Yeager v. Colvin (previously Astrue), No. 2:2012cv00119 - Document 22 (E.D. Wash. 2013)
Court Description: ORDER Granting 18 Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment; denying 16 Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by Senior Judge Wm. Fremming Nielsen. (PL, Case Administrator)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Yeager v. Colvin (previously Astrue) Doc. 22 1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 6 KITRA LAREA YEAGER, Plaintiff, 7 -vs- 8 9 CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Commissioner of Social Security,1 10 Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) NO. CV-12-0119-WFN ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT 11 12 Before the Court are cross-Motions for Summary Judgment (ECF Nos. 16 and 18). 13 Attorney Lora Lee Stover represents Plaintiff; Special Assistant United States Attorney 14 L. Jamala Edwards represents Defendant. The Court has reviewed the administrative record 15 and briefs filed by the parties and is fully informed. JURISDICTION 16 17 Plaintiff protectively applied for disability insurance and social security income 18 [SSI] benefits on November 9, 2009, alleging disability beginning on October 18, 2008, 19 due to back and nerve issues, drop foot, stomach problems, fibromyalgia, asthma, 20 polycystic ovarian disease and depression. The application(s) were denied initially and 21 on reconsideration. 22 23 1 Carolyn W. Colvin became the Acting Commissioner of Social Security on 24 February 14, 2013. Pursuant to Rule 25(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Carolyn 25 W. Colvin is substituted for Michael J. Astrue as the defendant in this suit. No further action 26 need be taken to continue this suit by reason of the last sentence of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT - 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 At a hearing before Administrative Law Judge [ALJ] R. J. Payne on April 21, 2011, 2 Plaintiff, represented by counsel, and medical experts John R. Morse, M.D. and Ronald 3 Klein, Ph.D testified. The Appeals Council denied review making the ALJ's decision the 4 final decision of the Commissioner. Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), this final decision is 5 appealable to the district court. Plaintiff sought judicial review on February 22, 2012. 6 7 FACTS The facts of the case are set forth in detail in the transcript of the proceedings and are 8 briefly summarized here. At the time of the hearing, Plaintiff was 28 years old and had 9 graduated from high school. (Tr. 71) She attended community college for about a year. 10 (Tr. 72) She lives with her parents (Tr. 69) She walked with a cane and cannot walk for 11 more than half of a block. (Tr. 74) She is morbidly obese and was in the process of pursing 12 gastric bypass surgery. (Tr. 71) 13 She testified that she has persistent back pain that is alleviated by one to two pain 14 pills a day. (Tr. 75) She periodically changes position including lying down a few times a 15 day to relax her back. (Tr. 76) During the hearing, she asked for permission to stand to 16 help keep her back more comfortable. (Tr. 81) In the past, she had worked at a call center, 17 but testified that sitting and twisting and manipulating the phone would exacerbate her 18 back pain. (Tr. 73) 19 In addition to back issues and obesity, she is on medication for several different health 20 issues including a sleep aid (Tr. 76), migraines (Tr. 79), asthma (Tr. 79), stomach issues 21 (Tr. 87) and depression (Tr. 86). According to the Plaintiff, the asthma, depression, and sleep 22 issues are well controlled with medication. (Tr. 76, 79, and 86) 23 On an average day, Plaintiff spends most of the day at home. She is not involved with 24 church or any clubs or social organizations. (Tr. 85) She helps with some housework, but 25 is unable to do any chores that involve a lot of bending over such as laundry. (Tr. 82) 26 Typically, she spends her day playing on the computer and reading, as well as going ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT - 2 1 to doctors' appointments. (Tr. 84 - 85) She depends on public assistance to cover her 2 expenses. (Tr. 88) 3 4 ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION ALJ Payne found that Plaintiff met the insured status requirements and had not 5 engaged in substantial gainful activity since the alleged onset of disability. (Tr. 26) At the 6 second step, the ALJ found that Plaintiff had the following severe impairments: 7 musculoskeletal impairment of the lumbar spine, asthma, and obesity. (Tr. 26) The ALJ also 8 considered the following medical issues: eosinophilic gastroenteritis, diabetes mellitus, 9 migraine headaches, fibromyalgia, a recent knee injury, and depression, but determined each 10 was non-severe because none caused more than minimal limitation in her ability to perform 11 basic work duties, either singly or in concert with the other medical issues. (Tr. 27 - 30) At 12 the third step, the ALJ determined that Plaintiff's impairments did not meet or equal the 13 requirements of the listed impairments in 20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1. 