Opinion
For Juan Villanueva Lozano, Plaintiff: Bill LaTour, LEAD ATTORNEY, Bill LaTour Law Offices, 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 ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE
HON. MICHAEL R. WILNER, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
I. SUMMARY OF RULING
Plaintiff Lozano challenges the denial of his application for Social Security benefits. The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) found that Plaintiff was capable of working and denied benefits.
On appeal, Plaintiff challenges the sufficiency of the ALJ's adverse credibility finding and contends that the ALJ failed to adequately develop the record in this case. However, the Court concludes that the ALJ stated specific, clear, and convincing reasons supported by substantial evidence for disbelieving Plaintiff's symptom testimony. Moreover, the Court finds that there was no basis for the ALJ to augment the medical evidence further. As a result, the Court affirms the ALJ's decision.
II. PLAINTIFF'S CONDITIONS AND PROCEEDINGS BELOW
Plaintiff was seriously injured when a car hit him. He received Social Security disability benefits for a limited period of time. However, an ALJ determined that Plaintiff was no longer disabled and terminated his benefits.
Plaintiff reapplied for benefits. Following an administrative hearing, the ALJ found that several of Plaintiff's physical injuries (related to the accident and subsequent operations) and mental conditions constituted " severe impairments" as that term is used under federal regulations. (AR 19.)
The ALJ determined that Plaintiff had the residual functional capacity (RFC) to perform " light work" with additional limitations. (AR 20.) In establishing the RFC, the ALJ found that Plaintiff was not credible in describing his symptoms and limitations. (AR 21-24.) A vocational expert testified at the hearing that an individual with Plaintiff's RFC could perform various jobs in the national economy. (AR 26-27, 51.) From this, the ALJ concluded that Plaintiff was not disabled and denied benefits. (AR 27.)
III. DISCUSSION
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). Substantial evidence is proof in an amount or of a nature that " a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion." Burch v. Barnhart, 400 F.3d 676, 679 (9th Cir. 2005). If the evidence presented in an administrative proceeding " can reasonably support either affirming or reversing the decision" of the agency, this Court " may not substitute [its] judgment for that of the Commissioner" or the ALJ. Parra v. Astrue, 481 F.3d 742, 746 (9th Cir. 2007).
B. Adverse Credibility Determination (Issue 1)
On appeal to this Court, Plaintiff challenges the adequacy of the ALJ's adverse credibility finding.
1. Facts and ALJ's Decision
Plaintiff testified that his ability to function was greatly limited by his pain, swelling in his leg, and other physical conditions. (AR 39-48). Plaintiff stated that " I can't walk" and " this arm, I can't lift it up." (AR 39.) He also testified that he " can't do anything" because of his depression. (AR 46.)
The ALJ didn't believe him. In the written decision, the ALJ set forth several reasons for rejecting Plaintiff's credibility. The ALJ acknowledged that Plaintiff's conditions (particularly infections related to hardware installed in Plaintiff's legs) caused significant ongoing medical issues. However, the ALJ concluded that Plaintiff's pain complaints were " inconsistent with the medical evidence of record, which shows only conservative treatment" for his leg pain for almost two years leading up to the decision. (AR 25.) In support of that, the ALJ cited Plaintiff's statement to a physician that " reported relief of the pain in his [legs] with medication." (Id.) That medication consisted of oral painkillers and anti-inflammatory medications. (AR 356.)
Plaintiff apparently had steroidal injections for his shoulder condition. (AR 42.)
Further, the ALJ concluded that, despite Plaintiff's claims regarding severe depression and anxiety, Plaintiff took anti-depressant medication but did not receive psychiatric or other mental health treatment. (AR 24.) The ALJ further noted in the written decision that Plaintiff's depression " was somewhat better" as a result. (AR 282, 285.)
The ALJ also emphasized Plaintiff's personal activities. Plaintiff was " independent in self care" and was able to participate in family and local activities. (AR 25.) The ALJ concluded that Plaintiff's overall medical treatment history and daily activities were " inconsistent with the presence of an incapacitating or debilitating medical condition." (Id.)
