Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-05282/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-05282-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Jo Anne B. Barnhart
Defendant
Constance R. Popham
Plaintiff

Document Text:

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

CONSTANCE R. POPHAM,

Plaintiff,

 v.

JO ANNE B. BARNHART, Commissioner

of Social Security,

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C-06-5282 SC

ORDER GRANTING

DEFENDANT'S CROSSMOTION FOR SUMMARY

JUDGMENT

I. INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff Constance R. Popham ("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 moved 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-05282-SC Document 12 Filed 08/16/07 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

June 30, 2003, asserting that she became disabled on August 30,

2002. See Administrative Record ("AR") at 89-91. After the SSA

denied these claims, Claimant requested a hearing, which was held

on April 11, 2005 before ALJ Fenton J. Hughes. See AR at 527-55. 

The ALJ rendered an unfavorable decision on May 12, 2005 and the

Appeals Council subsequently denied Claimant's request for review

on June 30, 2006. See AR at 26-33, 7-10.

The ALJ found that Claimant had numerous physical and mental

impairments including "uncontrolled diabetes, arthritis in her

joints, depression, headaches, chest pain, bone loss in her lower

back causing pain and incontinence." AR at 27. 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 31. 

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." 

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

Case 3:06-cv-05282-SC Document 12 Filed 08/16/07 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

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 & 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 & 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

In support of her motion for summary judgment, Claimant

argues that the ALJ's decision improperly characterized her mental

impairments, resulting in an incorrect finding that Claimant was

Case 3:06-cv-05282-SC Document 12 Filed 08/16/07 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

not disabled. Claimant's argument is based on the following

assertions: (1) the decision incorporated an erroneous

understanding of the severity standard, (2) lacked the support of

substantial evidence on the record, and (3) failed to give

adequate weight to the findings of Independent Medical Examiner

("IME") Dr. Kalman. See Mot. at 13-15.

Regarding the first assertion, the ALJ determined that

Claimant's mental impairments were not severe and did so using the

proper severity standard. The Regulations state, "an impairment

is not severe if it does not significantly limit physical or

mental ability to do basic work activities." 20 C.F.R. §§

404.1521, 416.921 (2006). Claimant was diagnosed as having a

major depressive disorder with psychotic features. See AR at 227. 

This condition was noted by the ALJ. See AR at 27. "The

existence of emotional disorder, however, is not per se disabling.

In addition, there must be proof of the impairment's disabling

severity.” Sample v. Schweiker, 694 F.2d 639, 642-43 (9th Cir.

1989) (internal citations and quotations omitted). The ALJ found,

and substantial evidence indicates, that Claimant's mental

condition could be controlled through the use of medication. See

AR at 27-28. Specifically, Claimant reported that attending

counseling sessions and taking the drug Wellbutrin significantly

reduced her symptoms. See AR at 27-28, 479-80, 538-39. Thus, the

ALJ correctly found that Claimant's impairments were not of

sufficient severity to justify a finding of disability.

Contrary to Claimant's assertions, the ALJ's findings were

supported by substantial evidence on the record. Consultative

Case 3:06-cv-05282-SC Document 12 Filed 08/16/07 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

examinations by Doctors Stephen Sheppard and Michael Joyce

indicate that Claimant's mental condition was not disabling. See

AR at 237-41, 433-38. Dr. Sheppard found that Claimant could

perform basic work activities despite her physical and mental

condition. See AR at 239-40. Dr. Joyce also found that Claimant

was capable of working and her mental status was satisfactory. 

See AR at 435, 437. Furthermore, Claimant's testimony to the ALJ

indicated that medication and counseling sufficiently controlled

her mental condition. See AR at 538-39. In addition,

consultations completed by State Agency physicians support the

conclusion that Claimant can work despite her psychiatric

problems. See AR at 422-32. In light of the documents contained

in the AR, the ALJ's conclusion that Claimant's mental impairments

were not disabling is supported by substantial evidence.

Finally, Claimant asserts that the Appeals Council failed to

give adequate weight to the findings of Dr. Kalman, findings

submitted after the ALJ rendered his decision. Dr. Kalman found

some evidence of mental disability and reported that "patient's

condition is not expected to improve significantly within the next

twelve months." AR at 515. However, he also found that Claimant

had no plans to act on her previous suicidal or self-injurious

thoughts, "was pleasant and cooperative," and her "form of thought

was logical and goal directed." AR at 514-15. Dr. Kalman only

examined Claimant on one occasion and his report does not contain

sufficient evidence to allow the Appeals Council to give it more

weight that the voluminous evidence in the rest of the record

indicating a lack of mental disability. As such, the Appeals

Case 3:06-cv-05282-SC Document 12 Filed 08/16/07 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

Council and ALJ gave proper weight to the opinions of the many

physicians who examined Claimant over the years and properly

discounted the opinion of Dr. Kalman. The medical evidence in the

record does not support Claimant's assertion that her mental

impairments are of sufficient severity to render her disabled. 

The decisions of the ALJ and Appeals Council were based on

substantial evidence and are 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: August 16, 2007

 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:06-cv-05282-SC Document 12 Filed 08/16/07 Page 6 of 6