Reymundo v. Commissioner of Social Security, No. 1:2018cv03031 - Document 17 (E.D. Wash. 2019)
Court Description: ORDER Granting 15 Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by Magistrate Judge John T. Rodgers. (MO, Courtroom Deputy)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
ubstance abuse. Tr. 25-27. It is undisputed there is a theme throughout the record 26 of Plaintiff’s drug seeking behavior: going to emergency rooms and different 27 clinics, alleging pain, and seeking Vicodin or other narcotics. See Tr. 48. The ALJ 28 /// ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION . . . - 10 1 accurately recounted this behavior by Plaintiff in finding her less than fully 2 credible in this case. 3 The ALJ is responsible for reviewing the evidence and resolving conflicts or 4 ambiguities in testimony. Magallanes v. Bowen, 881 F.2d 747, 751 (9th Cir. 5 1989). It is the role of the trier of fact, not this Court, to resolve conflicts in 6 evidence. Richardson, 402 U.S. at 400. The Court has a limited role in 7 determining whether the ALJ’s decision is supported by substantial evidence and 8 may not substitute its own judgment for that of the ALJ even if it might justifiably 9 have reached a different result upon de novo review. 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). After 10 reviewing the record, the Court finds that the ALJ provided clear and convincing 11 reasons, which are fully supported by the record, for finding Plaintiff’s symptom 12 allegations were not entirely credible in this case. The ALJ did not err in this 13 regard. 14 B. 15 Medical Opinion Testimony Plaintiff also contends the ALJ erred by failing to provide legally sufficient 16 reasons for rejecting the medical opinions of Anna Madej, M.D., and Rox C. 17 Burkett, M.D. ECF No. 14 at 9-13. 18 In a disability proceeding, the courts distinguish among the opinions of three 19 types of acceptable medical sources: treating physicians, physicians who examine 20 but do not treat the claimant (examining physicians) and those who neither 21 examine nor treat the claimant (nonexamining physicians). Lester v. Chater, 81 22 F.3d 821, 830 (9th Cir. 1996). A treating physician’s opinion carries more weight 23 than an examining physician’s opinion, and an examining physician’s opinion is 24 given more weight than that of a nonexamining physician. Benecke v. Barnhart, 25 379 F.3d 587, 592 (9th Cir. 2004); Lester, 81 F.3d at 830. In weighing the medical 26 opinion evidence of record, the ALJ must make findings setting forth specific, 27 legitimate reasons for doing so that are based on substantial evidence in the record. 28 Magallanes v. Bowen, 881 F.2d 747, 751 (9th Cir. 1989). Moreover, the ALJ is ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION . . . - 11 1 required to set forth the reasoning behind his or her decisions in a way that allows 2 for meaningful review. Brown-Hunter v. Colvin, 806 F.3d 487, 492 (9th Cir. 2015) 3 (finding a clear statement of the agency’s reasoning is necessary because the Court 4 can affirm the ALJ’s decision to deny benefits only on the grounds invoked by the 5 ALJ). “Although the ALJ’s analysis need not be extensive, the ALJ must provide 6 some reasoning in order for us to meaningfully determine whether the ALJ’s 7 conclusions were supported by substantial evidence.” Treichler v. Comm’r of Soc. 8 Sec. Admin., 775 F.3d 1090, 1103 (9th Cir. 2014). 9 10 1. Anna Madej, M.D. Dr. Madej completed a Physical Functional Evaluation form report on June 11 3, 2016. Tr. 1026-1030. Dr. Madej indicated that Plaintiff’s neck pain, left 12 shoulder pain and chronic pain syndrome were all markedly severe impairments 13 and that Plaintiff was severely limited (unable to meet the demands of sedentary 14 work). Tr. 1027-1028. 15 The ALJ gave minimal weight to Dr. Madej’s report, finding Dr. Madej’s 16 opinion of such significant limitation was not supported by Plaintiff’s prior visits 17 with Dr. Madej, the weight of the objective medical evidence of record, and 18 Plaintiff’s activities since the alleged onset date. Tr. 28-29. 19 As determined by the ALJ, the form report of Dr. Madej was inconsistent 20 with Dr. Madej’s prior treatment records. Tr. 28. During prior visits, Plaintiff 21 displayed no significant physical functioning impairment. Tr. 952 (denied joint 22 pain or stiffness, joint swelling, muscle cramps, muscle stiffness, muscle weakness 23 and gout); 966 (denied fatigue and weakness); 970 (denied fatigue and weakness). 24 Furthermore, as concluded by the ALJ, the record reflects Dr. Madej’s opinion is 25 not supported by the weight of the record evidence. Tr. 28-29. As discussed in 26 Section A, above, Plaintiff has repeatedly displayed a non-tender neck, with full 27 range of motion and no motor or sensory deficits, Tr. 640, 698-746, 788-791, 832- 28 836. She has additionally displayed normal gait and balance, Tr. 629-635, 667- ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION . . . - 12 1 673, 827, 851, 987, 998, has had normal strength in her extremities, Tr. 683, 687, 2 689, 693, 988, 998, has had normal range of motion in her shoulders, Tr. 697, 855, 3 877, 921, and denied having fatigue, headaches and motor or sensory loss or 4 weakness, Tr. 682, 713, 945, 952, 966, 970, 986, 991, 997. Finally, as also 5 discussed in Section A, above, Plaintiff’s activities during the relevant time period, 6 such as traveling and white water rafting, appear inconsistent with Dr. Madej’s 7 opinion that Plaintiff was unable to perform even sedentary work. 8 The Court finds the ALJ’s analysis with respect to Dr. Madej’s June 2016 9 Physical Functional Evaluation form is supported. The ALJ’s interpretation was 10 based on substantial evidence, and he supported his findings with specific and 11 legitimate rationale. 