether a claimant’s testimony regarding
subjective pain or symptoms is credible, an ALJ must engage
in a two-step analysis. First, the ALJ must determine whether
the claimant has presented objective medical evidence of an
underlying impairment which could reasonably be expected to
produce the pain or other symptoms alleged. The claimant,
however, need not show that her impairment could reasonably
be expected to cause the severity of the symptom she has
alleged; she need only show that it could reasonably have
caused some degree of the symptom. Thus, the ALJ may not
...