Kaler v. Saul, No. 2:2019cv00280 - Document 15 (E.D. Wash. 2020)
Court Description: ORDER DENYING 12 PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND GRANTING 13 THE COMMISSIONER'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT. Case is CLOSED. Signed by Judge Salvador Mendoza, Jr. (LMR, Case Administrator)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
error for the ALJ to reject the opinions of Dr. 20 Kraus, a treating provider, in favor of Dr. Kendrick, who was a non-treating, nonORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND GRANTING THE COMMISSIONER’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT – 10 1 examining provider. ECF No. 12 at 20. But the ALJ was entitled to do just that, so 2 long as she identified “specific and legitimate reasons that are supported by 3 substantial evidence.” Bayliss, 427 F.3d at 1216. Inconsistency between a 4 provider’s own opinions is such a reason. Matney v. Sullivan, 981 F.2d 1016, 1020 5 (9th Cir. 1992). Further, the ALJ reasonably concluded Dr. Kraus’s earlier opinions 6 were well-founded and compatible with the longitudinal medical evidence—a 7 conclusion with which Plaintiff does not take issue—and noted Dr. Kraus’s later 8 opinions of greater disability failed to explain what if anything had changed in the 9 interim. AR 26; see also AR 662–67 (handwritten marks on Dr. Kraus’s earlier 10 opinions noting “error[s]”), 678 (October 25, 2017 chart notes indicating 11 “[N]othing has changed”), 681 (September 22, 2017 chart notes indicating “nothing 12 has change[d]. Symptoms are the same.”). The Court therefore finds the ALJ 13 offered sufficiently specific and legitimate reasons to reject Dr. Kraus’s later 14 opinions, and thus declines to set aside the ALJ’s decision on that ground. 15 3. Beverly Allen, M.D. 16 Finally, Plaintiff assigns error to the manner in which the ALJ evaluated the 17 opinions of Dr. Allen. ECF No. 12 at 20. With respect to Dr. Allen’s opinions of 18 Plaintiff’s anxiety and panic attacks, the ALJ found Dr. Allen’s conclusions belied 19 by the medical record, namely that Plaintiff reported improvement in these 20 symptoms and had not sought treatment except “for a brief period in 2016 in which ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND GRANTING THE COMMISSIONER’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT – 11 1 she was treated for major depressive disorder, not anxiety.” AR 28. However, the 2 ALJ assigned great weight to Dr. Allen’s assessment that Plaintiff should be limited 3 to simple, repetitive tasks, as that opinion was consistent with those of other 4 providers. Id. Plaintiff argues “Dr. Allen’s entire report and her conclusions should 5 have been taken into consideration rather than accepting some of her conclusions 6 and disregarding other[s].” ECF No. 12 at 20. 7 To begin, Plaintiff cites no authority for what appears to be her argument that 8 an ALJ errs merely by parceling out a provider’s opinions, assigning different 9 weights to each, and the Court is aware of no such authority. More to the point, the 10 Court can find no legal error in the ALJ’s evaluation of Dr. Allen’s opinion of 11 Plaintiff’s anxiety and panic attacks. See AR 28. Although an ALJ is not justified 12 in rejecting a claimant’s mental health limitations solely because he or she failed to 13 seek treatment, Plaintiff herself reported improvement in her anxiety and panic 14 attacks, see AR 54, and at times when she did seek mental health care was treated 15 for major depressive disorder, not anxiety or panic attacks. AR 517–52. Thus, the 16 Court cannot find the ALJ’s evaluation of Dr. Allen’s opinions constituted 17 reversible error. 18 B. The ALJ did not err in evaluating Plaintiff’s symptom testimony 19 Plaintiff also contends the ALJ erred in discounting Plaintiff’s own subjective 20 symptom testimony. ECF No. 11 at 10–18. Where a claimant presents objective ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND GRANTING THE COMMISSIONER’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT – 12 1 medical evidence of impairments that could reasonably produce the symptoms 2 complained of, an ALJ may reject the claimant’s testimony about the severity of her 3 symptoms only for “specific, clear and convincing reasons.” Burrell v. Colvin, 775 4 F.3d 1133, 1137 (9th Cir. 2014). The ALJ’s findings must be sufficient “to permit 5 the court to conclude that the ALJ did not arbitrarily discredit claimant’s 6 testimony.” Tommasetti v. Astrue, 533 F.3d 1035, 1039 (9th Cir. 2008). General 7 findings are insufficient. Lester v. Chater, 81 F.3d 821, 834 (9th Cir. 1995). In 8 evaluating the claimant’s credibility, the “ALJ may weigh inconsistencies between 9 the claimant’s testimony and his or her conduct, daily activities, and work record, 10 among other factors.” Bray, 554 F.3d at 1227. The Court may not second guess the 11 ALJ’s credibility findings that are supported by substantial evidence. Tommasetti, 12 533 F.3d at 1039. 