Penta v. Commissioner of Social Security

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA MICKAYLA LYNNE MARIE P., CASE NO. 3:22-CV-5183-DWC 11 Plaintiff, ORDER AFFIRMING DEFENDANT’S 12 v. DECISION TO DENY BENEFITS COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant.

Plaintiff filed this action, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), for judicial review of Defendant’s denial of Plaintiff's applications for disability insurance benefits (“DIB”), supplemental security income (“SSI”), and child disability benefits (“CDBD”). Pursuant to 28 19 U.S.C. § 636(c), Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 73 and Local Rule MJR 13, the parties have consented to have this matter heard by the undersigned Magistrate Judge. See Dkt. 2.

After considering the record, the Court concludes the Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) did not err in rejecting the medical opinion of Dr. Hartinger. Accordingly, the Court affirms the ALJ’s decision in finding plaintiff not disabled.

1 FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY 2 On February 20, 2019, Plaintiff filed an application for DIB, SSI, and CDBD, alleging disability as of July 23, 2001. See Dkt. 10, Administrative Record (“AR”) 16, 70-71, 79-80, 88- 89. The application was denied upon initial administrative review and on reconsideration. See AR 111, 124, 137, 152, 164, 176. A hearing was held before ALJ Shane McGovern on January 29, 2021. See AR 33-69. In a decision dated March 23, 2021, ALJ McGovern determined Plaintiff not disabled. See AR 13-32. Plaintiff’s request for review of the ALJ’s decision was denied by the Appeals Council, making the ALJ’s decision the final decision of the Commissioner. See AR 1-6; 20 C.F.R. § 404.981, § 416.1481.

10 In Plaintiff’s Opening Brief, Plaintiff maintains the ALJ erred in evaluating the medical opinion of Dr. Hartinger. Dkt. 10, p. 1.

12 STANDARD OF REVIEW 13 Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), this Court may set aside the Commissioner’s denial of social security benefits if the ALJ’s findings are based on legal error or not supported by substantial evidence in the record as a whole. Bayliss v. Barnhart, 427 F.3d 1211, 1214 n.1 (9th Cir. 2005) (citing Tidwell v. Apfel, 161 F.3d 599, 601 (9th Cir. 1999)).

17 DISCUSSION 18 Plaintiff contends the ALJ erred in rejecting the medical opinion of Dr. Wendy Hartinger.

19 Dkt. 10, pp. 3-10.

20 Dr. Hartinger completed a psychological evaluation of Plaintiff on December 12, 2018 by conducting a mental status exam and reviewing Plaintiff’s medical records. See AR 447-51. She diagnosed Plaintiff with major depressive disorder, generalized anxiety disorder, posttraumatic stress disorder, and schizotypal personality traits. AR 449. Based on these impairments, Dr. Hartinger found Plaintiff markedly limited with the following: performing activities within a schedule, maintaining regular attendance, and being punctual within customary tolerances without special supervision; communicating and performing effectively in a work setting; and completing a normal work day and work week without interruptions from psychologically based symptoms. See AR 449-50.

6 The ALJ did not find Dr. Hartinger’s opinion persuasive, because it was (1) “not supported by a citation to any objective medical findings,” (2) plaintiff’s mental status during the evaluation was almost entirely within normal limits, and (2) inconsistent with plaintiff’s improvement after using prescribed medications. See AR 25.

10 Plaintiff filed her applications after March 27, 2017. AR 70, 79, 88, 100. Under the applicable rules, the ALJ must “articulate how [he] considered the medical opinions” and “how persuasive [he] find[s] all of the medical opinions” by considering their supportability, consistency, relationship with the claimant, specialization, and other factors. 20 C.F.R. §§ 14 404.152c(c); 416.920c(c). The ALJ is specifically required to consider the two most important factors, supportability and consistency. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520c(a); 416.920c(a).

