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

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CYNTHIA M. BROWN, No. 2:18-cv-02284-TLN-KJN 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, 15 Defendant. 16 17 18 Plaintiff Cynthia M. Brown (“Plaintiff”), seeks judicial review of the final decision by the 19 Commissioner of Social Security denying her application for Disability Insurance Benefits. The 20 matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and 21 Local Rule 302. 22 On February 22, 2020, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations (ECF No. 23 17), which were served on the parties and which contained notice that any objections to the 24 findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen (14) days. On March 02, 2020, 25 Plaintiff filed objections to the findings and recommendations (ECF No. 20), which have been 26 considered by the Court. 27 This Court reviews de novo those portions of the proposed findings of fact to which 28 objection has been made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Commodore 1 Business Machines, 656 F.2d 1309, 1313 (9th Cir. 1981), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 920 (1982). As 2 to any portion of the proposed findings of fact to which no objection has been made, the Court 3 assumes its correctness and decides the motions on the applicable law. See Orand v. United 4 States, 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are 5 reviewed de novo. See Britt v. Simi Valley Unified Sch. Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983). 6 Having carefully reviewed the entire file under the applicable legal standards, the Court 7 finds the Findings and Recommendations to be supported by the record and by the magistrate 8 judge’s analysis. 9 In her objections, Plaintiff reiterates her arguments that the Administrative Law Judge 10 (“ALJ”) failed to fully develop the record, failed to inquire about reasons for lack of treatment, 11 and erred in finding Plaintiff’s daily activities contradicted her allegations of disability. Plaintiff 12 argues the ALJ should have asked additional questions to elicit Plaintiff’s ability to perform 13 activities for the length of time required during an eight-hour workday. However, Plaintiff’s 14 responses at hearing were not the sole basis for the ALJ’s opinion. Instead, as noted by the 15 magistrate judge, the ALJ considered the entirety of Plaintiff’s medical records in rendering a 16 decision. The record does not expose ambiguous evidence and the ALJ’s decision is well 17 founded. 18 Plaintiff’s next objection, that the ALJ failed to inquire about lack of treatment, is 19 similarly unavailing. While the ALJ notes “large gaps in treatment,” he goes on to analyze in 20 detail Plaintiff’s treatment records. His decision is based on these and not solely on the gaps in 21 treatment. “Where the evidence is susceptible to more than one rational interpretation, one of 22 which supports the ALJ's decision, the ALJ's conclusion must be upheld.” Thomas v. Barnhart, 23 278 F.3d 947, 954 (9th Cir. 2002). Here, while there may be conflicting evidence in the record, 24 there is sufficient evidence to support the ALJ’s decision. 25 Finally, Plaintiff asserts that the ALJ should not have found that Plaintiff’s testimony 26 regarding her daily living contradicted her allegations of the level of her limitations. However, 27 the ALJ based his analysis on many factors including Plaintiff’s testimony, her medical records, 28 and the testimony of her husband and the vocational expert. The ALJ cited substantial evidence 1 in his decision and on appeal to the district court, “[i]f the evidence can reasonably support either 2 affirming or reversing the [ALJ’s] conclusion, the court may not substitute its judgment for that 3 of the [ALJ].” Flaten v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 44 F.3d 1453, 1457 (9th Cir. 1995). 4 The evidence does reasonably support the ALJ’s determination and therefore should not be 5 overturned by this Court. 6 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 7 1. The findings and recommendations (ECF No. 17) are ADOPTED. 8 2. Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 13) is DENIED; 9 3. The Commissioner’s cross-motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 14) is 10 GRANTED. 11 4. The final decision of the Commissioner is AFFIRMED, and judgment is entered for the 12 Commissioner; and 13 5. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case. 14 IT IS SO ORDERED 15 Dated: March 23, 2020 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28