Opinion
For Ken Ira Dormer, Plaintiff: Lawrence D Rohlfing, Steven G Rosales, LEAD ATTORNEYS, Law Offices of Lawrence D Rohlfing, Santa Fe Springs, CA.
For Carolyn W Colvin, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant: Assistant U.S. Attorney LA-SSA, LEAD ATTORNEY, Office of the General Counsel for Social Security Adm., San Francisco, CA; Assistant U.S. Attorney SA-CV, LEAD ATTORNEY, AUSA - Office of U.S. Attorney, Santa Ana Branch-Civil Div, Santa Ana, CA; Sundeep R Patel, SAUSA - Office of the United States Attorney, Social Security Administration, San Francisco, CA.
ORDER AFFIRMING DECISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE
HON. MICHAEL R. WILNER, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
I. SUMMARY OF RULING
Plaintiff Dormer challenges the denial of his application for disability insurance benefits. The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) found that Plaintiff was capable of performing work in the national economy and denied benefits.
On appeal, Plaintiff challenges (a) the rejection of his treating physician's opinion and (b) the adverse credibility determination. However, the Court concludes that the ALJ properly identified lawful reasons for reaching these determinations. As a result, the Court affirms the ALJ's decision.
II. PLAINTIFF'S CONDITIONS AND PROCEEDINGS BELOW
Plaintiff applied for disability benefits based on various health issues. Following an administrative hearing, the ALJ found that several of Plaintiff's conditions (including back, knee, and mental health conditions) constituted " severe impairments" as that term is used under federal regulations. (AR 47.)
The ALJ concluded that Plaintiff had the residual functional capacity (RFC) to perform light work with additional limitations. (AR 49.) In establishing Plaintiff's RFC, the ALJ expressly disregarded the opinion of Plaintiff's treating physician and Plaintiff's subjective pain testimony. (AR 52-53, 1111-12.)
A vocational expert testified that an individual with Plaintiff's RFC could perform several jobs in the economy. (AR 77-78.) From this, the ALJ concluded that Plaintiff was not disabled and denied benefits. (AR 55.)
A. Standard of Review
Under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), a district court may review the agency's decision to deny benefits. The ALJ's findings and decision must be upheld if they are supported by substantial evidence and are free of legal error. Hill v. Astrue, 698 F.3d 1153, 1158 (9th Cir. 2012). A court must uphold the ALJ's conclusion even if the evidence in the record " is susceptible to more than one rational interpretation." Ludwig v. Astrue, 681 F.3d 1047, 1052 (9th Cir. 2012) (quotation omitted).
B. Rejection of Treating Physician's Opinion (Issue 1)
Plaintiff contends that the ALJ improperly rejected the opinion and limitations that a treating physician (Dr. Einbund) recommended. (Docket # 20 at 6-12.)
1. Facts and ALJ Decision
Plaintiff sustained back injuries while working as a flight attendant. Following these injuries, Plaintiff sought treatment from Dr. Einbund and filed for worker's compensation benefits. As part of that claim, Dr. Einbund examined Plaintiff and submitted a report that assessed Plaintiff's functional capacity. The physician opined that Plaintiff could stand, walk, or sit for a maximum of less than four hours in an eight-hour day. (AR 1111-12.) The physician also determined that Plaintiff could perform " light work" while standing or walking. (AR 1113.)
A state agency physician (Dr. Garcia) evaluated Plaintiff's medical records and disagreed with Dr. Einbund. Dr. Garcia opined that Plaintiff could stand, walk, or sit for six hours in an eight-hour work day. (AR 86.)
The ALJ did not incorporate Dr. Einbund's recommended limitations. (AR 52.) The ALJ concluded that the treating physician's findings regarding Plaintiff's ability to sit, stand, and walk were " not corroborated by the objective medical findings or the claimant's daily activities." (Id.) The ALJ specifically identified Plaintiff's personal daily chores (dressing himself, showering, household tasks and errands) and other, more substantial activities (playing music, teaching guitar lessons, and attending classes for a paralegal program). (AR 52, 2092.) As a result, the ALJ accepted the less restrictive recommendation from the consulting physician (Dr. Garcia) in establishing Plaintiff's RFC.
2. Relevant Law
" In determining a claimant's RFC, an ALJ must consider all relevant evidence in the record." Robbins v. Social Sec. Admin., 466 F.3d 880, 883 (9th Cir. 2006) (quotations omitted). If the ALJ rejects significant probative evidence, the ALJ must explain why. Vincent v. Heckler, 739 F.2d 1393, 1395 (9th Cir. 1984). The ALJ satisfies this burden by detailing and summarizing the facts and conflicting medical evidence and stating the ALJ's interpretations and findings. Tommasetti v. Astrue, 533 F.3d 1035, 1041 (9th Cir. 2008).
An ALJ generally gives the most weight to medical evidence from a claimant's treating physician, and progressively less weight to the opinions of examining and nonexamining physicians. An ALJ " may only reject a treating or examining physician's uncontradicted medical opinion based on clear and convincing reasons." Carmickle v. Comm'r, Soc. Sec. Admin., 533 F.3d 1155, 1164 (9th Cir. 2008); Turner v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 613 F.3d 1217, 1222 (9th Cir. 2010) (same). When a treating or examining physician's opinion is contradicted by another medical evaluation, the ALJ " must provide specific and legitimate reasons supported by substantial evidence" for rejecting that opinion. Lester v. Chater, 81 F.3d 821, 830 (9th Cir. 1995) (quotation omitted); Ruiz v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 490 F.App'x 907, 908 (9th Cir. 2012) (" To reject the opinion of an examining, nontreating doctor in favor of a contradicting, nonexamining, and nontreating doctor, the ALJ must provide specific and legitimate reasons that are supported by substantial record evidence.").
