# Charlene Jean Rogers v. Andrew Saul

> District Court, C.D. California · October 29, 2021

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10042274

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, C.D. California
- **Decided:** October 29, 2021
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10042274

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- noting that is it up to the ALJ to translate a claimant’s 23 impairments into work related functions and determine Plaintiff’s RFC

## Opinion text

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

11 CHARLENE J. R., an Individual, Case No.: 5:20-01774 ADS

12 Plaintiff,

13 v.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
14 KILOLO KIJAKAZI, Acting Commissioner
of Social Security,
15
Defendant.
16
17 I. INTRODUCTION
18 Plaintiff Charlene J. R.1 (“Plaintiff”) challenges Defendant Kilolo Kijakazi2, Acting
19 Commissioner of Social Security’s (hereinafter “Commissioner” or “Defendant”) denial
20

21
1 Plaintiff’s name has been partially redacted in compliance with Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 5.2(c)(2)(B) and the recommendation of the Committee on Court
22
Administration and Case Management of the Judicial Conference of the United States.
2 The Complaint, and thus the docket caption, do not name the current Acting
23
Commissioner. On July 9, 2021, Kijakazi became the Acting Commissioner of Social
Security. Thus, he is automatically substituted as the defendant under Federal Rule of
24
Civil Procedure 25(d).
1 of her application for supplemental social security income (SSI). Plaintiff contends that
2 the Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) improperly considered the opinion of the
3 psychological consultative examiner. For the reasons stated below, the decision of the
4 Commissioner is affirmed, and this matter is dismissed with prejudice.
5 II. PROCEEDINGS BELOW

6 A. Procedural History
7 Plaintiff filed an application for SSI on August 15, 2017, alleging a disability onset
8 date of September 15, 2016. (Administrative Record “AR” 325-29). Plaintiff’s claims
9 were denied initially on February 15, 2018 (AR 250-55) and on reconsideration on May
10 10, 2018 (AR 256-62). A hearing was held before ALJ Kathleen Fischer on July 8, 2019.
11 (AR 151-183). Plaintiff, represented by counsel, appeared and testified at the hearing.
12 Also appearing and testifying at the hearing was vocational expert Elizabeth G. Brown-
13 Ramos. (Id.).
14 On September 5, 2019, the ALJ found that Plaintiff was “not disabled” within the
15 meaning of the Social Security Act.3 (AR 25-46). The ALJ’s decision became the
16 Commissioner’s final decision when the Appeals Council denied Plaintiff’s request for

17 review on July 13, 2020. (AR 1-7). Plaintiff then filed this action in District Court on
18 August 31, 2020, challenging the ALJ’s decision. [Docket “Dkt.” No. 1].
19
20
21
22

3 Persons are “disabled” for purposes of receiving Social Security benefits if they are
23
unable to engage in any substantial gainful activity owing to a physical or mental
impairment expected to result in death, or which has lasted or is expected to last for a
24
continuous period of at least 12 months. 42 U.S.C. §423(d)(1)(A).
1 On May 3, 2021, Defendant filed an Answer, as well as a copy of the Certified
2 Administrative Record. [Dkt. Nos. 15, 16]. The parties filed a Joint Stipulation on July
3 26, 2021. [Dkt. No. 17]. The case is ready for decision.4
4 B. Summary of ALJ Decision After Hearing
5 In the decision (AR 28-40), the ALJ followed the required five-step sequential

6 evaluation process to assess whether Plaintiff was disabled under the Social Security
7 Act.5 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(a). At step one, the ALJ found that Plaintiff had not been
8 engaged in substantial gainful activity since August 15, 2017, the application date. (AR
9 30). At step two, the ALJ found that Plaintiff had the following severe impairments:
10 (a) gastritis, status post multiple abdominal surgeries; (b) carpal tunnel syndrome in the
11 right wrist with associated right distal neuropathy; (c) degenerative disc disease of the
12 cervical spine, status post discectomy and fusion; (d) degenerative disc disease of the
13 lumbar spine; (e) obesity; (f) bipolar disorder; (g) post-traumatic stress disorder
14 (PTSD). (AR 30). At step three, the ALJ found that Plaintiff “does not have an
15 impairment or combination of impairments that meets or medically equals the severity
16

