BUFKIN v. SAUL (2021)

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.2021-02-12No. No. 18-17272

Summary · law.co

Holding. The court affirmed the district court's judgment upholding the Commissioner's denial of supplemental security income, finding substantial evidence supported the ALJ's residual functional capacity determination and credibility assessment.

Charles Bufkin appealed the denial of his supplemental security income application, challenging the administrative law judge's conclusion that he retained the capacity to perform medium work. The court reviewed the record de novo and found substantial evidence supported the ALJ's residual functional capacity determination, which was grounded in medical opinions from three doctors in 2013 as well as subsequent medical evidence including x-rays, treatment records, and clinical findings. The ALJ properly synthesized this medical information without improperly interpreting diagnostic images herself, and did not need to obtain an additional medical expert opinion simply because new evidence arose.

The court also upheld the ALJ's credibility assessment regarding Bufkin's symptom reports. The ALJ applied the required two-step analysis and articulated specific, clear, and convincing reasons for discounting his testimony, pointing to his daily activities, conservative and routine medical treatment, occasional non-compliance with cardiac medication, and insufficient medical corroboration. Any deficiency in the ALJ's treatment of the lack of supporting medical opinions was deemed harmless error.

Summary generated by law.co from the public-domain opinion. The opinion text itself is public domain.

Key issues

Whether substantial evidence supported the ALJ's finding that the claimant could perform medium work
Whether the ALJ improperly interpreted medical evidence without expert opinion
Whether the ALJ properly discounted the claimant's symptom testimony

Procedural posture

Bufkin appealed the district court's affirmance of the Social Security Commissioner's denial of his supplemental security income application.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion · public domain

MEMORANDUM **

Charles Bufkin appeals the district courts judgment affirming the Commissioner of Social Securitys denial of his application for supplemental security income under Title XVI of the Social Security Act. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Reviewing de novo, Molina v. Astrue, 674 F.3d 1104, 1110 (9th Cir. 2012), we affirm the district courts judgment.

Substantial evidence supports the administrative law judges (“ALJ”) assessment that Bufkin had the residual functional capacity (“RFC”) to perform medium work. The ALJ properly relied on the opinions of three doctors from 2013. See Thomas v. Barnhart, 278 F.3d 947, 957 (9th Cir. 2002) (opinions of non-treating or non-examining doctors may serve as substantial evidence). As to evidence after December 2013, the ALJ properly considered all of the various types of evidence in the medical record, including objective evidence such as x-rays, Bufkins treatment history, and clinical findings, and properly translated and incorporated this evidence into an RFC finding. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 416.913(a), 416.945(a)(3); Rounds v. Commr, 807 F.3d 996, 1006 (9th Cir. 2015). Contrary to Bufkins argument, the ALJ did not rely on her “lay interpretation” of medical evidence. Rather, the ALJ simply summarized the medical evidence from Dr. Parminder and Dr. Emlein; she did not interpret any x-rays or test results directly. ALJs need not seek the opinion of a medical expert every time they review new medical evidence and make a RFC determination. See Vertigan v. Halter, 260 F.3d 1044, 1049 (9th Cir. 2001) (determining RFC “is the responsibility of the ALJ, not the claimants physician”) (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545).

Substantial evidence also supports the ALJs discounting of Bufkins testimony regarding his symptoms. The ALJ performed the required two-step analysis and provided specific, clear and convincing reasons for her assessment. See Tommasetti v. Astrue, 533 F.3d 1035, 1039 (9th Cir. 2008). The ALJ properly cited Bufkins daily activities, his receipt of routine and conservative treatment, his periodic failure to take prescribed cardiac medication, and a lack of support in the medical record. See Molina, 674 F.3d at 1113-14 (daily activities, failure to follow prescribed course of treatment); Parra v. Astrue, 481 F.3d 742, 751 (9th Cir. 2007) (conservative treatment); Rollins v. Massanari, 261 F.3d 853, 857 (9th Cir. 2001) (medical evidence). Any error in the ALJs reliance on a lack of treating source opinions in the record was harmless. See Ford v. Saul, 950 F.3d 1141, 1154 (9th Cir. 2020).

AFFIRMED.