Source: https://casetext.com/case/brown-v-berryhill-43
Timestamp: 2019-04-25 18:34:11+00:00

Document:
MELISSA FAY HELEN BROWN, Plaintiff, v. NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant.
On June 3, 2016, Plaintiff Melissa Fay Helen Brown ("Plaintiff") filed a complaint under 42 U.S.C. §§405(g) and 1383(c) seeking judicial review of a final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security (the "Commissioner" or "Defendant") denying her applications for Supplemental Security Income ("SSI") payments and Disability Insurance Benefits ("DIB"). (Doc. 1.) The matter is currently before the Court on the parties' briefs, which were submitted, without oral argument, to the Honorable Sheila K. Oberto, United States Magistrate Judge.
As Plaintiff's assertions of error are limited to the Administrative Law Judge's analysis of Plaintiff's fibromyalgia and his discrediting of Plaintiff's testimony regarding the intensity of her pain and symptoms, only evidence relevant to those arguments is set forth below.
2. Pain Specialist—J.R. Grandhe, M.D.
4. State Agency Physician—K. Quint, M.D.
to perform a light range of exertional work. She is capable of occasionally climbing ramps and stairs, and occasionally balancing, stooping, kneeling, crouching and crawling. The Claimant is precluded from climbing ladders, ropes, or scaffolds, working around unprotected heights or moving mechanical parts, and she is precluded from commercial driving. She should avoid concentrated exposure to fumes, dust, odors, chemicals or pulmonary irritants. The claimant is able to understand, remember, and carry out simple routine repetitive tasks. She is limited to using judgment for simple work-related tasks.
I considered the claimant's allegations and complaints, and while sincere in her testimony, the evidence does not support a finding of disability . . . She has testified to chronic, severe pain throughout her body, despite scant objective clinical findings, and an active lifestyle that is inconsistent with such complaints. The claimant has not required surgery or hospitalization, and does not require an assistive device for ambulation. [T]he claimant's statements concerning the intensity, persistence and limiting effects of these symptoms are not entirely credible for the reasons explained in this decision.
Plaintiff sought review of this decision before the Appeals Council, which denied review on March 30, 2016. (AR 1-5.) Therefore, the ALJ's decision became the final decision of the Commissioner. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.981, 416.1481.
The ALJ's decision denying benefits "will be disturbed only if that decision is not supported by substantial evidence or it is based upon legal error." Tidwell v. Apfel, 161 F.3d 599, 601 (9th Cir. 1999). In reviewing the Commissioner's decision, the Court may not substitute its judgment for that of the Commissioner. Macri v. Chater, 93 F.3d 540, 543 (9th Cir. 1996). Instead, the Court must determine whether the Commissioner applied the proper legal standards and whether substantial evidence exists in the record to support the Commissioner's findings. See Lewis v. Astrue, 498 F.3d 909, 911 (9th Cir. 2007). "Substantial evidence is more than a mere scintilla but less than a preponderance." Ryan v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 528 F.3d 1194, 1198 (9th Cir. 2008).
"Substantial evidence" means "such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion." Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389, 401 (1971) (quoting Consol. Edison Co. of N.Y. v. NLRB, 305 U.S. 197, 229 (1938)). The Court "must consider the entire record as a whole, weighing both the evidence that supports and the evidence that detracts from the Commissioner's conclusion, and may not affirm simply by isolating a specific quantum of supporting evidence." Lingenfelter v. Astrue, 504 F.3d 1028, 1035 (9th Cir. 2007) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).
An individual is considered disabled for purposes of disability benefits if he or she is unable to engage in any substantial, gainful activity by reason of any medically determinable physical or mental impairment that can be expected to result in death or that has lasted, or can be expected to last, for a continuous period of not less than twelve months. 42 U.S.C. §§ 423(d)(1)(A), 1382c(a)(3)(A); see also Barnhart v. Thomas, 540 U.S. 20, 23 (2003). The impairment or impairments must result from anatomical, physiological, or psychological abnormalities that are demonstrable by medically accepted clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and must be of such severity that the claimant is not only unable to do his previous work, but cannot, considering his age, education, and work experience, engage in any other kind of substantial, gainful work that exists in the national economy. 42 U.S.C. §§ 423(d)(2)-(3), 1382c(a)(3)(B), (D).
