Meanel v. Apfel
| Decision Date | 05 April 1999 |
| Docket Number | No. 97-55827,97-55827 |
| Parties | , Unempl.Ins.Rep. (CCH) P 16160B, 99 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 2482, 1999 Daily Journal D.A.R. 3251, 1999 Daily Journal D.A.R. 6305 Bertha MEANEL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Kenneth S. APFEL, Defendant-Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
Lawrence D. Rohlfing, Santa Fe Springs, California, for plaintiff-appellant.
Leo R. Montenegro, Assistant Regional Counsel, Social Security Administration, San Francisco, California, for defendant-appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California; Robert N. Block, Magistrate Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. CV-96-06394-RNB.
Before: D.W. NELSON, ALEX KOZINSKI, and TROTT, Circuit Judges.
Bertha Meanel appeals the district court's grant of summary judgment upholding the Commissioner of Social Security's ("Commissioner") denial of disability insurance benefits. We affirm the district court.
We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
On April 13, 1993, Bertha Meanel filed an application for Supplemental Social Security Income benefits, complaining primarily of back pain. After the Commissioner denied her application, Meanel requested and received a hearing before an Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ").
In support of her claim for benefits, Meanel relied on the opinion of her treating osteopath, Dr. Manos. In a very brief letter dated May 16, 1995, Dr. Manos stated "Bertha Meanel is a long-term patient of this office who suffers from Chronic Pain from Cervical-Spine Arthritis, Lumbosacral Arthritis, and Fibromyalgia. Her pain causes decreased concentration skills. The medications to control her pain also causes [sic] decreased concentration skills." In addition, Dr. Manos submitted a physical capacities evaluation that explained the limits on Meanel's capability to work, including her ability to sit, stand, walk and reach. The evaluation concluded that in an eight-hour day, Meanel could sit for three hours total, stand for three hours total, and walk for two hours total
Meanel, who said that she suffered from depression, was also examined by a psychiatrist, Dr. Aziz. Dr. Aziz concluded:
At this time, the patient's ability to relate and interact with coworkers and supervisors is not significantly impaired. The patient's ability to understand, remember, and carry out technical or complex ... [and] simple one or two step job instructions is not significantly impaired. The patient's ability to deal with the public is not significantly impaired. The patient's ability to maintain concentration and attention for two hour increments is not significantly impaired. The patient's ability to endure the stress of working an eight hour day is not significantly impaired.
On September 7, 1995, the ALJ denied Meanel's claim for benefits, concluding that Meanel was not disabled. Although the ALJ found that, in light of the restrictions on Meanel's abilities, she could not perform her past work, he identified two other occupations, surveillance systems monitor and fund raiser II, that Meanel could perform. Meanel appealed to the Social Security Appeals Council, but it determined that there was no basis for granting review. Meanel then sought review in the district court. The parties consented to proceed before Magistrate Judge Robert N. Block. Meanel moved for summary judgment, and the Commissioner filed a cross-motion for summary judgment. On April 1, 1997, Magistrate Block granted summary judgment to the Commissioner.
We review the district court's grant of summary judgment de novo. See Andrews v. Shalala, 53 F.3d 1035, 1039 (9th Cir.1995). We may overturn the Commissioner's denial of benefits only if it is not supported by substantial evidence in the record or if it is based on legal error. See id. "Substantial evidence means more than a mere scintilla but less than a preponderance; it is such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion." Id. "The ALJ is responsible for determining credibility, resolving conflicts in medical testimony, and for resolving ambiguities." Id.
The claimant bears the burden of proving that she is disabled. See Johnson v. Shalala, 60 F.3d 1428, 1432 (9th Cir.1995). She must present "complete and detailed objective medical reports of her condition from licensed medical professionals." See id. (citing 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1512(a)-(b), 404.1513(d)). In this case, the ALJ considered the opinions of two medical professionals, Dr. Manos and Dr. Aziz. Meanel claims that the ALJ erred in evaluating these doctors' opinions and in evaluating her own testimony. Meanel first asserts that the ALJ failed to articulate "clear and convincing" reasons for rejecting the opinion of Dr. Manos, Meanel's treating osteopath. Lester v. Chater, 81 F.3d 821, 830 (9th Cir.1995). The record demonstrates, however, that the ALJ accepted the vast majority of Dr. Manos' findings. To the extent that Dr. Manos' opinion conflicted with that of Dr. Aziz, it was "solely the province of the ALJ to resolve the conflict." Andrews, 53 F.3d at 1041. Here, the ALJ was certainly Only Dr. Aziz made specific findings that were useful in the disability determination. Dr. Aziz concluded that Meanel could maintain concentration for two-hour periods and that she could endure an eight-hour workday. Moreover, Dr. Aziz's conclusions are consistent with Dr. Manos' physical capacities evaluation, in which he stated that Meanel could work an eight-hour day as long as she had the flexibility to sit, stand and walk to ease her back pain. Given the inadequacy of Dr. Manos' opinion, Dr. Aziz's specific findings, which indicated that any impairment was not significant, constitute substantial evidence supporting the ALJ's decision.
