Opinion
1:21-cv-01717-ADA-HBK
03-07-2023
KRISTIN WATSON, Plaintiff, v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant.
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, GRANTING DEFENDANT'S CROSS-MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, AND AFFIRMING THE DECISION OF THE COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY (ECF Nos. 17, 18, 20)
Plaintiff Kristin Watson (“Plaintiff”) initiated this action seeking judicial review of a final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security. (ECF No. 1). This matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302(c)(15). (E.D. Cal. 2022).
On January 9, 2023, the assigned Magistrate Judge issued findings and recommendations recommending that Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment be denied, Defendant's cross-motion for summary judgment be granted, the Commissioner's decision be affirmed. (ECF No. 20). The findings and recommendations contained a notice that any objections were due within fourteen days. (Id. at 1, 12). On January 23, 2023, Plaintiff timely filed objections to the findings and recommendations that largely reiterate the arguments made in her opening brief. (ECF No. 21).
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C), the Court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including Plaintiffs objections, the Court concludes that the Magistrate Judge's findings and recommendations are supported by the record and proper analysis.
In her objections, Plaintiff argues that the Court should reject the Magistrate Judge's finding that the ALJ properly evaluated Plaintiff's subjective complaints. (See ECF No. 21.) Plaintiff reiterates her arguments made in her motion for summary judgment that the ALJ may not discredit Plaintiff's testimony as to the severity of symptoms merely because they are unsupported by objective medical evidence, citing to Bunnell v. Sullivan, 947 F.2d 341, 347-48 (9th Cir. 1991). (Id. at 2.) Plaintiff further contends that the ALJ failed to support the assumption that the description of her symptoms as “moderately severe” is inconsistent with Plaintiff's alleged degree of functional limitations caused by those symptoms. (Id. at 3.) In Bunnell, the court held that pain need not be corroborated by objective medical findings, but some impairment must be medically ascertained. Bunnell, 947 F.2d at 347-48. The Court finds that Plaintiff did not have to corroborate her alleged pain with objective medical findings, but Plaintiff must also demonstrate that the impairment is medically ascertained. Thus, the Court adopts the Magistrate Judge's findings and recommendations, which conclude that the ALJ explicitly recognized evidence in the record that could be considered more favorable to Plaintiff, including her own testimony and objective medical records. Upon review of the administrative record, the Court finds that the ALJ indeed considered Plaintiff's testimony and did not discredit it. (ECF No. 11-1 at 22, 26.) As explained in detail, the ALJ considered numerous medical professionals' findings with respect to Plaintiff conditions. (See ECF No. 20 at 8-9.) Therefore, the Court adopts the Magistrate Judge's findings and recommendations in full.
ACCORDINGLY,
1. The findings and recommendations issued on January 9, 2023, (ECF No. 20), are adopted in full;
2. Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment, (ECF No. 17), is DENIED;
3. Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment, (ECF No. 18), is GRANTED and the decision of the Commissioner of Social Security is AFFIRMED; and
4. The Clerk shall enter judgment in favor of Defendant, terminate any deadlines, and close this case.
IT IS SO ORDERED.