The regulations provide that the ALJ must undertake a specific five-step sequential analysis in the process of evaluating a disability. In the First Step, the ALJ must determine whether the claimant is currently engaged in substantial gainful activity. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(b), 416.920(b). If not, in the Second Step, the ALJ must determine whether the claimant has a severe impairment or a combination of impairments significantly limiting him from performing basic work activities. Id. §§ 404.1520(c), 416.920(c). If so, in the Third Step, the ALJ must determine whether the claimant has a severe impairment or combination of impairments that meets or equals the requirements of the Listing of Impairments ("Listing"), 20 C.F.R. 404, Subpart P, App. 1. Id. §§ 404.1520(d), 416.920(d). If not, in the Fourth Step, the ALJ must determine whether the claimant has sufficient residual functional capacity despite the impairment or various limitations to perform his past work. Id. §§ 404.1520(f), 416.920(f). If not, in Step Five, the burden shifts to the Commissioner to show that the claimant can perform other work that exists in significant numbers in the national economy. Id. §§ 404.1520(g), 416.920(g). If a claimant is found to be disabled or not disabled at any step in the sequence, there is no need to consider subsequent steps. Tackett v. Apfel, 180 F.3d 1094, 1098-99 (9th Cir. 1999); 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520, 416.920.
In evaluating the credibility of a claimant's testimony regarding subjective pain, the ALJ must engage in a two-step analysis. Vasquez v. Astrue, 572 F.3d 586, 591 (9th Cir. 2009); Bunnell v. Sullivan, 947 F.2d 341, 344 (9th Cir. 1991) (en banc). First, the ALJ must determine whether the claimant has presented objective medical evidence of an underlying impairment that could reasonably be expected to produce the pain or other symptoms alleged. Vasquez, 572 F.3d at 591. The claimant is not required to show that her impairment "could reasonably be expected to cause the severity of the symptom [she] has alleged; she need only show that it could reasonably have caused some degree of the symptom." Id. (quoting Lingenfelter, 504 F.3d at 1036). If the claimant meets the first test and there is no evidence of malingering, the ALJ can only reject the claimant's testimony about the severity of the symptoms if she gives "specific, clear and convincing reasons" for the rejection. Id.
At the Second Step, the ALJ must determine whether the claimant has a medically determinable physical or mental impairment or combination of impairments that is severe and that meets the durational requirement. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(ii). A medically determinable impairment is one which results from anatomical, physiological, or psychological abnormalities which can be shown by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques. 42 U.S.C. §§ 423(d)(1)(A); 1382c(a)(3)(D); Ukolov v. Barnhart, 420 F.3d 1002, 1005 (9th Cir. 2005). A claimant's own statement of symptoms is not enough to establish a medically determinable impairment. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1508, 416.908.
An impairment or combination of impairments is "severe" if it significantly limits an individual's ability to perform basic work activities. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(c). An impairment is not severe if it is a slight abnormality that has no more than a minimal effect on an individual's ability to do basic work activities. Social Security Ruling ("SSR") 96-3p. The purpose of Step Two is to identify claimants whose medical impairment is so slight that it is unlikely they would be disabled even if age, education, and experience were taken into account. Bowen v. Yuckert, 482 U.S. 137 (1987). "The step two inquiry is a de minimis screening device to dispose of groundless claims. Smolen v. Chafer, 80 F.3d 1273, 1290 (9th Cir. 1996). The burden is on the claimant to demonstrate a severe impairment. Tackett, 180 F.3d at 1098.
If an ALJ finds one severe impairment exists at the Second Step, all medically determinable impairments must be considered in the remaining steps of the sequential analysis. Smolen, 80 F.3d at 1290; 42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(2)(B); 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1523, 416.945(a)(2). When an ALJ accounts for resulting limitations later in the sequential process, any error in finding the impairment non-severe at the Second Step is harmless. Lewis, 498 F.3d at 911; Burch v. Barnhart, 400 F.3d 676, 682 (9th Cir. 2005).
