Opinion
For Rodrigo Sosa Nava, Plaintiff: Vijay Jagdish Patel, LEAD ATTORNEY, 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-CV, LEAD ATTORNEY, AUSA - Office of U.S. Attorney, Los Angeles, CA; Assistant U.S. Attorney LA-SSA, LEAD ATTORNEY, Office of the General Counsel for Social Security Adm., San Francisco, CA; Theophous Reagans, LEAD ATTORNEY, SAUSA - U.S. Attorney's Office, San Francisco, CA.
ORDER AFFIRMING DECISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE
HON. MICHAEL R. WILNER, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
I. SUMMARY OF RULING
Plaintiff Sosa Nava challenges the denial of his application for disability insurance benefits. The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) found that Plaintiff was capable of performing his past work and denied benefits.
On appeal, Plaintiff challenges the sufficiency of the ALJ's adverse credibility finding. However, the Court concludes that the ALJ stated specific, clear, and convincing reasons supported by substantial evidence for disbelieving Plaintiff's symptom testimony. 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 his diabetes, vertigo, and circulatory and heart-related problems) constituted " severe impairments" as that term is used under federal regulations. (AR 36.)
The ALJ concluded that Plaintiff had the residual functional capacity (RFC) to perform " light work" with additional limitations. (AR 37.) In establishing Plaintiff's RFC, the ALJ found that Plaintiff was not believable in describing his symptoms of frequent chest pains and dizziness. (AR 38.)
At the hearing, a vocational expert testified that someone with Plaintiff's RFC could perform his past work. (AR 66.) From this, the ALJ concluded that Plaintiff was not disabled and denied benefits. (AR 41.)
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).
B. Adverse Credibility Determination
On appeal, Plaintiff challenges the adequacy of the ALJ's adverse credibility finding.
1. Facts and Decision Below
According to Plaintiff's medical records, he had a history of chest pain beginning in 2006. Plaintiff also reported dizziness starting in 2009. (AR 420, 424, 428, 435.) Plaintiff continued to work until he was laid off in October 2011. The reason for the lay-off was that his employer moved out of state (although the business offered him a job at the new location). (AR 60.) Plaintiff filed for disability benefits in November 2011, or shortly after he lost his job. (AR 33, 247.) At the hearing, Plaintiff testified that he can no longer work because he frequently becomes dizzy, has chest pains, and falls regularly. (AR 59-60.)
The ALJ concluded that Plaintiff was " less than fully credible" in his testimony about his symptoms. (AR 38.) The ALJ observed that Plaintiff " stopped working for reasons not related to the allegedly disabling impairments." (AR 38.) The ALJ noted that there was " no evidence of a significant deterioration in the claimant's medical condition since that layoff." This led the ALJ to conclude that Plaintiff's conditions " would not prevent the performance of [his previous] job, since it was being performed adequately at the time of the layoff despite a similar medical condition." (Id.) The ALJ also disbelieved Plaintiff's testimony because: there was minimal proof of recent falls; no physician prescribed a cane/walker to help Plaintiff; and his physician did not report Plaintiff's condition to the DMV. (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).
One such reason is proof that a person stopped working for reasons unrelated to an alleged disability. Bruton v. Massanari, 268 F.3d 824, 828 (9th Cir. 2001) (ALJ identifies permissible basis to disbelieve claimant when claimant admits " he left his job because he was laid off, rather than because he was injured"); Hensley v. Colvin, 600 F.App'x 526, 527 (9th Cir. 2015) (claimant " stopped working, in part, because of her positive drug test rather than an injury"; ALJ identified clear and convincing reason to disbelieve her); Edwards v. Colvin, 586 F.App'x 434, 435 (9th Cir. 2014) (" the ALJ properly took into account that Edwards stopped working due to a felony conviction, not because of debilitating back pain").
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 v. Barnhart, 400 F.3d 676, 681 (9th Cir. 2005). 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 required to provide " specific, clear, and convincing" reasons supported by substantial evidence for rejecting Plaintiff's testimony. Burrell, 775 F.3d at 1136. The Court concludes that ALJ satisfied this obligation and that the written decision survives appellate review.
The ALJ expressly disbelieved Plaintiff's testimony about his severe dizziness and chest pains. The ALJ concluded -- and Plaintiff admitted at the hearing -- that Plaintiff stopped working in late 2011 because his employer closed the facility and moved out of state for business reasons. Additionally, the employer offered to rehire Plaintiff to work at the new location. The ALJ was entitled to disbelieve Plaintiff's statement that he incurred disabling pain and dizziness just a few weeks after he lost his job and received a new offer from his boss. Under settled Ninth Circuit authority, that reason is adequate to support an adverse credibility decision. Bruton, 268 F.3d at 828; Edwards, 586 F.App'x at 435.
The Court agrees with the government's analysis in distinguishing Shehan v. Astrue, No. ED CV 08-1302 MLG, 2009 WL 2524573 (C.D. Cal. 2009), from the present case. In Shehan, the Court determined that the claimant's previous jobs " ended long before her alleged onset date" and there was " evidence that Plaintiff's condition deteriorated since she was last able to work." Neither circumstance is present here, which makes Plaintiff's situation far closer to that in Bruton and its progeny.
With that conclusion, the ALJ did not err in referring to the lack of objective medical evidence supporting Plaintiff's claims of disabling dizziness or pain. Burch, 400 F.3d at 681. In summarizing Plaintiff's medical history, the ALJ noted that Plaintiff's longtime complaints had neither been verified (including recent normal heart and kidney functions) nor deteriorated noticeably after he stopped working. (AR 38-40.) The ALJ was entitled to consider this additional evidence -- or lack of verification for Plaintiff's claims -- as a factor in disbelieving his testimony.
The Court is somewhat more doubtful that the ALJ's other observations (no doctor directed Plaintiff to use a cane or had the DMV suspend his driver's license) were convincing enough to support an adverse credibility decision here. However, to the extent that the ALJ erred by relying on those reasons as a basis to reject his symptom testimony, that error was certainly harmless in light of the other acceptable reasons set forth in the written decision. Carmickle, 533 F.3d at 1162.
IV. 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.