16 The supportability factor requires the ALJ to consider the relevance of the objective medical evidence and the supporting explanations presented by the medical source to justify their opinion. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520c(c)(1); 416.920c(c)(1). The consistency factor involves consideration of how consistent a medical opinion is with the other record evidence. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520c(c)(2); 416.920c(c)(2).

21 In this case, though the ALJ improperly found Dr. Hartinger’s opinion unsupported by any citations to objective medical findings, the ALJ nonetheless reasonably rejected her opinion because it was unsupported by the results of Plaintiff’s mental status exam. The ALJ first rejected Dr. Hartinger’s opinion because it was unsupported by “a citation to any objective medical findings.” AR 25. However, Dr. Hartinger rendered an opinion after reviewing Plaintiff’s records and conducting a mental status exam, the latter of which is considered an objective measure. See Dkt. 10, p. 6; Buck v. Berryhill, 869 F.3d 1040, 1049 (9th Cir. 2017) (finding that a clinical interview and a mental status evaluation are considered “objective measures”). Thus, in rejecting Dr. Hartinger’s opinion because it was unsupported by objective findings, the ALJ erred.

8 However, the ALJ did not err in rejecting Dr. Hartinger’s opinion because of the results of Plaintiff’s mental status exam. Dr. Hartinger opined that Plaintiff would have several marked limitations in certain basic work activities such as attendance, communication, and completing a work day without interruptions from her mental health impairments. AR 449-50. Yet, Plaintiff’s own mental status exam, administered by Dr. Hartinger herself, shows that despite Plaintiff’s anxious mood, Plaintiff’s thought process and content, orientation, perception, memory, fund of knowledge, concentration, abstract thought, and insight and judgment were all within normal limits. AR 451.

16 Plaintiff argues that the ALJ’s rejection of Dr. Hartinger’s opinion is insufficient because the ALJ’s explanation that Dr. Hartinger’s mental status exam showing Plaintiff was “almost entirely within normal limits . . . inherently acknowledges that the exam result was not entirely within normal limits.” Dkt. 10, p. 6. Further, in her Reply, Plaintiff points out, “The mental status exam, while certainly a valuable diagnostic tool, is not the end-all and be-all of psychoanalysis.”

21 Dkt. 12, p. 2. But Plaintiff does not show which part of Dr. Hartinger’s opinion does not support the ALJ’s reasonable conclusion, nor does Plaintiff present any further argument or authority as to why this Court should disregard Dr. Hartinger’s mental status exam. Under the supportability factor of the new regulations, a medical opinion’s persuasiveness is based on the relevance of “the objective medical evidence and supporting explanations presented by the medical source.” See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520c(c)(1); 416.920c(c)(1). Here, in rejecting Dr. Hartinger’s opinion, the ALJ identified the physician’s own mental status exam, which, as Plaintiff herself acknowledged, is an objective medical measure. Dkt. 10, p.6. And because the mental status exam results undermined the Dr. Hartinger’s marked limitations, the Court cannot say the ALJ unreasonably rejected Dr. Hartinger’s opinion because it lacked supportability. Accordingly, the Court finds the ALJ did not err in rejecting Dr. Hartinger’s opinion.

9 Further, because the ALJ has provided at least one valid reason to reject Dr. Harbinger’s opinion, the Court need not further assess whether the other reason offered by the ALJ is erroneous. Even if that reason were insufficient, any error would be harmless. See Carmickle v. Comm’r, Soc. Sec. Admin., 533 F.3d 1155, 1162 (9th Cir. 2008) (including an erroneous reason among other reasons to discount a claimant’s credibility does not negate the validity of the overall credibility determination and is at most harmless error where an ALJ provides other reasons that are supported by substantial evidence).

16 CONCLUSION 17 Based on the foregoing reasons, the Court hereby finds the ALJ properly concluded Plaintiff was not disabled. Accordingly, Defendant’s decision to deny benefits is affirmed and this case is dismissed with prejudice.

20 Dated this 12th day of September, 2022.

A David W. Christel United States Magistrate Judge