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.

Jimmy B. v. Saul

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

November 7, 2019

JIMMY B., Plaintiff,
v.
ANDREW M. SAUL, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant.

          MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

          DOUGLAS F. MCCORMICK UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

         Plaintiff Jimmy B. (“Plaintiff”) appeals from the Social Security Commissioner's final decision rejecting his application for Supplemental Security Income (“SSI”). For the reasons set forth below, the Commissioner's decision is affirmed.

         I. BACKGROUND

         Plaintiff filed an application for SSI in 2012, alleging disability beginning on December 30, 2007. See Administrative Record (“AR”) 150-58. An Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) held a hearing and issued an unfavorable decision in 2013. See AR 63-71, 28-42. After the Appeals Council denied review, Plaintiff sought review in this Court, and the parties stipulated to a remand. See AR 385-88, 374-79. On remand, the same ALJ held a second hearing. See AR 336-63. The ALJ issued a second unfavorable decision on September 12, 2017. See AR 320-35.

         The ALJ found that Plaintiff had the severe impairments of history of right shoulder grade 4 separation with mild restriction of motion, history of right elbow gunshot wound with mild restriction of motion, and right knee mild restriction in range of motion. See AR 326. The ALJ also concluded that Plaintiff did not have an impairment or combination of impairments that met or medically equaled one of the listed impairments. See id. The ALJ then determined that Plaintiff's residual functional capacity (“RFC”) limited him to medium work with certain additional limitations. See AR 327. The ALJ concluded that Plaintiff was not disabled because he could perform his past relevant work as a Checker II. See AR 330. This action followed. See Dkt. 1.

         II. DISCUSSION

         The parties dispute whether the ALJ: (1) properly determined Plaintiff's RFC and (2) had an adequate basis for discounting Plaintiff's symptom testimony. See Dkt. 22, Joint Stipulation (“JS”) at 4.

         A. Plaintiff's RFC

         Plaintiff argues that even though this Court's remand expressly called for the ALJ to reweigh the opinions of two examining physicians, the ALJ's RFC does not incorporate their limitations. See JS at 9.

         Based on the parties' stipulation, this Court in the prior appeal ordered the Commissioner to direct the ALJ to “reweigh the relevant medical opinions of record, including the medical opinions of Arash Yaghoobian, M.D., and Randy Clark, M.D.” AR 376-77. The ALJ did as ordered, giving little weight to their opinions that Plaintiff could perform only limited, light work, reasoning that they were not board certified, did not review any medical records, and based their assessments on one-time examinations without considering the longitudinal record. See AR 329 (citing AR 257, 273-74). By contrast, the ALJ gave great weight to the medical expert who testified at the hearing that Plaintiff could perform in accordance with his RFC. See AR 329, 348-49.

         The ALJ was required to give specific and legitimate reasons for discounting the examining physicians' opinions. See Carmickle v. Comm'r, SSA, 533 F.3d 1155, 1164 (9th Cir. 2008) (holding that when examining physician's opinion is contradicted by another doctor's, it may be rejected only for specific and legitimate reasons supported by substantial evidence in record). The ALJ did so. As the ALJ noted, neither examining doctor is board-certified in orthopedics, unlike the testifying medical expert. See Molina v. Astrue, 674 F.3d 1104, 1112 (9th Cir. 2012) (explaining that ALJ may give greater weight to opinion of specialist in relevant field). Moreover, as the ALJ noted, neither doctor reviewed any of Plaintiff's medical records, unlike the testifying medical expert, meaning that the examining physicians did not consider his longitudinal record. See Fortune v. Colvin, No. 14-00220, 2014 WL 5307912, at *6 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 16, 2014) (“An ALJ is entitled to give little weight to an opinion based on a one-time examination without review of medical records as was the case there.” (citing Reddick v. Chater, 157 F.3d 715, 727 (9th Cir. 1998))).

         Furthermore, the medical expert's testimony both supported the ALJ's RFC determination and was supported by the medical record. See Morgan v. Comm'r of SSA, 169 F.3d 595, 600 (9th Cir. 1999) (“Opinions of a nonexamining, testifying medical advisor may serve as substantial evidence when they are supported by other evidence in the record and are consistent with it”). In total, Plaintiff submitted fewer than seventy pages of treatment records. See AR 231-52, 259-65, 275-312. Although Plaintiff alleged an onset date of December 2007, the earliest medical records are from July 2011, where Plaintiff is described as “very muscular” with good mobility. AR 246. While records over the next two years revealed some range of motion limitations and shoulder separation, x-rays and other diagnostic findings were unremarkable. See AR 328 (citing AR 233, 239, 243, 255-56, 272-73, 275-77). The record contains no medical records after April 2013. Plaintiff took only over-the-counter pain medication, which he reported was helpful. See AR 328 (citing AR 176, 190, 201, 224, 254, 284). Finally, despite a reference to shoulder surgery after a car accident, there is no evidence in the record reflecting such a surgery. See AR 273. Thus, the longitudinal record does not support Plaintiff's allegations of disability or the examining physicians' opinions that Plaintiff could perform only limited light work.

         B. Plaintiff's Statements

         Plaintiff alleges that the ALJ improperly discounted his written allegations of constant, ...


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.