Ogden v. Commissioner of Social Security, No. 4:2017cv05009 - Document 14 (E.D. Wash. 2017)
Court Description: ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION AND DENYING PLAINTIFF'S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION, denying 12 Motion for Summary Judgment; and granting 13 Motion for Summary Judgment. Case is CLOSED. Signed by Senior Judge Edward F. Shea. (LR, Case Administrator)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Ogden v. Commissioner of Social Security Doc. 14 FI LED I N THE U.S. DI STRI CT COURT EASTERN DI STRI CT OF WASHI NGTON 1 2 Dec 12, 2017 3 SEAN F. MCAVOY, CLERK 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 5 6 7 No. BRANDON OGDEN, 8 4:17-CV-05009-EFS Plaintiff, 9 ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION AND DENYING PLAINTIFF’S SUMMARYJUDGMENT MOTION v. 10 COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, 11 Defendant. 12 13 Before the Court, without oral argument, are cross-summary- 14 judgment motions. ECF Nos. 12 & 13. 15 the Administrative Law Judge’s (“ALJ”) denial of benefits. See ECF 16 No. 12. 17 Defendant, asks the Court to affirm the ALJ’s determination that Mr. 18 Ogden is not disabled and is capable of performing substantial gainful 19 activity in a field for which a significant number of jobs exist in 20 the national economy. See ECF No. 13. 21 relevant authority, the Court is fully informed. 22 forth below, the Court denies Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment 23 and grants the Commissioner’s Motion for Summary Judgment. 24 /// 25 // 26 / Plaintiff Brandon Ogden appeals Commissioner of Social Security (“Commissioner”), as the After reviewing the record and For the reasons set ORDER GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT FOR DEFENDANT - 1 Dockets.Justia.com I. 1 STANDARD OF REVIEW 2 On review, the Court must uphold the ALJ’s determination that 3 the claimant is not disabled if the ALJ applied the proper legal 4 standards and there is substantial evidence in the record as a whole 5 to support the decision. Delgado v. Heckler, 722 F.2d 570, 572 (9th 6 Cir. 1983) (citing 42 U.S.C. § 405(g)); Brawner v. Sec’y of Health & 7 Human 8 evidence 9 preponderance. Servs., 839 means F.2d more 432, than 433 a (9th mere Cir. 1987). scintilla, but “Substantial less than a It means such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind 10 might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.” Desrosiers v. Sec’y 11 of Health & Human Servs., 846 F.2d 573, 576 (9th Cir. 1988) (citations 12 and internal quotation marks omitted). 13 “such inferences and conclusions as the [ALJ] may reasonably draw from 14 the evidence.” Mark v. Celebrezze, 348 F.2d 289, 293 (9th Cir. 1965). 15 In reviewing as a a whole, denial not of just The Court will also uphold benefits, the the evidence Court considers 16 record 17 decision. Weetman v. Sullivan, 877 F.2d 20, 22 (9th Cir. 1989). 18 said, the Court 19 Commissioner. 20 interpretation, a reviewing court must uphold the ALJ’s decision. 21 Allen v. Heckler, 749 F.2d 577, 579 (9th Cir. 1984). 22 Court “may not reverse an ALJ’s decision on account of an error that 23 is harmless.” Molina v. Astrue, 674 F.3d 1104, 1111 (9th Cir. 2012). 24 An error is harmless “where it is inconsequential to the [ALJ’s] 25 ultimate 26 citation omitted). may not substitute its If the nondisability evidence the ALJ’s judgment for that of supports determination.” supporting the Id. more at ORDER GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT FOR DEFENDANT - 2 than 1115 one That the rational Further, the (quotation and II. 1 DISABILITY DETERMINATION 2 A claimant who was eligible for supplemental security income 3 benefits as a child during the month before he turned 18 must have 4 his disability redetermined under the rules for disability used for 5 adults. See 42 U.S.C. § 1382c(a)(3)(H)(iii). 6 a five-step sequential evaluation process to determine whether an 7 adult claimant is disabled. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520, 416.920. The decision-maker uses 8 Step one usually assesses whether the claimant is currently 9 engaged in a substantial gainful activity. Id. § 416.920(a)(4)(i). 10 If he is, benefits would be denied. