IN THE UNITED STATED DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON 

Portland Division 

PATRICK CALLAGHAN, ) 

) 

) 

) 

Plaintiff, 

) 

v. 

3:15-CV-00531-JO 

CAROLYN W. COL VIN, Acting 

Commissioner of Social Security, 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

OPINION AND ORDER 

~~~~~~~~~~~D~e~£~en~d~a~n~t.~~~~) 

JONES, J., 

Plaintiff Patrick Callaghan appeals the Commissioner's decision denying his application for 

disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income under Title II and Title XVI of the 

Social Security Act. The cou1t has jurisdiction under 42 U.S.C. §405(g). I AFFIRLV! the 

Commissioner's decision. 

PRIOR PROCEEDINGS 

Callaghan filed concurrent applications under Title II and Title XVI, alleging disability 

beginning March 2010 due to a combination of anxiety, depression, obesity, and back problems. 

Admin. R. 18-19. The ALJ applied the five-step analysis outlined in the regulations to dete1mine 

whether Callaghan was disabled. Admin. R. 17-18. The ALJ found that Callaghan's symptoms of 

depression and anxiety adversely affected his ability to work. Admin. R. 21. The ALJ determined 

that, despite these impairments, Callaghan retained the residual functional capacity ("RFC") to 

perfo1m a range of work at all exertional levels with limitations on interacting with the public, 

-1- OPINION AND ORDER 

Case 3:15-cv-00531-JO Document 21 Filed 04/26/16 Page 1 of 6
working as part of a team, and interacting with coworkers and supervisors. Admin. R. 20. The ALJ 

also found that Callaghan possessed the necessaiy concentration, persistence, and pace for simple 

tasks in unskilled and low semi-skilled jobs but should avoid complex tasks. Admin. R. 20. The 

vocational expert ("VE") testified that a person with Callaghan's RFC could perform the 

requirements of unskilled occupations such as room cleaner, hand packager, and small products 

assembler that represent over 1.75 million jobs in the national economy. Admin. R. 23-24. 

Accordingly, the ALJ concluded that Callaghan was not disabled. Admin. R. 24. 

STANDARD OF REVIEW 

The district court must affirm the Commissioner's decision if it is based on the proper legal 

standards and the findings of fact are supported by substantial evidence in the record as a whole. 42 

U.S.C. § 405(g); Batsonv. Comm 'ro/Soc. Sec. Admin., 359F.3d 1190, 1193 (9th Cir. 2004). Under 

this standard, the Commissioner's factual findings must be upheld if supp01ied by inferences 

reasonably drawn from the record even if evidence exists to support another rational interpretation. 

Batson, 359 F.3d at, 1193; Andrews v. Shala/a, 53 F.3d 1035, 1039-40 (9th Cir. 1995). 

DISCUSSION 

I. Claims of Error 

The claimant bears the burden of showing that the ALJ ened and that any enor was harmful. 

kfcLeodv. Astrue, 640 F.3d 881, 886-87. Callaghan contends the ALJ improperly discounted the 

lay statements of his ex-wife Jewel Callaghan, without articulating sufficient reasons. Callaghan 

contends this enor was harmful because it led the ALJ to elicit testimony from the VE with 

hypothetical assumptions that did not accurately reflect all of his limitations and to conclude 

enoneously that he could perfonn the occupations identified by the VE. 

-2- OPINION AND ORDER 

Case 3:15-cv-00531-JO Document 21 Filed 04/26/16 Page 2 of 6
II. Lay Witness Statement 

Ms. Callaghan, provided a written third party function report in suppo1t of Callaghan's 

disability claim. She said that Callaghan suffered from depression and anxiety, sleeping problems, 

medication side effects, and difficulty concentrating, remembering details, staying on task, and 

interacting with others. Admin. R. 242-48. Ms. Callaghan reported that Callaghan went groce1y 

shopping, perfotmed household chores, prepared food, cleaned dishes, and washed laundry. Admin. 

R. 243-45. 

The ALJ considered Ms. Callaghan's report and his RFC assessment reflects the limitations 

she described regarding Callaghan's problems interacting with others and maintaining concentration 

and persistence. The ALJ found that the report deserved little weight to the extent she claimed 

Callaghan had functional limitations exceeding the RFC assessment. Admin. R. 22. An ALJ must 

consider the statements of a lay witness, and must give reasons germane to the witness in order to 

discount them. Valentine v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 574 F.3d 685, 694 (9th Cir. 2009). An 

ALJ need not clearly link the reasons to his determination that the lay witness testimony should be 

discounted, as long as he notes ge1mane reasons somewhere in the decision and they are supported 

by substantial evidence. Lewis v. Apfel, 236 F.3d 503, 512 (9th Cir. 2001). For example, when the 

lay witness's statements are similar to the claimant's subjective statements, then an ALJ's reasons 

for discrediting the claimant are also germane to the lay witness. Valentine, 574 F.3d. at 694. 