An ALJ may discredit a treating physician's opinion that is " conclusory, brief, and unsupported by the record as a whole or by objective medical findings." Burrell v. Colvin, 775 F.3d 1133, 1140 (9th Cir. 2014) (quotation and emphasis omitted). A disability opinion " premised to a large extent upon the claimant's own accounts of his symptoms and limitations may be disregarded where those complaints have been properly discounted." Morgan v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 169 F.3d 595, 602 (9th Cir. 1999) (quotations omitted). Further, an ALJ may properly reject a physician's evaluation of disability that is inconsistent with the claimant's statements about personal activities. Hensley v. Colvin, 600 F.App'x 526, 527 (9th Cir. 2015) (citing Curry v. Sullivan, 925 F.2d 1127, 1130 (9th Cir. 1990)); Gregory v. Astrue, No. CV 08-7439 AJW, 2010 WL 1051118 at *7-8 (C.D. Cal. 2010) (claimant's participation in daily activities and college classes constituted legitimate reason to reject physician's opinion regarding disability).
3. Analysis
The ALJ rejected the treating physician's recommendation regarding limitations on Plaintiff's ability to walk, stand, or sit at work. Because this opinion was contradicted by another physician's opinion, the ALJ was required to identify a specific and legitimate reason supported by substantial evidence to reject the opinion. Lester, 81 F.3d at 830.
Plaintiff argues in passing that the ALJ also ignored Dr. Einbund's limitation on reaching. (Docket # 20 at 11.) However, the written decision adequately explains why the ALJ did not credit this practitioner's overall evaluation of Plaintiff's condition. The ALJ was not required to give a line-by-line analysis of the physician's opinion in rejecting it.
The ALJ did so here. The ALJ expressly concluded that the treating physician's considerable daily limitations were inconsistent with Plaintiff's reported activities. The written decision lists three rather unique activities that Plaintiff engaged in during the period of his alleged disability: playing music, teaching guitar lessons, and attending paralegal classes as part of a program. The ALJ was entitled to conclude that these tasks did not conform to Dr. Einbund's evaluation of a person who was unable to sit, stand, or walk for an extended period.
The ALJ permissibly concluded that these particular activities undermined the significant limitations that the physician recommended. Gregory, 2010 WL 1051118; Hensley, 600 F.App'x at 527. And, although Plaintiff contends that he actually had difficulty maintaining attendance at the paralegal classes, this appellate court must defer to the ALJ's interpretation of that evidence. Ludwig, 681 F.3d at 1052. The ALJ identified a specific and legitimate reason that was supported by substantial evidence to reject the physician's recommendation.
The Court declines to address the ALJ's boilerplate and unexplained statement that Dr. Einbund's recommendation was not corroborated by " the objective medical findings." (AR 52.) The government's after-the-fact listing of the medical evidence (Docket # 20 at 16-23) does little to explain the actual reason (if any) that underlay the ALJ's rationale here. Molina v. Astrue, 674 F.3d 1104, 1120 (9th Cir. 2012) (federal court " may not uphold an agency's decision on a ground not actually relied upon by the agency").
C. Adverse Credibility Finding (Ground 2)
The Court summarily affirms the ALJ's adverse credibility finding. An ALJ may disregard the individual's statements regarding the severity of those symptoms if, in the absence of evidence that the claimant is malingering, the ALJ provides " specific, clear and convincing reasons" for rejecting the claimant's testimony. Burrell v. Colvin, 775 F.3d 1133, 1136 (9th Cir. 2014) (citation omitted). An ALJ may consider a variety of factors in weighing a claimant's believability, including the claimant's daily activities. Ghanim v. Colvin, 763 F.3d 1154, 1163 (9th Cir. 2014) (quotations omitted). If a claimant " engages in numerous daily activities involving skills that could be transferred to the workplace, the ALJ may discredit the claimant's allegations upon making specific findings relating to those activities." Burch v. Barnhart, 400 F.3d 676, 681 (9th Cir. 2005).
In the written decision, the ALJ rejected Plaintiff's testimony about his symptoms because of proof that Plaintiff was " able to perform the daily activities described earlier" (AR 53) -- that is, go to school and teach guitar -- at a time when he claimed his pain and limitations prevented him from holding a job. The ALJ adequately identified this reason (albeit in lesser detail) in the written decision. Moreover, this certainly meets the clear-and-convincing-reason standard under Burrell. The ALJ's discussion of this issue earlier in the decision in the context of the treating physician's opinion provided a concomitant basis for disbelieving Plaintiff's testimony regarding his ability to work. Burch, 400 F.3d at 681. The ALJ did not err in rejecting Plaintiff's testimony.
III. CONCLUSION
The ALJ's denial of Plaintiff's application for Social Security benefits was supported by substantial evidence in the record and contained no legal error. Therefore, the Court AFFIRMS the decision
IT IS SO ORDERED.
JUDGMENT
It is the judgment of this Court that the decision of the Administrative Law Judge is AFFIRMED. Judgment is hereby entered in favor of Defendant.
Further, the Court will not affirm the ALJ's decision based on a finding that Plaintiff's ability to take a bath or to wash his dishes (AR 52) is in any way relevant to his orthopedic surgeon's opinion regarding the maximum amount of time Plaintiff can stand or walk in the workplace.