1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 KEVIN S., ) No. CV 19-8725 AGR ) 12 Plaintiff, ) ) 13 v. ) MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER ) 14 ANDREW SAUL, ) Commissioner of Social Security, ) 15 ) Defendant. ) 16 ) 17 Plaintiff1 filed this action on October 10, 2019. The parties filed a Joint Stipulation 18 that addressed the disputed issues. The court has taken the matter under submission 19 without oral argument.2 20 Having reviewed the entire file, the court affirms the decision of the 21 Commissioner. 22 23 24 25 1 Plaintiff’s name has been partially redacted in compliance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 5.2(c)(2)(B) and the recommendation of the Committee on Court Administration and 26 Case Management of the Judicial Conference of the United States. 27 2 Pursuant to

(c), the parties consented to proceed before the 28 1 I. 2 PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND 3 This case arises from the determination that Plaintiff’s benefits would be 4 terminated as of January 1, 2018. By a decision dated September 22, 2005, Plaintiff 5 was found disabled as of January 14, 2003. Administrative Record (“AR”) 91-96. The 6 Commissioner determined that Plaintiff’s disability ended on January 1, 2018, and the 7 decision was upheld on reconsideration. AR 31, 104-09. Plaintiff requested a hearing 8 before an Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”). On October 11, the ALJ conducted a 9 hearing at which Plaintiff and a vocational expert testified. AR 46-59. On November 7, 10 2018, the ALJ issued a decision denying benefits. AR 28-39. On August 29, 2019, the 11 Appeals Council denied review. AR 1-6. This action followed. 12 II. 13 STANDARD OF REVIEW 14 Pursuant to

(g), this court has authority to review the 15 Commissioner’s decision. The decision will be disturbed only if it is not supported by 16 substantial evidence, or if it is based upon the application of improper legal standards. 17 Attmore v. Colvin,

(9th Cir. 2016). 18 “Substantial evidence” means “more than a mere scintilla but less than a 19 preponderance – it is such relevant evidence that a reasonable mind might accept as 20 adequate to support the conclusion.”

In determining whether substantial evidence 21 exists to support the Commissioner’s decision, the court examines the administrative 22 record as a whole, considering adverse as well as supporting evidence.

When the 23 evidence is susceptible to more than one rational interpretation, the court must defer to 24 the Commissioner’s decision.

25 26 27 28 1 III. 2 DISCUSSION 3 A. Disability 4 A person qualifies as disabled, and thereby eligible for such benefits, “only if his 5 physical or mental impairment or impairments are of such severity that he is not only 6 unable to do his previous work but cannot, considering his age, education, and work 7 experience, engage in any other kind of substantial gainful work which exists in the 8 national economy.” Barnhart v. Thomas,

(2003) (citation and 9 quotation marks omitted). 10 Continued entitlement to disability benefits is reviewed periodically. Lambert v. 11 Saul,

(9th Cir. 2020);

(a). A claimant 12 receiving disability insurance benefits “is no longer entitled to benefits when substantial 13 evidence demonstrates (1) ‘there has been any medical improvement in the [claimant’s] 14 impairment’ and (2) the claimant ‘is now able to engage in substantial gainful activity.’” 15 Attmore,

(quoting

(f)(1)). 16 In making the determination whether there has been medical improvement, the 17 ALJ compares the current medical severity of the claimant’s impairments to the medical 18 severity “‘at the time of the most recent favorable medical decision’” finding that the 19 claimant was “‘disabled or continued to be disabled.’”

(quoting

404.1594(b)(7)). Medical improvement is defined as “‘any decrease in the medical 21 severity of’” the claimant’s impairments.

at 875 (quoting

404.1594(b)(1)). 23 Medical improvement must be related to the claimant’s ability to work.

§ 24 404.1594(a). Medical improvement is related to the claimant’s ability to work when 25 there is an increase in the claimant’s functional capacity to do basic work activities. Id. 26 § 404.1594(b)(3). “Basic work activities means the abilities and aptitudes necessary to 27 do most jobs. Id. § 404.1594(b)(4). “In determining whether medical improvement that 28 1 has occurred is related to your ability to do work, we will assess your functional capacity 2 . . . based on the current severity of the impairment(s) which was present at your last 3 favorable medical decision. Your new residual functional capacity will then be 4 compared to your residual functional capacity at the time of our most recent favorable 5 medical decision.” Id. § 404.1594(c)(2). When the most recent favorable decision was 6 based on the fact that the claimant or equaled a listing,3 and medical improvement has 7 occurred such the claimant no longer meets or equals a listing, then the medical 8 improvement is related to the ability to work. Id. § 404.1594(c)(3)(i). 9 B. The ALJ’s Findings 10 The ALJ found that the most recent favorable medical decision was the decision 11 dated September 22, 2005. At that time, Plaintiff was found to have depression and 12 anxiety that equaled Listing 12.04 and 12.06. AR 33. Since January 1, 2018, the ALJ 13 found that Plaintiff’s current medically determinable impairments are degenerative joint 14 disease, spinal disorder, and depression. These impairments do not meet or equal a 15 listing. AR 33. 16 The ALJ concluded that, as of January 1, 2018, medical improvement occurred 17 that was related to his ability to work. Plaintiff has the residual functional capacity to 18 perform light work except that he can lift/carry/push/pull 20 pounds occasionally and 10 19 pounds frequently; sit/stand/walk six hours in an eight-hour workday; and frequently 20 climb, crouch, balance, stoop, crawl, and kneel. Plaintiff is unable to climb ladders, 21 ropes and scaffolds; and unable to work at unprotected heights or near dangerous 22 machinery. Plaintiff is limited to simple and repetitive tasks, and occasional interaction 23 with the general public, coworkers, and supervisors. AR 36. 24 25 3 “The listings define impairments that would prevent an adult, regardless of his age, education, or work experience, from performing any gainful activity, not just ‘substantial 26 gainful activity.’” Sullivan v. Zebley,

