Escobedo v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration

1 WO [5] 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA [8] 9 Renee Escobedo, No. CV-23-00099-PHX-SMB 10 Plaintiff, ORDER 11 v. 12 Commissioner of Social Security Administration, [13] Defendant. [14] 15 At issue is the denial of Renee Escobedo’s Application for Social Security Disability 16 Insurance (“SSDI”) benefits by the Social Security Administration (“SSA”) under the 17 Social Security Act (the “Act”). Plaintiff filed a Complaint, (Doc. 1), and an Opening 18 Brief, (Doc. 8), seeking judicial review of that denial. Defendant SSA filed an Answering 19 Brief, (Doc. 13), to which Plaintiff replied, (Doc. 14). After reviewing the parties’ briefs, 20 the Administrative Record, (Doc. 7), and the Administrative Law Judge’s (“ALJ”) 21 decision, (Doc. 7-3 at 16–24), the Court will affirm the ALJ’s decision for the reasons 22 addressed herein. 23 I. BACKGROUND 24 Plaintiff protectively filed an Application for SSDI benefits in on August 18, 2017, 25 alleging disability beginning July 12, 2017. (Doc. 7-4 at 32.) Plaintiff’s claim was initially 26 denied on October 26, 2017. (Id.) After reconsideration, Plaintiff’s claim was again denied 27 on July 26, 2018. (Id.) A hearing was held before ALJ Allen Erickson on June 23, 2020. 28 (Id.) After considering the medical evidence and opinions, the ALJ determined that 1 Plaintiff was not disabled. (Id. at 41.) Plaintiff appealed, and the SSA Appeals Council 2 remanded the decision to a different ALJ. (Doc. 7-3 at 16.) 3 A second hearing was then held before ALJ Ted Armbruster on October 19, 2021. 4 (Id.) After considering the medical evidence and opinions, he determined that Plaintiff 5 suffered from several medically determinable impairments but did not have a severe 6 impairment or combination of impairments. (Id. at 19.) The ALJ concluded that the 7 impairments did not significantly limit Plaintiff’s ability to perform basic work activities, 8 and that therefore she was not disabled. (Id. at 23–24.) Thereafter, the Appeals Council 9 denied Plaintiff’s Request for Review of the ALJ’s decision—making it the SSA 10 Commissioner’s (the “Commissioner”) final decision—and this appeal followed. (Id. at 11 2–4.) 12 II. LEGAL STANDARD 13 To determine whether a claimant is disabled for purposes of the Act, the ALJ 14 follows a five-step process. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520 (a). The claimant bears the burden of 15 proof on the first four steps, and the burden shifts to the Commissioner at step five. Tackett 16 v. Apfel, 180 F.3d 1094, 1098 (9th Cir. 1999). At the first step, the ALJ determines whether 17 the claimant is engaging in substantial gainful activity. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520 (a)(4)(i). If 18 so, the claimant is not disabled, and the inquiry ends. Id. At step two, the ALJ determines 19 whether the claimant has a “severe” medically determinable physical or mental 20 impairment. § 404.1520(a)(4)(ii). If not, the claimant is not disabled and the inquiry ends. 21 Id. 22 At step three, the ALJ considers whether the claimant’s impairment or combination 23 of impairments meets or medically equals an impairment listed in Appendix 1 to Subpart 24 P of 20 C.F.R. pt. 404. § 404.1520(a)(4)(iii). If so, the claimant is automatically found to 25 be disabled. Id. If not, the ALJ proceeds to step four. At step four, the ALJ assesses the 26 claimant’s residual functional capacity (“RFC”) and determines whether the claimant can 27 perform past relevant work. § 404.1520(a)(4)(iv). If so, the claimant is not disabled, and 28 the inquiry ends. Id. If not, the ALJ proceeds to the fifth and final step, which addresses 1 whether the claimant can perform any other work based on the claimant’s RFC, age, 2 education, and work experience. § 404.1520(a)(4)(v). If so, the claimant is not disabled. 3 Id. If not, the claimant is disabled. 4 An ALJ’s factual findings “shall be conclusive if supported by substantial 5 evidence.” Biestek v. Berryhill, 139 S. Ct. 1148, 1153 (2019). The Court may set aside 6 the Commissioner’s disability determination only where it is not supported by substantial 7 evidence or is based on legal error. Orn v. Astrue, 495 F.3d 625, 630 (9th Cir. 2007). 8 Substantial evidence is relevant evidence that a reasonable person might accept as adequate 9 to support a conclusion when considering the record as a whole. Id. Generally, “[w]here 10 the evidence is susceptible to more than one rational interpretation, one of which supports 11 the ALJ’s decision, the ALJ’s conclusion must be upheld.” Thomas v. Barnhart, 278 F.3d 12 947, 954 (9th Cir. 2002). In determining whether to reverse an ALJ’s decision, district 13 courts review only those issues raised by the party challenging the decision. See Lewis v. 14 Apfel, 236 F.3d 503 , 517 n.13 (9th Cir. 2001). 15 III. DISCUSSION 16 Plaintiff solely argues that the ALJ erred by not considering her stroke or ejection 17 fracture to be a severe impairment. (Doc. 8 at 4–5.) Plaintiff asserts that the ALJ did not 18 fully or fairly evaluate the record on this issue. (Id.; Doc. 14 at 3.) The Commissioner 19 argues that substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s decision. (Doc. 13 at 2.) After 20 reviewing the administrative record, the Court agrees with the Commissioner. 