Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-01825/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-01825-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 864
Nature of Suit: Social Security - SSID Title XVI
Cause of Action: 42:0405id Review of HHS Decision (SSID)

---

1

16cv1825 JM (DHB)

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

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ELAINE VRYHOF,

Plaintiff,

v.

NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Acting 

Commissioner of Social Security,

Defendant.

Case No.: 16cv1825 JM (DHB)

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND 

RECOMMENDATION ON CROSSMOTIONS FOR SUMMARY 

JUDGMENT

On July 15, 2016, Plaintiff Elaine Vryhof filed a complaint, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 

§ 405(g), asking for judicial review of the denial of Social Security disability benefits.

(Doc. No. 1.) On January 26, 2017, Plaintiff moved for summary judgment. (Doc. No. 

10.) Five days later, Defendant Nancy A. Berryhill, Acting Commissioner of Social 

Security, did the same. (Doc. No. 11.) Magistrate Judge Louisa S. Porter issued a Report 

and Recommendation (“R&R”) recommending that this court deny Plaintiff’s motion and 

grant Defendant’s motion. (Doc. No. 14.) Neither party filed objections to the R&R by 

the date required. Now, having carefully considered the thorough and thoughtful R&R, 

the record before the court, the applicable authorities, and the absence of any objections 

to the R&R, the court adopts the R&R in its entirety and grants summary judgment in 

Case 3:16-cv-01825-JM-DHB Document 15 Filed 08/30/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 4
2

16cv1825 JM (DHB)

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

favor of Defendant.

BACKGROUND

The court hereby incorporates by reference the procedural background, (Doc. No. 

14 at 2), and factual background, including the review of the administrative record, (id. at 

5–12), as presented in the R&R.

LEGAL STANDARDS

A. District Court Review of R&R

The duties of the district court in connection with a magistrate judge’s R&R are 

governed by 28 U.S.C. § 636 and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b). The district 

court “shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report . . . to which 

objection is made. A judge of the court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, 

the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1);

see also United States v. Raddatz, 447 U.S. 667, 676 (1980); McDonnell Douglas Corp. 

v. Commodore Bus. Machines, Inc., 656 F.2d 1309, 1313 (9th Cir. 1981). If neither party 

contests the magistrate judge’s proposed findings of fact, “the court may assume their 

correctness and decide the motion on the applicable law.” Orand v. United States, 602 

F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are reviewed 

de novo, however, regardless of whether any party filed objections thereto. See Robbins 

v. Carey, 481 F.3d 1143, 1146–47 (9th Cir. 2007).

B. Judicial Review of the Commissioner’s Decision

The R&R properly identifies the limited scope of judicial review applicable to a

final agency decision, (Doc. No. 14 at 4–5), and the court incorporates those standards by 

reference. In short, a federal court must affirm the decision unless it “is not supported by 

substantial evidence or it is based upon legal error.” Tidwell v. Apfel, 161 F.3d 599, 601 

(9th Cir. 1999). 

C. Determination of Disability

As indicated in the R&R, a claimant must show two things to qualify for disability 

benefits under the Social Security Act: that (1) he or she suffers from a medically 

Case 3:16-cv-01825-JM-DHB Document 15 Filed 08/30/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 4
3

16cv1825 JM (DHB)

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

determinable physical or mental impairment that can be expected to last for a continuous 

period of twelve months or more, or would result in death, and (2) the impairment 

renders the claimant incapable of performing the work he or she previously performed or 

any other substantial gainful employment which exists in the national economy. 

42 U.S.C. §§ 423(d)(1)(A), 423(d)(2)(A). And as more thoroughly discussed in the 

R&R, (Doc. No. 14 at 3–4), and incorporated herein, the administrative law judge 

(“ALJ”) must employ the five-step sequential process laid out in 20 C.F.R. § 416.920 to 

make a determination of disability.

DISCUSSION

Plaintiff advances one primary argument in support of her motion for summary 

judgment: that the ALJ impermissibly disregarded Dr. Margarita Alonso’s opinion—

specifically Dr. Alonso’s answers to a checklist-style mental impairment Residual 

Functional Capacity questionnaire (“RFC”). In her R&R, Magistrate Judge Porter 

rejected Plaintiff’s argument and found that the ALJ did not err in determining that the 

RFC had no probative value. This court agrees.

To begin, the RFC contained conclusions with no underlying analysis. See Batson 

v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 359 F.3d 1190, 1195 (9th Cir. 2004) (affirming denial of benefits 

where ALJ discounted two treating doctors’ opinions because they were in the form of a 

checklist, did not have supportive objective evidence, were contradicted by other 

statements and assessments of the claimant’s medical condition, and were based on the 

claimant’s subjective descriptions of pain); see also Vertigan v. Halter, 260 F.3d 1044, 

1049 (9th Cir. 2001) (stating that, although “an ALJ cannot reject a claimant’s testimony 

without giving clear and convincing reasons,” “it is the responsibility of the ALJ, not the 

claimant’s physician, to determine residual functional capacity”). And although Plaintiff 

argues that the RFC is supported “by treatment records and years of treatment,” the court 

finds that even those records contradict, in many places, the cursory answers of the RFC.

More importantly (given the applicable scope of review), the ALJ provided 

specific and legitimate reasons for rejecting the RFC, and those specific and legitimate 

Case 3:16-cv-01825-JM-DHB Document 15 Filed 08/30/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 4
4

16cv1825 JM (DHB)

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

reasons were supported by substantial evidence in the record. (See A.R. 30–37 

(discussing—in a lengthy analysis with citations to the record—the applicable standard of 

decision, the details of Plaintiff’s testimony, the credibility of Plaintiff’s testimony, the 

medical opinions, evaluations, and records involved in the case along with the weight 

given to each, and the ALJ’s ultimate reasons for rejecting Dr. Alonso’s RFC).) That 

being the case, the ALJ did not err. See Lester v. Chater, 81 F.3d 821, 830 (9th Cir. 

1995), as amended (Apr. 9, 1996) (observing that an ALJ may reject a treating doctor’s 

opinion if the ALJ provides “specific and legitimate reasons” supported by “substantial 

evidence in the record”).

In sum, the court finds that the agency’s decision is not based on legal error or 

unsupported by substantial evidence. Therefore, it will not be disturbed. Tidwell, 161 

F.3d at 601. 

CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated, the court adopts the R&R in its entirety. Accordingly, the 

court denies Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and grants Defendant’s motion for 

summary judgment. The Clerk of Court is directed to close the file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: August 30, 2017 

JEFFREY T. MILLER

United States District Judge

Case 3:16-cv-01825-JM-DHB Document 15 Filed 08/30/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 4