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

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 AMANDA N. LO, ) Case No.: 1:22-cv-0524 JLT HBK ) 12 Plaintiff, ) ORDER ADOPTING THE FINDINGS AND ) RECOMMENDATIONS, DENYING 13 v. ) PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY ) JUDGMENT, GRANTING DEFENDANT’S 14 KILOLO KIJAKAZI, ) CROSS-MOTION FOR SUMMARY Acting Commissioner of Social Security, ) JUDGMENT, AND AFFIRMING THE 15 ) DECISION OF THE COMMISSIONER OF ) SOCIAL SECURITY 16 Defendant. ) ) (Docs. 19, 21, and 22) 17 18 Amanda Lo initiated this action seeking judicial review of a final decision of the 19 Commissioner of Social Security denying her application for a period of disability and disability 20 insurance benefits. (Docs. 1, 19.) Plaintiff contends the administrative law judge erred in finding that 21 her major depressive disorder, a medically determinable impairment, was not a “severe” impairment at 22 step two. (Doc.19 at 5-16.) The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 23 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 24 The magistrate judge found “substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s conclusion that Plaintiff’s 25 claimed mental health limitations were not severe” through Plaintiff’s date last insured. (Doc. 22 at 10.) 26 The magistrate judge observed that the ALJ acknowledged “some abnormal mental status findings; but 27 they were infrequent and responded well to medication treatment, and Plaintiff had generally normal 28 mental status findings.” (Id., internal quotation and citations marks omitted.) The magistrate judge 1 noted Plaintiff argued that the ALJ “cherry picked” the evidence but found “the ALJ fully considered 2 all of the objective evidence cited by Plaintiff, as well as consistent mental status examination findings 3 ‘throughout the remainder of the record.’” (Id.) The magistrate judge observed that Plaintiff did not 4 challenge the rejection of her subjective statements and found “[t]he ALJ was not required to credit the 5 medical opinion and Plaintiff’s subjective complaints in assessing the severity of Plaintiff’s mental 6 impairments after they were properly discounted.” (Id.) Furthermore, Plaintiff did “not challenge the 7 ALJ’s conclusion, after conducting the ‘special technique’ analysis at step two, that because Plaintiff’s 8 ‘medically determinable mental impairments caused no more than ‘mild’ limitation in any of the 9 functional areas and the evidence does not otherwise indicate that there is more than a minimal 10 limitation in [Plaintiff’s] ability to do basic work activities, they were nonsevere.’” (Id.) Finally, the 11 magistrate judge rejected the argument that the ALJ should have considered medical evidence that post- 12 dated the date last insured, because Plaintiff identified “no specific evidence showing that the cited 13 treatment records and Dr. Popper’s opinion is retrospective to Plaintiff’s ability to perform work-related 14 activities during the relevant adjudicatory period.” (Id. at 9-10.) Therefore, the magistrate judge 15 recommended the administrative decision be affirmed. (Id. at 10.) 16 Plaintiff objected to the Findings and Recommendations, maintaining the ALJ erred in finding 17 Plaintiff’s impairments were not severe at step two of the sequential analysis. (See generally Doc. 23.) 18 In the objections, Plaintiff restates each of the arguments made in her opening brief. The magistrate 19 judge properly considered these arguments and found the ALJ did not err in finding Plaintiff did not 20 establish a severe impairment at step two. 21 In particular— despite Plaintiff’s claims to the contrary—the magistrate judge addressed 22 Plaintiff’s argument that “Courts in this circuit have held that the ALJ’s symptomology evaluation of a 23 medically determinable impairment is improper when it is conducted only at step [t]wo of the PRTF 24 evaluation, as was done in this case,” and found it was misplaced. (Doc. 22 at 8-9 n.2.) In Garcia v. 25 Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 2022 WL 2110709, *10 (E.D. Cal. June 10, 2022), cited by Plaintiff in support 26 of this argument, the Court noted the limitations identified in ‘paragraph B’ criteria are used to rate 27 severity at steps two and three, while “[t]he mental residual functional capacity assessment used at 28 steps 4 and 5 of the sequential evaluation process requires a more detailed assessment of the areas of 1 || mental functioning.” (Doc. 23 at 6.) In Garcia, the Court considered whether the ALJ properly 2 || supported the rejection of a plaintiff's symptom claims at step four by relying in part on findings at 3 || step three. See Garcia, 2022 WL 2110709, at *10. Here, Plaintiff argued the ALJ erred in finding he 4 || impairments were not severe at step two. Thus, the decision in Garcia is distinguishable, and 5 || Plaintiff's reliance upon Garcia is misplaced. 6 Moreover, as noted by the magistrate judge, Plaintiff does not challenge the ALJ’s conclusion 7 || after the “special technique” analysis at step two, that Plaintiff medically determinable impairments 8 || caused no more than mild limitation in any of the functional areas. (Doc. 22 at 8-9, citing AR 24-25 9 || [Doc. 12-1 at 28-29], 20 C_F.R. § 404.1520a(d)(1) [if degrees of limitation are rated as “none” or 10 || “mild,” the impairment is generally considered not severe].) ll Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(c), this Court conducted a de novo review of the case. 12 || Having carefully reviewed the entire matter, including Plaintiff's objections, the Court oncludes the 13 || Findings and Recommendations are supported by the record and proper analysis. Because ALJ appli 14 || the proper legal standards, and the decision was supported by substantial evidence in the record, the 15 || administrative decision is affirmed. See Sanchez v. Sec’y of Health & Human Serv., 812 F.2d 509, 51 16 || (9th Cir. 1987). Accordingly, the Court ORDERS: 17 1. The Findings and Recommendations issued on July 17, 2023 (Doc. 22) are ADOPTE] 18 2. Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 19) is DENIED. 19 3. Defendant’s Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 21) is GRANTED, and the 20 decision of the Commissioner of Social Security is AFFIRMED. 21 4. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate pending motions; enter judgment in favor « 22 defendant Kilolo Kijakazi, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, and against 23 Plaintiff Amanda Lo; and to close this case. 24 25 IT IS SO ORDERED. 26 || ated: _ September 6, 2023 ( LAW pA L. wan 27 TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 28