JOHN E. McDERMOTT, Magistrate Judge.
On January 19, 2016, Ronald G. Sproling ("Plaintiff" or "Claimant") filed a complaint seeking review of the decision by the Commissioner of Social Security ("Commissioner") denying Plaintiff's application for Social Security Disability Insurance benefits. The Commissioner filed an Answer on May 9, 2016. On March 30, 2017, the parties filed a Joint Stipulation ("JS"). The matter is now ready for decision.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), both parties consented to proceed bef ore this Magistrate Judge. After reviewing the pleadings, transcripts, and administrative record ("AR"), the Court concludes that the Commissioner's decision must be affirmed and this case dismissed with prejudice.
Plaintiff is a 61-year-old male who applied for Social Security Disability Insurance benefits on April 18, 2013, alleging disability beginning November 19, 2012. (AR 19.) The ALJ determined that Plaintiff had not engaged in substantial gainful activity since November 19, 2012, the alleged onset date. (AR 21.)
Plaintiff's claim was denied initially on August 19, 2013, and on reconsideration on December 2, 2013. (AR 19.) Plaintiff filed a timely request for hearing, which was held before Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ") Kyle E. Andeer on October 23, 2014, in Orange, California. (AR 19.) Plaintiff appeared and testified at the hearing and was represented by counsel. (AR 19.) Vocational expert ("VE") Alan L. Ey also appeared and testified at the hearing. (AR 19.)
The ALJ issued an unfavorable decision on December 2, 2014. (AR 19-26.) The Appeals Council denied review on November 24, 2015. (AR 3-5.)
As reflected in the Joint Stipulation, Plaintiff only raises the following disputed issue as ground for reversal and remand:
Under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), this Court reviews the ALJ's decision to determine whether the ALJ's findings are supported by substantial evidence and free of legal error.
Substantial evidence means "`more than a mere scintilla,' but less than a preponderance."
This Court must review the record as a whole and consider adverse as well as supporting evidence.
The Social Security Act defines disability as the "inability to engage in any substantial gainful activity by reason of any medically determinable physical or mental impairment which can be expected to result in death or . . . can be expected to last for a continuous period of not less than 12 months." 42 U.S.C. §§ 423(d)(1)(A), 1382c(a)(3)(A). The Commissioner has established a five-step sequential process to determine whether a claimant is disabled. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520, 416.920.
The first step is to determine whether the claimant is presently engaging in substantial gainful activity.
If the claimant cannot perform his or her past relevant work or has no past relevant work, the ALJ proceeds to the fifth step and must determine whether the impairment prevents the claimant from performing any other substantial gainful activity.
In this case, the ALJ determined at step one of the sequential process that Plaintiff has not engaged in substantial gainful activity since November 19, 2012, the alleged onset date. (AR 21.)
At step two, the ALJ determined that Plaintiff has the following medically determinable severe impairment: seizure disorder. (AR 21-22.)
At step three, the ALJ determined that Plaintiff does not have an impairment or combination of impairments that meets or medically equals the severity of one of the listed impairments. (AR 22.)
The ALJ then found that Plaintiff has the RFC to perform a full range of work at all exertional levels but with the following nonexertional limitations: avoid hazardous machinery and unprotected heights; or using moving machinery. (AR 22-24.) In determining the above RFC, the ALJ made an adverse credibility determination. (AR 23-24.)
At step four, the ALJ found that Plaintiff is unable to perform his past relevant work as a diesel mechanic and a construction worker. (AR 24.) The ALJ, however, also found that, considering Claimant's age, education, work experience, and RFC, there are jobs that exist in significant numbers in the national economy that Claimant can perform, including the jobs of dining room attendant and kitchen helper. (AR 25.)
Consequently, the ALJ found that Claimant is not disabled within the meaning of the Social Security Act. (AR 25-26.)
The ALJ decision must be affirmed. The ALJ properly discounted Plaintiff's subjective symptom testimony.
The ALJ's RFC is not a medical determination but an administrative finding or legal decision reserved to the Commissioner based on consideration of all the relevant evidence, including medical evidence, lay witnesses, and subjective symptoms. See SSR 96-5p; 20 C.F.R. § 1527(e). In determining a claimant's RFC, an ALJ must consider all relevant evidence in the record, including medical records, lay evidence, and the effects of symptoms, including pain reasonably attributable to the medical condition. Robbins, 446 F.3d at 883.
The test for deciding whether to accept a claimant's subjective symptom testimony turns on whether the claimant produces medical evidence of an impairment that reasonably could be expected to produce the pain or other symptoms alleged.
Plaintiff was determined to have the medically determinable impairment of seizure disorder. (AR 21.) The ALJ assessed a light work RFC with limitations to avoid hazardous machinery and unprotected heights, and using moving machinery. (AR 22.) Plaintiff alleges disability due to pinched nerve in neck, stroke, sore legs, depression, and high cholesterol. (AR 21.) He also alleged difficulties hearing and seeing. (AR 23.)
In determining Plaintiff's RFC, the ALJ concluded that Plaintiff's medically determinable impairments reasonably could be expected to cause the alleged symptoms. (AR 23.) The ALJ, however, also found that Plaintiff's statements regarding the intensity, persistence and limiting effects of these symptoms are "not entirely credible."
First, the ALJ found that Plaintiff's subjective symptom allegations were inconsistent with the objective evidence. (AR 23-24.) An ALJ is permitted to consider whether there is a lack of medical evidence to corroborate a claimant's alleged symptoms so long as it is not the only reason for discounting a claimant's credibility.
Second, the ALJ found that Plaintiff was not compliant with his medications and with medical advice to abstain from using drugs and alcohol and from smoking. (AR 23-24.) An ALJ may consider unexplained or inadequately explained failure to follow a treatment regimen.
Third, the ALJ noted inconsistencies in Plaintiff's testimony, statements and conduct, which an ALJ may consider in evaluating a claimant's credibility.
Plaintiff disputes the ALJ's adverse credibility finding but it is the ALJ who has the responsibility to resolve ambiguities in the record.
The ALJ rejected Plaintiff's subjective symptom testimony for clear and convincing reasons supported by substantial evidence. The ALJ's RFC is supported by substantial evidence.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Judgment be entered affirming the decision of the Commissioner of Social Security and dismissing this case with prejudice.