Opinion
For Jorge Mayoral, Plaintiff: Bill LaTour, LEAD ATTORNEY, Law Offices of Bill LaTour, Colton, CA.
For Carolyn W. Colvin, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant: Assistant U.S. Attorney LA-CV, LEAD ATTORNEY, Office of U.S. Attorney, Civil Division, Los Angeles, CA; Assistant U.S. Attorney LA-SSA, LEAD ATTORNEY, Office of the General Counsel for Social Security Adm., San Francisco, CA; Marla K Letellier, LEAD ATTORNEY, Social Security Administration, Office of the General Counsel - Social Security Adm, San Francisco, CA.
ORDER AFFIRMING DECISION OF COMMISSIONER
DAVID T. BRISTOW, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
Plaintiff filed a Complaint (" Complaint") on May 13, 2014, seeking review of the Commissioner's denial of his applications for a Social Security period of disability, Disability Insurance Benefits and Supplemental Security Income. In accordance with the Magistrate Judge's Case Management Order, the parties filed a Joint Stipulation (" Jt. Stip.") on January 13, 2015. Thus, this matter now is ready for decision.
As the parties were advised in the Case Management Order, the decision in this case is being made on the basis of the pleadings, the Administrative Record (" AR"), and the Joint Stipulation filed by the parties. In accordance with Rule 12(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Court has determined which party is entitled to judgment under the standards set forth in 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).
DISPUTED ISSUE
Whether the Administrative Law Judge (" ALJ") properly considered plaintiff's treating physician's opinion. (Jt. Stip. 3-13.)
DISCUSSION
Plaintiff contends that " the ALJ failed to state which specific statements he accepted or rejected from Dr. [Haad] Mahmood's opinion nor did he provide specific and legitimate reasons supported by substantial evidence for rejecting plaintiff's treating physician's opinion." (Jt. Stip. 4.)
In evaluating medical opinions, the Ninth Circuit distinguishes among three types of physicians: (1) Treating physicians (who examine and treat), (2) examining physicians (who examine but do not treat), and (3) non-examining physicians (who neither examine nor treat). Lester v. Chater, 81 F.3d 821, 830 (9th Cir. 1996) (as amended). In general, more weight should be given to the opinion of a treating physician than to a non-treating physician, and more weight to the opinion of an examining physician than to a non-examining physician. Id. Although a treating physician's opinion is entitled to special weight, McAllister v. Sullivan, 888 F.2d 599, 602 (9th Cir. 1989) (as amended), " [t]he treating physician's opinion is not, however, necessarily conclusive as to either a physical condition or the ultimate issue of disability." Magallanes v. Bowen, 881 F.2d 747, 751 (9th Cir. 1989). The weight given to a treating physician's opinion depends on whether it is supported by sufficient medical data and is consistent with other evidence in the record. See 20 C.F.R. § § 404.1527(d)(2) and 416.927(d)(2). When a treating or examining physician's opinion is not contradicted by another physician, it may only be rejected for " clear and convincing" reasons. Lester, 81 F.3d at 830. Where the treating physician's opinion is contradicted, it may not be rejected without " specific and legitimate reasons" supported by substantial evidence in the record. Id. at 830-31; see also Carmickle v. Comm'r, Soc. Sec. Admin., 533 F.3d 1155, 1164 (9th Cir. 2008).
From December 22, 2010 through September 21, 2011, plaintiff was treated at the Clinica Mi Pueblo (see AR 179-90) for complaints relating to an inguinal hernia and pain in his knee and back. Plaintiff also was diagnosed with diabetes and high blood pressure. (See, e.g., AR 180.) On February 24, 2012, Dr. Robin Alleyne, M.D. (" Dr. Alleyne") examined plaintiff and thereafter prepared a summary report of an internal medicine consultation. In his report, Dr. Alleyne noted that plaintiff reported pain in both knees, as well as his lower back, which he described as " chronic" with non-radiating pain, and which worsened with prolonged walking and standing. (AR 193.) In his exam, Dr. Alleyne found plaintiff had a normal gait and balance, no difficulty in heel-to-toe walking, and that no assistive device was required for ambulation. (AR 194.) Specifically, as to claimant's back, Dr. Alleyne found normal curvature, no tenderness or muscle spasm, forward flex of 70 degrees, and the ability to crouch fully. (AR 195.) Dr. Alleyne's conclusion were consistent with claimant's past treatment regarding his diabetes and hernia (see, e.g., AR 182, AR 186, AR 192, AR 207, AR 219, AR 223-25, AR 230-33), and with his lack of any treatment for back pain. After evaluating plaintiff and assessing him with a series of tests, Dr. Alleyne assessed that plaintiff was able to lift and carry 50 pounds occasionally and 25 pounds frequently. Plaintiff was able to push and pull without limitations. Plaintiff was able to walk and stand six hours out of an eight hour day without any sitting restrictions. Plaintiff was able to climb, balance, kneel, and crawl frequently, walk on uneven terrain, climb ladders, and work at heights frequently. (AR 196-97.) Dr. Alleyne found some mild crepitus upon examining plaintiff's knees, and ordered an x-ray of his left knee. However, Dr. Alleyne found " no significant" abnormality regarding plaintiff's back, but noted " some restricted range of motion at the waist." (AR 196.) The ensuing x-ray of plaintiff's left knee revealed that " knee joint space [was] well maintained. No fractures [could] be seen. There [were] no osteophytes present. Soft tissue planes [were] normal." (AR 198.)
