Opinion
NO: 1:20-CV-3005-RMP
11-17-2020
KIMBERLY K. B., Plaintiff, v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant.
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
BEFORE THE COURT is United States Magistrate Judge Mary K. Dimke's Report and Recommendation ("R & R"), ECF No. 14 (Oct. 27, 2020), to deny Plaintiff Kimberly B.'s motion for summary judgment, ECF No. 10, and grant Defendant Commissioner of Social Security's (the "Commissioner's") cross-motion for summary judgment, ECF No. 11. On October 30, 2020, Plaintiff timely objected to the R & R. ECF No. 15. The Commissioner responded to the objection on November 10, 2020. ECF No. 16. The Court has reviewed the R & R, the Commissioner's objections and the parties' other submissions, the relevant law, and is fully informed.
In the interest of protecting Plaintiff's privacy, the Court will use Plaintiff's first name and last initial. --------
Upon objection to a magistrate's report and recommendation, district courts review de novo "those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The Court applies the overarching legal standard that the Social Security Commissioner's final determination that a claimant is not disabled must be upheld if: (1) the "proper legal standards" have been applied; and (2) "substantial evidence in the record as a whole" supports that determination." Hoffman v. Heckler, 785 F.2d 1423, 1425 (9th Cir. 1986). In objecting to Judge Dimke's recommended disposition of Plaintiff's appeal, Plaintiff argues that the Court should reverse the Administrative Law Judge's ("ALJ") decision because there was harmful error in evaluating medical opinion evidence and assessing Plaintiff's testimony. ECF No. 15 at 2. The Commissioner responds that Plaintiff merely reiterates the arguments that she made in moving for summary judgment. ECF No. 16 at 1.
Having reviewed de novo the portions of the report and specified proposed findings to which Plaintiff objected, the Court finds that Magistrate Judge Dimke's R & R appropriately addressed Plaintiff's arguments regarding the medical opinion evidence consistent with the relevant legal standards and the record in this case. ECF No. 14 at 11-15. Magistrate Judge Dimke found that the medical opinions at issue were properly discounted after confirming that the ALJ had given specific, legitimate reasons for treatment of those opinions, supported by substantial evidence. Molina v. Astrue, 674 F.3d 1104, 1121 (9th Cir. 2012) ("Even when an agency explains its decision with less than ideal clarity, we must uphold it if the agency's path may reasonably be discerned.") (internal quotation omitted). Magistrate Dimke also found substantial evidence supporting each of the ALJ's reasons for discounting Plaintiff's subjective complaints of disability. Specifically, Magistrate Dimke found that the ALJ had provided clear and convincing reasons for discounting Plaintiff's subjective complaints on the basis of inconsistency with the record evidence, Plaintiff's improvement with treatment, Plaintiff's lack of mental health treatment, and Plaintiff's activities of daily living. See ECF No. 14 at 23-28.
Therefore, on de novo review, this Court concludes that the ALJ's treatment of the medical opinion evidence and Plaintiff's subjective symptom testimony do not warrant remand.
Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the R & R, ECF No. 14, in this matter in its entirety. Consequently, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:
1. Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 10, is DENIED.
2. Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 11, is GRANTED.
3. The District Court Clerk is directed to enter judgment for Defendant.
IT IS SO ORDERED. The District Court Clerk is directed to enter this Order, enter judgment as directed, provide copies to counsel, and close the file in this case.
DATED November 17, 2020.
s/ Rosanna Malouf Peterson
ROSANNA MALOUF PETERSON
United States District Judge