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(b), 11 416.920(b). 12 two. 13 the age 18, however, this step is skipped. See 20 CFR 416.987(b) If he is not, the decision-maker would proceed to step When assessing a redetermination based on the claimant reaching 14 Step two assesses whether the claimant has a medically severe 15 impairment, or combination of impairments, which significantly limit 16 the 17 activities. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(c), 416.920(c). 18 the disability claim is denied. 19 to step three. 20 Step claimant’s physical three by or compares the mental the to do basic work If he does not, If he does, the evaluation proceeds claimant’s impairment to severe be so as to to several 21 recognized 22 substantial gainful activity. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(d), 404 Subpt. P 23 App. 1, 416.920(d). 24 listed 25 disabled. 26 step four. impairments, Commissioner ability preclude If the impairment meets or equals one of the the claimant is conclusively presumed to be If the impairment does not, the evaluation proceeds to ORDER GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT FOR DEFENDANT - 3 1 Step four assesses whether the impairment prevents the claimant 2 from performing work he has performed in the past by determining the 3 claimant’s 4 §§ 404.1520(e), 416.920(e). 5 previous work, the claimant is not disabled. 6 perform this work, the evaluation proceeds to step five. residual functional capacity (“RFC”). 20 C.F.R. If the claimant is able to perform his If the claimant cannot Step five, the final step, assesses whether the claimant can 7 8 perform other work in the national economy 9 education, and work experience. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(f), 416.920(f); 10 see Bowen v. Yuckert, 482 U.S. 137 (1987). 11 claim is denied. in view the initial his age, If he can, the disability If he cannot, the claim is granted. The burden of proof shifts during this analysis. 12 of burden of establishing entitlement The claimant 13 has to disability 14 benefits under steps one through four. Rhinehart v. Finch, 438 F.2d 15 920, 921 (9th Cir. 1971). 16 Commissioner to show (1) the claimant can perform other substantial 17 gainful activity and (2) that a “significant number of jobs exist in 18 the national economy” which the claimant can perform. Kail v. Heckler, 19 722 F.2d 1496, 1498 (9th Cir. 1984). At step five, the burden shifts to the III. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY1 20 Plaintiff Brandon James Ogden was born on December 27, 1994. See 21 22 Administrative Record, ECF No. 9, (“AR”) 83. As a child, he exhibited 23 symptoms of ADHD and dysthymia (persistent depressive disorder). See 24 AR 242. In May 1999, Mr. Ogden started receiving childhood disability 25 1 26 The facts are only briefly summarized. Detailed facts are contained in the administrative hearing transcript, the ALJ’s decision, and the parties’ briefs. ORDER GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT FOR DEFENDANT - 4 1 benefits. AR 111. 2 education classes for all subjects except physical education, Mr. 3 Ogden graduated high school in only three years. AR 45–46, 80. 4 “very active in school and after-school activities,” including the 5 basketball team. AR 80. Throughout 6 Then, in May 2012, after being placed in special the years, Mr. Ogden has been He was diagnosed with 7 pervasive developmental disorder, AR 223; dysthymia, AR 240; and a 8 rule-out 9 combined type, AR 256. diagnosis of physical of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder Mr. Ogden has also been diagnosed with a 10 number conditions, including asthma, 11 intestinal malabsorption, AR 312. 12 AR 223, and migraine headaches and sleep problems. See AR 256. Mr. Ogden further complains about Mr. Ogden is 5’6” tall and weighs approximately 160–190 pounds.2 13 14 See AR 50, 281. Mr. Ogden lives with his girlfriend and her parents. 15 AR 100. 