Thereafter, on July 13, 2012, plaintiff was examined by Haad Mahmood, M.D. (" Dr. Mahmood") for pain in both knees, his back, and a right hernia. (AR 243.) Dr. Mahmood's examination revealed that plaintiff complained of knee, back and groin pain, with a pain intensity of 5 (best) to 10 (worst) on a scale of 10, that his lower back pain was acute, with an onset of " recent weeks, " with the initial pain occurring while he was walking. (AR 243-44.) The physical exam conducted by Dr. Mahmood revealed no sign of injury and normal range of strength and motion, although he did note " pain with movements" and " unable to bear weight." (AR 245.) Dr. Mahmood concluded that plaintiff's straight leg test indicated " possible" radiculopathy in his back, and he advised rest and Ibuprofen. (AR 246.) In addition to examining the plaintiff on July 13, 2012, Dr. Mahmood also completed a form entitled " Medical Opinion re: Ability to do Work-Related Activities (Physical)" (" Questionnaire"). In the Questionnaire, Dr. Mahmood indicated, inter alia, that plaintiff would be restricted to lifting and carrying less than 10 pounds on an occasional basis, standing and walking for a maximum of 4 hours during an 8 hour day, sitting a maximum of 2 hours during an 8 hour day, and needed to lie down at unpredictable intervals during the day, along with other work restrictions. (AR 234-36.) In the Questionnaire, Dr. Mahmood also indicated that the medical finding supporting his restrictions of plaintiff was acute lower back pain relating to arthritis. (AR 235.)
In his decision, the ALJ considered the reports of Dr. Alleyne and Dr. Mahmood, as well as the report of a State Agency medical consultant, and accorded greater weight to the opinions of the State Agency consultant and Dr. Alleyne in reaching his conclusion that plaintiff's Residual Function Capacity (" RFC") did not result in his being disabled. The ALJ accorded Dr. Alleyne great weight on the basis that " the record is more consistent with the claimant performing medium exertional work than sedentary exertional work." (AR 15.) The ALJ also noted that Dr. Mahmood " did not examine the record available at the hearing level and included no supporting diagnostic or objective evidence with his restrictive assessment." (Id.)
The Court concurs with the Commissioner that the reasons given by the ALJ for not crediting Dr. Mahmood's opinion regarding plaintiff's work restrictions were supported by the record and legally sufficient.
First, the Court concurs with the ALJ's conclusion that the record is more consistent with Dr. Alleyne's opinion that plaintiff could perform medium exertional work (AR 15), rather than Dr. Mahmood's conclusion that plaintiff was limited to sedentary exertional work. As the ALJ noted, Dr. Mahmood did not examine the available record, and ordered no diagnostic tests. (Id.) The Commissioner also found that Dr. Mahmood also related plaintiff's back pain to arthritis, when plaintiff's medical history makes no mention of arthritis. Bayliss v. Barnhart, 427 F.3d 1211, 1216 (9th Cir. 2005) (holding that contradiction between treating physician's assessment and clinical notes justifies rejection of assessment). Moreover, as Dr. Alleyne examined plaintiff, his opinion constitutes substantial evidence supporting the ALJ's decision. Tonapetyan v. Halter, 242 F.3d 1144 (9th Cir. 2001) (consultative examiner's opinion on its own constituted substantial evidence, because it rested on independent examination of claimant.)
Second, Dr. Mahmood's restrictions were expressed in a check-the-box form, which the Ninth Circuit has found to be disfavored. Batson v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 359 F.3d 1190, 1195 (9th Cir. 2004) (noting that " an ALJ may discredit treating physicians' opinions that are conclusory, brief, and unsupported by the record as a whole, . . . or by objective medical findings"); Thomas v. Barnhart, 278 F.3d 947, 957 (9th Cir. 2002) (" The ALJ need not accept the opinion of any physician, including a treating physician, if that opinion is brief, conclusory, and inadequately supported by clinical findings."); Saelee v. Chater, 94 F.3d 520, 522 (9th Cir. 1996) (ALJ properly discounted treating physician's report obtained solely for purposes of the administrative hearing); Crane v. Shalala, 76 F.3d 251, 253 (9th Cir. 1996) (holding that an ALJ may reject check-off forms that do not contain an explanation of the bases for their conclusions); Johnson v. Shalala, 60 F.3d 1428, 1433 (9th Cir. 1995) (holding that contradiction between physician's notes and finding of disability was a valid reason to reject treating physician's opinion); Matney v. Sullivan, 981 F.2d 1016, 1019 (9th Cir. 1992) (ALJ's finding that treating physician had agreed to become an advocate and assist the claimant in presenting a meaningful petition for benefits constituted a specific and legitimate reason for disregarding the physician's opinions).
Finally, there is no indication that the ALJ felt the medical record was ambiguous to the point of requiring further development of the record. Mayes v. Massanari, 276 F.3d 453 (9th Cir. 2001). Rather, the ALJ concluded that the record did not support the restrictions imposed by Dr. Mahmood.
Thus, the Disputed Issue in this case does not warrant reversal of the Commissioner's decision.
ORDER
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Judgment be entered affirming the decision of the Commissioner and dismissing this action with prejudice.
JUDGMENT
In accordance with the Order Affirming Decision of Commissioner filed herewith, IT IS HEREBY ADJUDGED that the decision of the Commissioner of Social Security is affirmed and this action is dismissed with prejudice.