United States District Court, C.D. California
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER AFFIRMING DECISION OF
COMMISSIONER
ALEXANDER F. MACKINNON, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
Plaintiff
seeks review of the Commissioner's final decision denying
her applications for disability insurance benefits and
supplemental security income. In accordance with the
Court's case management order, the parties have filed
memorandum briefs addressing the merits of the disputed
issue. For the following reasons, the Commissioner's
decision is affirmed.
BACKGROUND
In
February 2013, Plaintiff applied for disability insurance
benefits and supplemental security income, alleging that she
became disabled and unable to work on June 1, 2007.
Plaintiff's claims were denied initially and on
reconsideration. An Administrative Law Judge
(“ALJ”) conducted a hearing on May 4, 2015, at
which Plaintiff, her attorney, and a vocational expert were
present. (Administrative Record (“AR”) 115-137.)
In a July 14, 2015 written decision that constitutes the
Commissioner's final decision, the ALJ found that
Plaintiff suffered from the following severe impairments:
morbid obesity; diabetes mellitus; degenerative joint
disease; and renal insufficiency. (AR 103.) Nevertheless, the
ALJ found that Plaintiff retained the residual functional
capacity (“RFC”) to perform a restricted range of
sedentary work. After concluding that Plaintiff's RFC did
not preclude her from performing jobs that exist in
significant numbers in the national economy, the ALJ found
Plaintiff not disabled at any time from June 1, 2007 through
the date of the ALJ's decision. (AR 101-110.)
DISPUTED
ISSUE
The
sole disputed issue is whether the ALJ properly evaluated
Plaintiff's subjective complaints.
STANDARD
OF REVIEW
Under
42 U.S.C. § 405(g), the Court reviews the
Commissioner's decision to determine whether the
Commissioner's findings are supported by substantial
evidence and whether the proper legal standards were applied.
See Treichler v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 775
F.3d 1090, 1098 (9th Cir. 2014). Substantial evidence means
“more than a mere scintilla” but less than a
preponderance. See Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S.
389, 401 (1971); Lingenfelter v. Astrue, 504 F.3d
1028, 1035 (9th Cir. 2007). Substantial evidence is
“such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might
accept as adequate to support a conclusion.”
Richardson, 402 U.S. at 401. Where evidence is
susceptible of more than one rational interpretation, the
Commissioner's decision must be upheld. See Orn v.
Astrue, 495 F.3d 625, 630 (9th Cir. 2007).
DISCUSSION
Plaintiff
argues that the ALJ failed to provide clear and convincing
reasons for discrediting her subjective testimony about her
symptoms and limitations. (ECF No. 21 at 4). Plaintiff's
claim is based upon statements included in her March 2013
function report as well as her testimony at the hearing.
According
to Plaintiff's function report, Plaintiff stayed in her
pajamas all day unless she had to go somewhere. Plaintiff
bathed once a month for fear of falling; could walk less than
a block without needing to rest; was unable to stand
“for a long period of time”; and needed reminders
to take her medication. (AR 326-328, 331.) Plaintiff reported
experiencing difficulty lifting, squatting, bending,
reaching, walking, kneeling, stair climbing and completing
tasks. (AR 331.) Plaintiff was able to do laundry once a
week. (AR 328.) At the time she completed the form (2013),
Plaintiff took care of her two grandchildren while her
daughter worked. As part of this job, Plaintiff drove one
granddaughter to and from preschool. (AR 327.)
At the
hearing, Plaintiff testified that her days consisted of
waking up, going to the living room to watch TV, then going
back to sleep. She never walked outside because she was
afraid of falling. She spent all day lying down because it
was the most comfortable position. (AR 128-130.) Plaintiff
was able to dress and groom herself, but it took “a
while.” (AR 131.) She was unable to grocery shop or do
errands. (AR 129.) Plaintiff testified that she did not
drive, but it is not clear whether she attributed this to a
physical limitation or to a “financial issue.”
(AR 131 (Plaintiff's testimony that she did not renew her
driver's license because she had unpaid tickets).)
Where,
as here, a claimant has presented evidence of an underlying
impairment and the record is devoid of affirmative evidence
of malingering, the ALJ's reasons for rejecting the
claimant's subjective symptom statements must be
“specific, clear and convincing.” Burrell v.
Colvin, 775 F.3d 1133, 1136 (9th Cir. 2014) (quoting
Molina v. Astrue, 674 F.3d 1104, 1112 (9th Cir.
2012)). “General findings [regarding a claimant's
credibility] are insufficient; rather, the ALJ must identify
what testimony is not credible and what evidence undermines
the claimant's complaints.” Burrell, 775
F.3d at 1138 (quoting Lester v. Chater, 81 F.3d 821,
834) (9th Cir. 1995)). The ALJ's findings “must be
sufficiently specific to allow a reviewing court to conclude
the adjudicator rejected the claimant's testimony on
permissible grounds and did not arbitrarily discredit a
claimant's testimony regarding pain.”
Brown-Hunter v. Colvin, 806 F.3d 487, 493 (9th Cir.
2015) (quoting Bunnell v. Sullivan, 947 F.2d 345-46
(9th Cir. 1991) (en banc)). An ALJ may consider a variety of
factors ordinarily used in assessing credibility, including
inconsistencies within the claimant's testimony or
between the claimant's testimony and the claimant's
conduct, the claimant's work record, and information from
physicians, relatives, or friends concerning the nature,
severity, and effect of the claimant's symptoms. See
Thomas v. Barnhart, 278 F.3d 947, 958-59 (9th Cir.
2002). Light v. Soc. Sec. Admin., 119 F.3d 789, 792
(9th Cir.1997); Fair v. Bowen, 885 F.2d 597, 604 n.5
(9th Cir. 1989).
Here,
the ALJ found that Plaintiff suffered from medically
determinable impairments that could reasonably be expected to
produce Plaintiff's pain or other alleged symptoms, but
determined that Plaintiff's statements concerning the
intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of these
symptoms were not entirely credible. (AR 107.) Nevertheless,
the ALJ partially credited Plaintiff's testimony by
finding she was able to perform a limited range of sedentary
work precluding her past work, rejecting the medical opinions
...