This is the property of the Daily Journal Corporation and fully protected by copyright. It is made available only to Daily Journal subscribers for personal or collaborative purposes and may not be distributed, reproduced, modified, stored or transferred without written permission. Please click "Reprint" to order presentation-ready copies to distribute to clients or use in commercial marketing materials or for permission to post on a website. and copyright (showing year of publication) at the bottom.

Government
Social Security Administration
Disability Insurance Benefits

Rodolpho Rodrigo Rodriguez v. Andrew M. Saul

Published: May 21, 2021 | Result Date: Apr. 21, 2021 | Filing Date: Feb. 7, 2020 |

Case number: 1:20-cv-00197-GSA Summary Judgment –  Defense

Judge

Gary S. Austin

Court

USDC Eastern District of California


Attorneys

Plaintiff

Jacqueline A. Forslund
(Forslund Law LLC)


Defendant

Daniel P. Talbert
(Social Security Administration)

Benjamin E. Hall
(Office of the U.S. Attorney)

Carolyn B. Chen
(Social Security Administration)


Facts

Plaintiff Rodolpho Rodrigo Rodriguez sought judicial review of a final decision by the Commissioner of Social Security Andrew Saul denying Plaintiff's application for Disability insurance benefits and Supplemental Security income. Plaintiff applied for benefits due to left eye blindness, left ankle problems, bilateral knee problems and high blood pressure, but the ALJ determined Plaintiff was not disabled.

Contentions

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS: Plaintiff contended Defendant ALJ erred when it improperly determined he was not disabled since the ALJ had also previously determined Plaintiff suffered from the severe impairments of total retinal detachment of the left eye, obesity, left ankle arthritis, hypertension, history of thyroid cancer, and postsurgical hypothyroidism. Plaintiff further contended the ALJ erred when it failed to provide sufficient reasoning when it rejected the opinion of his podiatrist, Dr. Oji, as to Plaintiff's limited ability to stand and walk. Next Plaintiff contended the ALJ failed to provide sufficient reasons when it rejected his subjective complaints, failed to include all of his limitations in the Residual Functioning Capacity assessment, and in the hypothetical she posed.

DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS: Defendant denied Plaintiff's contentions and moved for summary judgement on the basis that Plaintiff was not disabled since he could perform his past relevant work as a hand packager. Further Defendant contended the ALJ determined Plaintiff could also perform other jobs existing in significant numbers in the economy, which included employment within the automobile detailer, as a busser and/or janitor. Accordingly, Defendant contended Plaintiff had not been disabled since his alleged disability onset date of October 8, 2015.

Result

The court ruled in favor of Defendant after determining the ALJ's decision was supported and justified based on Plaintiff's lack of follow through for his alleged conditions, the inconsistencies with Plaintiff's subjective opinions and the lack of corroborated testimony from Plaintiff's physicians.


#137076

For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:

Email jeremy@reprintpros.com for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390