Opinion
Case No. LA CV 15-2893 JCG
04-08-2016
LAURIE COLLINS, Plaintiff, v. CAROLYN W. COLVIN, COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Laurie Collins ("Plaintiff") challenges the Social Security Commissioner's decision denying her application for disability benefits. Specifically, Plaintiff contends that the Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ") improperly assessed the psychological opinions of (1) consultative examining physician Dr. Norma Aguilar, and (2) non-examining medical expert Dr. John F. Simonds. (See Joint Stip. at 3-10). The Court addresses Plaintiff's contentions below, and finds that reversal is not warranted.
As a rule, if an ALJ wishes to disregard the opinion of a treating or examining physician, "he or she must make findings setting forth specific, legitimate reasons for doing so that are based on substantial evidence in the record." Murray v. Heckler, 722 F.2d 499, 502 (9th Cir. 1983); accord Carmickle v. Comm'r, Soc. Sec. Admin., 533 F.3d 1155, 1164 (9th Cir. 2008). An ALJ is required only to "consider" a medical expert who neither examined nor treated a claimant. Beason v. Colvin, 611 F. App'x 905, 906 (9th Cir. 2015.)
A. The ALJ Properly Assessed Dr. Aguilar's Opinion
Here, the ALJ properly assigned "less weight" to Dr. Aguilar's opinion that Plaintiff is moderately limited in her ability to respond to (1) changes in a routine work setting, and (2) work pressure in a usual job setting, for three reasons. (AR at 31, 789.)
First, the moderate limitations were not supported by the overall record. (AR at 30); see Batson v. Comm'r Soc. Sec. Admin., 359 F.3d 1190, 1197 (9th Cir. 2004) ("[I]t was permissible for the ALJ to give [medical opinion] minimal evidentiary weight, in light of the objective medical evidence and the opinions and observations of other doctors."); Kennelly v. Astrue, 313 F. App'x 977, 978-79 (9th Cir. 2009) (ALJ properly discounted physician recommendations that were inconsistent with treatment notes). For example, (1) Plaintiff voluntarily sought emergency psychiatric evaluations simply to prove to her husband that she is not "crazy"; (2) treating psychologist notes did not provide detailed descriptions of symptoms, progress, mental status, or assessment of Plaintiff's mental health; and (3) after a February 2012 psychosocial assessment showing primarily marital and relationship problems, there was an absence of treatment until April 2013. (Id. at 30-31, 42, 45, 162, 165, 186, 432, 434, 436, 441-443, 450-51, 476, 478-79, 514, 530, 663, 665, 682, 686, 689, 722-29, 733-34, 736, 740, 743, 749-50, 794, 801, 804-05, 832, 847, 853, 858.)
In addition to this gap noted by the ALJ, Plaintiff also had an earlier, year-long gap in treatment. (AR at 845.)
Second, Plaintiff's treatment primarily consisted of counseling and therapy sessions, and Plaintiff was able to manage her symptoms without psychotropic medications. (AR at 31-32, 162-63, 219, 224, 332, 341-42, 371, 375, 391, 409, 432- 34, 473, 493, 503, 686, 747, 749, 824, 867); see Warre v.Comm'r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 439 F.3d 1001, 1006 (9th Cir. 2006) (impairments that can be controlled effectively are not disabling for the purpose of determining eligibility for Social Security benefits); Crane v. Shalala, 76 F.3d 251, 254 (9th Cir. 1996) (ALJ properly discounted medical testimony based on claimant's response to treatment for depression and anxiety).
Plaintiff notes that she took Ativan, a drug which can be used to treat anxiety. (Joint Stip. at 9.) However, the record shows she was prescribed that drug to treat muscle spasms on an as-needed basis. (AR at 341-42, 558-59); see Carrelli v. Comm'r Soc. Sec., 390 F. App'x 429, 436 (6th Cir. 2010) (rejecting claimant's argument that her history of using psychotropic medications was evidence of mental impairment because her medications, including Ativan (lorazepam), were prescribed for other medical purposes such as sedation, muscle spasms, and sleeping); Wyatt v. Colvin, 2013 WL 3233330, at *3 (C.D. Cal. June 25, 2013) (describing Ativan as a muscle relaxant). Moreover, Plaintiff repeatedly turned down psychotropic medications because she felt she did not need them. (See AR at 32, 665-66, 671, 801, 847, 854, 858-59, 861, 863, 867.) --------
Third, Plaintiff was able to perform activities of daily living - including activities acknowledged in Dr. Aguilar's own opinion - such as "tak[ing] care of my business," riding the bus, shopping, cooking, exercising, dancing, skating, and fishing. (AR at 31-32, 188 (Plaintiff's admission that she can take care of her personal needs, and do all physical activities, "but at her own pace"), 311, 689, 787); see Ghanim v. Colvin, 763 F.3d 1154, 1162 (9th Cir. 2014) (inconsistency between physician's opinion and claimant's daily activities may justify rejection of opinion); Holien v. Colvin, 2014 WL 4629677, at *9 (E.D. Wash. Sept. 16, 2014) (ALJ properly relied on claimant's daily activities in rejecting opinion - including activities noted in doctor's own records - such as ability to manage own finances, go shopping, ride public transportation, read, and fish).
Thus, the ALJ properly rejected Dr. Aguilar's opinion.
B. The ALJ Properly Assessed Dr. Simonds' Opinion
The ALJ also properly considered and assigned "little weight" to Dr. Simonds' opinion testimony that Plaintiff was limited to occasional interaction with the public and coworkers, for the same valid reasons he discounted Dr. Aguilar's opinion. (AR at 32, 42-43.)
Additionally, there was a lack of evidence that Plaintiff had significant problems interacting with others, except her husband due to marital issues, as Dr. Simonds seemed to acknowledge in his testimony. (AR at 32, 42 (Dr. Simonds' testimony that "the big [diagnosis] seems to be a partner relationship problem" but noting that is not a listed condition), 46, 434, 436 (Plaintiff explaining to doctor "My husband is the crazy one, not me."), 441-43, 447, 450, 453, 460, 667-68, 689, 705, 749-50, 801, 805, 812, 842, 864, 866); Zettelmier v. Astrue, 387 F. App'x 729, 731-32 (9th Cir. 2010) (internal inconsistency within doctor's own opinion provided proper basis to discredit it); cf. Adkins v. Astrue, 2011 WL 529756 at *18 (W.D. Mo. Feb. 4, 2011) (complaint of disabling psychiatric condition discounted by evidence that showed symptoms were related to situational stressors, such as marital problems).
Thus, the ALJ properly considered Dr. Simonds' opinion.
Based on the foregoing, IT IS ORDERED THAT judgment shall be entered AFFIRMING the decision of the Commissioner denying benefits. DATED: April 08, 2016
/s/_________
Hon. Jay C. Gandhi
United States Magistrate Judge
***
This Memorandum Opinion and Order is not intended for publication. Nor is it
intended to be included or submitted to any online service such as
Westlaw or Lexis.