Martin Saucedo v. Jo Anne B Barnhart

Case 2:06-cv-04560-AN Document 16 Filed 08/22/07 Page 1 of 2 Page ID #:68 1 2 “O” 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF...

0 Downloads 16 Views
Case 2:06-cv-04560-AN Document 16 Filed 08/22/07 Page 1 of 2 Page ID #:68

1 2

“O”

3 4 5 6 7 8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10 MARTIN SAUCEDO,

Case No. CV 06-04560 AN

11

ORDER AFFIRMING DECISION OF COMMISSIONER

12 13 14 15 16 17

) ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, COMMISSIONER OF THE SOCIAL ) ) SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, ) ) Defendant. )

The Court now rules as follows with respect to the two disputed issues in the Joint

18 Stipulation (“JS”).1/ 19

First, Plaintiff principally contends reversal is warranted because “the Appeals

20 Council clearly abused its discretion in rejecting Dr. Lawrence Cooke’s April 14, 2006 21 assessment.” [JS at 5:1-2.] However, the Court rejects Plaintiff’s first contention for the 22 reasons stated by the Commissioner at pages 12:18-15:15 of the JS. Further, during the 23 hearing, the Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) asked Plaintiff how the medications 24 affected him, and Plaintiff responded, “[t]hey get me kind of drowsy, tiredness. Not 25 really unfocused, but not fully focusing 100 percent.” [AR at 270.]

Consequently,

26 1/ Both parties have consented to proceed before the undersigned Magistrate Judge. In 27 accordance with the Court’s Case Management Order, the parties have filed the JS and seek a dispositive order regarding the disputed issues set forth in the JS. The Court’s 28 decision is based upon the pleadings, the Administrative Record (“AR”), and the JS.

Page 1

Case 2:06-cv-04560-AN Document 16 Filed 08/22/07 Page 2 of 2 Page ID #:69

1 Plaintiff’s own testimony also undermines Dr. Cooke’s conclusory opinion that the side 2 effects of Plaintiff’s medications completely debilitate him. 3

Second, Plaintiff principally contends the ALJ failed to give proper reasons for

4 rejecting Plaintiff’s subjective symptom testimony. [JS at 17:10- 23:25.] However, the 5 Court finds Plaintiff’s second contention lacks merit for the reasons stated by the 6 Commissioner at pages 24:1-27:2 of the JS. The Court finds the ALJ gave clear and 7 convincing reasons for rejecting Plaintiff’s subjective testimony regarding the severity 8 of his symptoms that were supported by substantial evidence in the record. That is exactly 9 what an ALJ is required to do. Bunnell v. Sullivan, 947 F.2d 341, 346-47 (9th Cir. 1988); 10 Lester v. Chater, 81 F.3d. 821, 834 (9th Cir. 1996). 11

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that judgment be entered affirming the

12 Commissioner’s final decision, and dismissing this action with prejudice. 13 14 15 DATED: August 21, 2007 16

ARTHUR NAKAZATO UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Page 2

English