Court: District Court, C.D. California; July 22, 1993; Federal District Court
Plaintiff filed a complaint on November 19, 1992, seeking review of the Secretary’s denial of Supplemental Security Income (SSI) benefits, with both parties consenting to proceed before a Magistrate Judge on January 29, 1993. Plaintiff filed a motion for summary judgment on May 24, 1993, and the Defendant responded with a motion for summary judgment on June 23, 1993. The Court submitted both motions without oral argument.
The background reveals that Plaintiff sought SSI benefits citing various physical impairments. An evaluation by Dr. Sarah Maze indicated no significant physical issues, and she observed Plaintiff feigning symptoms. The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) determined that Plaintiff did not have any medically determinable physical impairments and found Plaintiff's subjective complaints to be not credible, relying on vocational expert testimony to identify potential job roles.
Subsequently, Plaintiff underwent a psychological evaluation by Dr. Victor C. Sanchez, who diagnosed major depression and noted an I.Q. score of 55, suggesting that depression might have impacted the score. The Appeals Council remanded the case for further assessment, specifically requiring a Spanish-language Wechsler test. Dr. Michael J. Perrotti administered the English version, translated through an interpreter, resulting in a score of 59. Dr. Perrotti described Plaintiff as uncooperative and manipulative, leading the ALJ to deem the intelligence tests invalid and reject Dr. Sanchez’s diagnosis of major depression.
Plaintiff contends that the Spanish version of the Wechsler test should have been administered, the ALJ incorrectly invalidated the intelligence tests, the test results meet or exceed Listing 12.05, and the ALJ improperly dismissed Dr. Sanchez’s opinion.
Under 42 U.S.C. section 405(g), the Court reviews the Secretary’s findings for substantial evidence and adherence to legal standards. Substantial evidence is defined as relevant evidence sufficient for a reasonable mind to support a conclusion, and the Court cannot overturn the Secretary’s findings if they meet this criterion, even if contrary evidence exists.
The determination of Plaintiff's disability status hinges on credibility, which the ALJ is advised to weigh heavily. The ALJ found Plaintiff's credibility lacking, supported by evidence of feigned physical limitations and exaggerated mental issues. Plaintiff no longer claims physical disability, and substantial evidence suggests she is not mentally disabled either. Dr. Ross characterized Plaintiff's depression as a temporary grief response, with other medical professionals noting her mental issues as either nonexistent or not severe. Plaintiff’s educational history shows she completed elementary grades without special education placements. Additionally, Dr. Perrotti indicated that Plaintiff could have performed better on intelligence tests, which the ALJ deemed invalid due to Plaintiff's uncooperativeness. The ALJ has the authority to reject IQ test results if there is substantial reason to believe the claimant was feigning results. Consequently, the ALJ correctly concluded that Plaintiff does not meet the requirements of Listing 12.05, which necessitates evidence of deficient intellectual functioning originating before age 22, a requirement not supported by the record. Although the intelligence test administered deviated from previous directives, the Appeals Council's denial of review indicated acceptance of the remand procedures. There is no requirement for a Spanish-speaking claimant to receive a Spanish version of the Wechsler test. While there is a duty to develop the record fully, Plaintiff's uncooperativeness hindered this process. Treating physicians' opinions are given more weight, but Dr. Sanchez does not qualify as a treating physician warranting special consideration.
Dr. Sanchez evaluated the Plaintiff only once, weeks after the ALJ's initial adverse decision, primarily to assess the Plaintiff's cognitive and adaptive functioning for SSI eligibility. His consultation lacked the depth of a treating physician, as he was not involved in ongoing treatment. The ALJ found Dr. Sanchez’s opinion less persuasive since it was obtained post-decision and noted that it relied heavily on the Plaintiff’s self-reported symptoms with insufficient clinical evidence. The ALJ also stated there was no longitudinal history of major depressive disorder, which further justified rejecting Dr. Sanchez's opinion. The Court upheld the ALJ's decision, affirming that substantial evidence supported it and that there was no material legal error. Consequently, the Defendant's motion for summary judgment was granted, while the Plaintiff's motion was denied. Additionally, the regulations discourage reliance on the Leiter International Scale without special circumstances, which were not present in this case.