12 2. Rox C. Burkett, M.D. 13 On July 29, 2016, Dr. Burkett wrote a letter to Plaintiff’s attorney regarding 14 a review of Plaintiff’s case file. Tr. 1032-1034. Dr. Burkett reported a review of 15 the record showed that Plaintiff had an abnormal nerve conduction test of the left 16 arm, an abnormal brain MRI, and only started taking opiates for her pain after her 17 motor vehicle accident. Tr. 1032. Dr. Burkett believed there was very little 18 likelihood that Plaintiff could sustain 40 hours of substantial gainful employment 19 per week. Tr. 1033. Dr. Burkett opined Plaintiff’s combination of impairments 20 equaled listing 1.02 or 12.02 and her headaches perhaps equaled listing 11.03. Tr. 21 1034. 22 The ALJ accorded “minimal weight” to Dr. Burkett’s letter opinions, finding 23 the opinions unsupported, vague and conclusory and inconsistent with the weight 24 of the record evidence. Tr. 29. The ALJ additionally noted Dr. Burkett’s findings 25 appeared to be based on an inaccurate assessment of the record, given confirmed 26 factual errors within the letter. Tr. 29. 27 28 Beginning with the inaccuracies in the letter, Dr. Burkett noted Plaintiff had an abnormal nerve conduction test of the left arm, Tr. 1032; however, the record ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION . . . - 13 1 reflects Plaintiff actually had a normal electrodiagnostic study of her left arm, Tr. 2 605, 674. In addition, Dr. Burkett reported that Plaintiff had an abnormal brain 3 MRI, Tr. 1032, but Plaintiff’s brain imaging reports show no specific 4 “abnormalities,” Tr. 532, 562. Finally, while Dr. Burkett wrote that Plaintiff did 5 not start taking opiates until after her motor vehicle accident, Tr. 1032, the record 6 shows Plaintiff was prescribed Vicodin on occasions prior to her accident, Tr. 800- 7 801, 813. As determined by the ALJ, Dr. Burkett’s opinion was based on an 8 inaccurate assessment of the record. Chaurdhry v. Astrue, 688 F.3d 661, 671 (9th 9 Cir. 2012) (an ALJ may reject a medical source opinion when it is predicated in 10 11 part on erroneous beliefs). The Court additionally agrees with the ALJ’s finding that Dr. Burkett’s 12 opinion is unsupported and conclusory. Tr. 29. Dr. Burkett’s letter does not 13 explain the criteria of the listings, nor does it discuss how Plaintiff’s specific 14 limitations, validly documented by clinical findings and/or objective signs, meet or 15 equal a particular listing. Tonapetyan, 242 F.3d at 1149 (an ALJ need not accept a 16 medical source’s opinion that is conclusory and brief and unsupported by clinical 17 findings). 18 Finally, as determined by the ALJ, Dr. Burkett’s opinion that Plaintiff’s 19 impairments prevented her from performing substantial gainful work was 20 inconsistent with the weight of the objective medical evidence of record. Tr. 29. 21 As discussed in Section A, above, Plaintiff has repeatedly displayed a non-tender 22 neck, with full range of motion and no motor or sensory deficits, Tr. 640, 698-746, 23 788-791, 832-836. She has additionally displayed normal gait and balance, Tr. 24 629-635, 667-673, 827, 851, 987, 998, has had normal strength in her extremities, 25 Tr. 683, 687, 689, 693, 988, 998, has had normal range of motion in her shoulders, 26 Tr. 697, 855, 877, 921, and denied having fatigue, headaches and motor or sensory 27 loss or weakness, Tr. 682, 713, 945, 952, 966, 970, 986, 991, 997. Plaintiff has 28 consistently displayed normal mood and affect, Tr. 581, 634, 640, 669, 703, 709, ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION . . . - 14 1 739, 742, 744, 832; crisp speech and directed thought process, Tr. 627, 634, 640, 2 643, 669, 672, 674, 984; normal memory, concentration, and attention, Tr. 581, 3 988, 999; and grossly normal cognition, Tr. 984, and has additionally denied 4 anxiety, depression, memory loss or emotional problems, Tr. 580, 682, 738, 902. 5 The objective medical evidence is not consistent with Dr. Burkett’s extreme 6 limitation findings. 7 The Court finds the ALJ provided specific and legitimate evidence, 8 supported by substantial weight, for according minimal weight to the opinions of 9 Dr. Burkett. 10 CONCLUSION 11 Having reviewed the record and the ALJ’s findings, the Court finds the 12 ALJ’s decision is supported by substantial evidence and free of legal error. 13 Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED: 14 15 1. Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 15, is GRANTED. Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 14, is DENIED. 16 2. 17 The District Court Executive is directed to file this Order and provide a copy 18 to counsel for Plaintiff and Defendant. Judgment shall be entered for Defendant 19 and the file shall be CLOSED. 20 DATED January 2, 2019. 21 22 23 _____________________________________ JOHN T. RODGERS UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 24 25 26 27 28 ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION . . . - 15
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