(1990) (citation omitted) 27 (emphasis in original). “If the impairment meets or equals one of the listed impairments, the claimant is conclusively presumed to be disabled.” Bowen v. Yuckert,

, 28 1 The ALJ found that Plaintiff did not have any past relevant work but could 2 perform jobs that exist in significant numbers in the national economy such as ticketer, 3 marker, and folder. AR 38-39. 4 C. Claimant’s Allegations 5 In assessing a claimant’s subjective allegations, the Commissioner conducts a 6 two-step analysis. Vasquez v. Astrue,

(9th Cir. 2009). First, the ALJ 7 determines whether the claimant presented objective medical evidence of an 8 impairment that could reasonably be expected to produce the symptoms alleged.

9 Here, the ALJ found that Plaintiff’s medically determinable impairments could 10 reasonably be expected to cause the alleged symptoms. AR 37. Second, the ALJ 11 evaluates the intensity and persistence of the claimant’s symptoms and determines the 12 extent to which those symptoms limit the claimant’s ability to perform work-related 13 activities. Social Security Ruling (“SSR”) 16-3p. Absent malingering, the ALJ must give 14 specific, clear and convincing reasons for discounting the claimant’s subjective 15 allegations. Lambert,

. To do so, the ALJ must identify the claimant’s 16 testimony that is found not to be credible and explain what evidence undermines that 17 testimony. On the other hand, “[o]ur cases do not require ALJs to perform a line-by-line 18 exegesis of the claimant’s testimony, nor do they require ALJs to draft dissertations 19 when denying benefits.”

20 The ALJ detailed the medical opinions that support the residual functional 21 capacity assessment. AR 33-38. The ALJ’s findings are supported by substantial 22 evidence. Moreover, Plaintiff does not appear to dispute that the alleged severity of his 23 symptoms is not supported by the objective medical evidence. Although lack of 24 objective medical evidence supporting the degree of limitation “cannot form the sole 25 basis for discounting pain testimony,” it is a factor that an ALJ may consider in 26 assessing credibility. Burch v. Barnhart,

(9th Cir. 2005). 27 The ALJ noted that three treating providers observed that Plaintiff appeared to be 28 maximizing his symptoms in an effort to get disability benefits. The ALJ’s findings are supported by substantial evidence. Lehman v. Saul,

, 167 (9th Cir. 2|| 2020). On September 20, 2017, a treating mental health provider observed that Plaintiff seemed to be “maximizing” his symptoms. AR 34, 392. On March 12, 2018, the same provider noted that Plaintiffs adherence to visits and medications was poor, and that he came in only for paperwork.* AR 495. On August 30, 2018, a different provider noted 6| that the appointment was not helpful. Plaintiff was not being truthful about the purpose of the visit, appeared to be manipulating the situation for compensation, and did not 8|| appear to be taking any psych medications. AR 34, 523. A third provider who saw Plaintiff for right shoulder and right hip pain noted that he was “having issues” 10 | determining why Plaintiff was on disability, and that Plaintiff sounded as though he was 11] primarily interested in disability. AR 454. 12 The ALJ also observed inconsistent statements by Plaintiff, who reported to a 13] consultative psychiatrist that could do household chores, run errands, go shopping, and 14|| cook. AR 35, 427. At the hearing, Plaintiff testified that he stays at home, lays down 15| and watches TV. AR 53-54. The ALJ may properly rely on inconsistent statements. 16|| See Thomas, 278 F.3d at 958-59. 17 IV. 18 ORDER 19 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the decision of the Commissioner is affirmed. 20 21 29 Whar A Koaenberg, DATED: February 19, 2021 23 ~_ ALICIAG. ROSENBERG ~— United States Magistrate Judge

25 26 7,0 ‘ Plaintiff had represented that he was taking his psych medication but was not 28 | aware of the regimen when asked. AR 415-16.