(SS) Weinle v. Commissioner of Social Security ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 8 WENDY WEINLE, 1:19-cv-00122-JDP 9 Plaintiff, ORDER ON SOCIAL SECURITY APPEAL 10 11 v. ORDER DENYING APPEAL AND ORDERING THAT THE CLERK’S OFFICE COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL 12 SECURITY, ENTER JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF RESPONDENT AND CLOSE THIS CASE 13 Defendant. 14 15 16 Claimant has requested judicial review of the Social Security Administration’s (“SSA”) 17 denial of his application for disability insurance benefits. On March 28, 2020, we heard argument 18 from the parties. Because we conclude that the administrative law judge (“ALJ”) provided clear 19 and convincing reasons for discounting claimant’s testimony, we affirm the decision below and 20 order that the clerk’s office enter judgment in favor of respondent. 21 DISCUSSION 22 Claimant filed a disability application in June 2015 identifying a variety of impairments, 23 including obesity, degenerative disc disease, depression, and chronic headaches. In 2017, 24 following a hearing, the ALJ found that claimant retained the residual functional capacity to 25 perform light work. AR 18. The issues before us are whether the ALJ improperly discounted 26 claimant’s symptom testimony and, if so, what remedy is required. We have jurisdiction under 27 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), pursuant to which we ask whether substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s 28 factual findings and whether the ALJ’s decision conformed with applicable law. 1 The parties’ original briefing suggested some contest over the appropriate standard of 2 review, but at oral argument the parties agreed that the Ninth Circuit’s standard—rather than 3 something less demanding—governs how an ALJ must treat a claimant’s testimony: “if the ALJ’s 4 credibility analysis of the claimant’s testimony shows no malingering, then the ALJ may reject 5 the claimant’s testimony about severity of symptoms with specific findings stating clear and 6 convincing reasons for doing so.” Batson v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 359 F.3d 1190, 1196 7 (9th Cir. 2004) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). 8 The ALJ’s opinion met this standard. While “[t]he clear and convincing standard is the 9 most demanding required in Social Security cases,” Moore v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 278 10 F.3d 920, 924 (9th Cir. 2002), the ALJ’s discussion contained more than sufficient clarity and 11 specificity to meet these demands. Much of the ALJ’s discussion of the residual functional 12 capacity finding—a discussion that runs ten pages, see AR 21-31—concerns claimant’s own 13 symptom testimony and the ALJ’s reasons for partially discounting it. Those specific reasons 14 include the fact that claimant “reported she is able to do limited errands such as going to the Post 15 Office or grocery store without assistance” and “can drive short distances and does light 16 household chores for about 10 minutes at a time without assistance,” AR 22; and the fact that 17 claimant “stated that she could cook, do laundry, shop, bathe, drive, brush her teeth, and dress,” 18 AR 23. The ALJ also noted several points of tension with the objective evidence, including the 19 fact that claimant’s “back and left leg pain has been treated conservatively with pain medications, 20 and she has not been referred for more aggressive treatment, such as injections or surgery”; the 21 fact that an “MRI of her lumbar spine showed only moderate degenerative disc disease, and no 22 herniations or stenosis”; the fact that “she has continuously had normal strength, sensation, and 23 deep tendon reflexes”; and the fact “treatment notes also reflect her pain medications have been 24 helpful, she has remained active, and she is independent with her personal care and household 25 chores.” AR 29. 26 This combination of subjective and objective reasons is sufficiently specific, clear, and 27 convincing to pass muster under Ninth Circuit law. See Adams v. Saul, 808 F. App’x 457 (9th 28 Cir. 2020) (“The ALJ gave specific, clear and convincing reasons for discounting [claimant’s] 4:40 ECO VET MMU tu PC Pe YY VI ] || testimony regarding the severity of his symptoms, including that it was not supported by the 2 | longitudinal objective medical record, and that [the] testimony was inconsistent with his reports 3 || to medical providers.”); Rollins v. Massanari, 261 F.3d 853, 857 (9th Cir. 2001) (“While 4 | subjective pain testimony cannot be rejected on the sole ground that it is not fully corroborated by 5 | objective medical evidence, the medical evidence is still a relevant factor in determining the 6 || severity of the claimant’s pain and its disabling effects.”); Morgan v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. 7 | Admin., 169 F.3d 595, 599 (9th Cir. 1999) (“The ALJ pointed to specific evidence in the g || record ... in identifying what testimony was not credible and what evidence undermined g | [claimant’s] complaints.”). 10 The ALJ’s decision offered clear and convincing reasons for discounting claimant’s 11 | testimony, and does not contain the errors that claimant alleges. The clerk of court is thus 12 | directed to (1) enter judgment in against claimant and in favor of the Commissioner and (2) close 13 || this case. 14 IT IS SO ORDERED. 15 Dated: _ July 1, 2020 \ prssann Rae — 17 UNI STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 18 19 | No. 205. 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28