Parton v. Saul, No. 1:2019cv03160 - Document 17 (E.D. Wash. 2020)

Court Description: ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT. Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 14 ) is DENIED. Defendants Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 15 ) is GRANTED. The file is CLOSED. Signed by Chief Judge Thomas O. Rice. (LLH, Courtroom Deputy)

Download PDF

Parton v. Saul Doc. 17 1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 6 7 MOLLYE P., NO. 1:19-CV-3160-TOR Plaintiff, 8 v. 9 10 ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ANDREW M. SAUL, Commissioner of Social Security, 11 Defendant. 12 13 BEFORE THE COURT are the parties’ cross-motions for summary 14 judgment (ECF Nos. 14, 15). The Court has reviewed the administrative record 15 and the parties’ completed briefing and is fully informed. For the reasons 16 discussed below, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion and GRANTS Defendant’s 17 motion. 18 JURISDICTION 19 The Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 405(g), 1383(c)(3). 20 ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ~ 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 2 STANDARD OF REVIEW A district court’s review of a final decision of the Commissioner of Social 3 Security is governed by 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). The scope of review under § 405(g) is 4 limited: the Commissioner’s decision will be disturbed “only if it is not supported 5 by substantial evidence or is based on legal error.” Hill v. Astrue, 698 F.3d 1153, 6 1158-59 (9th Cir. 2012) (citing 42 U.S.C. § 405(g)). “Substantial evidence” means 7 relevant evidence that “a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a 8 conclusion.” Id. at 1159 (quotation and citation omitted). Stated differently, 9 substantial evidence equates to “more than a mere scintilla[,] but less than a 10 preponderance.” Id. (quotation and citation omitted). In determining whether this 11 standard has been satisfied, a reviewing court must consider the entire record as a 12 whole rather than searching for supporting evidence in isolation. Id. 13 In reviewing a denial of benefits, a district court may not substitute its 14 judgment for that of the Commissioner. Edlund v. Massanari, 253 F.3d 1152, 15 1156 (9th Cir. 2001). If the evidence in the record “is susceptible to more than one 16 rational interpretation, [the court] must uphold the ALJ’s findings if they are 17 supported by inferences reasonably drawn from the record.” Molina v. Astrue, 674 18 F.3d 1104, 1111 (9th Cir. 2012). Further, a district court “may not reverse an 19 ALJ’s decision on account of an error that is harmless.” Id. An error is harmless 20 “where it is inconsequential to the [ALJ’s] ultimate nondisability determination.” ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ~ 2 1 Id. at 1115 (quotation and citation omitted). The party appealing the ALJ’s 2 decision generally bears the burden of establishing that it was harmed. Shinseki v. 3 Sanders, 556 U.S. 396, 409-10 (2009). 4 5 FIVE STEP SEQUENTIAL EVALUATION PROCESS A claimant must satisfy two conditions to be considered “disabled” within 6 the meaning of the Social Security Act. First, the claimant must be “unable to 7 engage in any substantial gainful activity by reason of any medically determinable 8 physical or mental impairment which can be expected to result in death or which 9 has lasted or can be expected to last for a continuous period of not less than twelve 10 months.” 42 U.S.C. §§ 423(d)(1)(A), 1382c(a)(3)(A). Second, the claimant’s 11 impairment must be “of such severity that [he or she] is not only unable to do [his 12 or her] previous work[,] but cannot, considering [his or her] age, education, and 13 work experience, engage in any other kind of substantial gainful work which exists 14 in the national economy.” 42 U.S.C. §§ 423(d)(2)(A), 1382c(a)(3)(B). 15 The Commissioner has established a five-step sequential analysis to 16 determine whether a claimant satisfies the above criteria. See 20 §§ 17 404.1520(a)(4)(i)-(v), 416.920(a)(4)(i)-(v). At step one, the Commissioner 18 considers the claimant’s work activity. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(i), 19 416.920(a)(4)(i). If the claimant is engaged in “substantial gainful activity,” the 20 ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ~ 3 1 Commissioner must find that the claimant is not disabled. 20 C.F.R. §§ 2 404.1520(b), 416.920(b). 3 If the claimant is not engaged in substantial gainful activities, the analysis 4 proceeds to step two. At this step, the Commissioner considers the severity of the 5 claimant’s impairment. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(ii), 416.920(a)(4)(ii). If the 6 claimant suffers from “any impairment or combination of impairments which 7 significantly limits [his or her] physical or mental ability to do basic work 8 activities,” the analysis proceeds to step three. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(c), 9 416.920(c). If the claimant’s impairment does not satisfy this severity threshold, 10 11 however, the Commissioner must find that the claimant is not disabled. Id. At step three, the Commissioner compares the claimant’s impairment to 12 several impairments recognized by the Commissioner to be so severe as to 13 preclude a person from engaging in substantial gainful activity. 20 C.F.R. §§ 14 404.1520(a)(4)(iii), 416.920(a)(4)(iii). If the impairment is as severe or more 15 severe than one of the enumerated impairments, the Commissioner must find the 16 claimant disabled and award benefits. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(d), 416.920(d). 17 If the severity of the claimant’s impairment does meet or exceed the severity 18 of the enumerated impairments, the Commissioner must pause to assess the 19 claimant’s “residual functional capacity.” Residual functional capacity (“RFC”), 20 defined generally as the claimant’s ability to perform physical and mental work ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ~ 4 1 activities on a sustained basis despite his or her limitations (20 C.F.R. §§ 2 404.1545(a)(1), 416.945(a)(1)), is relevant to both the fourth and fifth steps of the 3 analysis. 4 At step four, the Commissioner considers whether, in view of the claimant’s 5 RFC, the claimant is capable of performing work that he or she has performed in 6 the past (“past relevant work”). 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(iv), 7 416.920(a)(4)(iv). If the claimant is capable of performing past relevant work, the 8 Commissioner must find that the claimant is not disabled. 20 C.F.R. §§ 9 404.1520(f), 416.920(f). If the claimant is incapable of performing such work, the 10 11 analysis proceeds to step five. At step five, the Commissioner considers whether, in view of the claimant’s 12 RFC, the claimant is capable of performing other work in the national economy. 13 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(v), 416.920(a)(4)(v). In making this determination, 14 the Commissioner must also consider vocational factors such as the claimant’s age, 15 education and work experience. Id. If the claimant is capable of adjusting to other 16 work, the Commissioner must find that the claimant is not disabled. 20 C.F.R. §§ 17 404.1520(g)(1), 416.920(g)(1). If the claimant is not capable of adjusting to other 18 work, the analysis concludes with a finding that the claimant is disabled and is 19 therefore entitled to benefits. Id. 20 ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ~ 5 1 The claimant bears the burden of proof at steps one through four above. 