United States District Court, D. Oregon
OPINION AND ORDER
M. COFFIN UNITED STATERS MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
brings this proceeding to obtain judicial review of the
Commissioner's final decision denying plaintiff's
application for Disability Insurance Benefits.
case has been before this court before. Plaintiff submitted
evidence to this court that defendant conceded was new and
material. This court remanded the matter for consideration of
the new and material evidence. The ALJ had a new hearing
where plaintiff, through her attorney, amended her alleged
onset date to November 30, 2005. The ALJ issued a new
decision finding plaintiff not disabled.
plaintiff was represented at her first hearing, and was
represented in her second hearing, she appears pro se in this
appeal of that second hearing.
discussed in more detail below, she makes several arguments
in her opening brief. Defendant addressed all of these in a
brief and persuasively demonstrated that the period in
question in the present appeal is 31 days-. Plaintiff did not
file an optional reply brief.
Plaintiff's Subjective Complaints
has persuasively demonstrated that the ALJ appropriately
considered plaintiff's subjective complaints, compared
them to the evidence of record, and gave legally sufficient
reasons for discounting them. Plaintiff's degree of
medical care during the alleged period of disability, lack of
significant ongoing complaints leading up to the alleged
period of disability, and contradictory statements about
symptoms like diarrhea were clear and convincing reasons for
finding that her complaints about her symptoms from November
30, 2005 through December 31, 2005 were not reliable. It is
also noteworthy that plaintiff states in her Brief:
I admit I have not been a model patient. If a doctor had
given me a medication that caused bad side effects, I stopped
mentioning those symptoms. If a Physical Therapist was
causing me additional pain, I told them what they wanted to
hear so I could get away from them. This may not have been -
the best policy, but at the time it was my only recourse. I
also failed to inform my past doctors of all my symptoms.
P.p. 3-4, Plaintiff's Brief (#39). Plaintiff also states
with regard to the physical therapist "I admit I lied to
her about my pain levels decreasing so that I could get away
from her. She was not helping my hip pain at all."
Id. at p. 19.
The Medical Opinions
has persuasively demonstrated in great detail that the ALJ
appropriately resolved the conflicts in the medical opinion
evidence and gave the greatest weight to the opinions of the
non-examining State agency medical consultants because their
opinions were the most consistent with the relevant treatment
The Consideration of All of Plaintiffs ...