Source: http://hi.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20180627_0000281.DHI.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2020-01-24 05:14:34
Document Index: 667696017

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 405', '§ 405', '§ 404', '§ 404', '§ 404', '§ 404', '§ 404', '§ 404', 'art 404', '§ 404', '§ 404', '§ 404']

FindACase™ | Kekaula v. Berryhill
Kekaula v. Berryhill
EDMUND KEKAULA, Plaintiff,
On August 28, 2014, Plaintiff Edmund Kekaula (“Plaintiff”) protectively filed an application for Social Security Disability Insurance (“SSDI”) benefits, alleging disability beginning on April 24, 2014. Administrative Record (“AR”) 166-72. The application was initially denied on December 4, 2014, and was denied again upon reconsideration on June 1, 2015. AR 13, 104-07, 109-13. Plaintiff then requested a hearing before an administrative law judge (“ALJ”), which was held on May 19, 2016. AR 13, 26.
On July 13, 2016, the ALJ issued her written decision finding that Plaintiff was not disabled. AR 13-21. Plaintiff filed a request with the Appeals Council to review the ALJ's decision on September 12, 2016. AR 159-65. The Appeals Council denied Plaintiff's request, finding no reason to review the ALJ's decision, and adopted the ALJ's decision as the final decision of the Commissioner on September 7, 2017. AR 1-3.
Plaintiff filed a complaint on November 9, 2017, seeking a review of the denial of his application for SSDI benefits. ECF No. 1. On May 8, 2018, Plaintiff filed his opening brief. ECF No. 18 (“Opening Br.”). Defendant, the Acting Commissioner of Social Security (“Commissioner”), filed her answering brief on May 22, 2018. ECF No. 21 (“Ans. Br.”).
The Court held a hearing on Tuesday, June 19, 2018 regarding Plaintiff's requested review of the Commissioner's decision.
A district court has jurisdiction pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) to review final decisions of the Commissioner of Social Security.[1]
A final decision by the Commissioner denying Social Security disability benefits will not be disturbed by the reviewing district court if it is free of legal error and supported by substantial evidence. See 42 U.S.C. § 405(g); Dale v. Colvin, 823 F.3d 941, 943 (9th Cir. 2016) (reviewing a district court's decision de novo). Even if a decision is supported by substantial evidence, however, it “will still be set aside if the ALJ did not apply proper legal standards.” See Gutierrez v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 740 F.3d 519, 523 (9th Cir. 2014).
In determining the existence of substantial evidence, the administrative record must be considered as a whole, weighing the evidence that both supports and detracts from the Commissioner's factual conclusions. See id. “Substantial evidence means more than a scintilla but less than a preponderance; it is such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). “If the evidence can reasonably support either affirming or reversing, the reviewing court may not substitute its judgment for that of the Commissioner.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). Rather, courts “leave it to the ALJ to determine credibility, resolve conflicts in the testimony, and resolve ambiguities in the record.” Treichler v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 775 F.3d 1090, 1098 (9th Cir. 2014). But reviewing courts must be cognizant of the “long-standing principles of administrative law [that] require us to review the ALJ's decision based on the reasoning and factual findings offered by the ALJ-not post hoc rationalizations that attempt to intuit what the adjudicator may have been thinking.” Bray v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 554 F.3d 1219, 1225-26 (9th Cir. 2009); see also S.E.C. v. Chenery Corp., 332 U.S. 194, 196 (1947) (if the grounds “invoked by the agency . . . are inadequate or improper, the court is powerless to affirm the administrative action by substituting what it considers to be a more adequate or proper basis.”)
At step one the ALJ will consider a claimant's work activity, if any. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(i). If the ALJ finds the claimant is engaged in substantial gainful activity, he will determine that the claimant is not disabled, regardless of the claimant's medical condition, age, education, or work experience. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(b). Substantial gainful activity is work that is defined as both substantial (i.e., work activity involving significant physical or mental activities) and gainful (i.e., work activity done for pay or profit). 20 C.F.R. § 404.1572. If the ALJ finds that the claimant is not engaged in substantial gainful activity, the analysis proceeds to step two. Tackett, 180 F.3d at 1098.
Step two requires the ALJ to consider the medical severity of the claimant's impairments. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a) (4)(ii). Only if the claimant has an impairment or combination of impairments that “significantly limits [his] physical or mental ability to do basic work activities” will the analysis proceed to step three. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(c). If not, the ALJ will find the claimant is not disabled and the analysis is complete. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(ii).
The ALJ found, at step one, that Plaintiff had not engaged in substantial gainful activity since April 24, 2014, the alleged onset date, and at step two, that he suffered from the following severe impairments: status post stroke, status post myocardial infarction, and obesity. AR 15-16.