entitled to rely on Dr. Aziz' opinion. Dr. Manos' meager opinion provided no basis for concluding that Meanel was disabled. His statement was "conclusory and unsubstantiated by relevant medical documentation." Johnson, 60 F.3d at 1432. Despite numerous tests and X-rays, the record contains little objective evidence of an impairment that would lead to decreased concentration skills. Although Dr. Manos regularly noted Meanel's complaints about pain, he did not document any problem with concentration. Even his May 1995 letter failed to explain the extent or significance of Meanel's "decreased concentration skills." Dr. Manos' mere statement that Meanel experienced some diminution in her concentration skills falls short of an informed opinion that Meanel's pain and diminished concentration skills would significantly interfere with her ability to work
Second, Meanel argues that the ALJ erred in rejecting her complaints of excruciating pain. Meanel testified that she constantly experienced pain comparable to "being burned." In order to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Young v. Saul
...in substantial numbers in the national economy that the claimant can perform despite [his] identified limitations. Meanel v. Apfel, 172 F.3d 1111, 1114 (9th Cir. 1999) (citing Johnson v. Shalala, 60 F.3d 1428,1432 (9th Cir. 1995)). If the Commissioner is able to identify those specific jobs......
-
Swinscoe v. Astrue
...failure to seek mental health treatment is a specific and legitimate reason to discount Dr. Morse's testimony. Meanal v. Apfel, 172 F.3d 1111, 1114 (9th Cir. 1999) (ALJ properly considered failure to request serious medical treatment for supposedly excruciating pain); Fair v. Bowen, 885 F.2......
-
Pallesi v. Colvin
...881 F.2d at 751-55. The ALJ need not give weight to a conclusory opinion supported by minimal clinical findings. Meanel v. Apfel, 172 F.3d 1111, 1113 (9th Cir. 1999); Magallanes, 881 F.2d at 751. Although an ALJ is not bound by uncontroverted opinions rendered by a plaintiff's physicians re......
-
Diane S. P. v. Berryhill, Action No. 4:17cv143
...they must raise all issues and evidence at the administrative hearings in order to preserve them on appeal") (quoting Meanel v. Apfel , 172 F.3d 1111, 1115 (9th Cir. 1999) ); Maloney v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec. , 480 F. App'x 804, 810 (6th Cir. 2012) (claimant waived argument not presented to AL......
-
Case survey
...must present “‘complete and detailed objective medical reports of her condition from licensed medical professionals.’” Meanel v. Apfel , 172 F.3d 1111 (9th Cir. 1999), quoting Johnson v. Shalala , 60 F.3d 1428, 1432 (9th Cir. 1995). “‘[T]he critical date is the date of onset of disability, ......
-
Issue Topics
...524 (9th Cir. 1995) (2,300 local and 64,000 national jobs substantial evidence supporting denial of benefits); see also Meanel v. Apfel , 172 F.3d 1111, 1115 (9th Cir. 1999) (finding that between 1,000 and 1,500 surveillance systems monitor jobs in the local area was a significant number of......
-
Assessment of disability issues
...the claimant could not afford it.” Id. at 1297, citing Smolen v. Chater , 80 F.3d 1273, 1284 (9 th Cir. 1996). But see Meanel v. Apfel , 172 F.3d 1111, 1114 (9 th Cir. 1999) (holding that the ALJ properly rejected the claimant’s complaints of pain where he relied on the minimal conservative......
-
Federal court issues
...mental retardation, and the ALJ evaluated this case under the mental retardation listings. Id. e. Ninth Circuit (1) In Meanel v. Apfel , 172 F.3d 1111, 1115 (9 th Cir. 1999), a case decided before Sims v. Apfel , 530 U.S. 103, 120 S.Ct. 2080, 2086, 147 L.Ed.2d 80 (2000), the Ninth Circuit r......