Here, Ms. Callaghan's statements regarding Callaghan's impaitments are essentially the same 

as Callaghan's subjective complaints. Callaghan alleged severe depression and anxiety, diminished 

concentration, and difficulty interacting socially. Admin. R. 234-35, 238-40. In discounting the 

credibility of Callaghan's claims of ongoing debilitating mental limitations, the ALJ found that many 

-3- OPINION AND ORDER 

Case 3:15-cv-00531-JO Document 21 Filed 04/26/16 Page 3 of 6
of Callaghan's difficulties derived from tempormy situational stressors, that his mental impahments 

improved, and that his reported daily activities were inconsistent with the debilitating limitations he 

alleged. Admin. R. 21-22. Callaghan does not challenge the ALJ's credibility determination in this 

appeal and did not identify any en-or in the ALJ' s analysis. 

Ms. Callaghan's statements about depression, anxiety, concentration, and social function 

closely resembled the subjective statements Callaghan made which the ALJ discounted. Admin. R. 

234-35, 238-40, 242, 246-48. The ALJ'srationale for discounting Callaghan's subjective statements 

applied equally to Ms. Callaghan's function repo1t. Each of his reasons for discounting Callaghan's 

credibility was also germane to Ms. Callaghan. Valentine, 574 F.3d. at 694. 

In addition, the ALJ found Ms. Callaghan's statements internally inconsistent. For example, 

Ms. Callaghan said Callaghan was depressed, anxious, and withdrawn and had great difficulty 

interacting with others. She said that he had difficulty concentrating, handling money, and suffered 

from memo1y loss and dizziness as side effects from his medication. Admin. R. 242, 245-4 7. When 

describing his activities, however, Ms. Callaghan said he had ongoing relationships, could 

independently care for himself, prepare meals, perform household chores, and interact with others 

sufficiently to cany out transactions while shopping in public. Admin. R. 244-45. Callaghan could 

concentrate on flight simulation computer games, pay his own bills, and manage his bank account. 

In addition, despite the alleged side effects of his medications, he declined to change when health 

care providers offered alternatives, suggesting the side effects were not as bothersome as Ms. 

Callaghan asse1ted. Admin. R. 21, 240, 386. 

The ALJ found Ms. Callaghan's description of Callaghan's activities inconsistent with her 

asse1tion that his limitations were so debilitating that he could not perform any work. The activities 

-4- OPINION AND ORDER 

Case 3:15-cv-00531-JO Document 21 Filed 04/26/16 Page 4 of 6
suggested he could engage in limited interactions with the public and coworkers and could maintain 

concentration, persistence and pace perfo1ming simple tasks in unskilled or low semiskilled work. 

Admin. R. 20, 244, 309-10, 313-20. Such inconsistencies provide a reasonable basis to discount the 

statements of a lay witness. Carmickle v. Comm 'r, Soc. Sec. Admin., 533 F.3d 11"55, 1164 (9th Cir. 

2008). 

Finally, even ifthe ALJ e!Ted in evaluating the credibility of Ms. Callaghan's lay witness 

statements, the error was haimless. A reviewing court may not reverse an ALJ' s decision for 

harmless enor and the claimant has the burden to establish the e1rnr and to show it was harmful. 

Molina v. Astrue, 674 F.3d 1104, 1111 (9th Cir. 2012) (an e!Tor is harmless if, looking at the record 

as a whole, the e!Tor does not alter the outcome of the case); Carmickle, 533 F.3d at 1162-63 n. 4 

(an e1rnr is haimless if the ALJ's determination remains supported despite the error). Here, the ALJ 

incorporated the limitations Ms. Callaghan described into his RFC assessment. The ALJ restricted 

the RFC assessment to work performed primarily alone, with limited public contact and limited 

interactions with coworkers and supervisors. The VE identified unskilled occupations involving 

simple tasks which have lesser demand for mental functions such as concentration, memory, 

persistence, and so fmih. Admin. R. 20, 23-24. Accordingly, even if the ALJ had fully credited Ms. 

Callaghan's statements, the statements would not establish limitations in excess of those in the RFC 

assessment. In other words, the limitations Ms. Callaghan described would not preclude Callaghan 

from performing the activities required in the occupations identified by the VE. Callaghan has 

simply failed to establish any harmful error in the ALJ' s evaluation of Ms. Callaghan's statements 

orinhisreliance on the VE's testimony. Stubbs-Danielson v. Astrue, 539 F.3d 1169, 1174 (9th Cir. 

2008). 

-5- OPINION AND ORDER 

Case 3:15-cv-00531-JO Document 21 Filed 04/26/16 Page 5 of 6
CONCLUSION 

Callaghan's assignment of en-or cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the Commissioner's 

final decision is AFFIRMED. 

DATED this % 6

day of April, 2016. 

-6- OPINION AND ORDER 

Robe1 

Unite 

::JD es, Senior Judge 

tates District Court 

Case 3:15-cv-00531-JO Document 21 Filed 04/26/16 Page 6 of 6