17

4 The parties filed consents to proceed before the undersigned United States Magistrate
18
Judge, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), including for entry of final Judgment. [Dkt. Nos.
11, 12].
19
5 The ALJ follows a five-step sequential evaluation process to assess whether a claimant
is disabled: Step one: Is the claimant engaging in substantial gainful activity? If so, the
20
claimant is found not disabled. If not, proceed to step two. Step two: Does the claimant
have a “severe” impairment? If so, proceed to step three. If not, then a finding of not
21
disabled is appropriate. Step three: Does the claimant’s impairment or combination of
impairments meet or equal an impairment listed in 20 C.F.R., Pt. 404, Subpt. P, App. 1?
22
If so, the claimant is automatically determined disabled. If not, proceed to step four.
Step four: Is the claimant capable of performing his past work? If so, the claimant is not
23
disabled. If not, proceed to step five. Step five: Does the claimant have the residual
functional capacity to perform any other work? If so, the claimant is not disabled. If
24
not, the claimant is disabled. Lester v. Chater, 81 F.3d 821, 828 n.5 (9th Cir. 1995).
1 of one of the listed impairments in 20 CFR Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1 (20 CFR
2 416.920(d), 416.925 and 416.926).” (AR 31).
3 The ALJ then found that Plaintiff had the Residual Functional Capacity (“RFC”)6
4 to perform a less than light exertional level of work as defined in 20 C.F.R. § 416.967(b)7,
5 restricted by the following limitations:

6 [Plaintiff] can lift and carry 20 pounds occasionally and 10 pounds
frequently. She can stand and walk for 6 hours in an 8-hour workday,
7 and sit for 6 hours in an 8-hour workday. [Plaintiff] can occasionally
climb ramps and stairs, but never climb ladders, ropes or scaffolds. She
8 can occasionally balance, stoop, kneel, crouch and crawl. No
concentrated exposure to fumes, odors, dusts or gases. She cannot work
9 at heights or around dangerous machinery. Additionally, she is limited
to simple tasks. She can accept routine supervision and interaction with
10 co-workers on a superficial basis. She can have no public contact.

11 (AR 33).
12 At step four, the ALJ found that Plaintiff is unable to perform her past relevant
13 work. (AR 38). At step five, considering Plaintiff’s age, education, work experience
14 and RFC, the ALJ found that “there are jobs that exist in significant numbers in the
15 national economy that the [Plaintiff] can perform.” (AR 38). The ALJ accepted the
16
17
6 An RFC is what a claimant can still do despite existing exertional and nonexertional
18 limitations. See 20 C.F.R. §416.945(a)(1).
7 “Light work” is defined as
19 lifting no more than 20 pounds at a time with frequent lifting or carrying
of objects weighing up to 10 pounds. Even though the weight lifted may be
20 very little, a job is in this category when it requires a good deal of walking
or standing, or when it involves sitting most of the time with some pushing
21 and pulling of arm or leg controls. To be considered capable of performing
a full or wide range of light work, you must have the ability to do
22 substantially all of these activities.
20 C.F.R. § 416.967(b); see also Rendon G. v. Berryhill, 2019 WL 2006688, at *3 n.6
23 (C.D. Cal. May 7, 2019).

24
1 vocational expert’s testimony that Plaintiff would be able to perform the representative
2 occupations of: basket filler (DOT No. 529.687-010); garment bagger (DOT No.
3 920.687-018); and bench assembler (DOT No. 706.684-022). (AR 39). Accordingly,
4 the ALJ determined that Plaintiff had not been under a disability, as defined in the
5 Social Security Act, since August 15, 2017, the date the application was filed. (AR 39).

6 III. ANALYSIS
7 A. Issue on Appeal
8 Plaintiff raises one issue for review: whether the ALJ properly considered the
9 psychological consultative examiner’s opinion. [Dkt. No. 17 (Joint Stipulation), 5].
10 B. Standard of Review
11 A United States District Court may review the Commissioner’s decision to deny
12 benefits pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). The District Court is not a trier of the facts but
13 is confined to ascertaining by the record before it if the Commissioner’s decision is
14 based upon substantial evidence. Garrison v. Colvin, 759 F.3d 995, 1010 (9th Cir. 2014)
15 (District Court’s review is limited to only grounds relied upon by ALJ) (citing Connett v.
16 Barnhart, 340 F.3d 871, 874 (9th Cir. 2003)). A court must affirm an ALJ’s findings of

17 fact if they are supported by substantial evidence and if the proper legal standards were
18 applied. Mayes v. Massanari, 276 F.3d 453, 458-59 (9th Cir. 2001). An ALJ can satisfy
19 the substantial evidence requirement “by setting out a detailed and thorough summary
20 of the facts and conflicting clinical evidence, stating his interpretation thereof, and
21 making findings.” Reddick v. Chater, 157 F.3d 715, 725 (9th Cir. 1998) (citation
22 omitted).
23 “[T]he Commissioner’s decision cannot be affirmed simply by isolating a specific
24 quantum of supporting evidence. Rather, a court must consider the record as a whole,
1 weighing both evidence that supports and evidence that detracts from the Secretary’s
2 conclusion.” Aukland v. Massanari, 257 F.3d 1033, 1035 (9th Cir. 2001) (citations and
3 internal quotation marks omitted). “‘Where evidence is susceptible to more than one
4 rational interpretation,’ the ALJ’s decision should be upheld.” Ryan v. Comm’r of Soc.
5 Sec., 528 F.3d 1194, 1198 (9th Cir. 2008) (citing Burch v. Barnhart, 400 F.3d 676, 679

