Gonzalez Garcia v. Kijakazi, No. 1:2022cv03185 - Document 11 (E.D. Wash. 2023)

Court Description: ORDER REVERSING AND REMANDING THE DECISION OF THE COMMISSIONER; granting 7 Plaintiff's Opening Brief; denying 9 Commissioner's Brief. File is closed. Signed by Chief Judge Stanley A Bastian. (REM, Case Administrator)

Download PDF

Gonzalez Garcia v. Kijakazi Doc. 11 Case 1:22-cv-03185-SAB ECF No. 11 filed 09/07/23 PageID.1618 Page 1 of 12 FI LED I N THE U.S. DI STRI CT COURT EASTERN DI STRI CT OF WASHI NGTON 1 Sep 07, 2023 2 SEAN F. MCAVOY, CLERK 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 7 8 JOSE LUIS G., No. 1:22-CV-03185-SAB Plaintiff, 9 v. 10 ORDER REVERSING AND 11 COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL REMANDING THE DECISION 12 SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, OF THE COMMISSIONER Defendant. 13 14 Plaintiff brings this action seeking juridical review of the Commissioner of 15 16 Social Security’s final decision denying his application for social security benefits. 17 Plaintiff is represented by Jamie Cordell. The Commissioner is represented by 18 Frederick Fripps, L. Jamala Edwards, and Brian M. Donovan. Pending before the 19 Court is Plaintiff’s Opening Brief, ECF No. 7, the Commissioner’s Brief, ECF No. 20 9, and Plaintiff’s Reply Brief, ECF No. 10. After reviewing the administrative record and briefs filed by the parties, the 21 22 Court is now fully informed. For the reasons set forth below, the Court reverses 23 and remands the decision of the Commissioner. 24 25 I. Jurisdiction On January 28, 2020, Plaintiff filed an application for disability insurance 26 benefits, with onset of February 4, 2019. Plaintiff’s application was denied initially 27 and on reconsideration. Plaintiff timely requested a hearing, which was held 28 telephonically on November 9, 2021. Plaintiff appeared and testified with the help ORDER REVERSING AND REMANDING COMMISSIONER’S DECISION ~ 1 Dockets.Justia.com Case 1:22-cv-03185-SAB ECF No. 11 filed 09/07/23 PageID.1619 Page 2 of 12 1 of a Spanish interpreter before an ALJ, with the assistance of his counsel, Jamie 2 Cordell. Erin Martz, vocational expert, also participated. The ALJ found that 3 Plaintiff was not disabled prior to November 26, 2021. Plaintiff filed a timely appeal with the United States District Court for the 4 5 Eastern District of Washington on November 22, 2022. ECF No. 1. 6 7 II. Five-Step Sequential Evaluation Process The Social Security Act defines disability as the “inability to engage in any 8 substantial gainful activity by reason of any medically determinable physical or 9 mental impairment which can be expected to result in death or which has lasted or 10 can be expected to last for a continuous period of not less than twelve months.” 42 11 U.S.C. §§ 423(d)(1)(A), 1382c(a)(3)(A). A claimant shall be determined to be 12 under a disability only if their impairments are of such severity that the claimant is 13 not only unable to do their previous work, but cannot, considering claimant’s age, 14 education, and work experiences, engage in any other substantial gainful work that 15 exists in the national economy. 42 U.S.C. §§ 423(d)(2)(A), 1382c(a)(3)(B). The 16 Commissioner has established a five-step sequential evaluation process to 17 determine whether a person is disabled in the statute. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 18 404.1520(a)(4)(i)-(v), 416.920(a)(4)(i)-(v). 19 Step One: Is the claimant engaged in substantial gainful activities? 20 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(i), 416.920(a)(4)(i). Substantial gainful activity is work 21 done for pay and requires compensation above the statutory minimum. Keyes v. 22 Sullivan, 894 F.2d 1053, 1057 (9th Cir. 1990). If the claimant is engaged in 23 substantial activity, benefits are denied. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(b), 416.920(b). If 24 the claimant is not, the ALJ proceeds to step two. 25 Step Two: Does the claimant have a medically-severe impairment or 26 combination of impairments? 