2. The ALJ Did Not Terminate the Five-Step Analysis Regarding Plaintiff's Fibromyalgia at Step Two.
In arguing that the ALJ erred at the Second Step by finding Plaintiff's fibromyalgia non-severe, Plaintiff misunderstands the function of the Second Step as a gate-keeping mechanism to dispose of groundless claims. Once a claimant prevails at the Second Step, by achieving a finding of some severe impairment, regardless of which condition is found to be severe, the ALJ proceeds with the sequential evaluation, considering at each step all other alleged impairments and symptoms that may impact the claimant's ability to work. See 42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(2)(B) ("In determining whether an individual's physical or mental impairment or impairments are of a sufficient medical severity that such impairment or impairments could be the basis of eligibility under this section, the Commissioner of Social Security shall consider the combined effect of all of the individual's impairments without regard to whether any such impairment, if considered separately, would be of such severity."). Here, Plaintiff prevailed at the Second Step. Therefore, any error in the Second Step was harmless because the ALJ found six severe impairments (inflammatory arthritis, cervical disc disease, lumbar myofascial pain syndrome, asthma, borderline intellectual functioning, and anxiety disorder), and continued with the remaining steps. See generally Lewis, 498 F.3d 909 (concluding that the ALJ's classification of one of claimant's impairments as non-severe at the Second Step was harmless error, because claimant was found to have other severe impairments, and the ALJ extensively discussed claimant's non-severe impairment symptoms in the Fourth Step); Smolen, 80 F.3d at 1290 (recognizing that, if one severe impairment exists, all medically determinable impairments must be considered in the remaining steps of the sequential analysis). Thus, the question becomes whether the ALJ properly considered the functional limitations of all other medically determinable impairments at the remaining steps.
Although the Court's finding with respect to the ALJ's discrediting of Plaintiff's testimony, which is more fully discussed below, could affect the determination of whether Plaintiff's fibromyalgia was severe, an error in this regard would also be harmless, as the ALJ resolved the Second Step in Plaintiff's favor and continued the sequential evaluation of Plaintiff's fibromyalgia, among her other impairments. See, e.g., Lewis, 498 F.3d 909; Burch, 400 F.3d at 682 ("Here, the ALJ did not find that Burch's obesity was a 'severe' impairment . . . Assuming without deciding that this omission constituted legal error, it could only have prejudiced Burch in step three (listing impairment determination) or step five (RFC) because the other steps, including this one, were resolved in her favor."); but see 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1508, 416.908 (indicating that a claimant's statements of pain and symptoms, standing alone, would not be enough to establish a severe impairment).
In the Fourth Step, the ALJ was required to account for Plaintiff's non-severe medically determinable impairments with regard to her ability to perform her past relevant work. See id. The ALJ found Plaintiff's fibromyalgia to be a medically determinable impairment which could cause her to suffer from the symptoms alleged. (AR 18, 24.) The ALJ only disagreed with "the intensity, persistence and limiting effects" of the impairment. (AR 25.) In determining a claimant's RFC, the ALJ should consider the claimant's ability to meet physical and mental demands, sensory requirements, and other functions. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1545(b)-(d), 416.945(b)-(d). The ALJ stated that he "considered all symptoms and the extent to which these symptoms can reasonably be accepted as consistent with the objective medical evidence and other evidence." (AR 24.) In his consideration of Plaintiff's fibromyalgia, the ALJ thoroughly discussed Plaintiff's diagnoses and treatment. He mentioned that Plaintiff visited with her rheumatologist, Dr. H. Gill, during which Plaintiff "tested positive for tender points, consistent with fibromyalgia." (AR 20.) The ALJ discussed Plaintiff's visits with Dr. J.R. Grandhe, her pain specialist, during which Dr. Grandhe noted "the presence of trigger points," (AR 21), and "diagnosed [Plaintiff] with generalized body pain, possibly secondary to fibromyalgia" (AR 22), and Plaintiff's evaluation at Valley Health Team, during which Plaintiff was "diagnosed with . . . fibromyalgia muscle pain" (AR 22). Therefore, the ALJ considered Plaintiff's fibromyalgia in the Fourth Step of his analysis even though he found it to be non-severe. The ALJ's findings with regard to Plaintiff's fibromyalgia are accordingly supported by substantial evidence.
