Case 5:20-cv-01344-SVW-JPR Document 27 Filed 04/15/22 Page 1 of 4 Page ID #:2608

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 ANTHONY WESLEY S., ) Case No. EDCV 20-1344-SVW (JPR) 11 ) Plaintiff, ) 12 ) ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS AND v. ) RECOMMENDATIONS OF U.S. 13 ) MAGISTRATE JUDGE KILOLO KIJAKAZI, Acting ) 14 Commissioner of Social ) Security, ) 15 ) Defendant. ) 16 17 Under

, the Court has reviewed the Complaint, 18 Joint Stipulation, Administrative Record, and all other records 19 on file as well as the Report and Recommendation of U.S. 20 Magistrate Judge. On March 1, 2022, Plaintiff filed Objections 21 to the R. & R., in which he mostly simply repeats arguments from 22 the Joint Stipulation that the Magistrate Judge already 23 addressed.1 A few of his contentions warrant further discussion, 24 however. 25 The Magistrate Judge found that the ALJ gave specific and 26 27 1 Defendant did not respond to Plaintiff’s Objections 28 despite being given the opportunity to do so. 1 Case 5:20-cv-01344-SVW-JPR Document 27 Filed 04/15/22 Page 2 of 4 Page ID #:2609

1 legitimate reasons to discount the medical-opinion evidence. 2 (See R. & R. at 21-30.) Plaintiff doesn’t challenge that 3 finding. (See Objs. at 2-4.) He instead argues that she 4 incorrectly found that the examining consultants’ opinions 5 amounted to substantial evidence. (Id. at 2-3.) In Plaintiff’s 6 view, when an examining doctor “describ[es] the same or similar 7 findings” as a treating doctor — “even on independent 8 examination” — and differs only in her conclusions, that doctor’s 9 conclusions don’t amount to substantial evidence. (Id. at 2 10 (citing Orn v. Astrue,

(9th Cir. 2007).) 11 That is incorrect. Orn explains that an examining doctor’s 12 opinion amounts to substantial evidence when it is based on 13 “independent clinical findings,” which “can be either (1) 14 diagnoses that differ from those offered by another physician and 15 that are supported by substantial evidence, or (2) findings based 16 on objective medical tests that the treating physician has not 17 herself considered.”

(citations omitted). Only one or the 18 other is required, not both. 19 As the Magistrate Judge correctly found, the examining 20 consultants made findings based on their own independent tests 21 (see R. & R. at 20 (citing AR 712-13, 1024-28)), and nothing 22 suggests that Plaintiff’s treating doctor considered them. The 23 treating doctor’s opinion was therefore not entitled to 24 controlling weight. (See

(citing Tonapetyan v. Halter, 242

(9th Cir. 2001))); see also Knealy P. v. 26 Kijakazi, No. 20-cv-0984-AJB-BGS,

, at *11 (S.D. 27 Cal. Feb. 24, 2022) (noting “some similarities” between doctors’ 28 clinical findings but holding that examining physician’s opinion 2 Case 5:20-cv-01344-SVW-JPR Document 27 Filed 04/15/22 Page 3 of 4 Page ID #:2610

1 was substantial evidence because he based it on exam that 2 treating doctor hadn’t considered). 3 Plaintiff also complains, again, that remand is warranted 4 because the ALJ did not specifically address all the factors in 5

and 416.927 in assessing the various 6 doctors’ opinions. (See Objs. at 3-4.) But as the Magistrate 7 Judge noted (see R. & R. at 20-21 (citing applicable law and AR 8 1256)), she was not required to. 9 Next, despite Plaintiff’s arguments to the contrary, the 10 Magistrate Judge correctly found that the ALJ accounted for 11 Plaintiff’s mental limitations by limiting him to tasks that 12 could be learned by demonstration within 30 days, relying in part 13 on Stubbs-Danielson v. Astrue,

(9th Cir. 14 2008). (See R. & R. at 34.) Plaintiff argues that unlike in 15 Stubbs-Danielson, “no medical opinions” found that he had 16 “moderate limitations in concentration, persistence, or pace but 17 [was] only mentally limited to tasks that can be learned in 30 18 days.” (Objs. at 4-5.) But the Magistrate Judge cited evidence 19 — including medical-opinion evidence — showing that he had normal 20 intellectual function and thinking, could perform simple and 21 multistep directions, and controlled his condition with medicine. 22 (See R. & R. at 34.) Unlike the cases cited in Plaintiff’s 23 portion of the Joint Stipulation (see Objs. at 5), the evidence 24 here doesn’t establish that he had even moderate mental 25 limitations (see R. & R. at 35). The ALJ didn’t err. (See

26 (citing Batson v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin.,

, 1197 27 (9th Cir. 2004)).) 28 3 se 5:20-cv-01344-SVW-JPR Document 27 Filed 04/15/22 Page4of4 Page ID #:2611

1 Finally, Plaintiff reiterates that the ALJ allegedly erred 2|/in assessing his subjective symptoms. (See Objs. at 5-7.) As 3 || the Magistrate Judge found, however, she didn’t. (See R. & R. at 4] 39-43.) And contrary to Plaintiff’s claims (see Objs. at 5), the 5 || ALJ did in fact discount his allegations as inconsistent with his 6 |} receipt of unemployment benefits and his improved condition (see 7 || AR 1251-52 (finding that evidence didn’t support Plaintiff’s 8} allegations and noting unemployment benefits), 1254 (finding that 9} record showed that Plaintiff’s “symptoms improved or were stable 10 ||] with medication and counseling”)). Those were not merely post 11} hoc arguments made by Defendant. See Chester v. Berryhill, No. 12 |} 2:15-CV-1724 JCM (PAL),

, at *1-2 (D. Nev. Jan. 8, 13 2019) (finding that reasons in R. & R. tracked those in ALJ’s 14 | decision to support discounting plaintiff’s symptom statements 15} and thus were not post hoc). 16 Having reviewed de novo those portions of the R. & R. to 17 |} which Plaintiff objects, the Court accepts the findings and 18 |] recommendations of the Magistrate Judge. IT THEREFORE IS ORDERED 19} that judgment be entered affirming the Acting Commissioner’s 20} decision and dismissing this action with prejudice. 21 Lays p)hrw DATED: __ April 15, 2022 >[PHnW/CLE; yy 22 STEPHEN V. WILSON’ ————~CO 23 U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE

24 25 26 27 28