Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-05154/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-05154-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 863
Nature of Suit: Social Security - DIWC/DIWW (405(g))
Cause of Action: 42:405 Review of HHS Decision (DIWC)

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CHARLOTTE CORRAL,

Plaintiff,

 v.

MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner,

Social Security Administration

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C-06-5154 SC

ORDER GRANTING

DEFENDANT'S CROSSMOTION FOR SUMMARY

JUDGMENT

I. INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff Charlotte Corral ("Claimant") filed this action

against Defendant, Commissioner of the Social Security

Administration ("Defendant" or "SSA"), under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g),

seeking judicial review of the SSA's decision to deny Social

Security payments.

Claimant now moves for summary judgment, arguing that the

Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ") committed legal errors in

reaching his decision. Defendant responded with a cross-motion

for summary judgment, seeking a final dismissal of the case. For

the reasons stated herein, the Court hereby DENIES Claimant's

Motion for Summary Judgment and GRANTS Defendant's Cross-Motion

for Summary Judgment. 

II. BACKGROUND

Claimant filed concurrent applications for Social Security

Case 3:06-cv-05154-SC Document 14 Filed 04/12/07 Page 1 of 6
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

Disability Insurance Benefits and Supplemental Security Income on

February 3, 2003, asserting that she became disabled on September

1, 2002. See Administrative Record ("AR") at 21, 71-73. After

the SSA denied these claims, Claimant requested a hearing, which

was held on February 14, 2005 before ALJ Donald Rector. See AR at

62-65. The ALJ rendered an unfavorable decision and the Appeals

Council subsequently denied Claimant's request for review on June

23, 2006. See AR at 18-33, 6-8.

The ALJ found that Claimant had numerous physical and mental

impairments including chronic neck pain, possible cervical disc

disease, shoulder pain, elbow pain, chronic lower back pain,

possible lumbar disc disease, and major depression. See AR at 32. 

Having considered Claimant's health problems, the ALJ determined

that Claimant still retained the residual functional capacity to

perform a significant number of jobs in the national and local

economy. See AR at 32-33. As a result, the ALJ determined that

Claimant was not disabled and thus not eligible for Social

Security payments. See AR at 33.

III. LEGAL STANDARD

The Court will reverse the SSA's decision to deny Social

Security benefits only if the ALJ's decision "is not supported by

substantial evidence or it is based on legal error." Burch v.

Barnhart, 400 F.3d 676, 679 (9th Cir. 2005) (internal quotation

omitted). "Substantial evidence is more than a mere scintilla but

less than a preponderance; it is such relevant evidence as a

reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion." 

Case 3:06-cv-05154-SC Document 14 Filed 04/12/07 Page 2 of 6
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

Sandgathe v. Charter, 108 F.3d 978, 980 (9th Cir. 1995) (internal

quotation omitted). Credibility determinations of witness

testimony are left to the ALJ, Lewis v. Apfel, 236 F.3d 503, 509

(9th Cir. 2001), but like all findings of fact they must be

supported by substantial evidence in the record. See Ceguerra v.

Sec'y of Health and Human Serv., 933 F.2d 735, 738 (9th Cir.

1991). Finally, "[a] decision of the ALJ will not be reversed for

errors that are harmless," Burch, 400 F.3d at 679. The Court

must "consider the record as a whole weighing both the evidence

that supports and the evidence that detracts from the Secretary's

conclusion." Desrosiers v. Sec'y of Health and Human Serv., 846

F.2d 573, 576 (9th Cir. 1988). A reviewing court has "the power

to enter, upon pleadings and transcript of the record, a judgment

affirming, modifying, or reversing the decision of the

Commissioner of Social Security, with or without remanding the

cause for a rehearing." 42 U.S.C. 405(g).

As with any motion for summary judgment, the movant "always

bears the initial responsibility of informing the District Court

of the basis for its motion, and identifying those portions of the

pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions

on file, together with the affidavits, if any, which it believes

demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material fact." 