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(ii), 416.920(a)(4)(ii). A 27 severe impairment is one that lasted or must be expected to last for at least 12 28 months and must be proven through objective medical evidence. Id. §§ 404.1509, ORDER REVERSING AND REMANDING COMMISSIONER’S DECISION ~ 2 Case 1:22-cv-03185-SAB ECF No. 11 filed 09/07/23 PageID.1620 Page 3 of 12 1 416.909. If the claimant does not have a severe impairment or combination of 2 impairments, the disability claim is denied. Id. § 404.1520(a)(4)(ii), 3 416.920(a)(4)(ii). If the impairment is severe, the evaluation proceeds to the third 4 step. 5 Step Three: Does the claimant’s impairment meet or equal one of the listed 6 impairments acknowledged by the Commissioner to be so severe as to preclude 7 substantial gainful activity? 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(iii), 416.920(a)(4)(iii). If 8 the impairment meets or equals one of the listed impairments, the claimant is 9 conclusively presumed to be disabled. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(d), 416.920(d). If the 10 impairment is not one conclusively presumed to be disabling, the evaluation 11 proceeds to the fourth step. 12 Before considering to the fourth step, the ALJ must first determine the 13 claimant’s residual functional capacity. An individual’s residual functional 14 capacity is their ability to do physical and mental work activities on a sustained 15 basis despite limitations from their impairments. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1545(a)(1), 16 416.945(a)(1). The residual functional capacity is relevant to both the fourth and 17 fifth steps of the analysis. 18 Step Four: Does the impairment prevent the claimant from performing work 19 they have performed in the past? 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(iv), 20 416.920(a)(4)(iv). If the claimant is able to perform their previous work, they are 21 not disabled. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(f), 416.920(f). If the claimant cannot perform 22 this work, the evaluation proceeds to the fifth and final step. 23 Step Five: Is the claimant able to perform other work in the national 24 economy in view of their age, education, and work experience? 20 C.F.R. §§ 25 404.1520(a)(4)(v), 416.920(a)(4)(v). The initial burden of proof rests upon the 26 claimant to establish a prima facie case of entitlement to disability benefits. Tackett 27 v. Apfel, 108 F.3d 1094, 1098 (9th Cir. 1999). This burden is met once a claimant 28 establishes that a physical or mental impairment prevents him from engaging in her ORDER REVERSING AND REMANDING COMMISSIONER’S DECISION ~ 3 Case 1:22-cv-03185-SAB ECF No. 11 filed 09/07/23 PageID.1621 Page 4 of 12 1 previous occupation. Id. At step five, the burden shifts to the Commissioner to 2 show that the claimant can perform other substantial gainful activity. Id. 3 4 III. Standard of Review The Commissioner’s determination will be set aside only when the ALJ’s 5 findings are based on legal error or are not supported by substantial evidence in the 6 record as a whole. Matney v. Sullivan, 981 F.2d 1016, 1018 (9th Cir. 1992) (citing 7 42 U.S.C. § 405(g)). Substantial evidence is “more than a mere scintilla,” 8 Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389, 401 (1971), but “less than a preponderance,” 9 Sorenson v. Weinberger, 514 F.2d 1112, 1119 n.10 (9th Cir. 1975). Substantial 10 evidence is “such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate 11 to support a conclusion.” Richardson, 402 U.S. at 401. 12 A decision supported by substantial evidence will be set aside if the proper 13 legal standards were not applied in weighing the evidence and making the decision. 14 Brawner v. Secr’y of Health & Human Servs., 839 F.2d 432, 433 (9th Cir. 1988). 