Plaintiff contends that the ALJ failed to articulate clear and convincing reasons for discrediting Plaintiff's testimony regarding the severity and extent of her pain and symptoms. (Doc. 16 at 21.) The Court disagrees with Plaintiff's position.
In evaluating the credibility of a claimant's testimony regarding subjective pain, the ALJ must engage in a two-prong analysis. Vasquez, 572 F.3d at 591; Bunnell, 947 F.2d at 344. First, the ALJ must determine whether the claimant has presented objective medical evidence of an underlying impairment that could reasonably be expected to produce the pain or other symptoms alleged. Vasquez, 572 F.3d at 591. The claimant is not required to show that her impairment "could reasonably be expected to cause the severity of the symptom [she] has alleged; she need only show that it could reasonably have caused some degree of the symptom." Id. (quoting Lingenfelter, 504 F.3d at 1036). If the claimant meets the first test and there is no evidence of malingering, the ALJ can only reject the claimant's testimony about the severity of the symptoms if she gives "specific, clear and convincing reasons" for the rejection. Id.
As to the second prong, "[t]he clear and convincing standard is 'not an easy requirement to meet' and it 'is the most demanding standard required in Social Security cases.'" Wells v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., No. 1:17-cv-00078-SKO, 2017 WL 3620054, at *6 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 23, 2017) (quoting Garrison v. Colvin, 759 F.3d 995, 1015 (9th Cir. 2014)). "General findings are insufficient" to satisfy this standard. Burrell v. Colvin, 775 F.3d 1133, 1138 (9th Cir. 2014) (citation omitted). "[R]ather, the ALJ must identify what testimony is not credible and what evidence undermines the claimant's complaints." Id.; see, e.g., Vasquez, 572 F.3d at 592 ("To support a lack of credibility finding, the ALJ [is] required to 'point to specific facts in the record which demonstrate that [the claimant] is in less pain than she claims.'" (quoting Dodrill v. Shalala, 12 F.3d 915, 918 (9th Cir. 1993))); cf. Burrell, 775 F.3d at 1138 (stating that the Ninth Circuit's "decisions make clear that [courts] may not take a general finding . . . and comb the administrative record to find specific" support for the finding).
2. The ALJ Properly Discounted Plaintiff's Testimony Regarding the Intensity, Persistence, and Limiting Effects of Her Physical Impairments.
First, Plaintiff contends that substantial evidence does not support the ALJ's findings, within the context of his credibility determination, that Plaintiff had a history of conservative treatment. (Doc. 16 at 22.) The Court disagrees with Plaintiff's position.
"The treatment [a claimant] received, especially when conservative, is a legitimate consideration in a credibility finding." McKnight v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., No. 1:12-cv-00726-AWI-JLT, 2013 WL 12073218, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 2013) (citing Meanel v. Apfel, 172 F.3d 1111, 1114 (9th Cir. 1999)). In other words, "[t]he conservative nature of [a] plaintiff's treatment provides a clear and convincing reason for rejecting [a] plaintiff's statements concerning the severity of her impairments." Bifarella v. Colvin, 51. F. Supp. 3d 926, 935 (E.D. Cal. 2014) (citing Parra v. Astrue, 481 F.3d 742, 751 (9th Cir. 2007)); see also, e.g., Parra, 481 F.3d at 751 ("[E]vidence of conservative treatment is sufficient to discount a claimant's testimony regarding severity of an impairment." (citation omitted)). "According to agency rules, 'the individual's statements may be less credible if the level or frequency of treatment is inconsistent with the level of complaints, or if the medical reports or records show that the individual is not following the treatment as prescribed and there are no good reasons for this failure."' Molina, 674 F.3d at 1113 (quoting SSR 96-7p).