16 video 17 significant work history. AR 256. Mr. Ogden spends his days mostly watching television, playing games, and caring for his son. AR 62, 100. He has no 18 On May 2, 2013, after he turned 18 years old, a disability 19 examiner determined that Mr. Ogden was no longer disabled and ceased 20 benefits effective May 1, 2013. AR 80, 111, 115. On August 7, 2013, 21 22 23 24 25 26 2 The record shows that Mr. Ogden’s weight was not regularly recorded and seemed to vary in recent years, possibly because of changes in medication, see AR 229 (“I just got off of it [the medication]. I couldn’t eat on it. Then I lost a lot of weight. I lost like 70 lbs.” (brackets in original) (internal quotation marks omitted)). For instance, according to medical records, Mr. Ogden weighed 161 pounds on February 22, 2012, AR 221; 171 pounds on July 10, 2012, AR 283; 165 pounds on January 17, 2013, AR 170; 186 pounds on March 6, 2013, AR 278; 192 pounds on April 9, 2013, AR 281; and 184 pounds on September 16, 2014, AR 292. Then, at the hearing on May 15, 2015, Mr. Ogden claimed that he weighed about 160 pounds, but there was no updated recorded weight. AR 50. ORDER GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT FOR DEFENDANT - 5 1 Mr. Ogden requested a reconsideration hearing before an ALJ. AR 95. 2 The 3 presiding in Anchorage, Alaska. AR 20. 4 via video from Kennewick Washington.3 AR 38. 5 Ogden gave testimony by video, and the vocational expert, Daniel A. 6 LaBrosse, gave testimony by telephone. AR 37. hearing occurred on May 15, 2015, with ALJ Cecilia LaCara Mr. Ogden and counsel appeared During the hearing, Mr. On June 10, 2015, the ALJ issued a decision finding Mr. Ogden 7 8 not disabled. AR 31. At step one, the ALJ concluded that Mr. Ogden 9 was eligible for supplemental security income benefits as a child for 10 the month preceding the month in which he attained age 18. AR 22. 11 step two, the ALJ found 12 impairments: history of pervasive development disorder and depression. 13 AR 14 limitations do not meet or medically equal the severity of any listed 15 impairment. AR 23. 22–23. At step that Mr. Ogden three, the ALJ At had the following severe determined that Mr. Ogden’s 16 At step four, the ALJ found that Mr. Ogden has no past relevant 17 work, AR 30, and that — despite his impairments — Mr. Ogden has the 18 RFC to perform “a full range of work at all exertional levels but with 19 the following nonexertional limitations: the claimant is limited to 20 frequent stooping and crouching; limited to work involving one-to-two 21 step tasks, which must be simple, routine, repetitive; and involve 22 only superficial interaction with the general public and co-workers.” 23 AR 25. 24 25 26 3 Mr. Ogden objected to conducting the hearing by video and asked for an inperson hearing, but the ALJ overruled his objection because it was submitted in excess of four months after the 30-day objection period. See AR 157. ORDER GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT FOR DEFENDANT - 6 1 At step five, based on testimony by the vocational expert in 2 consideration of Mr. Ogden’s age, education, work experience, and 3 residual functional capacity, the ALJ found Mr. Ogden is capable of 4 performing the following unskilled jobs that exist in significant 5 numbers in the national economy: Laundry Worker I (DOT No. 361.684- 6 014); Kitchen Helper (DOT No. 318.687-010); and Laborer, Stores (DOT 7 299.687-058). AR 30. 8 disability had ended on May 1, 2013, and that he has not become 9 disabled again since that date. AR 20. As a result, the ALJ concluded that Mr. Ogden’s 10 The Appeals Council denied Mr. Ogden’s request for review, AR 1, 11 making the ALJ’s decision the final agency action for purposes of 12 judicial review. See 42 U.S.C. § 1383(c)(3); 20 C.F.R. §§ 416.1481, 13 422.210. 14 the ALJ’s decision. ECF No. 1. 15 summary-judgment motions. ECF Nos. 12 & 13. Mr. Ogden filed this lawsuit on February 10, 2017, appealing IV. 16 In 17 asking for the ALJ’s The parties then filed the present ANALYSIS decision to be reversed, Mr. Ogden 18 brings three primary arguments: (A) at step two, the ALJ erred in not 19 including 20 improperly 21 providers; and (C) at step five, she failed to identify specific jobs 22 available in significant numbers that Mr. Ogden could perform in light 23 of his specific functional limitations. See ECF No. 12 at 5. 