Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Verzola v. Colvin

United States District Court, Western District of Washington, Seattle

May 13, 2015

ANTHONY VERZOLA, Plaintiff,
v.
CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, Defendants.

ORDER

Thomas S. Zilly United States District Judge

THIS MATTER comes before the Court on plaintiff’s objections, docket no. 24, to the Report and Recommendation (R&R) of Magistrate Judge James P. Donohue, docket no. 20. Having considered the R&R, all of the materials submitted in support of and opposition to the R&R, and the administrative record, the Court adopts Magistrate Judge Donohue’s R&R and affirms the decision of the Commissioner of Social Security.

Background

Plaintiff, Anthony Verzola, has a high school diploma, Administrative Record (AR) 41, and past employment that includes work as a warehouse laborer, AR 449. Plaintiff was gainfully employed until November 2010. AR 449. In June 2011, plaintiff filed for Supplemental Security Income and Disability Insurance Benefits, claiming that he had been disabled due to post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), back and neck conditions, anxiety, and depression dating back to November 22, 2010. AR 229, 235.

Defendant, Carolyn Colvin, Acting Commissioner of Social Security (the “Commissioner”), denied plaintiff’s claims, AR 152–60, and subsequently his request for reconsideration, AR 162–75. In December 2012, an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) conducted a hearing on plaintiff’s claims. AR 34–82. In March 2013, the ALJ denied plaintiff’s claims, finding that he was not disabled and that he could perform jobs that existed in significant numbers in the economy. AR 13–28.

In August 2014, plaintiff appealed this decision to the district court. Compl. (docket no. 1). In March 2015, Magistrate Judge Donohue issued an R&R recommending that the Court affirm the Commissioner’s decision to deny plaintiff’s claims for benefits. R&R (docket no. 20). In April 2015, plaintiff filed objections to the R&R arguing that the magistrate judge failed to properly evaluate the findings of the ALJ regarding the opinions of several physicians. Objections (docket no. 24) at 2.

Discussion

A. Standard of Review

A court’s review of a decision reached through application of the five-step process is limited to assessing whether the Commissioner’s denial of benefits is free of legal error and based on factual findings that are supported by substantial evidence. Tidwell v. Apfel, 161 F.3d 599, 601 (9th Cir. 1998); see also 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). “‘Substantial evidence’ means more than a mere scintilla, but less than a preponderance; it is such relevant evidence as a reasonable person might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.” Lingenfelter v. Astrue, 504 F.3d 1028, 1035 (9th Cir. 2007). While the Court must consider “both the evidence that supports and the evidence that detracts from the Commissioner’s conclusion, ” Reddick v. Chater, 157 F.3d 715, 720 (9th Cir. 1998), if the “evidence is susceptible to more than one rational interpretation, one of which supports the ALJ’s decision, the ALJ’s conclusion must be upheld.” Thomas v. Barnhart, 278 F.3d 947, 954 (9th Cir. 2002).

The Court reviews portions of the R&R to which objections have been raised de novo. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). All other portions of the R&R to which no objection has been made is reviewed under the “clearly erroneous or contrary to law” standard. See 28 U.S.C.A. § 636(b)(1)(A); see also McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Commodore Bus. Mach., Inc., 656 F.2d 1309, 1313 (9th Cir. 1981).

B. Dr. Karen Ni

Plaintiff contends that the magistrate judge erred in finding that the ALJ correctly evaluated the opinion of Dr. Karen Ni. Upon examining plaintiff in November 2011, but without reviewing plaintiff’s mental-health or psychological records, Dr. Ni opined that plaintiff could not work for at least a year and that “he seemed quite fearful of returning to a work or any public environment.” AR 721. The ALJ gave “[l]ittle to no weight” to this opinion because it was not based on plaintiff’s longitudinal record and was based on plaintiff’s subjective accounts of his symptoms, which were deemed not credible. AR 25.

The R&R found that the ALJ did not err in evaluating Dr. Ni’s opinion for the following reasons: (1) Dr. Ni’s limited perspective on plaintiff’s condition by virtue of having failed to review plaintiff’s longitudinal record was a valid reason to give it less weight; (2) the ALJ properly observed that Dr. Ni’s opinion was inconsistent with other evidence in the record; and (3) plaintiffs argument that Dr. Ni’s opinion was based on her own observations in addition to plaintiff’s subjective reporting was unsupported.

Plaintiffs objections to these findings are without merit. First, plaintiff argues that the Court should hold that the magistrate judge erred in finding that the ALJ properly discounted Dr. Ni’s opinion due to the fact that the ALJ had not reviewed the whole of plaintiffs longitudinal record. Plaintiff himself acknowledges, “Dr. Ni did not review all of the evidence in this case[.]” Objections (docket no. 24) at 4 (emphasis original). As the R&R notes, an ALJ may give less weight to an opinion that was reached based on a single isolated examination rather than a full review of claimant’s longitudinal record. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c), 416.927(c). Second, a review of the record shows that the ALJ correctly observed that Dr. Ni’s opinion was contradicted by the opinion of Dr. Victoria McDuffee, who found that plaintiffs mental health history did not support the finding that his symptoms were debilitating and that plaintiff may have been exaggerating the severity of his anxiety. See AR 693-94. Finally, the magistrate judge correctly concluded that the ALJ properly discounted Dr. Ni’s opinion because it was primarily based on plaintiffs non-credible subjective reports rather than on her own observations. As the R&R points out, Dr. Ni’s evaluation primarily reiterates ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.