6 (9th Cir. 2005)); see Robbins v. Soc. Sec. Admin., 466 F.3d 880, 882 (9th Cir. 2006) (“If
7 the evidence can support either affirming or reversing the ALJ’s conclusion, we may not
8 substitute our judgment for that of the ALJ.”). However, the Court may review only “the
9 reasons provided by the ALJ in the disability determination and may not affirm the ALJ
10 on a ground upon which he did not rely.” Orn v. Astrue, 495 F.3d 625, 630 (9th Cir.
11 2007) (citation omitted).
12 Lastly, even if an ALJ errs, the decision will be affirmed where such error is
13 harmless, that is, if it is “inconsequential to the ultimate nondisability determination,”
14 or if “the agency’s path may reasonably be discerned, even if the agency explains its
15 decision with less than ideal clarity.” Brown-Hunter v. Colvin, 806 F.3d 487, 492 (9th
16 Cir. 2015) (citation omitted); Molina v. Astrue, 674 F.3d 1104, 1115 (9th Cir. 2012).

17 C. The ALJ Adequately Assessed the Medical Opinions
18 Plaintiff contends that the ALJ failed to properly consider the opinion of the
19 psychological consultative examiner, Mehrnoosh Rezapour, Psy.D. in that the ALJ failed
20 to provide specific reasons for rejecting moderate limitations assessed by Dr. Rezapour.
21 Defendant asserts that the ALJ appropriately weighed the medical opinions, including
22 that of Dr. Rezapour, and stated sufficient reasons for doing so.
23
24
1 1. Legal Standards At Issue
2 As Plaintiff filed her application for SSI on August 15, 2017, after March 27, 2017,
3 the new regulations apply to the ALJ’s evaluation of Plaintiff’s claim.8 The new
4 regulations essentially remove the hierarchy of medical opinions (e.g., particularized
5 procedures for consideration of opinions from treating sources). Instead, the ALJ

6 focuses on the persuasiveness of the medical opinion(s) or prior administrative medical
7 finding(s) using the following five factors: (1) supportability; (2) consistency;
8 (3) relationship with the claimant (which includes): (i) length of the treatment
9 relationship; (ii) frequency of examinations; (iii) purpose of the treatment relationship;
10 (iv) extent of the treatment relationship; (v) examining relationship; (4) specialization;
11 and (5) other factors. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920c(a)-(c).
12 The ALJ must explain how he or she considered the factors of “supportability”
13 and “consistency”, which are the two most important factors in determining the
14 persuasiveness of a medical source’s medical opinion or a prior administrative medical
15 finding. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920c(b)(2). In other words, the ALJ is to explain how
16 persuasive he or she finds a medical opinion and/or a prior administrative medical

17 finding based on these two factors. Id. The ALJ may, but is not required to, explain how
18 he or she considered the other remaining factors, unless the ALJ finds that two or more
19 medical opinions or prior administrative findings about the same issue are both equally
20 well-supported and consistent with the record, but not identical. 20 C.F.R. §
21 416.920c(b)(3).
22

23
8 On January 18, 2017, the agency published final rules titled “Revisions to Rules
Regarding the Evaluation of Medical Evidence.” 82 Fed. Reg. 5844. These rules became
24
effective as of March 27, 2017.
1 2. The ALJ Properly Assessed the Opinion of Dr. Rezapour
2 On January 30, 2018, Plaintiff attended a psychological consultative examination
3 administered by Dr. Rezapour. Dr. Rezapour set forth his opinions in a report of the
4 same date. (AR 1203-1208). The ALJ discussed the opinion of Dr. Rezapour as follows:
5 On January 30, 2018, the claimant attended a psychological
consultative examination administered by Mehrnoosh Rezapour,
6 Psy.D. [AR 1203-1208]. She complained of symptoms of PTSD, severe
anxiety, depression and severe bipolar disorder [AR 1204]. The
7 claimant appeared to be extremely irritable and agitated. [AR 1206].
She was very aggressive, but was able was able to maintain good eye
8 contact throughout the interview. Id. Her thought processes were
linear and goal-directed and she exhibited no evidence of auditory or
9 visual hallucinations. Id. She was alert and oriented and she was able
to do serial threes, but not serial sevens. Id. Dr. Rezapour diagnosed
10 the claimant with PTSD and bipolar disorder with psychotic features.
[AR 1207]. He opined that the claimant would have mild to moderate
11 functional limitations. [AR 1207-08].