24 Court addresses each challenge to the ALJ’s decision in turn. 25 // 26 / all of Mr. rejected the Ogden’s physical opinions of limitations; some of ORDER GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT FOR DEFENDANT - 7 Mr. (B) Ogden’s the ALJ medical The 1 A. Physical Limitations 2 Mr. Ogden first argues that the ALJ erred at step 2 by rejecting 3 his physical complaints about “malabsorption, migraines, and asthma 4 despite evidence that these impairments cause significant functional 5 limitations.” ECF No. 12 at 8. 6 whether these complaints amount to severe impairments. 7 that Mr. Ogden has other severe impairments that impose more than a 8 minimal limitation on his ability to perform basic work activities. AR 9 22. The Court, however, need not decide The ALJ found Thus — even assuming that the ALJ erred in finding Mr. Ogden’s 10 malabsorption, migraines, and asthma did not constitute severe 11 impairments — the omission of such impairments was harmless because at 12 step 2 the ALJ nonetheless found in Mr. Ogden’s favor.4 See Lewis v. 13 Astrue, 498 F.3d 909, 911 (9th Cir. 2007). 14 B. Medical-Provider Opinions 15 Mr. Ogden next contends the ALJ committed reversible error by 16 improperly weighing the medical opinions of Dr. Brad W. Leavitt, Dr. 17 David Woolever, and a Walla Wall County Assessment. ECF No. 12 at 9. 18 “In disability benefits cases, physicians may render medical, 19 clinical opinions, or they may render opinions on the ultimate issue 20 of disability — the claimant’s ability to perform work.” Garrison v. 21 Colvin, 759 F.3d 995, 1012 (9th Cir. 2014) (quotation omitted). 22 are 23 physicians, and nonexamining physicians. Lester v. Chater, 81 F.3d 24 821, 830 (9th Cir. 1995). 25 4 26 three types of physicians: treating physicians, There examining “As a general rule, more weight should be As addressed later in this Order, even if certain limitations do not amount to a severe impairment at step 2, an ALJ is still required to consider any such limitations throughout the remainder of the analysis. See Lewis v. Astrue, 498 F.3d 909, 911 (9th Cir. 2007). ORDER GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT FOR DEFENDANT - 8 1 given to the opinion of a treating source than to the opinion of 2 doctors who do not treat the claimant.” Lester, 81 F.3d at 830. 3 ALJ must provide “clear and convincing” reasons for rejecting the 4 uncontradicted opinion of an examining physician. Id. the opinion 5 If 6 another 7 providing “specific and legitimate reasons” supported by “substantial 8 evidence” in the record. Id. 9 evidence requirement by setting out a detailed and thorough summary of physician, facts and of the a treating ALJ may conflicting physician not reject is The contradicted the opinion by without “An ALJ can satisfy the substantial 10 the clinical evidence, stating [her] 11 interpretation thereof, and making findings.” Garrison, 759 F.3d at 12 1012 (internal quotations omitted). 13 1. Dr. Levitt 14 According to Mr. Ogden, the ALJ erred by giving Dr. Levitt’s 15 opinion 16 contradicted that opinion. See ECF No. 12 at 10. 17 stated as follows: 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 only partial weight without specifying what evidence The ALJ, however, Dr. Levitt, the examining psychological consultant, indicated that the claimant “appears to currently be at least marginally capable of maintaining employment.” Dr. Levitt further indicated that the claimant has limited ability in terms of cognitive and adaptive functioning, limited ability to sustain efforts over time, low abstract thinking abilities, fair to poor memory “(maybe selective),” limited ability to sustain attention, difficulty with social interactions, low levels of adaptability, and inability to make good decisions regarding treatment options, socialization, and jobs. However, Dr. Levitt assigned a GAF (global assessment of functioning) score of 60 — consistent with moderate symptoms or moderate difficulty in social, occupational, or school functioning. 26 ORDER GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT FOR DEFENDANT - 9 1 2 3 4 5 I note that Dr. Levitt’s opinion regarding the claimant’s limitations is somewhat inconsistent with his reported examination findings, neuropsychological test results, and the GAF score. Moreover, Dr. Levitt did not give an opinion regarding the severity of the claimant’s “limited” abilities. Consequently, I give Dr. Levitt’s assessment partial weight only to the extent it is consistent with the residual functional capacity. AR 29 (internal record citations omitted). 