Medina v. Colvin, Case No. 14-cv-01967-DMR
| Decision Date | 21 August 2015 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 14-cv-01967-DMR |
| Parties | GEORGETTE A. MEDINA, Plaintiff, v. CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of California |
Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 405(g) and 1383(c)(3), Plaintiff Georgette Medina ("Plaintiff") seeks judicial review of Defendant Social Security Commissioner's ("Defendant" or "Commissioner") final decision denying Plaintiff's application for continuing disability benefits. Both parties have filed motions for summary judgment. After careful consideration of the papers submitted by the parties, the administrative record, and the applicable law, the court grants Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and denies Defendant's motion for summary judgment.
On October 21, 2003, Plaintiff filed applications for disability insurance benefits under Title II of the Act and supplemental security income (SSI) benefits under Title XVI of the Act, alleging disability due to neck pain and numbness in the arms. A.R. 61, 64. In a decision dated June 20, 2015, Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Donald Rector determined that Plaintiff was disabled beginning August 28, 2003 and awarded Plaintiff disability insurance benefits and SSI benefits. A.R. 61-65.
On April 16, 2010, the agency began a Continuing Disability Review. A.R. 281. On April 12, 2011, it determined that Plaintiff's disability had ended on April 1, 2011 and that she was no longer eligible for benefits on the basis of medical improvement. A.R. 100-07. Plaintiff sought reconsideration of that decision, which the agency ultimately upheld, after which Plaintiff requested a hearing before an ALJ. A.R. 108-152. On July 12, 2012, Plaintiff appeared pro se before ALJ Richard P. Laverdure. Malcolm Brodzinsky, a vocational expert, also provided testimony. A.R. 35-58.
In a decision dated October 29, 2012, ALJ Laverdure found Plaintiff's condition had improved, and that her disability had ended on April 1, 2011. A.R. 17-28. Plaintiff appealed ALJ Laverdure's decision to the Appeals Council, which denied her request for review, making ALJ Laverdure's decision the Commissioner's final decision for purposes of judicial review. A.R. 5-12, 16. Plaintiff subsequently filed this action.
The administrative record contains the following information. Plaintiff was born in San Francisco, California in December 1966, and was 44 years old as of April 1, 2011. A.R. 26-28, 61. She has a 12th grade education, and is literate in English. A.R. 61-62. Up until the 2003 onset date of her disability, Plaintiff worked in various capacities as a clerical employee, a receptionist, a dispatcher for a limousine service, a customer service representative, a delivery driver, and a cargo handler for Federal Express. A.R. 41-45, 62, 311, 366.
In the decision dated June 20, 2005, ALJ Rector reviewed the evidence before him and noted that Plaintiff reported the following disabling symptoms: "chronic neck pain, radiating into both shoulders and arms; neck muscle spasms; numbness in both arms; fatigue; and problems sleeping due to pain." A.R. 63. ALJ Rector also noted that Plaintiff "takes significant medication for pain" prescribed to her by the neurosurgeon (Dr. Zavala) who performed the "failed neck surgery" on Plaintiff in 2004. ALJ Rector's review of the medical evidence, which is excerpted in full below, is rather brief:
A.R. 63. ALJ Rector found that Plaintiff had a severe impairment, i.e., "degenerative disc disease, cervical spine, and a failed anterior cervical discectomy and fusion at the C5-6 level." A.R. 64. He determined that Plaintiff "has limited her daily activities to avoid bringing on symptoms, e.g., she does not drive long distances anymore," and Plaintiff "has been on increasing doses of pain medication." A.R. 64. ALJ Rector noted the residual functional capacity (RFC) from Plaintiff's treating physician Dr. Katiby, and found that Plaintiff could not perform her past relevant work or "even 'sedentary' work on a sustained 8 hours/day 40 hours/week basis in a competitive employment setting," and was therefore disabled. A.R. 65. ALJ Rector also ruled that "[i]n view of the possibility of medical improvement with further treatment, and the claimant's young age, I recommend that the SSA review her case one (1) year from the date of this decision." A.R. 65.
It is important to note that the record that ALJ Rector considered, including the medical evidence referenced in ALJ Rector's June 20, 2005 determination of disability, is absent from the administrative record before the court in the present case.
The record contains an undated Function Report completed by Plaintiff apparently in connection with the agency's review of Plaintiff's continuing disability. A.R. 323-330. In the report, Plaintiff stated that she could perform all tasks associated with personal care, except for caring for her hair when it required the use of her shoulders. A.R. 324. Plaintiff could prepare all meals for herself, though she found it "difficult to chop ingredients without feeling pain in shoulders," and could do house work such as cleaning, except that certain tasks (cleaning walls,laundry, household repairs, and carrying heavy objects) cause inflammation in her neck and back. A.R. 325. She could drive, walk, take public transportation, and go out alone, and could do all her shopping by herself. A.R. 326. She could pay bills and count change. A.R. 326. Plaintiff could engage in social activities, although she found herself sometimes irritated due to her physical discomfort. A.R. 327-28.
On November 17, 2011, Disability Hearing Officer (DHO) Annabelle Acosta determined that Plaintiff's impairments had improved such that she was no longer disabled. A.R. 124-134. In reaching this decision, the DHO reviewed Plaintiff's then-current medical and vocational records. She also reviewed the medical and vocational reports available at the Comparison Point Decision (CPD), i.e., the June 20, 2005 determination that Plaintiff was disabled, which included the physical RFC questionnaire completed by Dr. Katiby on May 10, 2005, and records from Dr. Zavala dated May 6, 2004 to July 27, 2004. A.R. 124.
Citing the 2004 and 2005 records from Dr. Katiby and Dr. Zavala, the DHO noted that A.R. 128. The DHO also noted that, at the time of the CPD, Plaintiff "took significant medications for pain" and "had constant moderate to severe pain along with tingling and numbness intermittently" and "depression and anxiety." A.R. 128.
The DHO then reviewed the then-current medical evidence. She concluded that "[b]ased on the totality of the medical evidence in the file, there is significant medical improvement of [Plaintiff's] orthopedic impairments since the comparison point decision." A.R. 129. The DHO also found that "[t]here is no medically determinable mental impairment that can be establishedgiven the absence of ongoing treatments and medications for the alleged depression."1 A.R. 129.
Plaintiff testified at the July 12, 2012 hearing before ALJ Lavedure that after the 2005 disability disability determination, she briefly worked from June to December 2009, when she performed administrative work for a newspaper. A.R. 42, 291. However, she left the job because it required her to sit for long periods of time, which caused problems in her back, neck, and shoulder. A.R. 42.
Plaintiff also testified that her hands "lock," causing pain which could sometimes cause difficulty in grasping things. Plaintiff explained that she uses a pillow when she drives because of swelling in her lower back. A.R. 45. She also stated that when she walks, she sometimes experiences pain that will "stop [her] in [her] tracks." A.R. 45. Plaintiff testified that her back and neck pain affected her ability to turn and to look up and down. A.R. 46. She testified that she was currently taking baclofen, naproxen, and ibuprofen. A.R. 47.
Plaintiff informed ALJ Laverdure that in May 2012, she had seen Dr. Vicki Economou, a neurology consultant. She further testified that she had been under the care of Dr. Katiby and Dr. Najib Saifulrahman. She explained that she had received acupuncture treatment, which alleviated the swelling in her neck and shoulders, but had ceased those treatments when they were no longer covered by her insurance, because she could no longer afford it. A.R....
To continue reading
Request your trial