(SS) Garza 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 MARIA LOURDES GARZA, No. 1:21-cv-00419-ADA-HBK 12 Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, DENYING 13 v. PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, GRANTING DEFENDANT’S 14 COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL CROSS-MOTION FOR SUMMARY SECURITY, JUDGMENT, AND AFFIRMING THE 15 DECISION OF THE COMMISSIONER OF Defendant. SOCIAL SECURITY 16 (ECF Nos. 14, 17, 19) 17 18 Plaintiff Maria Lourdes Garza initiated this action seeking judicial review of a final decision 19 of the Commissioner of Social Security. (ECF No. 1.) This matter was referred to the assigned 20 United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302(c)(15). 21 On June 15, 2023, the assigned Magistrate Judge issued findings and recommendations, 22 recommending that Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment be denied, Defendant’s cross-motion 23 for summary judgment be granted, and the Commissioner’s decision be affirmed. (ECF No. 19.) 24 The findings and recommendations contained notice that any objections were due within fourteen 25 days. (Id. at 11–12.) On June 29, 2023, Plaintiff timely filed objections to the findings and 26 recommendations that largely reiterate the arguments made in her opening brief. (ECF No. 20.) 27 On July 5, 2023, Defendant replied to Plaintiff’s objections. (ECF No. 21.) 28 In her objections, Plaintiff first contends that the Magistrate Judge failed to address her 1 argument that the ALJ erred in assessing Plaintiff’s Residual Functional Capacity (“RFC”) because 2 the ALJ failed to set forth substantial evidence to support it and the ALJ “failed to explain how he 3 arrived at the assessed RFC.” (ECF No. 20 at 2–3.) That said, the Court notes that even in the 4 objections, Plaintiff predicates her RFC argument on the ALJ’s “discounting” of the medical 5 evidence because “‘evidence at the hearing’ showed [a] worsening of Plaintiff’s conditions . . . . 6 However, the ALJ then arbitrarily guessed at the RFC based upon a lay interpretation of the 7 additional evidence that was not reviewed by the DDS doctors.” (Id. at 2.) 8 The RFC is an administrative finding based on all relevant evidence in the record, not just 9 medical evidence. Bayliss v. Barnhart, 427, F.3d 1211, 1217 (9th Cir. 2005). Moreover, and 10 particularly notable in this case, an ALJ’s RFC findings need only be consistent with the relevant 11 assessed limitations and not identical to them. Turner v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 613 F.3d 1217, 12 1222–23 (9th Cir. 2010). Here, as noted by the Magistrate Judge, despite any error by the ALJ in 13 “rejecting” or “discounting” some part of the medical opinion evidence, any error is harmless 14 because it is non-prejudicial to Plaintiff and does not change the ALJ’s ultimate nondisability 15 determination. See Stout v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 454 F.3d 1050, 1055–56 (9th Cir. 2006) 16 (reviewing court cannot consider an error harmless unless it “can confidently conclude that no 17 reasonable ALJ, when fully crediting the [evidence], could have reached a different disability 18 determination”); see also Lamas v. Saul, 2020 WL 6561306, at *10 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 9, 2020) (“The 19 Court finds that the ALJ’s error in this case was harmless. The limitations that the ALJ included 20 in the RFC pertaining to Plaintiff’s [] impairments were more restrictive than those to which the 21 medical opinions of record opined, yet the ALJ nonetheless found that there would be work 22 available with those more stringent limitations.”). Thus, the Magistrate Judge found the assessed 23 RFC was supported by substantial evidence, including medical opinion evidence, in the overall 24 record and there was no inadequacy in the record that would trigger the ALJ’s duty to develop. See 25 Mayes v. Massanari, 276 F.3d 453, 460 (9th Cir. 2001). 26 Second, aside from the general argument that “[a]dditional fact-finding is needed,” Plaintiff 27 reiterates the same general argument in her opening brief that the step five conclusion is not 28 supported by substantial evidence without specifically identifying error in the Magistrate Judge’s 1 | finding. (See ECF No. 20.) Relying in Ninth Circuit case law, the Magistrate Judge found that it 2 || is unnecessary to consider whether the jobs of “addresser” and “document preparer” are obsolete 3 || in today’s national economy because even without those jobs, the ALJ’s finding at step five that 4 | work existed in significant numbers in the national economy was supported by substantial evidence 5 | in the form of vocational expert testimony that Plaintiff could perform the requirements of 6 || assembler, with 25,000 jobs in the national economy. (ECF No. 19 at 10.) Moreover, it is well- 7 | settled in the Ninth Circuit that 25,000 national jobs constitute a significant number within the 8 || national economy. Gutierrez v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 740 F.3d 519, 529 (9th Cir. 2014). Thus, the 9 | Magistrate Judge found that the ALJ properly relied on the vocational expert’s testimony, and there 10 | was no error at step five. (See ECF No. 19 at 11.) 11 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C), the Court has conducted a 12 | de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including □□□□□□□□□□□ 13 | objections, the Court concludes that the findings and recommendations are supported by the record 14 | and proper analysis. 15 Accordingly, 16 1. The findings and recommendations issued on June 29, 2023, (ECF No. 19), are 17 ADOPTED in FULL; 18 2. Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment, (ECF No. 14), is DENIED; 19 3. Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment, (ECF No. 17), is GRANTED; 20 4. The decision of the Commissioner of Social Security is AFFIRMED; and, 21 5. The Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment for Defendant, terminate any deadlines, and 22 close this case. 23 24 95 | IT ISSO ORDERED. 26 Dated: _ October 18, 2023 37 UNITED fTATES DISTRICT JUDGE 28