15 An ALJ is allowed “inconsequential” errors as long as they are immaterial to the 16 ultimate nondisability determination. Stout v. Comm’r, Soc. Sec. Admin., 454 F.3d 17 1050, 1055 (9th Cir. 2006). The Court must uphold the ALJ’s denial of benefits if 18 the evidence is susceptible to more than one rational interpretation, one of which 19 supports the decision of the administrative law judge. Batson v. Barnhart, 359 F.3d 20 1190, 1193 (9th Cir. 2004). It “must consider the entire record as a whole, 21 weighing both the evidence that supports and the evidence that detracts from the 22 Commissioner’s conclusion, and may not affirm simply by isolating a specific 23 quantum of supporting evidence.” Revels v. Berryhill, 874 F.3d 648, 654 (9th Cir. 24 2017) (quotation omitted). “If the evidence can support either outcome, the court 25 may not substitute its judgment for that of the ALJ.” Matney, 981 F.2d at 1019. 26 27 IV. Statement of Facts The facts have been presented in the administrative record, the ALJ’s 28 decision, and the briefs to this Court. Only the most relevant facts are summarized ORDER REVERSING AND REMANDING COMMISSIONER’S DECISION ~ 4 Case 1:22-cv-03185-SAB ECF No. 11 filed 09/07/23 PageID.1622 Page 5 of 12 1 herein. 2 At the time of the hearing, Defendant was 54 years old. He completed the 3 seventh grade in Mexico and his first language in Spanish. He has prior work as a 4 heavy equipment operator, long-haul truck driver, and milk truck driver. 5 In 2017, Plaintiff suffered an industrial accident injuring his left leg, left 6 ankle, back, neck and right shoulder. Plaintiff received worker’s compensation 7 because of his injuries. He experienced another industrial injury in 2018 injuring 8 his right knee and right hip. Finally, he sustained a third injury in 2019, in which 9 his left hand was fractured. 10 Plaintiff has undergone numerous surgeries for his injuries, including right 11 shoulder arthroscopy and right knee arthroscopies. His doctor recommended ankle 12 surgery as well. He has had numerous MRIs: (1) right knee—showing chronic 13 complete proximal ACL tear with scarred fibers, frayed remnant of meniscectomy, 14 scarred MCL, mild patellofemoral arthropathy and intermediate grade 15 chondromalacia midline trochlea; (2) post-surgical right shoulder—showing 16 arthrosis causing impingement, strain of the rotator cuff and grade 2 and 3 17 chondromalacia; (3) right hip—showing strain of posterior hip and tear of the 18 superolateral labrum; and (4) lumbar spine—showing several bulging discs 19 including L5-S1 with abutment of both exiting L5 nerves, straightened lumbar 20 lordosis with levocurvature, disc disease and foraminal stenosis. 21 He testified that he stopped working after the 2019 accident due to pain and 22 his need to elevate his left ankle because of swelling. He reports instability with his 23 left ankle and right knee when he is walking or on uneven ground. He testified that 24 he cannot sit for long periods. 25 26 V. The ALJ’s Findings The ALJ issued an opinion affirming denial of benefits. AR 17-31. At step 27 one, the ALJ found that Plaintiff did not engage in substantial gainful activity since 28 the alleged onset date, February 4, 2019. AR 19. ORDER REVERSING AND REMANDING COMMISSIONER’S DECISION ~ 5 Case 1:22-cv-03185-SAB 1 ECF No. 11 filed 09/07/23 PageID.1623 Page 6 of 12 At step two, the ALJ identified the following severe impairments: 2 degenerative disc disease, lumbar and cervical spine; status post arthroscopy for 3 meniscus tear, right knee; chondromalacia; status post shoulder slap repair, right 4 shoulder; degenerative joint disease, left ankle; torn labrum, right hip; and 5 depressive disorder. AR 20. 6 At step three, the ALJ found that Plaintiff did not have an impairment or 7 combination of impairments that meets or medically equals the severity of one of 8 the listed impairments. AR 20. Ultimately, the ALJ concluded that Plaintiff has a 9 residual function capacity (“RFC”) to: 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Occasionally lift and/or carry 20 pounds; frequently lift and/or carry 10 pounds; stand and/or walk with normal breaks for a total of about six hours in an 8-hour workday; sit with normal breaks for a total of about six hours in an 8-hour workday; push and/or pull including the operation of hand or foot controls is unlimited other than as shown for lift and/or carry; occasionally climb ramps or stairs; never climb ladders, ropes, or scaffolding; unlimited balance; occasionally