6 The paragraphs quoted above demonstrate that the ALJ provided 7 clear and convincing reasons for giving Dr. Levitt’s opinion only 8 partial weight. 9 read to suggest Mr. Ogden’s limitations are sufficiently severe to 10 render him unemployable, that opinion is contradicted by Dr. Levitt’s 11 own conclusion that Mr. Ogden was “at least marginally capable of 12 maintaining employment.” AR 257. 13 used by 14 moderate symptoms. AR 29. 15 Levitt’s opinion did not clearly lay out the severity of Mr. Ogden’s 16 limitations or what precise impact those limitations would have on 17 employment.5 18 reflected 19 because 20 interaction with the general public and coworkers and one-or-two step 21 tasks that are simple, routine, and repetitive. AR 25. First, to the extent the Dr. Levitt’s opinion can be Dr. Levitt, including it Second, the ALJ noted that the tests the GAF, did not reveal more than Third, the ALJ correctly notes that Dr. And finally, the ALJ’s RFC determination already largely the broad limited limitations Mr. Ogden to that work were opined involving by only Dr. Levitt, superficial The Court 22 23 24 25 26 5 For instance, Dr. Levitt’s report stated: Brandon’s depressed mood and difficulties interacting socially will likely make it difficult to function adaptively on a job over time in a consistent manner. He is likely to have low levels of motivation and energy, low levels of job satisfaction, poor job performance, and high levels of absenteeism, as well as difficulty socializing in an effective manner. These effects are likely to wax and wane over time. AR 257. Such statements only convey potential difficulties in a broad manner and do not provide particularized limitations. ORDER GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT FOR DEFENDANT - 10 1 therefore holds that the ALJ did not err by assigning limited weight 2 to Dr. Levitt’s opinion. 3 2. Dr. Woolever 4 As noted by Mr. Ogden, on March 3, 2015, Dr. Woolever filled out 5 a Social Security Disability Medical Report in which he indicated that 6 Mr. Ogden suffers from intestinal malabsorption, causing abdominal 7 pain, diarrhea, weight loss. AR 312. 8 of this, Mr. Ogden is unable to work, would need to miss four days or 9 more per month if he did work, and would need to lie down for 30–90 Dr. Woolever opined that because 10 minutes three times a day. AR 312–13. Mr. Ogden argues that the ALJ 11 erred in rejecting Dr. Woolever’s opinion regarding these limitations 12 without giving adequate reasons for doing so. ECF No. 12 at 12. Contrary to Mr. Ogden’s contentions, however, the ALJ gave clear 13 14 and 15 weight: 16 Dr. Woolever did not include a description of what objective evidence, other than an alleged 32 pound weight loss, upon which he relied in rendering his opinion. I note that the medical evidence of record does not reveal a 32 pound weight loss. Moreover, Dr. Woolever indicated that his first and last dates of treatment were in December 2014. I note that the medical evidence of record reveals a CT scan ordered by Dr. Woolever, which incidentally revealed no significant findings, but no actual treatment by Dr. Woolever. Furthermore, the medical evidence of record simply does not reveal treatment for symptoms related to intestinal malabsorption. Therefore, I find Dr. Woolever’s assessment unsupported and give it little weight. AR 29. 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 convincing reasons for giving Dr. Woolever’s opinion little Moreover, an ALJ “need not accept the opinion of a doctor if 24 25 that opinion is brief, conclusory, and inadequately 26 clinical findings.” Bayliss v. Barnhart, 427 F.3d 1211, 1216 (9th Cir. ORDER GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT FOR DEFENDANT - 11 supported by 1 2005); see also 20 C.F.R. § 416.927(c)(3) (weight assigned to medical 2 source 3 provided). 4 Here, can depend Dr. on evidentiary Woolever’s opinion support was and brief, the explanation conclusory, and 5 apparently based on a one-time treatment and only limited medical 6 evidence. 