2 Tackett v. Apfel, 180 F.3d 1094, 1098 (9th Cir. 1999). If the analysis proceeds to 3 step five, the burden shifts to the Commissioner to establish that (1) the claimant is 4 capable of performing other work; and (2) such work “exists in significant 5 numbers in the national economy.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1560(c)(2), 416.960(c)(2); 6 Beltran v. Astrue, 700 F.3d 386, 389 (9th Cir. 2012). 7 ALJ’S FINDINGS 8 On March 19, 2015, Plaintiff filed applications for Title II disability 9 insurance benefits and Title XVI supplemental security income benefits, alleging 10 an onset date of November 22, 2014. Tr. 330-42. The applications were denied 11 initially, Tr. 202-25, and on reconsideration, Tr. 230-45. Plaintiff appeared at 12 hearings before an administrative law judge (“ALJ”) on November 9, 2017 and 13 July 9, 2018. Tr. 81-128. On July 24, 2018, the ALJ denied Plaintiff’s claim. Tr. 14 27-52. 15 As a threshold matter, the ALJ found Plaintiff met the insured status 16 requirements of the Social Security Act through December 31, 2014. Tr. 32. At 17 step one of the sequential evaluation analysis, the ALJ found Plaintiff had not 18 engaged in substantial gainful activity since November 22, 2014, the alleged onset 19 date. Tr. 33. At step two, the ALJ found Plaintiff had the following severe 20 impairments: cervical spine impairment, bilateral knee impairment, left shoulder ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ~ 6 1 impairment, hip impairment, headaches, and irritable bowel syndrome. Id. At step 2 three, the ALJ found Plaintiff did not have an impairment or combination of 3 impairments that meets or medically equals the severity of a listed impairment. Tr. 4 36-37. The ALJ then found Plaintiff had the RFC to perform work with the 5 following limitations: 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 [Plaintiff] has the residual functional capacity to lift and carry ten pounds frequently and twenty pounds occasionally. She can stand and/or walk (with normal breaks) for a total of two hours in an eight-hour workday. She can sit for a total of six hours in the same period. She can occasionally crouch, crawl, and climb ladders. She can frequently kneel, stoop, and climb ramps and stairs. She can occasionally reach overhead with her left arm. She should avoid concentrated exposure to pulmonary irritants. She will be offtask up to ten percent of an eight-hour workday. Her work tasks should not take her far from a restroom, such as for traveling to different job sites. Tr. 37. At step four, the ALJ found Plaintiff was capable of performing past relevant 13 work as a receptionist and as a proofreader. Tr. 43. Alternatively, at step five, the 14 ALJ found that, considering Plaintiff’s age, education, work experience, RFC, and 15 testimony from a vocational expert, there were other jobs that existed in significant 16 numbers in the national economy that Plaintiff could perform, such as maintenance 17 dispatcher, civil service clerk, and clerical sorter. Tr. 44. The ALJ concluded 18 Plaintiff was not under a disability, as defined in the Social Security Act, from 19 November 22, 2014 through July 24, 2018, the date of the ALJ’s decision. Tr. 45. 20 ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ~ 7 1 On June 3, 2019, the Appeals Council denied review, Tr. 1-6, making the 2 ALJ’s decision the Commissioner’s final decision for purposes of judicial review. 3 See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.981, 416.1484, and 422.210. 4 5 ISSUES Plaintiff seeks judicial review of the Commissioner’s final decision denying 6 her disability insurance benefits under Title II and supplemental security income 7 benefits under Title XVI of the Social Security Act. Plaintiff raises the following 8 issues for this Court’s review: 9 10 1. Whether the Appeals Council erred in declining to exhibit medical evidence submitted after the ALJ’s decision; 11 2. Whether the ALJ properly evaluated Plaintiff’s impairments at step two; 12 3. Whether the ALJ properly weighed Plaintiff’s symptom testimony; and 13 4. Whether the ALJ properly weighed the medical opinion evidence. 14 15 16 17 ECF No. 14 at 2. DISCUSSION A. New Evidence Before the Appeals Council Plaintiff contends the ALJ’s decision is not supported by substantial 18 evidence because the Appeals Council erroneously declined to exhibit medical 19 evidence submitted after the ALJ’s decision. ECF No. 14 at 4-5. 20 ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ~ 8 1 The Social Security regulations permit claimants to submit additional 2 evidence to the Appeals Council. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.900(b), 416.1400(b). The 3 Appeals Council is required to consider “new” and “material” evidence if it 4 “relates to the period on or before the date of the [ALJ’s] hearing decision” and 5 “there is a reasonable probability that the additional evidence would change the 6 outcome of the decision.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.970(a)(5) and (b), 416.1470(a)(5) and 7 (b). Evidence that meets the threshold criteria must be considered by the Appeals 8 Council and incorporated into the administrative record as evidence, “which the 9 district court must consider when reviewing the Commissioner’s final decision for 10 substantial evidence.” Brewes v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 682 F.3d 1157, 11 1163 (9th Cir. 2012). Pursuant to agency policy, a copy of evidence not meeting 12 the criteria and therefore not considered by the Appeals Council is nonetheless 13 included as part of the certified administrative record filed with this Court, 14 although by law, the evidence rejected falls outside the scope of the Court’s 15 substantial-evidence review. See Social Security Administration’s Hearings, 16 Appeals, and Litigation Law Manual (“HALLEX”), HALLEX § I-3-5-20, 17 available at https://www.ssa.gov/OP_Home/hallex/I-03/I-3-5-20.html (addressing 18 how additional evidence is to be handled when the Appeals Council denies a 19 request for review and does not consider the evidence, stating a copy of the 20 ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ~ 9 1 evidence will be associated in the file and “included in the certified administrative 2 record if the case is appealed to Federal court”). 3 “‘Consider’ is a term of art in the context of the Appeals Council’s denial of 4 request for review.” Ruth v. Berryhill, No. 1:16-CV-0872-PK, 2017 WL 4855400, 5 at *9 (D. Or. Oct. 26, 2017). The Appeals Council will first “look at” newly 6 submitted evidence to make a threshold determination of relevance, and if the new 7 evidence meets that threshold, the Appeals Council will then “consider” the 8 evidence and incorporate it into the administrative record. Id. Where the Appeals 9 Council declines to consider the additional evidence, it is not made part of the 10 evidence contained in the administrative record that is subject to this Court’s 11 substantial evidence review. Brewes, 682 F.3d at 1163; see Ruth, 2017 WL 12 4855400 at *8-*10 (citing other district court decisions in the Ninth Circuit holding 13 that that new evidence that the Appeals Council looked at and then rejected did not 14 become part of the administrative record subject to the Court’s substantial evidence 15 review). 16 In this case, Plaintiff submitted a medical opinion report and treatment notes 17 from Dr. Jackson, Plaintiff’s treating physician, to the Appeals Council. Tr. 12-24. 18 The report and the treatment notes are both dated August 23, 2018, after the date of 19 the ALJ’s decision. Id. The Appeals Council reviewed this evidence but declined 20 to exhibit it, concluding that this new evidence did not “show a reasonable ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ~ 10 1 probability that it would change the outcome of the decision.” Tr. 2. Because the 2 Appeals Council looked at but did not consider Dr. Jackson’s August 2018 3 opinion, it is not now subject to this Court’s substantial evidence review. Plaintiff 4 is not entitled to relief on these grounds. 