2. Relevant Law
Certain disability decisions require an evaluation of a claimant's subjective symptomatic complaints. An ALJ may not " arbitrarily discredit a claimant's testimony." Thomas v. Barnhart, 278 F.3d 947, 958 (9th Cir. 2002). If an ALJ determines that there is objective medical evidence of an underlying impairment that reasonably could cause the alleged pain or symptoms, the 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 ordinary techniques of credibility evaluation, unexplained or inadequately explained failure to seek treatment or to follow a prescribed course of treatment, and the claimant's daily activities. Ghanim v. Colvin, 763 F.3d 1154, 1163 (9th Cir. 2014) (quotations omitted). An ALJ may determine that a claimant lacks credibility based on evidence of conservative treatment. Parra, 481 F.3d at 750-51.
A claimant's favorable response to conservative treatment can undermine the claimant's testimony and reports of disabling pain. Tommasetti v. Astrue, 533 F.3d 1035, 1040 (9th Cir. 2008). Numerous judges of this Court have concluded that the use of non-injected, anti-inflammatory medications may constitute conservative treatment. Medel v. Colvin, No. ED CV 13-2052 JPR, 2014 WL 6065898 at *8 (C.D. Cal. 2014) (ALJ properly discounted credibility based on Plaintiff's conservative treatment, which consisted of only Vicodin and Tylenol); Stephenson v. Colvin, No. CV 13-8303 AGR, 2014 WL 4162380 at *9 (C.D. Cal. 2014) (same); Morris v. Colvin, No. CV 13-6236 OP, 2014 WL 2547599 at *4 (C.D. Cal. 2014) (plaintiff received conservative treatment consisting of physical therapy, use of TENS unit, chiropractic treatment, Vicodin, and Tylenol). An ALJ may also discredit a claimant's testimony for " lack of consistent treatment" or because the claimant " did not seek any treatment or evaluation" for the condition. Burch, 400 F.3d at 681; Orn v. Astrue, 495 F.3d 625, 638 (9th Cir. 2007).
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, 400 F.3d at 681. The mere fact that a claimant " carried on certain daily activities, such as grocery shopping, driving a car, or limited walking or exercise, does not in any way detract" from his or her credibility as to overall disability. Vertigan v. Halter, 260 F.3d 1044, 1049-50 (9th Cir. 2001). The ALJ must make " specific findings related to [the daily] activities and their transferability to conclude that a claimant's daily activities warrant an adverse credibility determination." Orn, 495 F.3d at 639 (quotation omitted).
An ALJ may also consider whether there is a lack of objective medical evidence supporting a claimant's allegations. This factor " cannot form the sole basis for discounting" subjective symptom testimony. Burch, 400 F.3d at 681. Even if an ALJ impermissibly relies " on one of several reasons in support of an adverse credibility determination, " the error is considered harmless if " the ALJ's remaining reasoning and ultimate credibility determination were adequately supported by substantial evidence in the record." Carmickle v. Comm'r, Soc. Sec. Admin., 533 F.3d 1155, 1162 (9th Cir. 2008) (citation and emphasis omitted).
3. Analysis
The ALJ was obliged to identify " specific, clear and convincing" reasons for rejecting the claimant's testimony. Burrell, 775 F.3d at 1136. The ALJ's analysis in the written decision adequately meets this standard and is supported by substantial evidence to survive appellate review.
The ALJ pointed to Plaintiff's conservative treatment of his mental health and physical conditions as a basis for the adverse credibility finding. Parra, 481 F.3d at 751. Plaintiff complained of pain from his feet and legs that significantly hindered his ability to walk. The medical record certainly showed ongoing treatment related to Plaintiff's operations and some difficulty in walking. Yet, the ALJ concluded that Plaintiff's post-surgery treatment of his foot and leg conditions consisted mainly of routine follow-up appointments and moderate pain and anti-inflammatory medications. (AR 25.) The ALJ could properly have concluded that Plaintiff's treatment for the leg pain was conservative, and did not reflect the disabling pain he reported to the agency. Medel, 2014 WL 6065898 at *8; Stephenson, 2014 WL 4162380 at *9; Morris, 2014 WL 2547599 at *4. Also, Plaintiff told his physician that the medication relieved his leg pain. The ALJ was entitled to find that Plaintiff's own report and favorable response to the conservative treatment undermined his testimony regarding the severity of his leg pain and limitations. Tommasetti, 533 F.3d at 1040.