stoop; occasionally kneel and crouch; no overhead reaching with his right upper extremity; no concentrated exposure to hazardous machinery or working at heights; he can carry out simple instructions and exercise simple workplace judgment and perform work that is learned by on the job training beyond a short demonstration lasting up to and including one month; he is capable of learning, remembering, and completing both simple and more complex tasks; he can respond appropriately to supervision; he can have occasional interaction with coworkers; he can deal with occasional changes in the work environment; and he can work that require occasional contact or interaction with the public. AR 706. At step four, the ALJ found that Plaintiff was unable to perform any past 24 relevant work. AR 28. 25 At step five, the ALJ found there were other jobs that existed in significant 26 numbers in the national economy that Plaintiff could also perform, including 27 housekeeping cleaner, garment bagger, and small parts assembler. AR 30. 28 ORDER REVERSING AND REMANDING COMMISSIONER’S DECISION ~ 6 Case 1:22-cv-03185-SAB 1 ECF No. 11 filed 09/07/23 PageID.1624 Page 7 of 12 VI. Issues 2 1. Whether the ALJ properly assessed the opinion evidence. 3 2. Whether the ALJ properly assessed Plaintiff’s symptom testimony. 4 5 VII. Analysis The ALJ found Plaintiff was disabled as of November 2021, when his age 6 category changed to advanced age and grid rule 202.02 directed that finding, but 7 found that Plaintiff was not disabled before this date. 8 1. The ALJ’s Evaluation of the Medical Opinions 9 Plaintiff asserts the ALJ erred in addressing the medical opinions of Dr. 10 Clifford and Dr. Merrell. 11 In evaluating medical opinion evidence, the ALJ considers the 12 persuasiveness of each medical opinion and prior administrative medical finding 13 from medical sources. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920c(a) and (b) The ALJ is required to 14 consider multiple factors, including supportability, consistency, the source's 15 relationship with the claimant, any specialization of the source, and other factors 16 (such as the source’s familiarity with other evidence in the file or an understanding 17 of Social Security’s disability program). 20 C.F.R. § 416.920c(c)(1)-(5). 18 Supportability and consistency of an opinion are the most important factors, and 19 the ALJ must articulate how they considered those factors in determining the 20 persuasiveness of each medical opinion or prior administrative medical finding. 20 21 C.F.R. § 416.920c(b)(2). The ALJ may explain how they considered the other 22 factors, but is not required to do so, except in cases where two or more opinions 23 are equally well-supported and consistent with the record. Id. 24 Supportability and consistency are further explained in the regulations: 25 (1) Supportability. 26 The more relevant the objective medical evidence and supporting 27 explanations presented by a medical source are to support his or her 28 medical opinion(s) or prior administrative medical finding(s), the more ORDER REVERSING AND REMANDING COMMISSIONER’S DECISION ~ 7 Case 1:22-cv-03185-SAB ECF No. 11 filed 09/07/23 PageID.1625 Page 8 of 12 1 persuasive the medical opinions or prior administrative medical finding(s) 2 will be. 3 (2) Consistency. 4 The more consistent a medical opinion(s) or prior administrative medical 5 finding(s) is with the evidence from other medical sources and nonmedical 6 sources in the claim, the more persuasive the medical opinion(s) or prior 7 administrative medical finding(s) will be. 8 9 A. Dr. Clifford The ALJ made no findings regarding Dr. Clifford’s reports and medical 10 findings. This was in error. Dr. Clifford was Plaintiff’s treating physician. He 11 repeatedly noted Plaintiff’s ankle swelling and recommended Plaintiff have 12 surgery to repair a torn left ankle ligament. Dr. Clifford noted that Plaintiff tried 13 cortisone injections, physical therapy, activity modifications and bracing but did 14 not achieve relief from the pain and instability. 