United States District Court, D. Nevada
SUSANNE M. DOBRANYI, Plaintiff,
NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
FERENBACH UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
matter involves Plaintiff Susanne M. Dobranyi's appeal
from the Commissioner's final decision denying her social
security benefits. Before the Court is Dobranyi's Motion
for Reversal or Remand (ECF No. 14) and the Commissioner of
Social Security's Motion to Affirm (ECF No. 17). For the
reasons stated below the Court recommends denying Burdo's
motion to reverse or remand and granting the
Commissioner's motion to affirm.
Fifth Amendment prohibits the government from depriving
persons of property without due process of law. U.S. Const.
amend. V. Social security claimants have a constitutionally
protected property interest in social security benefits.
Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 332 (1976). 42
U.S.C. § 405(g) authorizes the district court to review
final decisions made by the Commissioner of Social Security.
district court will not disturb an Administrative Law
Judge's (“ALJ”) denial of benefits unless
“it is not supported by substantial evidence or it is
based on legal error.” Burch v. Barnhart, 400
F.3d 676, 679 (9th Cir. 2005) (internal quotation omitted).
When reviewing an ALJ's decision, “the findings of
the Commissioner of Social Security as to any fact, if
supported by substantial evidence, shall be
U.S.C. § 405(g). Substantial evidence means, “such
relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as
adequate to support a conclusion” and is defined as
“more than a mere scintilla but less than a
preponderance” of evidence. Gutierrez v. Comm'r
of Soc. Sec., 740 F.3d 519, 522 (9th Cir. 2014)
(internal quotation omitted).
evidence could give rise to multiple rational
interpretations, the court must uphold the ALJ's
conclusion. Burch, 400 F.3d at 679. This means that
the Court will uphold the Commissioner's decision if it
has any support in the record. See, e.g.,
Bowling v. Shalala, 36 F.3d 431, 434 (5th Cir. 1988)
(stating that the court may not reweigh evidence, try the
case de novo, or overturn the Commissioner's
decision “even if the evidence preponderates
applied the five step sequential analysis pursuant to 20
C.F.R § 404.1520. The ALJ determined that Dobranyi
suffered from a severe combination of impairments including
degenerative disc disease of the cervical spine and frozen
shoulder/left biceps tear. (AR 35). The ALJ examined relevant
medical evidence including opinions and reports of a treating
physician (Dr. Rita Chuang), opinions of orthopedist Dr.
Thomas Kim, opinions of State Agency medical consultants, Ana
Hotley, D.O. and Nalini Tella, M.D., and records of medical
treatment and visits to physicians. (AR 33-42). The ALJ found
that Plaintiff would be able to perform her past relevant
work as a keno writer, thus the ALJ denied her social
security benefits. (AR 41-42).
challenges the ALJ's finding based on various diagnoses,
new medical records, and the opinions of her medical sources.
Plaintiff states that the ALJ failed to consider the long
term and on-going disabling effects of Plaintiff's
diagnosed conditions. (ECF NO. 17 at p. 5).
Commission argues that the ALJ properly weighed the medical
evidence, including evidence that Dobranyi is not disabled.
the Treating Physician's Opinion
treating physician's medical opinion as to the nature and
severity of an individual's impairment is entitled to
controlling weight when that opinion is well-supported and
not inconsistent with other substantial evidence in the
record. Edlund v. Massanari, 253 F.3d 1152, 1157
(9th Cir. 2001). “The rationale for giving the treating
physician's opinion special weight is that he is employed
to cure and has a greater ...