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

1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 8 9 CARLOS SALAZAR, Case No. 1:19-cv-01047-JDP 10 Plaintiff, ORDER ON SOCIAL SECURITY APPEAL 11 v. 12 COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, 13 Defendant. 14 15 Claimant has requested judicial review of the Social Security Administration’s (“SSA”) 16 denial of his application for disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income. On 17 May 13, 2020, we heard argument from the parties. Having considered arguments made at the 18 hearing, and having reviewed the record, administrative transcript, briefs of the parties, and 19 applicable law, we affirm the decision of the SSA’s Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”). 20 On appeal, we ask only whether substantial evidence supports the Commissioner’s factual 21 findings and whether the Commissioner applied the correct legal standards. 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). 22 We will uphold the ALJ’s decision if it is rational, even if there is another rational interpretation 23 of the evidence; we will not substitute our judgment for that of the Commissioner. Id. 24 The ALJ found claimant to have five severe impairments: obesity, bilateral elbow 25 degenerative joint disease and bursitis, major depressive disorder, generalized anxiety disorder, 26 and cannabis abuse in reported remission. AR 26.1 On appeal, claimant argues that the ALJ 27 28 1 The ALJ also noted that claimant has been treated for a seizure disorder. Id. 1 erred (1) by improperly rejecting the physical functional assessment of claimant’s treating 2 physician, Dr. Molina, and (2) by rejecting the opinions of physicians concerning claimant’s 3 mental limitations, in favor of her own lay interpretation of the clinical data. 4 On the first issue, claimant faults the ALJ for giving short shrift to the opinion of Dr. 5 Molina as to claimant’s physical limitations. Dr. Molina was a treating psychiatrist who opined 6 that claimant had significant physical limitations due to his elbow impairment. AR 34. The ALJ 7 gave this opinion “little weight” because it was “not supported by or consistent with the objective 8 medical evidence in the record.” AR 34. The ALJ explains that the RFC “more than adequately 9 accommodates the claimant’s physical impairments.” Id. The ALJ notes that “claimant has not 10 been recommended for surgery for his elbow impairment and physical examinations in the record 11 [are] inconsistent with greater limitations.” Id. 12 An ALJ may not reject the contradicted opinion of a treating doctor “without providing 13 specific and legitimate reasons supported by substantial evidence in the record.” Lester v. Chater, 14 81 F.3d 821, 830 (9th Cir. 1995). Here, the ALJ’s discussion of her reasons for discounting Dr. 15 Molina’s opinion, which includes citations to medical record evidence, provides specific and 16 legitimate reasons supported by substantial evidence in the record. See Magallanes v. Bowen, 17 881 F.2d 747, 755 (9th Cir. 1989) (“As a reviewing court, we are not deprived of our faculties for 18 drawing specific and legitimate inferences from the ALJ’s opinion.”). 19 On the second issue, the ALJ found that claimant’s mental impairments reduced his 20 residual functional capacity (“RFC”)—and incorporated limitations on light work to perform 21 simple routine tasks with occasional interaction with the public—but she ultimately found the 22 impairments not disabling. She made this determination by weighing the claimant’s testimony 23 and the medical evidence along with opinions from reviewing, examining, and treating physicians 24 on how claimant’s mental impairments impacted his RFC. The ALJ assigned great weight to the 25 opinions of Dr. Collado and Dr. Genese, incorporating their recommended limitations into the 26 RFC. However, the ALJ noted that the medical record evidence on this issue was not substantial. 27 See AR 33 (“claimant’s psychiatric or mental status examinations in the record are generally 28 wASOe RT MMU OI Ne YY VI 1 | unremarkable and inconsistent with greater limitations”). The ALJ gave less weight to opinions 2 | that were not supported by the medical record, which demonstrated that claimant’s mental 3 | impairments were helped by medication and treatment and he has generally normal psychiatric 4 | and mental examinations. AR 33-35. 5 We see no error here. Ultimately, the burden rests with the claimant to prove that he is 6 | disabled by furnishing medical and other evidence. See 42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(5); Meanel v. Apfel, 7 172 F.3d 1111, 1113 (9th Cir. 1999), as amended (June 22, 1999) (“The claimant bears the 8 | burden of proving that she is disabled.”). We see no error with how the ALJ evaluated the mental 9 | impairment evidence and opinions in this case. 10 In sum, we find that the ALJ’s decision is supported by substantial evidence and that 11 | claimant has identified no reversible error in the ALJ’s analysis. For the reasons stated in this 12 | order, we deny claimant’s appeal from the administrative decision of the Commissioner of Social 13 | Security and direct the clerk of court (1) to enter judgment in favor of defendant and against 14 | claimant Carlos Salazar and (2) to close this case. 15 16 IT IS SO ORDERED. 17 ( □□□ Dated: _ September 30, 2020 18 UNIT#D STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 19 20 | No. 204. 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28