Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-04441/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-04441-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 863
Nature of Suit: Social Security - DIWC/DIWW (405(g))
Cause of Action: 42:402 Social Security Benefits

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RITA ELIZABETH WHITE,

Plaintiff,

v.

CAROLYN COLVIN,

Defendant.

Case No. 14-cv-04441-VC 

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S 

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Re: Doc. No. 17, 18

Rita White has sued to challenge the decision by the administrative law judge (ALJ) that 

she is not disabled. The Commissioner's motion for summary judgment is granted, and White's 

motion is denied. 

Substantial evidence supported the ALJ's adverse credibility determination with respect to 

White. Specifically, the medical records support the ALJ's conclusion that White has repeatedly 

exaggerated her symptoms to get narcotics and that she was similarly exaggerating her symptoms 

at the hearing. For example, as the ALJ explained, White visited the emergency rooms at Sutter 

Solano Medical Center and Tuoro University Medical Center frequently, sometimes on back-toback days, complaining of abdominal pain and seeking Dilaudid, despite receiving regular refills 

of her Dilaudid prescription from her primary care physician. Although White complained of 

serious abdominal pain, the doctors did not find anything abnormal. One doctor even wrote, "[i]t 

is unclear to me what this patient's symptoms really comprise at this point." That doctor offered a 

narrative which reflected a suspicion that White was faking her symptoms at the emergency room 

visit. The ALJ also observed that White's daily activities (personal care, fixing meals, doing 

laundry, light housekeeping, driving a car, grocery shopping and visiting family members) were 

inconsistent with her alleged symptoms, that she repeatedly failed to follow up on a pain 

management referral made by her treating physician, and that she wasn't forthcoming with her 

doctors about her methamphetamine use, compromising her medical care and treatment.

Case 3:14-cv-04441-VC Document 23 Filed 06/26/15 Page 1 of 3
2

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

Because the ALJ's conclusion that White's testimony wasn't credible was supported by 

substantial evidence, the ALJ did not err by discrediting the testimony of her family and friends, 

which was based in large part on White's subjective complaints. See Molina v. Astrue, 674 F.3d 

1104, 1114 (9th Cir. 2012); Valentine v. Comm'r Soc. Sec. Admin., 574 F.3d 685, 694 (9th Cir. 

2009).

The ALJ also observed, in assessing White's credibility, that: (1) despite her allegedly 

severe symptoms and extensive testing and procedures, doctors have treated her conservatively 

and have not suggested more aggressive treatment, such as surgery; and (2) White had continued 

to use medical marijuana on a regular basis despite a possible link between cannabis use and the 

cyclic vomiting of which she complained. The ALJ may have erred on these points. For example, 

nothing in the record indicates that White's condition, if it were as severe as she alleged, could be 

treated with surgery or other more aggressive care, so it makes little sense to hold against her the 

decision by the doctors to treat her conservatively. But any such error or overzealousness by the 

ALJ was harmless because there is substantial evidence to support the ALJ's basic conclusion that 

White was exaggerating her symptoms. See Molina, 674 F.3d at 1115 (In the context of 

discrediting a claimant's testimony, "an error is harmless so long as there remains substantial 

evidence supporting the ALJ's decision and the error does not negate the validity of the ALJ's 

ultimate conclusion." (internal quotation omitted)). 

The ALJ also gave clear and convincing reasons supported by substantial evidence for 

rejecting the opinion of one of White's treating physicians, Dr. Yasmin Nibbe. The ALJ found Dr. 

Nibbe's opinion "inconsistent with his own contemporaneous medical records," which is an 

appropriate reason to disregard it. See Bayliss v. Barnhart, 427 F.3d 1211, 1216 (9th Cir. 2005) 

(A discrepancy between a doctor's opinion and her records is a clear and convincing reason to not 

rely on the opinion.). For example, Dr. Nibbe's assessment from November 29, 2011 states that 

White suffers from depression, anxiety, stress, and maybe Somatoform Disorder. But on the same 

day, Dr. Nibbe noted in his clinical records that White had appropriate mood and affect, and he did 

not note any psychiatric concerns. Dr. Nibbe's records also indicate minimal clinical findings, 

other than White experiencing tenderness during one physical exam, that would support his 

Case 3:14-cv-04441-VC Document 23 Filed 06/26/15 Page 2 of 3
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

assessment of her physical condition. Most significantly, the ALJ noted that Dr. Nibbe's opinion 

was largely based on White's subjective complaints, which, as discussed above, were not credible 

and were not otherwise supported by the medical records. See id. at 1217 (An ALJ can disregard 

the opinion where it is based on the patient's subjective complaints, rather than objective medical 

data.). 

Furthermore, the ALJ reasonably concluded, consistent with the opinions provided by Dr. 

Kiefer and Dr. Lochner, that White's depression was not a severe impairment. The ALJ 

considered Dr. Kiefer's opinion on White's mental functioning, namely that she had a global 

assessment of functioning (GAF) of 60, "fair" abilities in all areas of mental functioning (except 

understanding and remembering detailed and complex instructions), and a fair likelihood of 

improving within the next 12 months with mental health treatment.

In light of the above, the ALJ's finding that White had the residual functional capacity to 

perform light work, with the possibility of missing work up to one day per month, rather than the 

more severe limitations White alleged, was supported by substantial evidence.

Finally, the hypothetical question posed to the vocational expert was proper because it 

included all the limitations that the ALJ found credible and supported by substantial evidence. See 

Bayliss, 427 F.3d at 1217. White contends that the hypothetical question was deficient because it 

failed to include her depression and the frequency of her vomiting episodes. But the ALJ found 

that her depression was not severe and did not create any significant work-related limitations, so 

this limitation was appropriately excluded from the hypothetical. And the ALJ's conclusion that 

White wouldn't miss more than one day of work per month due to her cyclic vomiting was also 

supported by substantial evidence, so it was appropriate to exclude anything more about that 

aspect of White's condition from the hypothetical.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 26, 2015

______________________________________

 VINCE CHHABRIA

 United States District Judge

Case 3:14-cv-04441-VC Document 23 Filed 06/26/15 Page 3 of 3