15 Dr. Clifford completed an Activity Prescription Form, dated October 30, 16 2019, in which he noted that Plaintiff could seldom perform a stand / walk, climb 17 stairs, and operate foot controls with his left foot. Dr. Clifford noted left ankle 18 edema and limited range of motion. In May 2020, Dr. Clifford noted that 19 tenderness, discomfort, pain and guarding, and mild edema to the left ankle. In 20 May 2021, Dr. Clifford noted continued left ankle pain and stiffness, including 21 sharp shooting pains even when Plaintiff is sitting and resting. 22 The ALJ erred in failing to address Dr. Clifford’s reports, which contained 23 objective medical findings. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1513. 24 25 B. Dr. Merrell The ALJ found Dr. Merrell’s opinion to be somewhat vague, it failed to 26 provide any specific limitations, and it was unhelpful because it related to his 27 ability to perform his work as a truck driver rather than any work available in the 28 national economy. The ALJ noted that while Dr. Merrell concluded that Plaintiff ORDER REVERSING AND REMANDING COMMISSIONER’S DECISION ~ 8 Case 1:22-cv-03185-SAB ECF No. 11 filed 09/07/23 PageID.1626 Page 9 of 12 1 could not perform overhead lifting, the record indicates that Plaintiff had no 2 limitations with lifting overhead with his left arm and shoulder. 3 Dr. Merrell was Plaintiff’s surgeon who performed a right shoulder 4 arthroscopy with repair and acromioplasty, and two right knee arthroscopies with 5 medial and lateral meniscectomies. 6 In September 2020, Dr. Merrell identified the following limitations: limited 7 bending, limited lifting (25-20 pounds from ground to waist, 10 pounds from waist 8 to shoulder, no overhead lifting), limited stairs, minimal kneeling, limited pushing, 9 limited pulling, no squatting, no crawling. In October 2020, Dr. Merrell noted that 10 Plaintiff had difficulty with stairs, kneeling is painful, and he has right hip pain 11 both anteriorly and posteriorly. Dr. Merrell noted the MRI of his right hip showed 12 labral damage with a possible labral tear and some narrowing of the hip joint. 13 Dr. Merrell performed an injection in the right shoulder in November 2020 14 due to impingement and pain. Dr. Merrell performed an Activity Prescription Form 15 in October 2021 to cover through December 2021, in which he prescribed light 16 duty with limited standing, walking, bending, squatting or lifting. 17 The ALJ found Dr. Merrell’s opinions to not be persuasive because there 18 were temporary opinions, notwithstanding that Dr. Merrell was a treatment 19 provider who had the opportunity to examine Plaintiff and was familiar with the 20 longitudinal record. Moreover, it was reasonable for Dr. Merrell do conclude that 21 Plaintiff would not be able to lift overhead even though he did not have problems 22 with his left shoulder. It is reasonable to presume that a person would need to use 23 both upper limbs to lift overhead, as opposed to reaching overhead. 24 Dr. Merrell began treating Plaintiff in 2020 and continued to treat him in 25 2021. The ALJ erred finding that Dr. Merrell’s opinion was not persuasive, given 26 that he was treating Plaintiff over a significant period and his opinions are 27 consistent with the longitudinal record. 28 // ORDER REVERSING AND REMANDING COMMISSIONER’S DECISION ~ 9 Case 1:22-cv-03185-SAB ECF No. 11 filed 09/07/23 PageID.1627 Page 10 of 12 1 2. 2 The ALJ found that while Plaintiff’s medically determinable impairments Plaintiff’s Symptom Testimony 3 could reasonably cause some of the alleged symptoms, his statements concerning 4 the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of these symptoms are not entirely 5 consistent with the medical evidence and other evidence in the record. 6 An ALJ’s assessment of a claimant’s credibility is entitled to “great weight.” 7 Anderson v. Sullivan, 914 F.2d 1121, 1124 (9th Cir. 1990). When there is no 8 evidence of malingering, the ALJ must give “specific, clear and convincing 9 reasons” for rejecting a claimant’s subjective symptom testimony. Molina v. 10 Astrue, 674 F.3d 1104, 1112 (9th Cir. 2012) (citation omitted). If the ALJ’s 11 credibility finding is supported by substantial evidence in the record, the reviewing 12 court “may not engage in second-guessing.” Thomas v. Barnhart, 278 F.3d 947, 13 959 (9th Cir. 2002). 