Opinion
21-56235
10-07-2022
STEPHANIE WATKINS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. KILOLO KIJAKAZI, Acting Commissioner, Social Security Administration, Defendant-Appellee.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
Submitted October 3, 2022 [**] Pasadena, California
Appeal from the United States District Court D.C. No. 2:20-cv-03524-VEB for the Central District of California Victor E. Bianchini, Magistrate Judge, Presiding
Before: LEE and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges, and FREUDENTHAL, [***] Senior District Judge
MEMORANDUM [*]
Stephanie Watkins appeals the district court's decision affirming the Commissioner of Social Security's denial of Watkins's application for disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm. Because the factual and procedural history is familiar to the parties, we need not recount it here.
Watkins complains that the ALJ failed properly to address and consider her allegations of a limited ability to use her hands because of bilateral hand pain and swelling from Raynaud's syndrome. Watkins argues her limitations would be consistent with occasional use of her hands and not frequent use as found by the ALJ, and that occasional use of hands would preclude all employment.
The record and briefing use Raynaud's disease and Raynaud's syndrome interchangeably. The phrase "Raynaud's syndrome" will be used herein.
Watkins testified that her hands swell and are painful especially during activities, and that she would need a 45-minute break after using her hands for 15 to 20 minutes, and that this condition "comes and goes." The ALJ adequately summarized Watkins's complaints of chronic pain in the hands, hand swelling, difficulties with manipulative activities, her need for breaks, and the diagnosis of Raynaud's syndrome. Watkins argues that because the ALJ does not allege malingering, the ALJ must provide specific, clear, and convincing reasons to reject Watkins's allegations. Burrell v. Colvin, 775 F.3d 1133, 1136 (9th Cir. 2014).
First, the ALJ did not reject Watkins's allegations of pain and swelling from manipulative activities, but concluded that her testimony concerning the intensity, persistence and limiting effects of symptoms was not entirely consistent with the evidence. As support, the ALJ specifically discussed the treatment records reflecting adequate musculoskeletal function and normal motor strength. The ALJ also discussed Watkins's activities of daily living and that her ability to drive requires considerable neck movement, motor function, and physical exertion. The ALJ discussed Watkins's appearance during the hearing and interview which, while not conclusive of physical problems, was somewhat inconsistent with the alleged severity of symptoms. The ALJ also discussed medical opinion evidence from an internal medicine consultative examination which included findings of no restrictions in the ability to perform manipulative activities, as well as the significant manipulative limitations advanced by Dr. Elacion.
In discounting Dr. Elacion's opinion concerning Watkin's manipulative limitations, the ALJ must offer "specific and legitimate reasons [that are] supported by substantial evidence in the record" for rejecting a contradicted opinion. Lester v. Chater, 81 F.3d 821, 830-31 (9th Cir. 1995). Watkins does not contest that the ALJ satisfied this standard. The ALJ noted that Dr. Elacion's opinion was inadequately supported by his own treatment notes and clinical findings. The ALJ also relied on the March 2017 internal medicine consultative examination which found that Watkins had the ability to perform manipulative activities without restrictions. Finally, the ALJ further found that Dr. Elacion's stated hand limitations were inconsistent with Watkins's activities of daily living. Notably, Watkins does not contest the ALJ's rejection of this treating physician's opinion as supported by substantial evidence in the record. See Lester, 81 F.3d at 830-31.
Watkins complains that the ALJ should not have relied upon her appearance during an interview and the hearing. The ALJ did not err in noting Watkins's appearance as somewhat inconsistent with her allegations of debilitating pain or discomfort. Watkins did not testify to debilitating pain and swelling in her hands, and the ALJ did not relate her appearance to any level of manipulative functioning.
Watkins also complains about the ALJ's reliance on activities of daily living because the ALJ does not explain how these activities are transferable to a work setting. The ALJ's reliance is reasonable based on the finding that these activities require considerable motor function and physical exertion, which is not contested. There is no prohibition against reliance on non-work activities to contradict a degree of impairment alleged by a claimant. See, e.g., Valentine v. Comm'r Soc. Sec. Admin., 574 F.3d 685, 693 (9th Cir. 2009) (concluding that the ALJ's reliance on non-work activities provided clear and convincing reasons to reject subjective complaint testimony).
In summary, the arguments by Watkins that the ALJ failed to provide valid reasons for discounting her allegations of hand pain and swelling and should have assigned an RFC of only occasional use of her hands are rejected. The specific reasons given by the ALJ for discounting the testimony of hand pain and swelling are valid, and the ALJ's RFC assessment accounts for all credible hand and finger impairments and limitations which were supported by substantial evidence in the record. See Bayliss v. Barnhart, 427 F.3d 1211, 1217 (9th Cir. 2005).
AFFIRMED.
[*]This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
[**] The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
[***] The Honorable Nancy D. Freudenthal, United States Senior District Judge for the District of Wyoming, sitting by designation.