5 6 B. Step Two Plaintiff contends the ALJ failed to identify all of Plaintiff’s severe 7 impairments at step two. ECF No. 14 at 5-7. At step two of the sequential process, 8 the ALJ must determine whether claimant suffers from a “severe” impairment, i.e., 9 one that significantly limits her physical or mental ability to do basic work 10 activities. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(c), 416.920(c). To show a severe impairment, 11 the claimant must first prove the existence of a physical or mental impairment by 12 providing medical evidence consisting of signs, symptoms, and laboratory 13 findings; the claimant’s own statement of symptoms alone will not suffice. 20 14 C.F.R. §§ 404.1521, 416.921. 15 An impairment may be found to be not severe when “medical evidence 16 establishes only a slight abnormality or a combination of slight abnormalities 17 which would have no more than a minimal effect on an individual’s ability to 18 work….” Social Security Ruling (SSR) 85-28, 1985 WL 56856, at *3. Similarly, 19 an impairment is not severe if it does not significantly limit a claimant’s physical 20 or mental ability to do basic work activities; which include walking, standing, ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ~ 11 1 sitting, lifting, pushing, pulling, reaching, carrying, or handling; seeing, hearing, 2 and speaking; understanding, carrying out and remembering simple instructions; 3 responding appropriately to supervision, coworkers and usual work situations; and 4 dealing with changes in a routine work setting. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1522, 416.922; 5 SSR 85-28. 6 Step two is “a de minimus screening device [used] to dispose of groundless 7 claims.” Smolen v. Chater, 80 F.3d 1273, 1290 (9th Cir. 1996). “Thus, applying 8 our normal standard of review to the requirements of step two, [the Court] must 9 determine whether the ALJ had substantial evidence to find that the medical 10 evidence clearly established that [Plaintiff] did not have a medically severe 11 impairment or combination of impairments.” Webb v. Barnhart, 433 F.3d 683, 687 12 (9th Cir. 2005). 13 Plaintiff contends the ALJ should have identified Plaintiff’s right arm pain 14 and lumbar spine pain as severe impairments at step two. ECF No. 14 at 5-7. 15 Even if the ALJ should have identified these impairments as severe, any error 16 would be harmless because the step was resolved in Plaintiff’s favor. See Stout v. 17 Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 454 F.3d 1050, 1055 (9th Cir. 2006); Burch v. 18 Barnhart, 400 F.3d 676, 682 (9th Cir. 2005). Plaintiff makes no showing that 19 these conditions create limitations not already accounted for in the RFC. See 20 Shinseki, 556 U.S. at 409-10 (the party challenging the ALJ’s decision bears the ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ~ 12 1 burden of showing harm). Indeed, the ALJ’s consideration of the medical 2 evidence discusses Plaintiff’s pain allegations, including related hip and neck pain 3 symptoms, and includes extensive citation to Plaintiff’s musculoskeletal 4 examinations and imaging. Tr. 37-43. Although Plaintiff cites to Dr. Jackson’s 5 opinion to show that Plaintiff’s right arm and lumbar spine impairments caused 6 functional limitations, the ALJ provided specific and legitimate reason to discredit 7 Dr. Jackson’s opinion. ECF No. 14 at 6-7; see infra. The Court “may neither 8 reweigh the evidence nor substitute its judgment for that of the Commissioner.” 9 Blacktongue v. Berryhill, 229 F. Supp. 3d 1216, 1218 (W.D. Wash. 2017) (citing 10 Thomas v. Barnhart, 278 F.3d 947, 954 (9th Cir. 2002)). Plaintiff is not entitled to 11 relief on these grounds. 12 13 14 15 C. Plaintiff’s Symptom Testimony Plaintiff contends the ALJ failed to rely on clear and convincing reasons to discredit her symptom testimony. ECF No. 14 at 15-21. An ALJ engages in a two-step analysis to determine whether to discount a 16 claimant’s testimony regarding subjective symptoms. SSR 16-3p, 2016 WL 17 1119029, at *2. “First, the ALJ must determine whether there is ‘objective 18 medical evidence of an underlying impairment which could reasonably be 19 expected to produce the pain or other symptoms alleged.’” Molina, 674 F.3d at 20 1112 (quoting Vasquez v. Astrue, 572 F.3d 586, 591 (9th Cir. 2009)). “The ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ~ 13 1 claimant is not required to show that [the claimant’s] impairment ‘could reasonably 2 be expected to cause the severity of the symptom [the claimant] has alleged; [the 3 claimant] need only show that it could reasonably have caused some degree of the 4 symptom.’” Vasquez, 572 F.3d at 591 (quoting Lingenfelter v. Astrue, 504 F.3d 5 1028, 1035-36 (9th Cir. 2007)). 6 Second, “[i]f the claimant meets the first test and there is no evidence of 7 malingering, the ALJ can only reject the claimant’s testimony about the severity of 8 the symptoms if [the ALJ] gives ‘specific, clear and convincing reasons’ for the 9 rejection.” Ghanim v. Colvin, 763 F.3d 1154, 1163 (9th Cir. 2014) (citations 10 omitted). General findings are insufficient; rather, the ALJ must identify what 11 symptom claims are being discounted and what evidence undermines these claims. 12 Id. (quoting Lester v. Chater, 81 F.3d 821, 834 (9th Cir. 1995)); Thomas, 278 F.3d 13 at 958 (requiring the ALJ to sufficiently explain why he or she discounted 14 claimant’s symptom claims). “The clear and convincing [evidence] standard is the 15 most demanding required in Social Security cases.” Garrison v. Colvin, 759 F.3d 16 995, 1015 (9th Cir. 2014) (quoting Moore v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 278 F.3d 17 920, 924 (9th Cir. 2002)). 18 Factors to be considered in evaluating the intensity, persistence, and limiting 19 effects of a claimant’s symptoms include: (1) daily activities; (2) the location, 20 duration, frequency, and intensity of pain or other symptoms; (3) factors that ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ~ 14 1 precipitate and aggravate the symptoms; (4) the type, dosage, effectiveness, and 2 side effects of any medication an individual takes or has taken to alleviate pain or 3 other symptoms; (5) treatment, other than medication, an individual receives or has 4 received for relief of pain or other symptoms; (6) any measures other than 5 treatment an individual uses or has used to relieve pain or other symptoms; and (7) 6 any other factors concerning an individual’s functional limitations and restrictions 7 due to pain or other symptoms. SSR 16-3p, 2016 WL 1119029, at *7-*8; 20 8 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c), 416.929(c). The ALJ is instructed to “consider all of the 9 evidence in an individual’s record,” “to determine how symptoms limit ability to 10 11 perform work-related activities.” SSR 16-3p, 2016 WL 1119029, at *2. The ALJ found Plaintiff’s impairments could reasonably be expected to 12 cause the alleged symptoms; however, Plaintiff’s statements concerning the 13 intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of those symptoms were not entirely 14 consistent with the evidence. Tr. 38. 15 1. Lack of Supporting Medical Evidence 16 The ALJ found Plaintiff’s symptom complaints were not supported by the 17 objective medical evidence. Tr. 38-40. An ALJ may not discredit a claimant’s 18 symptom testimony and deny benefits solely because the degree of the symptoms 19 alleged is not supported by objective medical evidence. Rollins v. Massanari, 261 20 F.3d 853, 857 (9th Cir. 2001); Bunnell v. Sullivan, 947 F.2d 341, 346-47 (9th Cir. ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ~ 15 1 1991); Fair v. Bowen, 885 F.2d 597, 601 (9th Cir. 1989); Burch, 400 F.3d at 680. 2 However, the objective medical evidence is a relevant factor in determining the 3 severity of a claimant’s symptoms and their disabling effects. Rollins, 261 F.3d at 4 857; 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(2), 416.929(c)(2). 5 Here, the ALJ found that Plaintiff’s physical examination and imaging 6 results were inconsistent with her allegations of disabling knee pain. Tr. 39-40; see 7 Tr. 464-65 (October 29, 2014: Plaintiff presented with normal gait, full weight 8 bearing ability, no assistive devices, mild swelling in left knee, mild crepitation in 9 right knee, and “excellent range of motion of left knee” despite significant pain 10 complaints); Tr. 595-96 (April 15, 2015: physical examination showed normal gait 11 and strength in knees and 140 degrees of flexion in knees); Tr. 557 (May 5, 2015: 12 musculoskeletal examination showed no deformities, full functional range of 13 motion, normal gait, station, and balance, and no atrophy); Tr. 791-92 (November 14 3, 2016: physical examination following knee surgery showed full active pain-free 15 range of motion and Plaintiff ambulated well without an assistive device); Tr. 803 16 (February 18, 2017: physical examination of lower extremities showed normal 17 range of motion); Tr. 779 (May 24, 2017: Plaintiff displayed normal gait, full 18 strength in lower extremities, and at least 130 degrees of flexion in both knees); Tr. 19 1370 (September 21, 2017: physical examination showed active, pain-free range of 20 motion in both knees). The ALJ also found that Plaintiff’s allegations of disabling ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ~ 16 1 hip pain were not supported by the objective evidence. Tr. 39-40; see Tr. 507 2 (January 5, 2015: imaging of Plaintiff’s hip showed mild degenerative changes); 3 Tr. 502 (March 24, 2015: MRI showed labral tear of left hip); Tr. 557 (May 5, 4 2015: musculoskeletal examination showed no deformities, full functional range of 5 motion, normal gait, station, and balance, and no atrophy); Tr. 610-11 (October 26, 6 2015: Plaintiff underwent hip arthroscopy with limited labral debridement); Tr. 7 803 (February 18, 2017: physical examination of lower extremities showed normal 8 range of motion); Tr. 772 (July 20, 2017: Plaintiff reported bilateral hip pain but 9 exhibited negative FADIR test, mildly positive Faber test, negative straight leg 10 raise test, and normal gait); Tr. 1370 (September 21, 2017: physical examination 11 showed active, pain-free range of motion in both hips); Tr. 1525 (April 9, 2018: 12 MRI showed left hip chondral loss). Additionally, the ALJ noted that Plaintiff’s 13 allegations of disabling IBS were inconsistent with her record of minimal weight 14 fluctuation, benign abdominal examinations, and no record of treatment for severe 15 abdominal pain, poorly controlled diarrhea, or considerable weight loss. Tr. 40; 16 see Tr. 557 (May 5, 2015: Plaintiff denied weight loss); Tr. 1120 (February 5, 17 2016: Plaintiff reported some abdominal pain and diarrhea but did not receive 18 treatment for gastrointestinal issues); Tr. 1122 (February 29, 2016: abdominal 19 examination showed tenderness on left lower quadrant only; Plaintiff encouraged 20 to seek treatment for IBS); Tr. 1462 (April 28, 2016: abdominal examination ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ~ 17 1 normal); Tr. 905 (May 14, 2016: same); Tr. 1425 (September 7, 2016: same); Tr. 2 818 (November 2, 2016: same); Tr. 802-03 (February 18, 2017: same); Tr. 805 3 (July 18, 2017: same); Tr. 1108 (October 2, 2017: same, no abdominal tenderness); 4 Tr. 1122 (December 19, 2017: same). The ALJ reasonably concluded that this 5 evidence was inconsistent with the degree of impairment Plaintiff alleged. 6 Plaintiff challenges the ALJ’s findings by identifying evidence in the record 7 that supports Plaintiff’s symptom allegations, including evidence of painful range 8 of motion, use of a walker and cane following surgery, periods of notable weight 9 loss, and reports of abdominal pain. ECF No. 14 at 16-18. However, the Court 10 may not reverse the ALJ’s decision based on Plaintiff’s disagreement with the 11 ALJ’s interpretation of the record. See Tommasetti v. Astrue, 533 F.3d 1035, 1038 12 (9th Cir. 2008) (“[W]hen the evidence is susceptible to more than one rational 13 interpretation” the court will not reverse the ALJ’s decision). The Court will only 14 disturb the ALJ’s findings if they are not supported by substantial evidence. Hill, 15 698 F.3d at 1158. Here, despite the evidence Plaintiff identifies, the ALJ’s 16 conclusion that Plaintiff’s symptom allegations were not supported by the 17 objective medical evidence remains supported by substantial evidence. 18 2. Improvement with Treatment 19 The ALJ found Plaintiff’s symptom allegations were inconsistent with her 20 record of improvement with treatment. Tr. 39-40. The effectiveness of treatment ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ~ 18 1 is a relevant factor in determining the severity of a claimant’s symptoms. 20 2 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(3), 416.929(c)(3); Warre v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 3 439 F.3d 1001, 1006 (9th Cir. 2006) (determining that conditions effectively 4 controlled with medication are not disabling for purposes of determining eligibility 5 for benefits); Tommasetti, 533 F.3d at 1040 (recognizing that a favorable response 6 to treatment can undermine a claimant’s complaints of debilitating pain or other 7 severe limitations). Here, the ALJ noted that, following knee surgery, Plaintiff 8 reported doing “excellent,” that she had no more pain in her left knee, and that she 9 had full range of motion in her knee for the first time in fifteen years. Tr. 40; see 10 Tr. 791. The ALJ reasonably concluded that this evidence was inconsistent with 11 Plaintiff’s testimony that her knee pain increased after surgery. Tr. 40; see Tr. 12 108-09. The ALJ also observed Plaintiff reported improvement in her pain 13 symptoms and daily functioning following cervical spine surgery. Tr. 39; see Tr. 14 1273 (October 11, 2017: Plaintiff reported resolution of finger numbness following 15 neck surgery, displayed full strength, and was observed to be doing well with 16 functional mobility and activities of daily living); Tr. 1190 (February 2, 2018: 17 Plaintiff reported pain relief from neck surgery helped improve her moods “quite a 18 lot”). The ALJ reasonably concluded that this evidence was inconsistent with 19 Plaintiff’s symptom testimony that her neck pain persisted following surgery. Tr. 20 39; see Tr. 106-07. ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ~ 19 1 Plaintiff challenges the ALJ’s conclusion by arguing for a different 2 interpretation of this evidence, but this does not provide grounds to reverse the 3 ALJ’s findings. ECF No. 14 at 16-17; see Tommasetti, 533 F.3d at 1038. The 4 ALJ’s finding remains supported by substantial evidence. 5 3. Drug-Seeking Behavior 6 The ALJ found Plaintiff’s subjective symptom reporting was undermined by 7 evidence of drug-seeking behavior throughout the record. Tr. 39-41. Drug- 8 seeking behavior can be a clear and convincing reason to discount a claimant’s 9 credibility. Edlund, 253 F.3d at 1157-58 (holding that evidence that the claimant 10 exaggerated physical pain complaints to receive prescription narcotics provided 11 clear and convincing reason to discredit the claimant’s subjective allegations). 