7 stated that Mr. Ogden had lost 32 pounds in six months, AR 312, but 8 there was no record of such a drastic weight loss. 9 that Mr. Ogden was being “worked up for intestinal absorption” and 10 stated that Mr. Ogden’s prognosis was “fair[,] depending on findings 11 of [a] small intestinal biopsy,” AR 313, but there is no indication 12 that such a biopsy was ever performed. 13 Dr. Woolever ever again saw Mr. Ogden after the one visit in December 14 2014. 15 not err in rejecting Dr. Woolever’s opinion, see Orn v. Astrue, 495 16 F.3d 625, 631 (9th Cir. 2007) (explaining the ALJ is entitled to weigh 17 a treating physician’s opinion by a number of factors, including the 18 “length 19 examination”) (quoting 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)(i)). 20 C. For instance, as the basis for his diagnosis, Dr. Woolever Dr. Woolever noted Nor is there any evidence that The ALJ noted these shortcomings, see AR 29, and therefore did of the treatment relationship and the frequency of Walla Walla County Assessment 21 Mr. Ogden contends that the ALJ failed to address an intake 22 assessment dated March 1, 2012, prepared by the Walla Walla County 23 Department of Human Services (the “2012 Assessment”). ECF No. 12 at 24 13. 25 symptoms 26 (persistent depressive disorder, DSM-5 300.4), and his symptoms are Mr. Ogden points out that the assessment indicates Mr. Ogden’s are consistent with a diagnosis of ORDER GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT FOR DEFENDANT - 12 dysthymic disorder 1 sufficiently severe to cause a “marked impairment” in occupational 2 functioning and/or during usual social activities. See ECF No. 12 at 3 13; see also AR 238. 4 the 5 posed 6 limitations. See ECF No. 12 at 13. 7 11 In making a determination of disability, the ALJ must develop the record and interpret the medical evidence. In doing so, the ALJ must consider the “combined effect” of all the claimant’s impairments without regard to whether any such impairment, if considered separately, would be of sufficient severity. 20 C.F.R. § 416.923. However, in interpreting the evidence and developing the record, the ALJ does not need to “discuss every piece of evidence.” Howard ex rel. Wolff v. Barnhart, 341 F.3d 1006, 1012 (9th Cir. 2003) 12 (quoting Black v. Apfel, 143 F.3d 383, 386 (8th Cir. 1998)). 8 9 10 residual by the Mr. Ogden takes issue with the fact that neither functional ALJ to capacity the assessment vocational nor expert the hypotheticals incorporated such Here, although the ALJ did not assign a specific weight to the 13 14 2012 Assessment, it was not a medical opinion, and she was not 15 required to do so. See Howard, 341 F.3d at 1012. 16 clearly considered the 2012 Assessment while making her determination, 17 as she cited to it multiple times.6 See AR 23, 27–28. 18 Assessment listed no author, it was prepared while Mr. Ogden was still 19 a minor child enrolled in high school, and its information was not 20 particularly probative as to Mr. Ogden’s functional abilities.7 See AR Further, the ALJ The 2012 21 22 23 24 25 26 6 7 On September 12, 2013, the disability examiner also considered the March 1, 2012 intake assessment in reaching the decision to affirm the May 2, 2013 cessation of benefits. See AR 80, 82. Notably, the evidence and analysis for determining whether an adult is disabled is significantly different from that for a minor. Compare, e.g., 42 U.S.C. § 1382c(a)(3)(B) (An adult is disabled “only if his physical or mental impairment or impairments are of such severity that he is not only unable to do his previous work but cannot, considering his age, education, and work experience, engage in any other kind of substantial gainful work which exists in the national economy . . . .”), with id. at (a)(3)(C)(i) (“An individual under the age of 18 shall be considered disabled . . . if ORDER GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT FOR DEFENDANT - 13 1 229–39. Further, the 2012 Assessment was subsequently updated to 2 reflect further developments, such as on June 1, 2012, when it was 3 noted that Mr. Ogden “was doing very well in school this year and even 4 got enough[] credits completed to be able to graduate early.” AR 242. 5 As such, the ALJ did not err by declining to provide a detailed 6 analysis of the 2012 Assessment; nor did she err by declining to adopt 7 all the limitations arguably suggested therein. See Howard, 341 F.3d 8 at 9 evidence” in order to demonstrate that the ALJ did not “selectively 1012 (holding that an 10 analyze” the evidence). 