Here, the ALJ found Plaintiff's treatment to be conservative for the following reasons: (1) "the claimant has not required surgery or hospitalization, and does not require an assistive device for ambulation;" (2) "[t]he evidence does not show that the claimant has sought or received any mental health counseling or therapy;" and (3) "[t]he only treatment she has received, is prescriptions for Lorazepam from physicians who are not mental health specialists." (AR 25.) Plaintiff's pain management specialist, Dr. Grandhe, treated Plaintiff with an over-the-counter TENS unit, home therapy, and continued medication management, which included prescriptions of Plaquenil, Lorazepam, Medrol, Lyrica, and Methotrexate. (AR 48-51, 368-71, 473-74); see also Johnson v. Shalala, 60 F.3d 1428, 1432 (9th Cir. 1995) ("'Conservative treatment' has been characterized by the Ninth Circuit as, for example, 'treat[ment] with an over-the-counter pain medication'.") (quoting Parra v. Astrue, 481 F.3d 742, 751 (9th Cir.2007)) (emphasis added)). Plaintiff responded positively to this treatment. (AR 48-51, 473-74). Prior cases in the Ninth Circuit have repeatedly found that treatment was conservative when the claimant's pain was adequately treated with over-the-counter medication and other minimal treatment. See, e.g., Carmickle v. Comm'r, 533 F.3d 1155, 1162 (9th Cir. 2008) (treatment was conservative where claimant took only Ibuprofen to treat his pain); Tommasetti, 533 F.3d at 1040 (claimant's favorable response to physical therapy, anti-inflammatory medication, a TENS unit, and lumbosacral corset was conservative treatment). The ALJ was therefore entitled to discount Plaintiff's credibility based on this conservative treatment and Plaintiff's positive response to it. See Id.
While Dr. Grandhe also treated Plaintiff with several rounds of epidural steroid injections—treatment which may be more aggressive—"courts have frequently found that the fact that Plaintiff has been prescribed narcotic treatment or received injections does not negate the reasonableness of the ALJ's finding that Plaintiff's treatment as a whole was conservative, particularly when undertaken in addition to other, less invasive treatment methods." Martin v. Colvin, 2017 WL 615196, at *10 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 14, 2017) (emphasis in original) (citing Huizar v. Comm'r, 428 Fed. Appx. 678, 680 (9th Cir. 2011) (finding that plaintiff responded favorably to conservative treatment, which included "the use of narcotic/opiate pain medications"); Zaldana v. Colvin, No. CV 13-7820 RNB, 2014 WL 4929023, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 1, 2014) (finding that evidence of treatment including Tramadol, ibuprofen, and "multiple steroid injections" was "a legally sufficient reason on which the ALJ could properly rely in support of his adverse credibility determination because the record reflects that plaintiff was treated on the whole with conservative care for her foot pain with good results and improvement."); Traynor v. Colvin, No. 1:13-cv-1041-BAM, 2014 WL 4792593, at *9 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 24, 2014) (finding evidence that Plaintiff's symptoms were managed through "prescription medications and infrequent epidural and cortisone injections" was "conservative treatment" was sufficient for the ALJ to discount the plaintiff's testimony regarding the severity of impairment.); Jones v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., No. 2:12-cv-01714-KJN, 2014 WL 228590, at *7-10 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 21, 2014) (ALJ properly found that plaintiff's conservative treatment, which included physical therapy, anti-inflammatory and narcotic medications, use of a TENS unit, occasional epidural steroid injections, and massage therapy, diminished plaintiff's credibility); Higinio v. Colvin, No. EDCV 12-1820 AJW, 2014 WL 47935, at *5 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 7, 2014) (holding that despite the fact that the claimant had been prescribed narcotic pain medication at various times, the claimant's overall treatment—which also included use of a back brace and a heating pad—was conservative); Walter v. Astrue, No. EDCV 09-1569 AGR, 2011 WL 1326529, at *3 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 6, 2011) (ALJ permissibly discredited claimant's allegations based on conservative treatment consisting of Vicodin, physical therapy, and an injection).
Further, as the ALJ stated, Plaintiff had no history of hospitalization, surgical intervention, assistive device for ambulation, or otherwise aggressive treatment. (AR 25); see also, e.g., Osenbrock v. Apfel, 240 F.3d 1157, 1165-66 (9th Cir. 2001) (finding that the ALJ did not err in making an adverse credibility finding where the ALJ stated, in part, that "the claimant has not participated in any significant pain regimen or therapy program"); Fair v. Bowen, 885 F.2d 597, 604 (9th Cir. 1989) (finding that the ALJ did not err in making an adverse credibility finding because, in part, the claimant "alleged persistent and increasingly severe pain and discomfort," but "denied having received more than rather minimal conservative treatment for his various complaints").
