Facts

In 2017, Azia Barrios attended a concert in Las Vegas where a mass shooting occurred. Though she initially went back to work, she had difficulty working due to the night terrors and anxiety she was experiencing after the shooting. Prior to the shooting, Azia stated that she had been diagnosed with several conditions: bipolar disorder; depression; anxiety; obsessive-compulsive disorder; and anorexia nervosa. After the shooting, she was further diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder and borderline personality disorder. Her last employment was in February 2019 as a co-manager for a retail shop.

On October 17, 2019, Azia filed an application for disability insurance benefits providing an onset date of February 7, 2019. After her application was denied initially and on reconsideration, a hearing before an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) was set for May 2021. Azia obtained an unfavorable decision. The ALJ found that though plaintiff did persistently complain of certain symptoms such as panic, anxiety, flashbacks, diminished concentration and memory, the objective findings also showed that she exhibited normal speech, behavior, attention, concentration, good judgment, and was pleasant and cooperative. After the Appeals Council denied her request for review, Azia sought an appeal from the district court.

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS: Plaintiff contended that the ALJ erred in not only discrediting her testimony in regards to her symptoms and limitations but also in how it considered the medical opinion evidence. She argued that the ALJ specifically isolated aspects of her symptoms, only concentrating on the symptoms that were not seemingly as severe. However, plaintiff claimed that taken holistically, her symptoms evidenced that she suffered debilitating fatigue and would be unable to handle the additional stresses of workplace demands.

DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS: Defendant contended that the ALJ provided specific, clear, and convincing reasons for finding that plaintiff's statements regarding her symptom's severity was not completely consistent with the medical and other evidence. For example, both medical consultants' opinions found that plaintiff's ability to understand, remember or apply information was only mild not severe and that plaintiff did not have understanding and memory limitations.

Result

The court granted defendant's cross-motion for summary judgment.