Rathel v. Social Security ( 2024 )

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 LADONNA MARIE RATHEL, Case No. 3:23-cv-00144-ART-CSD 4 Plaintiff, ORDER 5 vs. 6 MARTIN O’MALLEY, Commissioner of Social Security Administration, 7 Defendant. 8 9 Plaintiff Ladonna Marie Rathel brings this action under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) 10 for judicial review of the final decision of the Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) of 11 the Social Security Administration, denying Plaintiff’s application for disability 12 insurance benefits under Title II of the Social Security Act and her application 13 for a supplemental security income under Title XVI of the Social Security Act. 14 (ECF No. 16.) Before this Court is the Report and Recommendation (“R&R” or 15 “Recommendation”) of United States Magistrate Judge Craig Denney 16 (ECF No. 23), recommending that the Court grant Plaintiff’s motion for reversal 17 and/or remand (ECF No. 16), deny Defendant Martin O’Malley’s, Commissioner 18 of Social Security Administration, cross-motion to affirm (ECF No. 20), and 19 remand this matter for further administrative proceedings. No objection to the 20 R&R has been filed by either party, and the time to do so has passed. After 21 carefully reviewing the relevant documents, the Court is satisfied that Judge 22 Denney did not clearly err and adopts the R&R in full. 23 When neither party objects to an R&R, the Court “need only satisfy itself 24 that there is no clear error on the face of the record” in order to accept it. Fed. 25 R. Civ. P. 72, Advisory Committee Notes (1983); see also United States v. Reyna- 26 Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1116 (9th Cir. 2003) (“De novo review of the magistrate 27 judges’ findings and recommendations is required if, but only if, one or both 1 erroneous” standard is deferential, requiring a “definite and firm conviction that 2 a mistake has been committed.” Easley v. Cromartie, 532 U.S. 234, 242 3 (2001) (citation omitted). In the instant case, because neither party objected to 4 the R&R, the Court reviews it for clear error. 5 The five-step legal standard for the evaluation of disability under the Social 6 Security Act is properly set forth in the R&R, and the Court adopts that portion 7 of the R&R by reference. (ECF No. 45 at 2–5.) Upon appeal of an ALJ’s final 8 decision, the ALJ’s factual findings are reviewed for substantial evidence, which 9 is “more than a mere scintilla but less than a preponderance; it is such relevant 10 evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a 11 conclusion.” Gutierrez v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 740 F.3d 519, 522–23 (9th Cir. 12 2014) (internal quotation omitted). “If the evidence can reasonably support either 13 affirming or reversing, the reviewing court may not substitute its judgment for 14 that of the Commissioner.” Id. at 523 (internal quotation omitted). “Nevertheless, 15 a decision supported by substantial evidence will still be set aside if the ALJ did 16 not apply proper legal standards.” Id. (internal quotation omitted). 17 In the instant case, Judge Denney recommends that the Court grant 18 Plaintiff’s motion for reversal and/or remand (ECF No. 16), deny the 19 Commissioner’s cross-motion to affirm (ECF No. 20), and remand this matter for 20 further administrative proceedings. (ECF No. 23.) Judge Denney’s 21 Recommendation is based upon his determination that the ALJ erred by not 22 offering specific, clear and convincing reasons for rejecting Plaintiff’s subjective 23 symptom testimony during the fourth step of the five-step legal standard for 24 evaluation of disability under the Social Security Act. (Id. at 10–11.) 25 At step four of the five-step legal standard for evaluation of disability under 26 the Social Security Act, the Commissioner determines whether the claimant can 27 still perform “past relevant work.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(iv), 1 work. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(f), 416.920(f); see also Berry v. Astrue, 622 F.3d 2 1228, 1231 (9th Cir. 2010). In making a determination, the Commissioner 3 assesses the claimant’s residual functional capacity (“RFC”) and the physical and 4 mental demands of the work previously performed. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1565(a), 5 416.920(a)(4)(iv), 404.1520(a)(4)(iv); see also Berry, 622 F.3d at 1231. The 6 claimant’s RFC is what the claimant can do despite the limitations. 20 C.F.R. §§ 7 404.1545, 416.945. In determining the RFC, the Commissioner must assess all 8 evidence, including the claimant’s description of limitations. Id. 9 Evaluating a claimant’s subjective symptom testimony “becomes 10 important at the stage where the ALJ is assessing [RFC], because the claimant’s 11 subjective statements may tell of greater limitations than can medical evidence 12 alone.” Tonapetyan v. Halter, 242 F.3d 1144, 1147 (9th Cir. 2001) (citation 13 omitted). There is a two-step test for evaluating a claimant’s subjective symptom 14 testimony. Garrison v. Colvin, 759 F.3d 995, 1014–15 (9th Cir. 2014) (internal 15 citations omitted). If the claimant satisfies the first step of the test, “and there is 16 no evidence of malingering, the ALJ can reject the claimant’s testimony about 17 the severity of her symptoms only by offering specific, clear and convincing 18 reasons for doing so.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). “This 19 is not an easy requirement to meet: The clear and convincing standard is the 20 most demanding required in Social Security cases.” Id. (internal quotation marks 21 and citations omitted). 22 In the instant case, Judge Denney’s R&R considers the ALJ’s assessment 23 of Plaintiff’s RFC at step four of the five-step legal standard for evaluation of 24 disability. (ECF No. 23 at 7 (citation omitted).) At step four, the ALJ concluded 25 that Plaintiff was not disabled during the relevant period because Plaintiff was 26 able to perform her past relevant work. (Id.) However, upon review, Judge Denney 27 determines that the ALJ erred by not offering specific, clear and convincing 1 example, Judge Denney points out that, while the ALJ summarized the medical 2 evidence and discussed some of Plaintiff’s daily activities, the ALJ failed to 3 explain which evidence contradicted which portion of Plaintiff’s subjective 4 symptom testimony. (Id. at 11.) 5 An ALJ fails to provide specific, clear, and convincing reasons for rejecting 6 the claimant’s subjective testimony when “the ALJ never identified which 7 testimony she found not credible, and never explained which evidence 8 contradicted that testimony.” Lambert v. Saul, 980 F.3d 1266, 1277 (9th Cir. 9 2020) (emphasis in original) (internal quotation and citation omitted). The ALJ 10 must do more than offer “non-specific conclusions that [the claimant’s] 11 testimony was inconsistent with her medical treatment.” Id. (internal citations 12 omitted). “[P]roviding a summary of medical evidence in support of a [RFC] 13 finding is not the same as providing clear and convincing reasons for finding the 14 claimant’s symptom testimony not credible.” Brown-Hunter v. Colvin, 806 F.3d 15 487, 494 (9th Cir. 2015) (emphasis in original). 16 After carefully reviewing the R&R and the administrative record in the 17 context of the clearly erroneous standard, the Court concludes that Judge 18 Denney did not clearly err and adopts the R&R in full. 19 It is therefore ordered that Judge Denney’s Report and Recommendation 20 (ECF No. 23) is accepted and adopted in full. 21 It is further ordered that Plaintiff’s motion for reversal and/or remand 22 (ECF No. 16) is granted. 23 It is ordered that the Commissioner’s cross-motion to affirm (ECF No. 20) 24 is denied. 25 /// 26 /// 27 /// 1 It is further ordered that this matter be remanded for further 2 || administrative proceedings. 3 Dated this 1st day of July 2024. 4 5 An posed 6 ANNE R. TRAUM 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28