Even if Plaintiff's treatment were considered conservative, remand would not be warranted because the remainder of the ALJ's credibility finding as set forth below were supported by ample evidence in the record. See Batson v. Comm'r Soc. Sec., 359 F. 3d 1190, 1197 (9th Cir. 2004)) ("So long as there remains 'substantial evidence supporting the ALJ's conclusions on . . . credibility' and the error 'does not negate the validity of the ALJ's ultimate [credibility] conclusion' such is deemed harmless and does not warrant reversal."); Tonapetyan v. Halter, 242 F. 3d 1144, 1148 (9th Cir. 2001) (that some reasons for discrediting claimant's testimony should be properly discounted does not render an ALJ's determination invalid so long as that determination is supported by other, substantial evidence). As such, the Court finds that the ALJ's credibility determination based on Plaintiff's conservative treatment was supported by substantial evidence.
Plaintiff's further contends that "[t]he ALJ cites no evidence in the record, as is required, to support his conclusion that Ms. Brown is leading an 'active lifestyle.'" (Doc. 16 at 21.) The Court disagrees.
When a claimant spends a substantial part of the day "engaged in pursuits involving the performance of physical functions that are transferrable to a work setting, a specific finding as to this fact may be sufficient to discredit a claimant's allegations." Morgan v. Comm'r Soc. Sec., 169 F.3d 595, 600 (9th Cir. 1999) (quoting Fair v. Bowen, 885 F.2d 597, 603 (9th Cir.1989)); see also Molina, 674 F.3d at 1112 ("While a claimant need not vegetate in a dark room in order to be eligible for benefits, the ALJ may discredit a claimant's testimony when the claimant reports participation in everyday activities indicating capacities that are transferable to a work setting.") (internal quotation and citations omitted). "Even where those activities suggest some difficulty functioning, they may be grounds for discrediting the claimant's testimony to the extent that they contradict claims of a totally debilitating impairment." Id. (citations omitted).
As such, the Court similarly finds that such activities tend to suggest that Plaintiff may still be able to perform, on a sustained basis, the basic demands of the light, unskilled jobs identified by the VE. See Fair, 885 F.2d at 603 (finding that if a claimant has the ability to perform activities "that involved many of the same physical tasks as a particular type of job, it would not be farfetched for an ALJ to conclude that the claimant's pain does not prevent her from working"); see also, e.g., Stubbs-Danielson v. Astrue, 539 F.3d 1169, 1175 (9th Cir. 2008) (finding that the ALJ sufficiently explained his reasons for discrediting the claimant's testimony because the record reflected that the claimant performed normal activities of daily living, including cooking, housecleaning, doing laundry, and helping her husband managing finances); Morgan v. Comm'r Soc. Sec., 169 F.3d 595, 600 (9th Cir. 1999) (ALJ's determination regarding claimant's ability to "fix meals, do laundry, work in the yard, and occasionally care for his friend's child" was a specific finding sufficient to discredit the claimant's credibility); Kelly v. Astrue, 471 F.App'x 674, 677 (9th Cir. 2012) (holding that ALJ properly made an adverse credibility finding because, in part, claimant's daily activities included driving, washing the dishes, shopping, and caring for her two children); Garcia v. Colvin, No. EDCV 14-2107 AGR, 2015 WL 5568606, at *6 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 22, 2015) (ALJ properly discredited subjective complaints of claimant who suffered from fibromyalgia and rheumatoid arthritis where claimant engaged in light daily activities such as house chores, cooking, vacuuming, mopping, cleaning walls, changing beds, and caring for husband and grandchild); Ann Cox v. Colvin, No. 15-cv-00190-JSC, 2015 WL 8596436, at *22 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 14, 2015) (finding ALJ's discrediting of claimant's subject complaints to be proper where claimant, who suffered from fibromyalgia and rheumatoid arthritis, performed household chores, shopped for groceries, performed personal care tasks without assistance, prepared full meals, and drove).
Further, the record shows that Plaintiff admitted that she could still engage in normal daily activities despite her alleged disabilities. When examined in July 2014, Plaintiff reported that the pain did not prevent her from engaging in normal activities. (AR 540); see Martinez v. Comm'r Soc. Sec., 2017 WL 4284651, at *5 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 27, 2017) (upholding ALJ's credibility finding on the grounds, in part, that claimant admitted to a mental health examiner that her age rather than her alleged disabilities were preventing her from obtaining a job).
