Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-02428/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-02428-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 864
Nature of Suit: Social Security - SSID Title XVI
Cause of Action: 42:405 Review of HHS Decision (SSID)

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 1 - 07cv2428

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CHARLOTTA G. ZETTNER DeLILLIO,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 07cv2428 JM(WMc)

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND

RECOMMENDATION RE:

DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION

FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND

GRANTING DEFENDANT’S CROSS

MOTION FOR SUMMARY

JUDGMENT

vs.

MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of

Social Security,

Defendant.

Plaintiff Charlotta G. Zettner DeLillio has filed Objections to Magistrate Judge McCurine’s

Report and Recommendation Denying Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment and Granting

Defendant’s Cross Motion for Summary Judgment (“R & R”). The Government did not file a

response to the Objections.

Plaintiff contends that the ALJ failed to “fully credit[] the statements of limitations by [lay

witnesses] Reverend Leah Tenderfoot, Ms. Zettner, DeLillio’s daughter Christina Zettner, her son

Gbrendan Ryan, and her friend Erika Jardin.” (Objections at p.4:20-22). The court overrules the

Objections because the record reveals that the ALJ considered the lay witness evidence and articulated

reasons for not fully crediting this testimony.

In this circuit, “lay testimony as to a claimant’s symptoms or how an impairment affects the

ability to work is competent evidence . . . and therefore cannot be disregarded without comment.”

Nguyen v. Chater, 100 F.3d 1462, 1467 (9th Cir. 1996). Consequently, “[i]f the ALJ wishes to

Case 3:07-cv-02428-JM-WMC Document 19 Filed 08/11/09 Page 1 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 2 - 07cv2428

discount the testimony of law witnesses, he must give reasons that are germane to each witness.”

Stout v. Commissioner, 454 F.3d 1050, 1053 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Dodrill v. Shalala, 12 F.3d 915,

919 (9th cir. 1993).

In her Objections, Plaintiff cites the following portions of the record by lay witnesses:

Reverend Tenderfoot noted that she had to remind Plaintiff to take her medication and sometimes had

to remind Plaintiff to eat; Plaintiff was “starting to get confused with accounting and bookkeeping,

and her ability to handle money has become more difficult;” Plaintiff quickly becomes frustrated; she

gets distracted and forgets to finish tasks; Plaintiff has a short attention span; she is frequently

depressed, she has difficulty carrying out simple tasks; her short and long term memory “had become

poor at best;” and she had difficulty using her hands. (Objections at p.1:21-3:10).

The difficulty with Plaintiff’s recitation of pertinent disability behaviors identified by the lay

witnesses is that the ALJ considered and rejected these behaviors based upon the totality of the record,

including the testimony of treating and consulting professionals. While the ALJ did not specifically

address the testimony of each lay witness by name, he did collectively address the lay witness

testimony. The ALJ specifically cited the testimony of the Reverend Tenderfoot, Ms. Jardine, Ms.

Zettner, and Mr. Ryan and noted that they testified to “more restrictions than” those of Plaintiff’s

treating and consulting physicians. (A.R. 15). In assessing the lay witness testimony, the ALJ cited

the testimony of Matthew Carroll, M.D., a board certified psychiatrist and his diagnosis that Plaintiff

suffered from “mild short and long term memory problems,” (A.R. 15); Drs. Yee and Tadros assessed

Plaintiff and determined that she suffered from depression/anxiety; id.; Dr. Sherman testified that

Plaintiff suffered from a temporary moderate restriction of the activities of daily living, making it

difficult for Plaintiff to maintain concentration, persistence, or pace, (A.R. 16-17); Dr. Fidaleo

reported that Plaintiff had adequate concentration and attention, (A.R. 20); Dr. Carroll noted that

Plaintiff was able to maintain her personal hygiene, wash dishes, do laundry, cook, shop, drive, and

handle her own funds, (A.R. 21);and Dr. Wanger testified that Plaintiff suffered from moderate

depression and anxiety. (A.R. 18).

After citing and referring to the testimony of the lay witnesses, the ALJ noted that the lay

witnesses were not physicians, psychologists, or other acceptable medical sources and concluded that

Case 3:07-cv-02428-JM-WMC Document 19 Filed 08/11/09 Page 2 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 3 - 07cv2428

controlling weight of the evidence is given to the treating medical professionals. (A.R. 19). The ALJ

then discussed the findings of the treating physicians which undermined the weight of the lay witness

testimony. Contrary to Plaintiff’s assertions, the ALJ did not reject lay testimony without comment

or findings. “It is the ALJ's role to resolve evidentiary conflicts. If there is more than one rational

interpretation of the evidence, the ALJ's conclusion must be upheld.” Allen v. Sec’y of Health &

Human Servs., 726F.2d 1470, 1473 (9th Cir. 1984). As the record reveals that the ALJ considered, but

ultimately rejected, the lay witness testimony, the court denies the Objections.

In sum, the court denies the Objections and adopts the R & R in its entirety.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: August 11, 2009

 Hon. Jeffrey T. Miller

 United States District Judge

cc: All parties

Case 3:07-cv-02428-JM-WMC Document 19 Filed 08/11/09 Page 3 of 3