13 The ALJ rejected Plaintiff’s symptom testimony for several reasons. First, 14 the ALJ noted Plaintiff’s testimony was inconsistent with her self-reported activities 15 of daily living. AR 26. For example, the ALJ noted Plaintiff reported engaging in 16 household chores, running errands, grocery shopping, cooking, and childcare. See 17 AR 455 (Plaintiff reporting that while pain required her to “chang[e] her seated and 18 standing position because of pain,” she “has no problems taking care of her personal 19 activities of daily living.”). Notably, in early 2016, Plaintiff reported “typical daily 20 activities includ[ing] stretching, sitting 4–6 hours, and walking 8–10 hours,” though ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND GRANTING THE COMMISSIONER’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT – 13 1 she notes pain limited these activities. AR 448. “The Social Security Act does not 2 require that claimants be utterly incapacitated to be eligible for benefits.” Fair v. 3 Bowen, 885 F.2d 597, 603 (9th Cir. 1989). Even so, in this case Plaintiff testified to 4 extreme limitations in her ability to stand, walk, and sit. See AR 51 (“I could go to 5 the living room and the hallway, and then I’m like I need to sit down.”), 52 6 (“Standing in line is horrible. . . . I can’t do more than five minutes.”). Given the 7 particularly marked disconnect between these aspects of Plaintiff’s symptom 8 testimony and her self-reported activities of daily living, the Court cannot find the 9 ALJ erred in assigning Plaintiff’s testimony reduced weight. 10 The ALJ also observed Plaintiff’s symptom testimony was belied by the 11 objective medical evidence. For example, although Plaintiff complained of severe 12 limitation in her ability to walk, in physical examinations Plaintiff exhibited normal 13 gait and successfully walked on both her heels and toes without pain. AR 345, 406, 14 408–09, 451 & 469. Similarly, despite Plaintiff’s testimony that she struggled to lift 15 anything heavier than ten pounds, examination of her upper extremities was normal 16 and Plaintiff exhibited full muscular strength in both arms. AR 449, 459. With 17 respect to Plaintiff’s mental health symptoms, the ALJ noted she regularly 18 presented with normal mood and affect and her mental status examinations would 19 not support the symptoms Plaintiff alleged. AR 359, 411, 593, 621 & 623. Having 20 reviewed the record in this matter, the Court finds the inconsistency between ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND GRANTING THE COMMISSIONER’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT – 14 1 Plaintiff’s symptom testimony and the medical record was a clear and convincing 2 basis to assign Plaintiff’s symptom testimony reduced weight. It is not the Court’s 3 role to second guess those conclusions. See Molina, 674 F.3d at 1110. As such, the 4 Court declines to set aside the ALJ’s ruling on this basis. CONCLUSION 5 6 For the reasons set forth above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 7 1. Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 12, is DENIED. 8 2. The Commissioner’s Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 13, is GRANTED. 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 3. The Clerk’s Office shall ENTER JUDGMENT in favor of DEFENDANT and thereafter CLOSE the file. IT IS SO ORDERED. The Clerk’s Office is directed to enter this Order and provide copies to all counsel. DATED this 3rd day of August 2020. _________________________ SALVADOR MENDOZA, JR. United States District Judge 18 19 20 ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND GRANTING THE COMMISSIONER’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT – 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.
