United States District Court, C.D. California
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER AFFIRMING DECISION OF
THE COMMISSIONER
ALEXANDER F. MacKINNON UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Plaintiff
filed this action seeking review of the Commissioner's
final decision denying his 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 issues. The matter is now ready for decision.
BACKGROUND
In
October 2013, Plaintiff applied for disability insurance
benefits and supplemental security income, alleging
disability beginning September 24, 2012. Plaintiff's
applications were denied initially and upon reconsideration.
(Administrative Record [“AR”] 139-143, 150-154.)
A hearing took place on April 8, 2015 before an
Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”). Plaintiff, who
was represented by counsel, and a vocational expert
(“VE”) testified at the hearing. (AR 64-94.) In a
decision dated May 29, 2015, the ALJ found that Plaintiff
suffered from the severe impairments of cervical degenerative
disc disease and hypertension. (AR 54.) The ALJ determined
that Plaintiff's residual functional capacity
(“RFC”) included the ability to perform a range
of medium work as follows: Plaintiff can lift and/or carry 50
pounds occasionally and up to 25 pounds frequently; can stand
and/or walk for at least six hours in an eight-hour workday;
can sit for at least six hours in an eight-hour workday; can
frequently climb, balance, kneel, crouch, or crawl; and is
limited to occasional use of ladders, ropes, and scaffolds.
(AR 55.) Relying on the testimony of the VE, the ALJ
concluded that Plaintiff could perform his past relevant
work. Accordingly, the ALJ concluded that Plaintiff was not
disabled. (AR 58-59.)
The
Appeals Council subsequently denied Plaintiff's request
for review (AR 43-48), rendering the ALJ's decision the
final decision of the Commissioner.
DISPUTED
ISSUES[3]
1.
Whether the ALJ properly assessed Plaintiff's RFC.
2.
Whether the ALJ properly rejected Plaintiff's subjective
complaints.
STANDARD
OF REVIEW
Under
42 U.S.C. § 405(g), this 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. This Court must review
the record as a whole, weighing both the evidence that
supports and the evidence that detracts from the
Commissioner's conclusion. Lingenfelter, 504
F.3d at 1035. 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
I.
Medical Record
Plaintiff
alleged disability due to neck pain resulting from a neck
injury he sustained in September 2012. (AR 260.) The ALJ
summarized the relevant medical record, stating that the
“objective diagnostic records revealed a moderate
musculoskeletal pathology at most.” (AR 56.) The ALJ
discussed the MRI studies of Plaintiff's cervical spine,
which showed a mild-to-moderate degenerative disc disease.
The ALJ observed that the most significant finding was severe
right neural foraminal stenosis at ¶ 6-C7. However, the
studies revealed no impingement of the spinal cord at any
level. (AR 56-57, citing AR 538, 539-542.) The ALJ also noted
a positive EMG/NCS study of Plaintiff's right upper
extremity, which was consistent with right C7 radiculopathy,
and indicated mild, asymptomatic, neuropathy at the wrist.
(AR 57, citing AR 324.) Physical examinations in 2013
revealed mild positive findings of tenderness to palpation at
the right lumbar paraspinal musculature and spasm, but no
neurological deficits. (AR 57, citing AR 328, 333.)
In
January 2014, Plaintiff underwent a consultative orthopedic
examination by Herman Schoene, M.D. Dr. Schoene reviewed MRIs
of Plaintiff's cervical spine and performed a physical
examination. He reported Plaintiff's blood pressure was
elevated to 160/90. Plaintiff's posture and gait were
normal, and he ambulated without difficulty and without the
use of an assistive device. Plaintiff's neck range of
motion was mildly diminished with a positive Spurling test.
Plaintiff exhibited normal range of motion in his shoulders
as well as his upper and lower extremities. Plaintiff
retained full motor strength. Plaintiff's sensation was
intact throughout. X-ray imaging performed on that date
showed anterior osteophyte formation and narrowed disc spaces
at ¶ 5-C6 and C6-C7. In Dr. Schoene's opinion,
Plaintiff could perform a full range of medium work with no
postural restrictions. (AR 418-422.)
The ALJ
observed that treatment notes in 2014 indicate that Plaintiff
remained on narcotic pain medication for his neck pain. He
noted the absence of evidence suggesting that Plaintiff had
been referred for surgery or for epidural steroid injections.
(AR 57, citing AR 573-580.) Instead, Plaintiff reported that
his medication was effective in relieving his pain. (AR 57,
citing AR 322.)
The ALJ
discussed the opinions of the State agency medical
consultants, observing that they were generally consistent
with Dr. Schoene's opinion. (AR 57-58, citing AR 95-105,
106-115.) Unlike Dr. Schoene, however, the State agency
medical consultants precluded Plaintiff from more than
occasional use of the upper extremities for pushing and
pulling and limited Plaintiff to frequent postural activities
and occasional use of ladders, ropes and scaffolds. (AR 58.)
The ALJ found Dr. Schoene's opinion failed to fully
account for Plaintiff's subjective complaints of pain. On
the other hand, the ALJ found the State agency
consultants' limitations on the upper extremities were
overly restrictive considering Plaintiff's activities of
daily living, intact neurological examinations, and lack of
significant treatment for his alleged symptoms. (AR 58.)
Consequently, the ALJ assessed the RFC outlined
above.[4]
With
regard to Plaintiff's elevated blood pressure, the ALJ
noted that there was no evidence of any end organ damage,
history of stroke, cardiovascular disease, or functional
limitations related to Plaintiff's blood pressure. (AR
57, citing AR 573-580, 581-587.) Thus, the ALJ concluded the
condition “should be amenable to proper ...