At the third step, the ALJ found that Plaintiff did not have an impairment or a combination of impairments that met or medically equaled the severity of an impairment listed in 20 C.F.R. Part 404. Subpart P, Appendix 1. AR 16-17.
Moving to step four, the ALJ determined that Plaintiff has the RFC to: “perform light work as defined in 20 CFR 404.1567(b) and SSR 83-10, except that: he can perform all postural activities only occasionally, and [] he can occasionally reach, grasp, and finger with the right (nondominant) upper extremity[.]” AR 17. Based on this RFC, the ALJ determined at step four that Plaintiff is able to perform past relevant work as a “House Officer, Security at a Hotel” and therefore is not disabled. AR 19-20. The ALJ further found that, in the alternative, a determination of “not disabled” would be appropriate at step five because Plaintiff is capable of engaging in a type of substantial gainful activity (that of Gate Guard) that exists in significant numbers in the national economy. AR 20. Plaintiff disputes the ALJ's decision regarding his RFC, contending that the ALJ's assessment of his treating physician's opinions was in error. Opening Br. at 7. Plaintiff also contests the ALJ's credibility determinations. See Opening Br. at 5.
III. The Medical Opinions of Plaintiff's Treating Physician
The applicable regulations state that the Agency will consider all the medical opinions it receives. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(b), (c). But in the realm of social security adjudications, physicians' opinions are not all created equal. “Cases in this circuit distinguish among the opinions of three types of physicians: (1) those who treat the claimant (treating physicians); (2) those who examine but do not treat the claimant (examining physicians); and (3) those who neither examine nor treat the claimant (nonexamining physicians).” Lester v. Chater, 81 F.3d 821, 830 (9th Cir. 1995); see also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2). “Generally, the opinion of a treating physician must be given more weight than the opinion of an examining physician, and the opinion of an examining physician must be afforded more weight than the opinion of a reviewing physician.” Ghanim v. Colvin, 763 F.3d 1154, 1160 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Holohan v. Massanari, 246 F.3d 1195, 1202 (9th Cir. 2001); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)).
a. The September 2014 Opinion
On September 16, 2014, Dr. David Kwiat, Plaintiff's treating physician, diagnosed Plaintiff with stroke and right hemiparesis and reported that Plaintiff: could stand and/or walk for three hours during an eight-hour workday; could sit for three hours during an eight-hour workday; did not need a job that permitted him to shift at will from sitting, standing, or walking; could frequently lift less than ten pounds, occasionally lift ten or twenty pounds, and never lift fifty pounds; could occasionally twist, stop, crouch, and climb; could never, during the course of an eight-hour workday, grasp/turn/twist objects with his right hand or perform fine manipulations with his right fingers; could reach with his right arm for 25% of an eight-hour workday; could grasp/twist/turn objects with his left hand, perform fine manipulations with his left fingers, or reach with his left arm for 50% of an eight-hour workday; could perform low-stress work; and would likely be absent from work for about three days a month as a result of his impairments or treatment. AR 282-84. At the administrative hearing, a vocational expert testified that either limitation to a six-hour workday or the need to be absent three times per month would render Plaintiff unable to work.[2] AR 74-75.
In December 2014, Dr. Lau, a State Agency medical consultant, reviewed Plaintiff's records and concluded that Plaintiff could engage in medium work and frequent postural activities. AR 19, 83-84. Dr. Lau opined that Plaintiff could stand and/or walk for six hours during an eight-hour workday and could sit for the same amount of time. AR 82. Dr. Lau appears to have given no opinion as to the number of days Plaintiff would need to be absent from work due to his impairments or treatment. In May 2015, another State Agency medical consultant, Dr. Matsuyama, reviewed Plaintiff's records and echoed Dr. Lau's conclusions, in large part reproducing them precisely-and again providing no opinion on the number of workdays per month Plaintiff's impairments or treatment would cause him to be absent. AR 92-97. Neither Dr. Lau nor Dr. Matsuyama examined Plaintiff. AR 19.
In making her RFC finding, the ALJ gave “some weight, but not great weight” to Dr. Kwiat's September 2014 opinion, because it was “not based on the most recent medical evidence and is not fully supported by the evidence.” AR 17. The ALJ credited Dr. Kwiat's September 2014 opinion insofar as it supported a limitation to light work and to occasional postural activities, but she expressly credited Drs. Lau and Matsuyama's opinions (and discredited Dr. Kwiat) regarding Plaintiff's retention of some ability to use his right arm and full ability to use his left. Id. at 18. Moreover, she discredited Dr. Kwiat regarding the amount of time during a workday that Plaintiff could stand, walk, and sit and the number of workdays per month he would be absent due to his impairments or treatment. Id. at 17-19.
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;1. Whether the ALJ Failed to Consider the § ...