12 (AR 36) (emphasis added).
13 Plaintiff states that the ALJ failed to provide reasons for not adopting Dr.
14 Rezapour’s opinion as to specific moderate functional limitations set forth in Dr.
15 Rezapour’s report. Plaintiff is mistaken that the ALJ was required to provide specific
16 reasons as to why he did not adopt every particular opinion in Dr. Rezapour’s report.
17 Rather, the ALJ was required to consider the factors of “supportability” and
18 “consistency” in determining the persuasiveness of a medical source’s medical opinion.
19 20 C.F.R. § 416.920c(b)(2). The ALJ appropriately applied this standard here.
20 In setting forth her assessed mental RFC of Plaintiff, the ALJ stated that she had
21 reviewed the opinions of Dr. Rezapour and the State agency mental medical consultants
22 on initial review and on reconsideration. (AR 37).
23
24
1 The opinions of all of these physicians are generally consistent in that
they all assess the claimant is able to perform at least simple tasks with
2 no public interaction and superficial contact with supervisors and
coworkers. These opinions are all generally supported by the record as
3 a whole, which gives consideration to the claimant’s subjective
complaints as well as the unremarkable mental status examinations and
4 stable symptoms and treatment.
(AR 37).
5
The ALJ’s decision also includes an analysis of Plaintiff’s mental health records
6
and findings. (AR 32-33, 36). As Defendant notes, Plaintiff does not dispute the ALJ’s
7
analysis of the mental health records and findings. The ALJ, as permitted by the new
8
regulations, properly relied on Dr. Rezapour’s opinion to the extent it was well-
9
supported and consistent with other evidence in the record. 20 C.F.R. § 404.920c(a)-
10
(c). The ALJ found persuasive that Dr. Rezapour’s opinion was consistent with those of
11
the State agency mental medical consultants on initial review and on reconsideration, in
12
assessing Plaintiff’s RFC for light work with a limitation to simple tasks, routine
13
supervision and interaction with co-workers on a superficial basis and no public contact.
14
(AR 33).
15
Thus, the ALJ did not reject the opinion of Dr. Rezapour as Plaintiff contends.
16
However, the role of resolving inconsistencies in the medical records in assessing the
17
RFC is the domain of the ALJ. Ryan, 528 F.3d at 1198. Here, the ALJ explained what
18
evidence supported his mental RFC assessment of Plaintiff. (AR 32-33, 36-37).
19
Plaintiff apparently disagrees with how the ALJ evaluated Dr. Rezapour’s opinion
20
and translated it into concrete work restrictions found in Plaintiff’s RFC. This is exactly
21
within the purview of the ALJ, however. See Stubbs-Danielson v. Astrue, 539 F.3d 1169,
22
1174-76 (9th Cir. 2008) (noting that is it up to the ALJ to translate a claimant’s
23
impairments into work related functions and determine Plaintiff’s RFC). Although
24
1 Plaintiff offers alternative interpretations of the medical record, the Court is bound by
2 the rationale set forth by the ALJ in the written decision. See Ryan, 528 F.3d at 1198
3 (“’Where evidence is susceptible to more than one rational interpretation,’ the ALJ’s
4 decision should be upheld.”) (citation omitted); Robbins, 466 F.3d at 882 (“If the
5 evidence can support either affirming or reversing the ALJ’s conclusion, we may not

6 substitute our judgment for that of the ALJ.”); Tommasetti v. Astrue, 533 F.3d 1035,
7 1041-42 (9th Cir. 2008) (“The ALJ is the final arbiter with respect to resolving
8 ambiguities in the medical evidence.”).
9 Indeed, an ALJ is not obligated to discuss “every piece of evidence” when
10 interpreting the evidence and developing the record. See Howard ex rel. Wolff v.
11 Barnhart, 341 F.3d 1006, 1012 (9th Cir. 2003) (citation omitted). Similarly, an ALJ is
12 also not obligated to discuss every word of a doctor’s opinion or include limitations not
13 actually assessed by the doctor. See Fox v. Berryhill, 2017 WL 3197215, *5 (C.D. Cal. July
14 27, 2017); Howard, 341 F.3d at 1012. The Court finds no error by the ALJ in this regard.
15 IV. CONCLUSION
16 For the reasons stated above, the decision of the Social Security Commissioner is

17 AFFIRMED, and the action is DISMISSED with prejudice. Judgment shall be entered
18 accordingly.
19
20 DATE: October 29, 2021

21
/s/ Autumn D. Spaeth
22 THE HONORABLE AUTUMN D. SPAETH
United States Magistrate Judge
23
24

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10042274. Public record. Not legal advice.