11 in 12 ALJ need not discuss “every piece of residual functional capacity. the record supports And the Court finds that substantial evidence the ALJ’s findings regarding Mr. Ogden’s 13 Moreover, even assuming arguendo that the ALJ should have given 14 greater import to the 2012 Assessment, there is no indication that 15 doing so would have changed Mr. Ogden’s residual functional capacity 16 or what limitations should have been included in the hypotheticals 17 posed to the vocational expert. 18 indicate any limitations greater than those already included in the 19 ALJ’s RFC determination, which limited his potential work to simple, 20 routine, 21 interaction with the general public and coworkers. Cf. AR 25, 229–39. 22 Thus, 23 Assessment, that error would be harmless. See Molina, 674 F.3d at 24 1111. 25 D. 26 repetitive, had the ALJ one-to-two somehow The 2012 Assessment simply did not step erred tasks in her with only superficial consideration of the Available Jobs that individual has a medically determinable physical or mental impairment, which results in marked and severe functional limitations . . . .”). ORDER GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT FOR DEFENDANT - 14 Finally, Mr. Ogden argues that the ALJ “failed to meet her step 1 2 five 3 numbers, consistent with Mr. Ogden’s specific functional limitations.” 4 ECF No. 12 at 13. 5 which the ALJ relied “was without evidentiary value because it was 6 provided in response to . . . incomplete hypothetical[s].” ECF No. 12 7 at 13–14. 8 incomplete, according to Mr. Ogden, because they “failed to account 9 for 10 burden to identify specific jobs, available in significant Mr. Ogden asserts that the vocational testimony on The hypotheticals posed to the vocational expert were limitations set forth by Mr. Ogden’s treating and examining providers.” ECF No. 12 at 14. As discussed above, the ALJ did not err in assigning the weights 11 12 she did to Mr. Ogden’s treating and examining providers. 13 only required to include those limitations that were credible. See 14 Osenbrock 15 substantial evidence supported the ALJ’s determinations regarding Mr. 16 Ogden’s RFC and the corresponding hypothetical questions. 17 Court 18 identifying specific jobs available in significant numbers that Mr. 19 Ogden 20 education, and work experience. See Delgado, 722 F.2d at 572; see also 21 42 22 Security as to any fact, if supported by substantial evidence, shall 23 be conclusive . . . .”). 24 v. holds could U.S.C. § Apfel, that 240 the perform 405(g) F.3d ALJ given (“The 1157, satisfied his her residual findings V. 1165 of (9th burden Cir. at functional the The ALJ was 2001). And Thus, the step five capacity, Commissioner of by age, Social CONCLUSION 25 In summary, the Court holds that the ALJ committed no reversible 26 error in her assessment of Mr. Ogden’s physical limitations at step ORDER GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT FOR DEFENDANT - 15 1 two; her consideration of the opinions of Mr. Ogden’s medical 2 providers; or her identification of specific jobs available at step 3 five. 4 the 5 substantial evidence in the record. See Delgado, 722 F.2d at 572; 6 Brawner, 839 F.2d at 433. In determining that Mr. Ogden is not disabled, the ALJ applied proper legal standards, and her 7 1. is supported by Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 8 decision DENIED. 9 10 2. Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 13, is GRANTED. 11 12 Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 12, is 3. The Clerk’s Office is to enter JUDGMENT in favor of the Commissioner. 13 14 4. 15 IT IS SO ORDERED. The Clerk’s Office is directed to enter this 16 17 The case shall be CLOSED. Order and provide copies to all counsel. DATED this _ 11th _ day of December 2017. 18 19 s/Edward F. Shea EDWARD F. SHEA Senior United States District Judge 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Q:\EFS\Civil\2017\17-CV-5009;Ogden.SJ for D.LC1.docx ORDER GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT FOR DEFENDANT - 16
]]>
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.