14 In recognition of the fact that an individual’s symptoms can sometimes 15 suggest a greater level of severity of impairment than can be shown by the 16 objective medical evidence alone, 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c) and 416.929(c) 17 describe the kinds of evidence, including the factors below, that the ALJ must 18 consider in addition to the objective medical evidence when assessing the 19 credibility of an individual’s statements: 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1. The individual’s daily activities; 2. The location, duration, frequency, and intensity of the individual’s pain or other symptoms; 3. Factors that precipitate and aggravate the symptoms; 4. The type, dosage, effectiveness, and side effects of any medication the individual takes or has taken to alleviate pain or other symptoms; 5. Treatment, other than medication, the individual receives or has received for relief of pain or other symptoms; 6. Any measures other than treatment the individual uses or has used to relieve pain or other symptoms (e.g., lying flat on his or her back, standing for 15 to 20 minutes every hour, or sleeping on a board); and 7. Any other factors concerning the individual’s functional limitations and restrictions due to pain or other symptoms. ORDER REVERSING AND REMANDING COMMISSIONER’S DECISION ~ 10 Case 1:22-cv-03185-SAB ECF No. 11 filed 09/07/23 PageID.1628 Page 11 of 12 1 SSR 96-7P, 1996 WL 374186. 2 The ALJ’s credibility determination is not supported by substantial evidence 3 in the record. In finding Plaintiff’s reported symptoms are out of proportion to the 4 longitudinal record, the ALJ relied on normal findings covering a wide range of 5 areas that were the basis for limitations identified by Plaintiff, including normal 6 neurological findings, normal heart and lung findings, normal cranial nerves, intact 7 sensation in his feet and normal pulses. And when the ALJ did mention incidents 8 supporting Plaintiff’s statements, such as positive FABER findings, limited range 9 of motion and weakness in right shoulder, mild edema and tenderness in lower 10 extremities, mildly reduced right knee and ankle reflexes, pain, tenderness and 11 edema in left ankle, the ALJ qualified these findings with the above-mentioned 12 normal findings. 13 Here, by selectively relying on the treatment providers notes, and qualifying 14 the limitations set forth in the record with irrelevant findings, the ALJ failed to 15 provide specific, clear and convincing reasons for rejecting Plaintiff’s subjective 16 symptom testimony. 17 18 VIII. Conclusion The ALJ erred in failing to consider Dr. Clifford’s findings and concluding 19 that Dr. Merrell’s opinion and findings were not persuasive. Additionally, the ALJ 20 failed to provide clear and convincing reasons for rejecting Plaintiff’s subjective 21 symptom testimony. As such, remand is required. 22 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 23 1. For docket purposes only, Plaintiff’s Opening Brief, ECF No. 7, and 24 Reply Brief, ECF No. 10, are GRANTED. 25 2. For docket purposes only, the Commissioner’s Opening Brief, ECF 26 No. 9, is DENIED. 27 3. The decision of the Commissioner is reversed and remanded for 28 further proceedings consistent with this Order. ORDER REVERSING AND REMANDING COMMISSIONER’S DECISION ~ 11 Case 1:22-cv-03185-SAB ECF No. 11 filed 09/07/23 PageID.1629 Page 12 of 12 1 4. Judgment shall be entered in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendant. 2 IT IS SO ORDERED. The District Court Executive is hereby directed to 3 file this Order, provide copies to counsel, and close the file. 4 DATED this 7th day of September 2023. 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Stanley A. Bastian Chief United States District Judge 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ORDER REVERSING AND REMANDING COMMISSIONER’S DECISION ~ 12

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.