12 Here, the ALJ found that Plaintiff’s “complaints of headache appear to be a means 13 of obtaining prescription opiates.” Tr. 39. The ALJ noted that Plaintiff presented 14 at an August 25, 2017 medical appointment reporting headaches, back pain, and 15 neck stiffness, but displayed a full range of motion and normal muscle strength and 16 tone in her head, neck, and back. Tr. 39; see Tr. 970. The ALJ then observed that 17 on the following day, Plaintiff presented to the emergency room complaining of 18 uncontrolled headaches and neck pain due to a motor vehicle accident two weeks 19 prior and displayed painful range of motion in the neck. Tr. 39; see Tr. 989. 20 However, the ALJ observed that objective imaging of Plaintiff’s spine taken during ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ~ 20 1 her emergency room visit did not show any changes from her January 2017 2 imaging. Tr. 39; see Tr. 990-92. Additionally, during this visit, Plaintiff was 3 given Tylenol for pain and instructed to limit her narcotic use, but Plaintiff refused 4 the Tylenol and instead requested narcotic pain medications, which were given 5 despite Plaintiff’s admission that another provider had recently discontinued her 6 narcotic prescription. Id. The ALJ reasonably concluded that this evidence 7 indicated Plaintiff exaggerated her symptoms to obtain narcotics. Tr. 39. 8 The ALJ also noted several instances in which Plaintiff sought excessive 9 quantities of narcotic pain medications or abused her medications. Tr. 40-41; see 10 Tr. 469-71 (September 3, 2014: Plaintiff established care with a new provider and 11 sought refill of Gabapentin; the provider then discovered Plaintiff filled the same 12 prescription for 100 tablets approximately 3 weeks earlier and admonished 13 Plaintiff to manage her refill quantity); Tr. 1113 (August 27, 2015: Plaintiff was 14 cautioned about violating her pain agreement for accepting hydrocodone 15 prescriptions from her dentist; Plaintiff was also noted to have received excessive 16 codeine cough syrup prescriptions since March 2015); Tr. 1146 (October 5, 2016: 17 PA Urakawa informed Plaintiff he would no longer prescribe both benzodiazepines 18 and opioids and Plaintiff would have to choose which medication to continue); Tr. 19 764 (November 9, 2016: Plaintiff established care with Dr. Jackson and was 20 prescribed hydrocodone in addition to an existing benzodiazepine prescription); Tr. ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ~ 21 1 713 (November 11, 2016: Plaintiff reported marijuana use and recreational 2 narcotics use); Tr. 1205 (August 25, 2017: Plaintiff reported stealing her 3 boyfriend’s pain medication); Tr. 1210 (December 5, 2017: Plaintiff reported 4 having an arrangement at home where her boyfriend would lock up her pain 5 medications and dispense them to her as needed); Tr. 1082 (December 19, 2017: 6 Plaintiff went to the emergency room with chest pain and was given Percocet and 7 clonidine before treating providers realized Plaintiff’s primary care provider had 8 already prescribed and was tapering down oxycodone); Tr. 1291 (December 19, 9 2017: Plaintiff’s chest pain diagnosed as opiate withdrawal and atypical chest 10 pain). Plaintiff challenges the ALJ’s conclusion by arguing for a different 11 interpretation of this evidence, but this does not provide grounds to reverse the 12 ALJ’s findings. ECF No. 14 at 18-20; see Tommasetti, 533 F.3d at 1038 (“[W]hen 13 the evidence is susceptible to more than one rational interpretation” the court will 14 not reverse the ALJ’s decision). The ALJ reasonably concluded that this evidence 15 demonstrated drug-seeking behavior. This finding remains supported by 16 substantial evidence. 17 4. Inconsistent Statements 18 The ALJ found Plaintiff’s subjective symptom reporting was undermined by 19 evidence of inconsistent statements in the record. Tr. 41-42. In evaluating a 20 claimant’s symptom claims, an ALJ may consider the consistency of an ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ~ 22 1 individual’s own statements made in connection with the disability-review process 2 with any other existing statements or conduct under other circumstances. Smolen, 3 80 F.3d at 1284 (the ALJ may consider “ordinary techniques of credibility 4 evaluation,” such as prior inconsistent statements concerning symptoms and other 5 testimony that “appears less than candid”). Conflicting or inconsistent statements 6 about drug use are appropriate grounds for the ALJ to discount a claimant’s 7 reported symptoms. Thomas, 278 F.3d at 959. 8 Here, the ALJ noted that Plaintiff inconsistently reported her marijuana use 9 to different providers. Tr. 41; see Tr. 664 (Plaintiff reported marijuana use as early 10 as December 2013); Tr. 469 (September 3, 2014: Plaintiff established care with PA 11 Urakawa and reported discontinuing marijuana use 30 years ago); Tr. 456 (October 12 17, 2014: Plaintiff endorsed current marijuana use); Tr. 537 (November 3, 2014: 13 Plaintiff reported using marijuana at least three to five times weekly to Lourdes 14 Counseling Center); Tr. 541 (December 10, 2014: Plaintiff reported daily 15 marijuana use to Lourdes); Tr. 479 (December 16, 2014: PA Urakawa learned of 16 Plaintiff’s marijuana use from Plaintiff’s Lourdes treatment notes). The ALJ 17 reasonably concluded that Plaintiff inconsistently reported her marijuana use. 18 The ALJ also found inconsistency where Plaintiff testified that she 19 discontinued her master’s degree program due to neck pain, but other evidence in 20 the record indicated Plaintiff reported she had pursued her master’s degree until ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ~ 23 1 she discovered there were no practicum sites in her area. Tr. 42; compare Tr. 107 2 with Tr. 139. Additionally, the ALJ noted that despite testifying at the hearing that 3 Plaintiff’s pain symptoms caused significant limitations in concentration, Plaintiff 4 reported elsewhere that she had no problems paying attention. Tr. 42; compare Tr. 5 109 with Tr. 397 and Tr. 416. Plaintiff challenges the ALJ’s conclusion by arguing 6 for a different interpretation of this evidence, but this does not provide grounds to 7 reverse the ALJ’s findings. ECF No. 14 at 19-21; see Tommasetti, 533 F.3d at 8 1038. The ALJ’s finding remains supported by substantial evidence. 9 5. Failure to Follow Treatment Recommendations 10 The ALJ found Plaintiff’s subjective symptom reporting was undermined by 11 her record of not following her treatment providers’ recommendations. Tr. 41. “A 12 claimant’s subjective symptom testimony may be undermined by an unexplained, 13 or inadequately explained, failure to . . . follow a prescribed course of treatment.” 14 Trevizo v. Berryhill, 871 F.3d 664, 679 (9th Cir. 2017) (citations omitted). Failure 15 to assert a reason for not following treatment “can cast doubt on the sincerity of the 16 claimant’s pain testimony.” Id. Here, the ALJ noted that Plaintiff refused to 17 discontinue using narcotic pain medication despite Dr. Sloop, Plaintiff’s treating 18 neurologist, informing Plaintiff that her headaches were likely caused by her 19 hydrocodone use. Tr. 41; see Tr. 625-26 (January 4, 2016: Dr. Sloop found 20 Plaintiff’s headaches were caused by rebound from daily hydrocodone use; ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ~ 24 1 Plaintiff refused to discontinue hydrocodone and Dr. Sloop was unwilling to 2 prescribe other medications until Plaintiff discontinued hydrocodone); Tr. 620 3 (July 7, 2016: Dr. Sloop again unwilling to treat Plaintiff’s headaches due to 4 Plaintiff’s refusal to discontinue narcotics use). Additionally, the ALJ noted that 5 Plaintiff continued to use marijuana despite being counseled to stop marijuana use 6 while on chronic opiate therapy. Tr. 41; see Tr. 756 (December 1, 2016: Plaintiff 7 counseled that she should not use marijuana while on chronic narcotic therapy); Tr. 8 1091 (November 3, 2017: same); Tr. 1067 (November 3, 2017: urine drug screen 9 positive for marijuana, oxycodone, and benzodiazepines); Tr. 1064-65 (April 16, 10 2018: urine drug screen positive for marijuana and oxycodone). The ALJ 11 reasonably concluded that Plaintiff’s failure to follow treatment recommendations 12 and instructions undermined her subjective symptom complaints. 