14 Based on the record, the ALJ found that Plaintiff has the residual functional capacity 15 to perform a "wide range of sedentary work." (Tr. 31) At step four the ALJ determined that 16 Plaintiff could perform her past relevant work as a customer service representative at a call 17 center. (Tr. 36) Consequently, the ALJ concluded that Plaintiff is not disabled. (Tr. 36) 18 19 STANDARD OF REVIEW In Edlund v. Massanari, 253 F.3d 1152, 1156 (9th Cir. 2001), the court set out the 20 standard of review: 21 22 23 24 25 26 A district court’s order upholding the Commissioner’s denial of benefits is reviewed de novo. Harman v. Apfel, 211 F.3d 1172, 1174 (9th Cir. 2000). The decision of the Commissioner may be reversed only if it is not supported by substantial evidence or if it is based on legal error. Tackett v. Apfel, 180 F.3d 1094, 1097 (9th Cir. 1999). Substantial evidence is defined as being more than a mere scintilla, but less than a preponderance. Id. at 1098. Put another way, substantial evidence is such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389, 401 (1971). If the evidence is susceptible to more than one rational ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT - 3 1 2 3 interpretation, the court may not substitute its judgment for that of the Commissioner. Tackett, 180 F.3d at 1097; Morgan v. Commissioner of Social Sec. Admin. 169 F.3d 595, 599 (9th Cir. 1999). 6 The ALJ is responsible for determining credibility, resolving conflicts in medical testimony, and resolving ambiguities. Andrews v. Shalala, 53 F.3d 1035, 1039 (9th Cir. 1995). The ALJ’s determinations of law are reviewed de novo, although deference is owed to a reasonable construction of the applicable statutes. McNatt v. Apfel, 201 F.3d 1084, 1087 (9th Cir. 2000). 7 It is the role of the trier of fact, not this court, to resolve conflicts in evidence. 4 5 8 Richardson, 402 U.S. at 400. If evidence supports more than one rational interpretation, the 9 court may not substitute its judgment for that of the Commissioner. Tackett, 180 F.3d at 10 1097; Allen v. Heckler, 749 F.2d 577, 579 (9th Cir. 1984). Nevertheless, a decision 11 supported by substantial evidence will still be set aside if the proper legal standards were not 12 applied in weighing the evidence and making the decision. Brawner v. Secretary of Health 13 and Human Services, 839 F.2d 432, 433 (9th Cir. 1988). If substantial evidence exists to 14 support the administrative findings, or if conflicting evidence exists that will support a 15 finding of either disability or non-disability, the Commissioner's determination is conclusive. 16 Sprague v. Bowen, 812 F.2d 1226, 1229-1230 (9th Cir. 1987). 17 18 SEQUENTIAL PROCESS The Commissioner has established a five-step sequential evaluation process for 19 determining whether a person is disabled. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a), 416.920(a); see Bowen 20 v. Yuckert, 482 U.S. 137, 140-42 (1987). In steps one through four, the burden of proof rests 21 upon the claimant to establish a prima facie case of entitlement to disability benefits. 22 Tackett, 180 F.3d at 1098-99. This burden is met once a claimant establishes that a physical 23 or mental impairment prevents him from engaging in his previous occupation. 20 C.F.R. 24 §§ 404.1520(a)(4), 416.920(a)(4). If a claimant cannot do his past relevant work, the 25 ALJ proceeds to step five, and the burden shifts to the Commissioner to show that (1) the 26 claimant can make an adjustment to other work; and (2) specific jobs exist in the national ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT - 4 1 economy which claimant can perform. Batson v. Commissioner of Social Sec. Admin., 359 2 F.3d 1190, 1193-94 (2004). If a claimant cannot make an adjustment to other work in the 3 national economy, a finding of "disabled" is made. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(I-v), 4 416.920(a)(4)(I-v). 5 6 ISSUES Plaintiff argues that the ALJ improperly assessed Plaintiff's impairments at step two 7 and Plaintiff's residual functional capacity. Plaintiff believes that the ALJ should have found 8 fibromyalgia, gastrointestinal problems, migraines and depression to be severe impairments 9 pursuant to 20 C.F.R. 404.1520 and 416.920. Based on these assignments of error, Plaintiff 10 argues that the ALJ's opinion is not supported by substantial evidence. 