21 Here, the ALJ began his analysis at step one. (Doc. 7-3 at 19.) The ALJ found that 22 while Plaintiff had engaged in substantial gainful activity, no further information, evidence 23 or medical records were submitted. (Id.) Therefore, the ALJ noted there was “some 24 question” as to the amount earned and the degree of activity performed. (Id.) Viewing this 25 in the light most favorable to Plaintiff, the ALJ found that Plaintiff satisfied step one and 26 continued with the inquiry. (Id.) 27 At step two, the ALJ noted several medically determinable impairments, but found 28 that none of these impairments, either solely or in combination, significantly limited 1 Plaintiff’s ability to perform basic work-related activities for twelve consecutive months. 2 (Id.) Therefore, the ALJ determined that Plaintiff did not have a “severe” impairment and 3 ended his analysis. (Id. at 19–24.) 4 In making this determination, the ALJ appropriately relied on the medical evidence. 5 (Id.) Specifically, the ALJ noted that Plaintiff’s “statements concerning the intensity, 6 persistence and limiting effects of these symptoms are not entirely consistent.” (Id. at 20.) 7 Moreover, the ALJ referenced that Plaintiff was treated conservatively, and that her 8 respiratory, cardiovascular, neurological and musculoskeletal exam findings were 9 minimal. (Doc. 7-3 at 21.) Lastly, the ALJ found the opinions of the state agency medical 10 consultants persuasive. (Id. at 23.) The ALJ noted that these examiners offered detailed 11 summaries of their findings, which were also consistent with the overall record and medical 12 evidence. (Id.) The ALJ further found that these findings were generally normal and did 13 not indicate any severe impairment. (Id.) Notably, his analysis included Plaintiff’s 14 complaints regarding the ejection fracture and her stroke. (Id. at 19–23.) These findings 15 directly contradict Plaintiff’s similar complaints in her brief. (See Doc. 8 at 4–5.) 16 Accordingly, the Court finds that the ALJ’s decision on this issue is supported by 17 substantial evidence. Orn, 495 F.3d at 630 . 18 Plaintiff also argues that her ejection fracture may potentially meet the severity 19 criteria in Appendix 1 to Subpart P of 20 C.F.R. Part 404. (Doc. 8 at 4.) An impairment, 20 or combination of impairments, is medically equivalent to a listing “if it is at least equal in 21 severity and duration to the criteria of any listed impairment,” considering “all evidence in 22 [the] case record about [the] impairment(s) and its effects on [the claimant] that is 23 relevant . . . .” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1526 (a), (c). “An ALJ must evaluate the relevant evidence 24 before concluding that a claimant’s impairments do not meet or equal a listed impairment.” 25 Walraven v. Astrue, No. CV07-02041-PHX-GMS, 2008 WL 5427735 , at *3 (D. Ariz. Dec. 26 31, 2008) (cleaned up). Claimants have a high burden to demonstrate that they meet a 27 listed impairment because listed impairments were “designed to operate as a presumption 28 of disability that makes further inquiry unnecessary.” Kennedy v. Colvin, 738 F.3d 1172 , 1} 1176 (9th Cir. 2013) (internal quotations omitted). 2 The specific subsection of the appendix requires that an ejection fraction of thirty 3 || percent or less also be supported by additional criteria. 20 C.F.R. § 404 (A)-(B). However, 4|| here Plaintiff admits that she has not met any of section B’s required additional criteria. 5|| (Doc. 8 at 4.) Plaintiff also asserts that the ALJ must have considered the section B criteria. 6|| (d.) Even so, a review of the decision shows that the ALJ considered these criteria when 7\| reviewing the medical evidence. (Doc. 7-3 at 19-23.) In sum, Plaintiff meeting these 8 || additional criteria was not supported by the objective medical evidence, and therefore did || not amount to a listed impairment. 10 Finally, Plaintiff argues that the ALJ here “based his opinion on the apparently 11 || missed information in their review of the medical records and the opinion of the prior ALJ 12 || who did the same thing.” (Doc. 14 at 3.) Neither assertion is supported by the record. The 13 | opinion shows that the ALJ reviewed the record and considered the evidence in its entirety. In short, the ALJ properly reviewed the medical evidence and opinions. Plaintiff’s 15} disagreement with the ALJ’s interpretation of the record and new complaints in her brief 16]| is insufficient to overturn the decision. The ALJ’s decision is supported by substantial 17 || evidence, and therefore the Court will affirm. 18] IV. CONCLUSION 19 For the reasons discussed above, 20 IT IS ORDERED affirming the January 21, 2022 decision of the ALJ, as upheld by the Appeals Council. 22 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED directing the Clerk to enter final judgement 23 || consistent with this Order and close this case. 24 Dated this 8th day of March, 2024. 25 —— [2] 27 Aionorable Susan M. Brnovich =~ United States District Judge [28] _5-