Celotex v. Catrett, 377 U.S. 317, 323 (1986).

IV. DISCUSSION

Claimant asserts that the ALJ's decision is not supported by

substantial evidence because 1) the ALJ used improper hypothetical

Case 3:06-cv-05154-SC Document 14 Filed 04/12/07 Page 3 of 6
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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 4

questions and 2) the record contains inconsistent statements

regarding Claimant's mental condition. See Pl.'s Mot. for Summary

J., 16-17. Both of Claimant's assertions are without merit. 

Claimant takes issue with the hypothetical questions posed by

the ALJ to the Vocational Expert. See id. at 17-18. 

Specifically, Claimant characterizes the hypothetical questions as

ambiguous and incomplete. See id. Proper hypothetical questions

from the ALJ "must outline the limitations of the particular

claimant." DeLorme v. Sullivan, 924 F.2d 841, 850 (9th Cir.

1991). Having reviewed the transcript of the proceedings, the

Court finds that the ALJ's questions to the Vocational Expert

properly incorporated Claimant's physical and mental impairments. 

See AR at 497-505. 

The ALJ began by discussing Claimant's physical impairments,

including limitations relating to postural activities, reaching,

and lifting and carrying approximately 20 pounds. See AR at 498. 

The ALJ then characterized Claimant's mental impairments stemming

from depression. See AR at 498-499. He stated that "her

depression would interfere with her ability to fully deal with

changes in a routine work setting," but that "she is able to fully

deal with changes in a routine work setting on a frequent basis." 

AR at 499. Stated another way, "she's going to occasionally have

problems dealing with changes in a routine work setting." Id.

The dialogue between the ALJ and Vocational Expert outlines the

limitations of the Claimant and thus satisfies the DeLorme

standard. See 924 F.2d at 850.

Claimant also asserts that the ALJ made inconsistent

Case 3:06-cv-05154-SC Document 14 Filed 04/12/07 Page 4 of 6
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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 5

statements regarding her mental condition, precluding a finding

that the SSA decision is supported by substantial evidence. See

Pl.'s Mot. for Summary J., 16-17. During the examination of the

Vocational Expert, the ALJ stated that Claimant's depression would

cause her "to occasionally have problems dealing with change in a

routine work setting." AR at 499 (emphasis added). By contrast,

in the ALJ's decision, he states that Claimant's "major depression

only frequently interferes with her ability to fully adjust to

routine changes in work or work setting." AR at 29, 32 (emphasis

added). Despite Claimant's assertions, this inconsistency does

not warrant remand. A court must “consider the record as a whole,

weighing both evidence that supports and evidence that detracts

from the Secretary's conclusion." Penny v. Sullivan, 2 F.3d 953,

956 (9th Cir. 1993). In context of the entire administrative

record, the ALJ's potentially inconsistent statements appear to be

no more than a drafting error. The ALJ examined the opinions of

several mental health professionals before arriving at a

conclusion regarding Claimant's mental ability to work. See AR at

25-27. The ALJ interpreted the diagnoses to demonstrate that

although Claimant had been diagnosed with depression, it was

controlled through medication. See AR at 26. As a result,

Claimant's moderate psychiatric symptoms did not prevent her from

working and she would be able to perform jobs at a "light,

unskilled exertional level." AR at 31. In making this

determination, the ALJ gave controlling weight to the opinion of

the consulting examiner and assessments of Claimant's various

treating physicians. See AR at 30. Substantial evidence exists

Case 3:06-cv-05154-SC Document 14 Filed 04/12/07 Page 5 of 6
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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 6

in the record to support the conclusion that Claimant was capable

of working despite occasional difficulties. Thus, the ALJ's

decision was proper as a matter of law.

V. CONCLUSION

For the reasons described herein, the Court DENIES

Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment and GRANTS Defendant's

Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 12, 2007

 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:06-cv-05154-SC Document 14 Filed 04/12/07 Page 6 of 6