Moreover, the ALJ identified a clear and convincing reason to discount Plaintiff's testimony about his depression-related limitations by noting that the treatment of these conditions was minimal and conservative. Burch, 400 F.3d at 681. In the written decision, the ALJ stated that Plaintiff treated his conditions only with medication. (AR 24, 281-82.) Yet, the ALJ observed that Plaintiff -- who sought extensive treatment over the years for his physical ailments -- did not attempt to address his depression with assistance from a psychiatrist or other mental health professional. The ALJ relied on a legitimate legal reason that was adequately supported by evidence for disbelieving Plaintiff's testimony.
With that conclusion, the ALJ did not err in making reference to the lack of objective medical evidence regarding Plaintiff's pain and limitation claims. Burch, 400 F.3d at 681. Plaintiff dedicates a considerable portion of his argument to citing parts of the medical record that support his symptom testimony. (Docket #17 at 9-11.) However, the ALJ summarized the broader record in his written decision and pointed to many specific findings that Plaintiff's condition " continued to improve, " particularly in the period after the termination of the previous grant of benefits. (AR 22-25.) Although some of the medical evidence favored Plaintiff's position, the ALJ was entitled to consider as a factor in the decision whether the overall objective medical evidence refuted Plaintiff's pain / depression claims. That determination, too, was supported by evidence sufficient to allow a reasonable person to reach that conclusion. Hill, 698 F.3d at 1158; Burch, 400 F.3d at 679.
The ALJ skated on thinner ice by pointing to Plaintiff's daily activities as proof of his lack of believability. Plaintiff described rather basic household functions that he was able to accomplish for himself and his family. Plaintiff's ability to engage in these meager activities does not, on its face, undermine the credibility of his symptom testimony. Vertigan, 260 F.3d at 1049-50. Moreover, the ALJ made no specific findings that those activities transferred to a work setting. Orn, 495 F.3d at 639. However, to the extent that the ALJ erred by relying on Plaintiff's daily activities as a basis to reject his symptom testimony, that error was certainly harmless in light of the other acceptable reasons that the ALJ set forth. Carmickle, 533 F.3d at 1162.
C. Development of Record (Issue 2)
Plaintiff claims that the ALJ did not develop the evidentiary record adequately. Plaintiff contends that the ALJ should have ordered additional medical consultations and obtained additional evidence to buttress the disability claim.
The Court summarily rejects this contention. An ALJ has a " special duty to fully and fairly develop the record" in a disability benefits proceeding. Webb v. Barnhart, 433 F.3d 683, 687 (9th Cir. 2005). However, that duty is triggered only when there is " ambiguous evidence or when the record is inadequate to allow for proper evaluation of the evidence." Ludwig v. Astrue, 681 F.3d 1047, 1054 n.30 (9th Cir. 2012). As Plaintiff concedes, an ALJ " is not required to send plaintiff to an internal medicine or orthopedic consultative examination or to have a medical expert review the medical records and testify regarding plaintiff's physical impairments." (Docket #17 at 19 (emphasis added).) Moreover, the ALJ possessed more than two years (and several hundred pages) of medical records from Plaintiff's treating physicians regarding his conditions. (AR 256-365, 410-99.) At bottom. Plaintiff fails to convincingly demonstrate that the medical evidence was either ambiguous or inadequate to evaluate his conditions here. Ludwig, 681 F.3d at 1054. As a result, the ALJ did not err by failing to procure additional opinions and medical expert testimony about Plaintiff's limitations.
IV. CONCLUSION
The ALJ's denial of Plaintiff's application for disability 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.