13 Plaintiff contends that she did not follow Dr. Sloop’s recommendation to 14 discontinue hydrocodone because her medical providers disagreed about a course 15 of treatment. ECF No. 14 at 18-19 (citing SSR 18-3p, 2018 WL 4945641, at *5). 16 Specifically, Plaintiff notes that PA Urakawa continued to prescribe hydrocodone 17 following Dr. Sloop’s recommendation that Plaintiff stop using hydrocodone. Id.; 18 see, e.g., Tr. 1122. Even if this finding is error, it is harmless because the ALJ’s 19 other finding regarding Plaintiff’s combined use of marijuana and narcotics against 20 medical advice remains supported by substantial evidence. Molina, 674 F.3d at ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ~ 25 1 1115 (an error is harmless “where it is inconsequential to the [ALJ’s] ultimate 2 nondisability determination”) (quotation and citation omitted). Plaintiff is not 3 entitled to relief on these grounds. 4 6. Daily Activities 5 The ALJ may consider a claimant’s activities that undermine reported 6 symptoms. Rollins, 261 F.3d at 857. If a claimant can spend a substantial part of 7 the day engaged in pursuits involving the performance of exertional or non- 8 exertional functions, the ALJ may find these activities inconsistent with the 9 reported disabling symptoms. Fair, 885 F.2d at 603; Molina, 674 F.3d at 1113. 10 “While a claimant need not vegetate in a dark room in order to be eligible for 11 benefits, the ALJ may discount a claimant’s symptom claims when the claimant 12 reports participation in everyday activities indicating capacities that are 13 transferable to a work setting” or when activities “contradict claims of a totally 14 debilitating impairment.” Molina, 674 F.3d at 1112-13. 15 Here, the ALJ noted that Plaintiff’s travel activities were inconsistent with 16 the specific limitations she alleged. Tr. 42; compare Tr. 107, 120 (Plaintiff 17 reported being able to sit for no more than 30 minutes at a time and being able to 18 do housework for about 15 minutes before needing 30 minutes of rest) with Tr. 19 476-77 (Plaintiff took an approximately five-week trip to Texas in late 2014); Tr. 20 548 (Plaintiff took a vacation to Mexico in early 2015); Tr. 1168 (Plaintiff reported ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ~ 26 1 being able to drive herself from Yakima to the Tri-Cities and Coos Bay, Oregon 2 without problems); Tr. 1115 (Plaintiff took a week-long trip to Texas in late 2015); 3 Tr. 1119-20 (Plaintiff took a second vacation to Mexico in early 2016). The ALJ 4 reasonably concluded that these activities were inconsistent with the specific 5 sitting and rest limitations Plaintiff alleged. Plaintiff challenges the ALJ’s 6 conclusion by arguing for a different interpretation of this evidence, but this does 7 not provide grounds to reverse the ALJ’s findings. ECF No. 14 at 21; see 8 Tommasetti, 533 F.3d at 1038. This finding is supported by substantial evidence. 9 10 D. Medical Opinion Evidence Plaintiff challenges the ALJ’s evaluation of the medical opinions of Caryn 11 Jackson, M.D.; Howard Platter, M.D.; Alnoor Virji, M.D.; Trula Thompson, M.D.; 12 and J. Dalton, M.D. ECF No. 14 at 7-15. 13 There are three types of physicians: “(1) those who treat the claimant 14 (treating physicians); (2) those who examine but do not treat the claimant 15 (examining physicians); and (3) those who neither examine nor treat the claimant 16 [but who review the claimant's file] (nonexamining [or reviewing] physicians).” 17 Holohan v. Massanari, 246 F.3d 1195, 1201-02 (9th Cir. 2001) (citations omitted). 18 Generally, the opinion of a treating physician carries more weight than the opinion 19 of an examining physician, and the opinion of an examining physician carries more 20 weight than the opinion of a reviewing physician. Id. In addition, the ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ~ 27 1 Commissioner’s regulations give more weight to opinions that are explained than 2 to opinions that are not, and to the opinions of specialists on matters relating to 3 their area of expertise over the opinions of non-specialists. Id. (citations omitted). 4 If a treating or examining physician’s opinion is uncontradicted, an ALJ may 5 reject it only by offering “clear and convincing reasons that are supported by 6 substantial evidence.” Bayliss v. Barnhart, 427 F.3d 1211, 1216 (9th Cir. 2005). 7 “However, the ALJ need not accept the opinion of any physician, including a 8 treating physician, if that opinion is brief, conclusory and inadequately supported 9 by clinical findings.” Bray v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 554 F.3d 1219, 1228 10 (9th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks and brackets omitted). “If a treating or 11 examining doctor’s opinion is contradicted by another doctor’s opinion, an ALJ 12 may only reject it by providing specific and legitimate reasons that are supported 13 by substantial evidence.” Id. (citing Lester, 81 F.3d at 830-831). The opinion of a 14 nonexamining physician may serve as substantial evidence if it is supported by 15 other independent evidence in the record. Andrews v. Shalala, 53 F.3d 1035, 1041 16 (9th Cir. 1995). 17 1. Dr. Jackson 18 Dr. Jackson, Plaintiff’s treating physician, opined on May 30, 2017 that due 19 to pain in multiple joints, including knees, hips, and neck, Plaintiff was unable to 20 meet the demands of sedentary work. Tr. 976-78. On September 7, 2017, Dr. ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ~ 28 1 Jackson similarly opined Plaintiff was not capable of performing any type of work 2 on a reasonably continuous, sustained basis. Tr. 1054. The ALJ gave these 3 opinions minimal weight. Tr. 43. Because Dr. Jackson’s opinion was contradicted 4 by Dr. Platter, Tr. 156-57, and Dr. Virji, Tr. 181-83, the ALJ was required to 5 provide specific and legitimate reasons for rejecting Dr. Jackson’s opinion.1 6 Bayliss, 427 F.3d at 1216. 7 First, the ALJ found Dr. Jackson’s opinion was inconsistent with her own 8 treatment notes. Tr. 43. Relevant factors to evaluating any medical opinion 9 include the amount of relevant evidence that supports the opinion, the quality of 10 the explanation provided in the opinion, and the consistency of the medical opinion 11 12 1 Plaintiff asserts that because Dr. Jackson’s opinion was contradicted by 13 agency reviewing physicians, whose opinions were rendered prior to some of the 14 medical evidence of record, the ALJ should have provided clear and convincing 15 reasons to discredit Dr. Jackson’s opinion. ECF No. 14 at 8-9 (citing Beecher v. 16 Heckler, 756 F.2d 693, 695 (9th Cir. 1985)). Plaintiff’s argument misconstrues 17 Beecher and is inconsistent with more recent case law. See, e.g., Ford v. Saul, --- 18 F.3d ---, 2020 WL 829864, at *7 (9th Cir. Feb. 20, 2020) (applying the “specific 19 and legitimate” standard to a treating physician’s opinion contradicted by agency 20 reviewing physicians’ opinions). ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ~ 29 1 with the record as a whole. Lingenfelter, 504 F.3d at 1042; Orn v. Astrue, 495 2 F.3d 625, 631 (9th Cir. 2007). Moreover, a physician’s opinion may be rejected if 3 it is unsupported by the physician’s treatment notes. See Connett v. Barnhart, 340 4 F.3d 871, 875 (9th Cir. 2003). In support of her opinion, Dr. Jackson completed a 5 range of motion evaluation chart showing Plaintiff had reduced range of motion. 