The record also contains some contrary evidence, such as Plaintiff's statements regarding her constant aches and pains, her inability to sit comfortably for more than 45 minutes, and her need to lie down for an hour to get comfortable. (AR 58-60.) However, it is the function of the ALJ to resolve any ambiguities, and the Court finds the ALJ's assessment of Plaintiff's daily activities to be reasonable and supported by substantial evidence. See Rollins v. Massanari, 261 F.3d 853, 857 (9th Cir. 2001) (affirming ALJ's credibility determination even where the claimant's testimony was somewhat equivocal about how regularly she was able to keep up with all of the activities and noting that the ALJ's interpretation "may not be the only reasonable one").
While subjective symptom testimony cannot be rejected solely on the ground that it is not fully corroborated by objective medical evidence, the medical evidence is still a relevant factor in determining Plaintiff's credibility. Rollins, 261 F.3d at 957 (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(2)); see Burch v. Barnhart, 400 F.3d 676, 681 (9th Cir. 2005) ("[L]ack of medical evidence . . . is a factor that the ALJ can consider in his credibility analysis.").
Here, the ALJ discounted Plaintiff's credibility because, in part, Plaintiff "testified to chronic, severe pain throughout her body, despite scant objective clinical findings." (AR 25.) Contrary to Plaintiff's assertion, (see Doc. 16 at 19-22), the ALJ provided ample support for this conclusion, including an extensive discussion regarding the relevant medical evidence during the course of the RFC analysis, (see AR 19-22). Plaintiff complained, for instance, that she "always ha[s] back pain . . . [t]hat doesn't go away," and that she is "always hurting." (AR 47.) However, Dr. Quint, consultative examiner, made contradictory findings. Dr. Quint determined that Plaintiff could lift and carry up to 20 pounds occasionally and 10 pounds frequently, could sit, stand, and walk six hours in an eight-hour workday, and could occasionally climb, balance, stoop, kneel, crouch, and crawl. (AR 121, 124.) Dr. Grandhe, Plaintiff's pain management specialist, noted that Plaintiff suffered only mild degenerative changes of the cervical spine, without any significant spinal canal stenosis or neuroforaminal narrowing, spinal cord compression, or nerve root impingement at any imaged level. (AR 369.) Plaintiff returned for a follow-up examination, and Dr. Grandhe noted an "excellent response for two weeks." (AR 373.) Dr. H. Gill, Plaintiff's rheumatologist, also noted that Plaintiff expressed "feel[ing] much better" following a round of treatment. (AR 473.) As the ALJ fully explored the pertinent medical evidence relating to the credibility determination, the Court finds that the ALJ's stated rationale pertaining to the objective medical evidence is a valid clear and convincing reason for the ALJ's adverse credibility finding. See, e.g., Thomas v. Barnhart, 278 F.3d 947, 959 (9th Cir. 2002) (finding that the "ALJ gave specific, clear and convincing reasons for discounting [the claimant's] testimony" where the ALJ found, in part, that "no objective medical evidence" supported the claimant's "descriptions of her pain and limitations"); Regennitter v. Commissioner, 166 F.3d 1294, 1297 (9th Cir. 1998) (explaining that a determination that a claimant's complaints are "inconsistent with clinical observations" can satisfy the clear and convincing requirement); Bifarella, 51 F. Supp.3d at 934-35 (finding that the ALJ's rationale relating to an inconsistency between the plaintiff's statements and the objective medical evidence was a valid clear and convincing reason for an adverse credibility finding where the ALJ addressed the pertinent evidence and reached an "interpretation of the objective evidence [that] was reasonable").
In summary, the Court finds that each of the ALJ's stated bases for his credibility determination are supported by substantial evidence. The Court therefore finds that substantial evidence supports the ALJ's ultimate credibility determination and, consequently, that reversal of the ALJ's decision is not warranted.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 404
 v. 
 § 404
 v. 
 v. 
 § 423
 v. 
 § 423
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 404
 v. 
 v. 
 v.