Opinion
Case No. ED CV 12-1707 JCG
08-07-2013
ROCHELL LAMB, Plaintiff, v. CAROLYN W. COLVIN ACTING COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Defendant.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND
ORDER
Rochell Lamb ("Plaintiff") challenges the Social Security Commissioner's decision denying her application for disability benefits. Two issues are presented for decision here:
1. Whether the Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ") improperly rejected the lay witness statements of Plaintiff's daughter, (see Joint Stip. at 3-10, 14); and
2. Whether the ALJ improperly rejected Plaintiff's credibility. (See id. at 14-22, 26.)
The Court addresses - and rejects - Plaintiff's contentions below.
A. The ALJ's Rejection of Lay Witness Statements
First, Plaintiff claims that the ALJ erred in rejecting the statements of Plaintiff's daughter as to Plaintiff's symptoms and impairments. (Joint Stip. at 3-10, 14.) Plaintiff's claim lacks merit.
"[L]ay testimony as to a claimant's symptoms or how an impairment affects [their] ability to work is competent evidence and therefore cannot be disregarded without comment." Stout v. Commissioner, 454 F.3d 1050, 1053 (9th Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks, ellipses, and citation omitted) (emphasis in original). Appropriately, then, an ALJ may discount the testimony of a lay witness only if he provides specific "reasons that are germane to each witness." Id. (citing Dodrill v. Shalala, 12 F.3d 915, 919 (9th Cir. 1993).)
The ALJ gave five reasons for rejecting the lay witness statements. Specifically, the ALJ found that Plaintiff's daughter did not provide her statements under oath, her statements mirrored Plaintiff's allegations, she is not a medical professional, she has a pecuniary interest in the outcome of the application, and her statements were contrary to the objective medical evidence. (AR at 25.) These reasons are specific and are germane to the witness. The ALJ had no duty to provide anything more.
Thus, for the above reasons, the ALJ properly rejected the lay witness statements.
B. The ALJ's Assessment of Plaintiff's Testimony
Plaintiff next asserts that the ALJ improperly assessed her credibility. (Joint Stip. at 14-22, 26.) The Court disagrees.
An ALJ can reject a claimant's subjective complaints by expressing clear and convincing reasons for doing so. Benton v. Barnhart, 331 F.3d 1030, 1040 (9th Cir. 2003). "General findings are insufficient; rather, the ALJ must identify what testimony is not credible and what evidence undermines the claimant's complaints." Lester v. Chater, 81 F.3d 821, 834 (9th Cir. 1995).
Here, the ALJ presented at least three reasons in support of the credibility determination.
First, the ALJ noted Plaintiff's claim that she could not work because of poor focus and memory, even though she stated in her daily activities questionnaire that she did not need to be reminded to go places. (AR at 24.) This was a clear and convincing reason that was supported by the record. (Id. at 43, 144); see Light v. Soc. Sec. Admin., 119 F.3d 789, 792 (9th Cir. 1997) (in weighing plaintiff's credibility, ALJ may consider "inconsistencies either in [plaintiff's] testimony or between his testimony and his conduct").
Second, the ALJ explained that Plaintiff was receiving unemployment benefits, which required her to certify that she was willing and able to work. (AR at 25.) The ALJ concluded that such a certification is inconsistent with a claim of disability. (Id. at 25.) This too is a clear and convincing reason supported by the record. (Id. at 51, 53); see Copeland v. Bowen, 861 F.2d 536, 542 (9th Cir. 1988) (receipt of unemployment benefits is valid reason for discounting claimant's credibility, as it indicates claimant considered himself to be capable of work and that he held himself out as being available therefor).
Finally, the ALJ explained that Plaintiff's description of her daily activities was incompatible with her claim of disability. This amounted to yet another clear and convincing reason to reject Plaintiff's credibility. See Valentine v. Commissioner, Soc. Sec. Admin., 574 F.3d 685, 693 (9th Cir. 2009) (daily activities can discredit a claimant when those activities suggest a greater functional capacity than alleged). In particular, in her daily activities questionnaire, Plaintiff admitted to leading quite a busy life. She cooks and cleans. (AR at 140, 142.) She cares for family members and a pet. (Id. at 140-41.) She shops and manages her finances. (Id. at 143.) She exercises, engages in leisure activities, and socializes. (Id. at 144.) Certainly, then, Plaintiff is able to perform at least some basic work activities.
Accordingly, the Court finds that substantial evidence supported the ALJ's decision that Plaintiff was not disabled. See Mayes v. Massanari, 276 F.3d 453, 458-59 (9th Cir. 2001).
Based on the foregoing, IT IS ORDERED THAT judgment shall be entered AFFIRMING the decision of the Commissioner denying benefits.
____________________________
Hon. Jay C. Gandhi
United States Magistrate Judge