6 Tr. 979. However, the ALJ found that these results were inconsistent with Dr. 7 Jackson’s longitudinal treatment notes, which documented normal physical 8 examination findings. Tr. 43; see Tr. 771 (November 9, 2016: normal physical 9 examination including normal neck examination); Tr. 762 (December 1, 2016: 10 normal physical examination with nonspecific swelling to right lateral aspect of 11 neck); Tr. 755 (March 14, 2017: normal physical examination including normal 12 neck examination); Tr. 897 (May 30, 2017: same); Tr. 876 (June 27, 2017: same). 13 The ALJ reasonably concluded that Dr. Jackson’s opinion was inconsistent with 14 the longitudinal findings in her own treatment notes. This finding is supported by 15 substantial evidence. 16 Second, the ALJ found Dr. Jackson’s opinion was inconsistent with other 17 physical examination evidence in the record. Tr. 43. An ALJ may discredit 18 physicians’ opinions that are unsupported by the record as a whole. Batson v. 19 Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 359 F.3d 1190, 1195 (9th Cir. 2004). As discussed 20 supra, the ALJ noted that the record as a whole contains substantial evidence of ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ~ 30 1 normal physical examination results, including normal range of motion findings. 2 See Tr. 464-65 (October 29, 2014: Plaintiff reported ongoing knee pain but 3 presented with normal gait, full weight bearing ability, no assistive devices, mild 4 swelling in left knee, mild crepitation in right knee, and “excellent range of motion 5 of left knee” despite significant pain complaints); Tr. 595-96 (April 15, 2015: 6 physical examination showed normal gait and strength in knees and 140 degrees of 7 flexion in knees); Tr. 557 (May 5, 2015: musculoskeletal examination showed no 8 deformities, full functional range of motion, normal gait, station, and balance, and 9 no atrophy); Tr. 791-92 (November 3, 2016: physical examination following knee 10 surgery showed full active pain-free range of motion and Plaintiff ambulated well 11 without an assistive device); Tr. 803 (February 18, 2017: physical examination of 12 lower extremities showed normal range of motion); Tr. 779 (May 24, 2017: 13 Plaintiff displayed normal gait, full strength in lower extremities, and at least 130 14 degrees of flexion in both knees); Tr. 1370 (September 21, 2017: physical 15 examination showed active, pain-free range of motion in both knees); see also Tr. 16 557 (May 5, 2015: musculoskeletal examination showed no deformities, full 17 functional range of motion, normal gait, station, and balance, and no atrophy); Tr. 18 803 (February 18, 2017: physical examination of lower extremities showed normal 19 range of motion); Tr. 772 (July 20, 2017: Plaintiff reported bilateral hip pain but 20 exhibited negative FADIR test, mildly positive Faber test, negative straight leg ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ~ 31 1 raise test, and normal gait); Tr. 1370 (September 21, 2017: physical examination 2 showed active, pain-free range of motion in both hips). The ALJ reasonably 3 concluded that this evidence was inconsistent with the limitations Dr. Jackson 4 opined. This finding is supported by substantial evidence. 5 Third, the ALJ found Dr. Jackson’s opinion was formed in reliance on 6 Plaintiff’s subjective symptom reporting. Tr. 43. A medical opinion may be 7 rejected by the ALJ if it was inadequately supported by medical findings and based 8 too heavily on the claimant’s properly discounted complaints. Bray, 554 F.3d at 9 1228; Tonapetyan v. Halter, 242 F.3d 1144, 1149 (9th Cir. 2001); see also Edlund, 10 253 F.3d at 1157 (the ALJ may properly discount a medical opinion that is 11 rendered without knowledge of scope of claimant’s drug-seeking behavior). 12 However, when an opinion is not more heavily based on a patient’s self-reports 13 than on clinical observations, there is no evidentiary basis for rejecting the opinion. 14 Ghanim, 763 F.3d at 1162; Ryan v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 528 F.3d 1194, 1199- 15 1200 (9th Cir. 2008). 16 Here, in light of the lack of physical examination findings to support the 17 level of limitation Dr. Jackson opined, the ALJ reasonably considered Dr. 18 Jackson’s reliance on Plaintiff’s self-reporting. As discussed supra, the ALJ found 19 that Plaintiff’s symptom reporting was entitled to less weight because of evidence 20 of Plaintiff’s drug-seeking behavior, including during Plaintiff’s treatment with Dr. ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ~ 32 1 Jackson. Because of this finding, the ALJ reasonably concluded that Dr. Jackson’s 2 opinion was entitled to less weight for being based on Plaintiff’s self-reports. This 3 finding is supported by substantial evidence. 4 Plaintiff challenges the ALJ’s findings regarding Dr. Jackson’s opinion by 5 offering other evidence in the record supportive of Dr. Jackson’s opinion and 6 generally arguing for a different interpretation of the evidence. ECF No. 14 at 9- 7 13. However, the Court may not reverse the ALJ’s decision based on Plaintiff’s 8 disagreement with the ALJ’s interpretation of the record. See Tommasetti, 533 9 F.3d at 1038. The Court “may neither reweigh the evidence nor substitute its 10 judgment for that of the Commissioner.” Blacktongue, 229 F. Supp. 3d at 1218 11 (citing Thomas, 278 F.3d at 954). Because the ALJ’s interpretation of the evidence 12 was rational and supported by substantial evidence, the Court will not reverse the 13 ALJ’s decision. 14 2. Dr. Dalton 15 Dr. Dalton reviewed a May 26, 2015 medical report from Orthopedics 16 Northwest, PLLC, on June 8, 2015, and opined Plaintiff was capable of sedentary 17 work with additional unspecified marked limitations in postural restrictions and 18 gross or fine motor skills. Tr. 559-62. The ALJ gave this opinion some weight. 19 Tr. 42. Because Dr. Dalton’s opinion was contradicted by Dr. Platter, Tr. 156-57, 20 and Dr. Virji, Tr. 181-83, the ALJ was required to provide specific and legitimate ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ~ 33 1 reasons for rejecting Dr. Dalton’s opinion. Bayliss, 427 F.3d at 1216. 2 First, the ALJ found Dr. Dalton’s opinion was entitled to less weight 3 because it was not sufficiently explained. Tr. 42. The Social Security regulations 4 “give more weight to opinions that are explained than to those that are not.” 5 Holohan, 246 F.3d at 1202. “[T]he ALJ need not accept the opinion of any 6 physician, including a treating physician, if that opinion is brief, conclusory and 7 inadequately supported by clinical findings.” Bray, 554 at 1228. Furthermore, an 8 ALJ may reject an opinion that does “not show how [a claimant’s] symptoms 9 translate into specific functional deficits which preclude work activity.” See 10 Morgan v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 169 F.3d 595, 601 (9th Cir. 1999). Here, 11 the ALJ noted that Dr. Dalton opined that Plaintiff had postural and motor skill 12 restrictions, but Dr. Dalton did not identify specifically what those limitations 13 were. Tr. 42; see Tr. 561. The ALJ reasonably concluded that Dr. Dalton’s 14 opinion was insufficiently explained. This finding is supported by substantial 15 evidence. 16 Second, the ALJ found that Dr. Dalton’s opinion was not supported by the 17 single treatment note he reviewed. Tr. 42. A medical opinion may be rejected if it 18 is unsupported by medical findings. Bray, 554 F.3d at 1228. Here, the ALJ noted 19 that Dr. Dalton’s opinion was based on a review of a single 2015 treatment note, 20 which the ALJ characterized as documenting no complaints or findings regarding ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ~ 34 1 use of Plaintiff’s upper extremities. 