11 12 DISCUSSION An impairment is severe if it, singly or in combination with other impairments, 13 "significantly limits [the claimant's] physical or mental ability to do basic work activities." 14 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520. "An impairment or combination of impairments can be found 'not 15 severe' only if the evidence establishes a slight abnormality that has no more than a minimal 16 effect on an individual's ability to work.' Smolen v. Chater, 80 F.3d 1273, 1290 (9th Cir. 17 1996) (internal citation omitted). "Impairments that can be controlled effectively with 18 medication are not disabling for the purpose of determining eligibility for SSI benefits." 19 Warre v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 439 F.3d 1001, 1006 (9th Cir. 2006). "[E]vidence of 20 'conservative treatment' is sufficient to discount a claimant's testimony regarding severity of 21 an impairment." Tommasetti v. Astrue, 533 F.3d 1035, 1039 (9th Cir. 2008). 22 The ALJ exhaustively reviewed each condition addressed by Plaintiff and made 23 specific findings, supported by substantial evidence, regarding of the severity of 24 fibromyalgia, gastrointestinal problems, migraines and depression. In each case, the ALJ 25 noted that any limitations caused by the impairment, considered singly or in combin26 ation with other impairments imposed no more than minimal limitations on Plaintiff's ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT - 5 1 ability to perform basic work-related activities. The ALJ noted that Plaintiff's 2 fibromyalgia and depression were controlled well by medication. (Tr. 28 and 29) However, 3 the ALJ still took into account the symptoms stemming from Plaintiff's mental health 4 impairments when making the residual function capacity determination. The migraines 5 were also managed by medication. The medical records showed visits to the emergency 6 room about two times a year, but that the medication resulted in good pain relief. (Tr. 28) 7 Regarding the gastrointestinal issues, the ALJ found that Plaintiff's history of 8 non-compliance with treatment undermined her assertion that the symptoms were as severe 9 as she indicated. 10 In making a determination of residual functional capacity, the ALJ must consider all 11 of the claimant's medically determinable impairments, including medically determinable 12 impairments that are not severe. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(2), 20 C.F.R. 416.945, 20 13 C.F.R. § 404.1523. The ALJ must consider claimant's ability to meet the physical, mental, 14 sensory, and other requirements of work. Id. Plaintiff complained that the ALJ ignored 15 the effects of pain, morbid obesity, and depression when making the residual functional 16 capacity determination. However, the ALJ carefully reviewed the record and properly 17 found pain testimony that did not comport with the evidence, especially the self reports by 18 Plaintiff to her doctors and Plaintiff's reports of her daily activities. The ALJ also pointed 19 out that Plaintiff's "medication usage undermines her allegations of debilitating pain." 20 (Tr. 33) The ALJ did address limitations that likely are exacerbated by morbid obesity, such 21 as Plaintiff's back issues, but did not discuss with specificity Plaintiff's need to use a 22 handicap stall. Such an omission does not invalidate the residual functional capacity, as it 23 is not clear how use of the handicap stall affects Plaintiff's ability to work. Lastly, contrary 24 to Plaintiff's assertion, the ALJ did address the effects of Plaintiff's mental health issues, but 25 found that due to the fact that the depression was treated effectively with medication, it had 26 no effect on Plaintiff's residual functional capacity. ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT - 6 1 2 CONCLUSION Having reviewed the record and the ALJ's findings, the Court concludes the ALJ's 3 decision is supported by substantial evidence and is not based on legal error. Accordingly, 4 IT IS ORDERED that: 5 1. Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment, filed December 17, 2012, ECF 6 No. 18, is GRANTED. 7 2. Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment, filed November 5, 2012, ECF No. 16, 8 is DENIED. 9 The District Court Executive is directed to file this Order and provide copies to 10 counsel. Judgment shall be entered for Defendant and the file shall be CLOSED. 11 DATED this 19th day of September, 2013. 12 13 14 09-17-13 s/ Wm. Fremming Nielsen WM. FREMMING NIELSEN SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT - 7
]]>
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.
