Source: http://ca.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20191206_0016825.ECA.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2020-01-27 14:54:56
Document Index: 597697600

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 405', '§ 636', '§ 404', '§ 404', '§ 423', '§ 404', '§ 404', '§ 404', '§ 404']

FindACase™ | Lemay v. Commissioner of Social Security
CHRISTINE LEMAY, Plaintiff,
Plaintiff, who is proceeding with retained counsel, brings this action for judicial review of a final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). Pursuant to the written consent of all parties (ECF Nos. 6 and 7), this case is before the undersigned as the presiding judge for all purposes, including entry of final judgment. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). Pending before the court are the parties' briefs on the merits (ECF Nos. 15 and 16).
Plaintiff applied for social security benefits on November 4, 2014. See CAR 15.[1]In the application, plaintiff claims disability began on November 5, 2012. See id. Plaintiff's claim was initially denied. Following denial of reconsideration, plaintiff requested an administrative hearing, which was held on April 3, 2017, before Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Christopher C. Knowdell. In a July 18, 2017, decision, the ALJ concluded plaintiff is not disabled based on the following relevant findings:
1. The claimant has the following severe impairment(s): celiac disease, arthralgia, depression, and chronic fatigue syndrome;
3. The claimant has the following residual functional capacity: light work, except she is limited to occasional postural activities, she must avoid concentrated exposure to extreme heat, humidity, and cold, and she is limited to simple tasks with no public interactions;
See id. at 17-24.
After the Appeals Council declined review on June 9, 2018, this appeal followed.
In her opening brief, plaintiff argues: (1) the ALJ erred in rejecting her testimony as to the severity of her symptoms; (2) the ALJ ignored the requirements of 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520a in evaluating the severity of plaintiff's depression; and (3) the ALJ failed to properly evaluate the medical opinions from plaintiff's treating physician, Dr. Sutter.
A. Severity of Plaintiff's Depression
To qualify for benefits, the plaintiff must have an impairment severe enough to significantly limit the physical or mental ability to do basic work activities. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(c), 416.920(c).[2] In determining whether a claimant's alleged impairment is sufficiently severe to limit the ability to work, the Commissioner must consider the combined effect of all impairments on the ability to function, without regard to whether each impairment alone would be sufficiently severe. See Smolen v. Chater, 80 F.3d 1273, 1289-90 (9th Cir. 1996); see also 42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(2)(B); 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1523 and 416.923. An impairment, or combination of impairments, can only be found to be non-severe if the evidence establishes a slight abnormality that has no more than a minimal effect on an individual's ability to work. See Social Security Ruling (SSR) 85-28; see also Yuckert v. Bowen, 841 F.2d 303, 306 (9th Cir. 1988) (adopting SSR 85-28). The plaintiff has the burden of establishing the severity of the impairment by providing medical evidence consisting of signs, symptoms, and laboratory findings. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1508, 416.908. The plaintiff's own statement of symptoms alone is insufficient. See id.
At Step 2, the ALJ determined that plaintiff's depression is a severe impairment. See CAR 17-18. Though plaintiff argues the ALJ failed to apply 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520a, plaintiff concedes: “In this case, the ALJ did this [applied § 404.1520a(b)(1)] and found that Plaintiff suffers from depression.” See ECF No. 15, pg. 11. According to plaintiff, the ALJ failed to “apply the special technique to evaluate the severity of Plaintiff's mental impairment. . . .” Id. According to plaintiff: “At step two in this case, the ALJ did not provide a narrative of his rationale. . . .” Id. at 12. Plaintiff argues the matter must be remanded.
Plaintiff's argument is not persuasive. Though the ALJ did not provide a narrative discussion supporting his conclusion at Step 2 that plaintiff's depression is a severe impairment, the court finds no error given that the ALJ did in fact find the impairment to be severe. Plaintiff has not indicated how the lack of a narrative discussion at Step 2 resulted in any prejudice given that the ALJ rendered a favorable determination as to the severity of plaintiff's depression. While plaintiff references medical sources who concluded plaintiff's depression is extremely limiting, plaintiff confuses the standard applicable at Step 2 with the standard at Step 4 for determination of residual functional capacity. To what extent plaintiff's depression presents more than minimal limitations on her ability to work is not relevant at Step 2.[3]
B. Evaluation of Medical Opinions
At Step 4, the ALJ considered the medical opinion evidence in determining plaintiff's residual functional capacity. See CAR 21-22. As to treating sources, the ALJ stated:
I have considered the multiple physician's statement[s] completed for purposes of long-term disability insurance benefits (see Ex. 9F). In these statements, it was asserted that the claimant's physical impairments were “Class 4, ” indicating “marked limitation - capable of minimal activity” (see Ex. 9F, pp. 7 and 12). I give no weight to these ratings because they are not supported by the evidence at the hearing level as discussed above, including the claimant's capacity for skiing and traveling. The ratings are also not assessments of the claimant's residual functional capacity for purposes of Social Security disability determination and thus, they have little probative value.
The claimant's treating doctor, Charles Sutter, M.D., also completed a “Chronic Fatigue Syndrome Residual Functional Capacity Questionnaire” on May 26, 2016, in which he indicated the claimant's fatigue, celiac disease and arthralgia frequently interfered with her attention and concentration and generally limited her to less-than-sedentary activities. He indicated the claimant could not sit or stand for more than one hour at a time and that the claimant had been at this level of functioning for over four years (Ex. 13F). I find these limitations are not consistent with the rather limited medical treatment the claimant has received to date, as well as the physical activities she reported as noted above on a longitudinal basis (traveling and skiing). This checklist-style form appears to have been completed based on the claimant's subjective complaints only and includes only conclusions regarding exertional limitations without objective rationale for those conclusions. It is noted that Dr. Sutter previously completed a similar form on April 20, 2016, in which he indicated the claimant could sit for four hours and stand and/or walk for two hours total, but not continuously (Ex. 14F, p. 67). The file shows that the claimant and her representative had some role in advising Dr. Sutter on how to complete the form with respect to ...