2 Tr. 42. However, the treatment note does 2 document complaints and findings upon examination of trigger finger in Plaintiff’s 3 left thumb and right ring finger. Tr. 606. The ALJ’s reasoning that this treatment 4 note provided no support for manipulative limitations is not supported by 5 substantial evidence. However, any such error is harmless because the ALJ 6 provided several other specific and legitimate reasons to discredit Dr. Dalton’s 7 opinion. Molina, 674 F.3d at 1115 (an error is harmless “where it is 8 inconsequential to the [ALJ’s] ultimate nondisability determination”) (quotation 9 and citation omitted). 10 Third, the ALJ found Dr. Dalton’s opinion was entitled to less weight 11 because it was inconsistent with the longitudinal medical evidence. Tr. 42. An 12 ALJ may discredit physicians’ opinions that are unsupported by the record as a 13 whole. Batson, 359 F.3d at 1195. As discussed supra, the ALJ noted that the 14 record as a whole contains substantial evidence of normal physical examination 15 results, including normal range of motion. See Tr. 464-65 (October 29, 2014: 16 17 2 Plaintiff asserts, without citation to evidence, that Dr. Dalton’s review of the 18 evidence also included the Quality Care records reviewed by Dr. Thompson. ECF 19 No. 14 at 14-15. To the contrary, Dr. Dalton’s report indicates only that he 20 reviewed the single Orthopedics Northwest treatment note. Tr. 559. ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ~ 35 1 Plaintiff reported ongoing knee pain but presented with normal gait, full weight 2 bearing ability, no assistive devices, mild swelling in left knee, mild crepitation in 3 right knee, and “excellent range of motion of left knee” despite significant pain 4 complaints); Tr. 595-96 (April 15, 2015: physical examination showed normal gait 5 and strength in knees and 140 degrees of flexion in knees); Tr. 557 (May 5, 2015: 6 musculoskeletal examination showed no deformities, full functional range of 7 motion, normal gait, station, and balance, and no atrophy); Tr. 791-92 (November 8 3, 2016: physical examination following knee surgery showed full active pain-free 9 range of motion and Plaintiff ambulated well without an assistive device); Tr. 803 10 (February 18, 2017: physical examination of lower extremities showed normal 11 range of motion); Tr. 779 (May 24, 2017: Plaintiff displayed normal gait, full 12 strength in lower extremities, and at least 130 degrees of flexion in both knees); Tr. 13 1370 (September 21, 2017: physical examination showed active, pain-free range of 14 motion in both knees); see also Tr. 557 (May 5, 2015: musculoskeletal 15 examination showed no deformities, full functional range of motion, normal gait, 16 station, and balance, and no atrophy); Tr. 803 (February 18, 2017: physical 17 examination of lower extremities showed normal range of motion); Tr. 772 (July 18 20, 2017: Plaintiff reported bilateral hip pain but exhibited negative FADIR test, 19 mildly positive Faber test, negative straight leg raise test, and normal gait); Tr. 20 1370 (September 21, 2017: physical examination showed active, pain-free range of ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ~ 36 1 motion in both hips). The ALJ reasonably concluded that this evidence was 2 inconsistent with the limitations Dr. Dalton opined. This finding is supported by 3 substantial evidence. 4 Fourth, the ALJ found Dr. Dalton’s opinion was entitled to less weight 5 because it was inconsistent with Plaintiff’s activities. Tr. 42. An ALJ may 6 discount a medical source opinion to the extent it conflicts with the claimant’s 7 daily activities. Morgan, 169 F.3d at 601-02. Here, the ALJ noted that Plaintiff 8 reported gardening and drawing without being “bothered much” by her hands, and 9 that Plaintiff reported her daily activities to include household chores, cooking, 10 lawn care and gardening, and shopping. Tr. 42; see Tr. 393, 412, 550. The ALJ 11 reasonably concluded that these activities were inconsistent with the marked 12 general manipulative limitations Dr. Dalton opined. This finding is supported by 13 substantial evidence. 14 15 3. Dr. Thompson, Dr. Platter, and Dr. Virji Dr. Thompson reviewed the record of medical reports from Quality Care 16 Medical Clinic on March 24, 2015 and opined that Plaintiff was capable of 17 performing work at the light exertional level, “possibly with some positional 18 restrictions.” Tr. 1109-10. The ALJ gave this opinion some weight. Tr. 42. 19 Dr. Platter reviewed the record on May 11, 2015, and opined Plaintiff could 20 lift 20 pounds occasionally and lift 10 pounds frequently; that Plaintiff could stand ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ~ 37 1 for a total of 2 hours and sit for about 6 hours in an 8-hour workday; that Plaintiff 2 could frequently climb ramps/stairs, stoop, and kneel; that Plaintiff could 3 occasionally climb ladders/ropes/scaffolds, crouch, and crawl; and that Plaintiff 4 was limited in reach overhead on the left side and was limited to occasional 5 reaching with the left upper extremity. Tr. 155-57. Dr. Virji reviewed the record 6 on August 18, 2015, and rendered the same opinion on functional limitations as Dr. 7 Platter. Tr. 181-83. The ALJ gave these opinions significant weight. Tr. 43. 8 9 Plaintiff challenges the ALJ’s consideration of all three opinions, arguing that the ALJ gave too much weight to these opinions. ECF No. 14 at 13-14. 10 Plaintiff argues that, for various reasons, the ALJ should have given less weight to 11 these opinions in favor of the opinion of Dr. Jackson. Id. Plaintiff’s argument 12 essentially invites this Court to reweigh the challenged medical opinions. The 13 Court “may neither reweigh the evidence nor substitute its judgment for that of the 14 Commissioner.” Blacktongue, 229 F. Supp. 3d at 1218 (citing Thomas, 278 F.3d at 15 954). Although Plaintiff proposes different findings of fact that the ALJ should 16 have made, and then encourages this Court to adopt the same, this Court is a 17 reviewing court and is not a finder of fact. Fair, 885 F.2d at 604. 18 Moreover, the opinion of a nonexamining physician may serve as 19 substantial evidence in support of an ALJ’s nondisability determination if the 20 opinion is “supported by other evidence in the record and [is] consistent with it.” ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ~ 38 1 Andrews, 53 F.3d at 1041. The ALJ gave some weight to Dr. Thompson’s opinion, 2 and significant weight to Dr. Platter’s and Dr. Virji’s opinions, because the ALJ 3 found these opinions to be somewhat or significantly supported by the medical 4 evidence, including the objective medical evidence and evidence of Plaintiff’s 5 activities. Tr. 42-43. The ALJ reasonably concluded that the opinions of these 6 three non-examining doctors, but primarily Dr. Platter and Dr. Virji, were 7 consistent with the evidence discussed throughout this Order. Tr. 42-43. The 8 ALJ’s evaluation of these nonexamining physician opinions is supported by 9 substantial evidence. 10 CONCLUSION 11 Having reviewed the record and the ALJ’s findings, this Court concludes the 12 ALJ’s decision is supported by substantial evidence and free of harmful legal error. 13 ACCORDINGLY, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 14 1. Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 14) is DENIED. 15 2. Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 15) is GRANTED. 16 The District Court Executive is directed to enter this Order, enter judgment 17 18 accordingly, furnish copies to counsel, and close the file. DATED March 2, 2020. 19 20 THOMAS O. RICE Chief United States District Judge ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ~ 39

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.