Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_18-cv-01741/USCOURTS-caed-1_18-cv-01741-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 864
Nature of Suit: Social Security - SSID Title XVI
Cause of Action: 42:205 Denial 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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SYLVIA MIRANDA HERNANDEZ,

Plaintiff,

v.

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL 

SECURITY,

Defendant.

Case No. 1:18-cv-01741-JDP

ORDER ON SOCIAL SECURITY APPEAL

This matter is before the court on claimant’s request for judicial review of a denial by the 

Commissioner of the Social Security Administration (“SSA”) of her application for a period of 

disability and disability insurance benefits. On January 30, 2020, we heard argument from the 

parties. We have reviewed the record, administrative transcript, briefs of the parties, and 

applicable law—and have considered arguments made at the hearing. For the reasons stated on 

the record at oral argument and in this order, we affirm the decision of the SSA’s Administrative 

Law Judge (“ALJ”).

On appeal, we ask only whether substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s factual findings 

and whether the ALJ applied the correct legal standards. 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). We will uphold the 

ALJ’s decision if it is rational, even if there could have been another rational interpretation of the 

evidence; we will not substitute our judgment for that of the ALJ. Id.

Claimant seeks remand, arguing that the ALJ erred in giving “very little weight” to the 

opinion of claimant’s treating physician, Dashrath Patel. AR 29. We see no error. The ALJ 

considered several, differing medical opinions. Among these opinions, Dr. Patel’s opinion—

Case 1:18-cv-01741-JDP Document 20 Filed 01/31/20 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

which included a finding “that the claimant was unable to work due to her mental health 

disability,” AR 28—was at or near one extreme, contradicted by (and contradicting) other 

doctors’ opinions that found claimant’s impairments less limiting. Taking into account the range 

of conflicting opinions, the ALJ was permitted to discount Dr. Patel’s opinion if the ALJ relied 

on—and articulated—“specific and legitimate reasons” for so doing. Lester v. Chater, 81 F.3d 

821, 830 (9th Cir. 1996). We thus look to the ALJ’s stated reasons for putting little stock in Dr. 

Patel’s opinion. 

The ALJ discussed the medical record at some length, walking through various doctors’ 

perspectives and explaining that she discounted Dr. Patel’s opinion in part because portions of it

were vague and did not “set forth the claimant’s functional abilities with sufficient specificity.” 

AR 29. The ALJ separately singled out Dr. Patel’s May 2017 medical source statement, finding 

that the “marked limitations” identified therein were “not supported by the doctor’s own 

treatment records that demonstrate improvement in her symptoms when medication compliant.” 

Id. Additionally, the ALJ explained that she placed greater weight on other medical opinions, for 

example the conflicting opinion of Dr. Tracy Gordy; this explanation stands as part of the ALJ’s 

justification for discounting Dr. Patel’s contrary opinion. Id. The ALJ noted that Dr. Gordy was 

present at trial and had the benefit of hearing claimant’s testimony, as well as the opportunity to 

ask claimant questions at the hearing. In short, then, the ALJ discounted Dr. Patel’s opinion 

because she found it to be in many aspects vague and nonspecific, because she determined it to be 

at least partly unsupported by Dr. Patel’s own records, and because it was undercut by other 

reliable opinions, including that of Dr. Gordy. Claimant has not shown that the ALJ’s reasons 

were anything but “specific and legitimate.” 

In sum, the ALJ’s decision is supported by substantial evidence and claimant has 

identified no reversible error in the ALJ’s analysis. For the reasons stated in this order and on the 

record at oral argument, we deny claimant’s appeal from the administrative decision of the 

Commissioner of Social Security. The clerk of court is directed (1) to enter judgment in favor of 

defendant and against claimant Sylvia Miranda Hernandez and (2) to close this case.

Case 1:18-cv-01741-JDP Document 20 Filed 01/31/20 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

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 30, 2020 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

No. 200.

Case 1:18-cv-01741-JDP Document 20 Filed 01/31/20 Page 3 of 3