(SS) Huertaz v. Commissioner of Social Security ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DARLENE GLORIA HUERTAZ, No. 1:21-cv-00515-ADA-BAM 12 Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 13 v. (ECF Nos. 18, 26) 14 KILOLO KIJAKAZI, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, 15 Defendant. 16 17 Plaintiff Darlene Gloria Huertaz (“Plaintiff”) seeks judicial review of a final decision of the 18 Commissioner of Social Security denying her application for disability insurance benefits under 19 Title II of the Social Security Act. 20 On December 14, 2022, the assigned Magistrate Judge issued findings and 21 recommendations recommending that Plaintiff’s appeal from the administrative decision of the 22 Commissioner of Social Security be denied and the Clerk of this Court be directed to enter judgment 23 in favor of defendant Kilolo Kijakazi, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, and against 24 Plaintiff Darlene Gloria Huertaz. (ECF No. 26.) The findings and recommendations were served 25 on the parties and contained notice that any objections thereto were to be filed within fourteen (14) 26 days after service. (Id. at 15.) Plaintiff filed timely objections on December 28, 2022. (ECF No. 27 27.) The Commissioner did not respond to the objections, and the time in which to do so has passed. 28 Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). 1 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(c), this Court has conducted a 2 de novo review of the case, including Plaintiff’s objections. Having carefully reviewed the entire 3 file, the Court finds that the findings and recommendations are supported by the record and proper 4 analysis. Plaintiff’s objections do not provide a basis to reject the findings and recommendations. 5 In her objections, Plaintiff argues that, “[e]ven under the new regulations, an ALJ cannot 6 reject an examining or treating doctor’s opinion as unsupported or inconsistent without providing 7 an explanation supported by substantial evidence.” Woods v. Kajikazi, 32 F.4th 785 (9th Cir. 2022). 8 Plaintiff argues that the ALJ failed to explain why decreased range of motion and diminished 9 muscle strength are insufficient to support Dr. Mandell’s opinion, among other conclusions. (ECF 10 No. 27 at 2.) Plaintiff further asserts that the ALJ has cherry picked and relied only on the normal 11 findings of the record to support their opinion. (Id.) Plaintiff argues that the ALJ and the Magistrate 12 Judge erroneously rejected Dr. Mandell’s opinion based on Plaintiff’s temporary and partial 13 improvement in pain. (Id. at 3.) Plaintiff contends that the ALJ failed to consider conflicting 14 findings and explain the discrepancies. (Id. at 4.) The Court disagrees with Plaintiff’s objections. 15 The Court finds that the Magistrate Judge’s review of the Commissioner’s determination is 16 supported by substantial evidence, providing a comprehensive review of the lack of supportability 17 and consistency of the opinions of both Drs. Mandell and Majzoubi. The Court notes that the 18 Magistrate Judge carefully reviewed and considered all of the briefs, including arguments, points 19 and authorities, declarations, and/or exhibits. Any omission of a reference to any specific argument 20 or brief is not to be construed that the Court did not consider the argument or brief. (ECF No. 26 21 at 6 n.3.) This prevents any appearance of alleged cherry picking by the Court. For example, the 22 Magistrate Judge addressed why decreased range of motion and diminished muscle strength are 23 insufficient to support Dr. Mandell’s opinion. (Id. at 8.) To determine the supportability and 24 consistency of Dr. Mandell’s opinion, the ALJ also considered the normal reflexes, sensation, and 25 absence of tenderness throughout Plaintiff’s spinal region, which did not warrant restrictive 26 limitations. (Id.) There is no indication that the Magistrate Judge or the ALJ failed to explain 27 adequately its findings in their orders. Furthermore, the Magistrate Judge and the ALJ sufficiently 28 addressed the conflicting findings. (See, e.g., id. at 14 (“[T]he ALJ contrasted Plaintiff’s assertion 1 | that her chiropractic treatment did not help her chronic pain with her report of symptom 2 || improvement just prior to her suspension of chiropractic treatment.”).) Therefore, the Court adopts 3 | the Magistrate Judge’s findings and recommendations in full. 4 Accordingly, 5 1. The findings and recommendations issued on December 14, 2022, (ECF No. 26), 6 are adopted in full; 7 2. Plaintiff's appeal from the administrative decision of the Commissioner of Social 8 Security is denied; and 9 3. The Clerk of this Court is directed to enter judgment in favor of defendant Kilolo 10 Kijakazi, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, and against plaintiff Darlene 11 Huertaz. 12 13 14 | IIS SO ORDERED. 15 Dated: _ February 14, 2023 6 UNITED f£TATES DISTRICT JUDGE 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28