Larsen v. Colvin, 3:16-cv-02847

Christopher Larsen sought review of the Commissioner’s denial of Social Security benefits; Magistrate Judge Schopler issued an R&R recommending denial of Larsen’s motion and granting the Commissioner’s cross-motion for summary judgment.
The district court adopted the R&R on February 27, 2018; Larsen filed a motion for reconsideration and objections (claiming he hadn’t received the R&R) and then appealed to the Ninth Circuit.
The Ninth Circuit held proceedings in abeyance pending this court’s resolution of Larsen’s Rule 60 motion for reconsideration.
Larsen’s principal complaints: alleged fraudulent/biased conduct by SSA-associated psychiatrist Dr. Camellia Clark (including an incident he said occurred during an evaluation), a supposedly missing Clark report, and that the ALJ improperly discredited his subjective symptom testimony (pelvic pain, depression/anxiety, and social limitations).
The court conducted a de novo review of the record and R&R, incorporated the R&R’s reasoning, addressed points not covered there, and found no newly presented evidence or legal error warranting reconsideration.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether fraud/bias required setting aside the ALJ decision	Larsen: SSA/agents (Dr. Clark) engaged in purposeful fraud and adjudicator was not impartial	Commissioner: No evidence rebuts presumption of ALJ impartiality; ALJ had no role in Dr. Clark’s exam	Court: No intentional fraud shown; presumption of impartiality stands; objection overruled
Availability of Dr. Clark evaluation in the record	Larsen: Clark’s March 3, 2015 evaluation is missing from the record	Commissioner: Report is in the administrative record and cited in the R&R	Court: Report is present (AR 753–55); no deprivation of access
Credibility of Larsen’s subjective symptom testimony (objective medical evidence)	Larsen: ALJ relied on records for different condition/time and conflated left/right pelvic pain	Commissioner: ALJ reasonably considered all pelvic pain records and medication response; objective evidence undermines symptom claims	Court: ALJ’s interpretation is a rational reading of the record; objective evidence is a clear and convincing reason to discredit testimony
Credibility of Larsen’s subjective symptom testimony (daily/social activities)	Larsen: ALJ/R&R ignored social impairment and social life decline	Commissioner: ALJ acknowledged moderate social difficulties but relied on Larsen’s uncontested daily activities as a basis to discount total disability claims	Court: Daily activities are valid, unchallenged basis supporting adverse credibility finding

School Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah County v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255 (9th Cir. 1993) (standards for reconsideration motions)
Kona Enters., Inc. v. Estate of Bishop, 229 F.3d 877 (9th Cir. 2000) (limits on raising new arguments/evidence on reconsideration)
United States v. Raddatz, 447 U.S. 667 (U.S. 1980) (district court duties on magistrate R&R review)
McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Commodore Bus. Machs., Inc., 656 F.2d 1309 (9th Cir. 1981) (magistrate recommendation review)
Orand v. United States, 602 F.2d 207 (9th Cir. 1979) (assumption of unchallenged factual findings in R&R)
Robbins v. Carey, 481 F.3d 1143 (9th Cir. 2007) (de novo review of magistrate legal conclusions)
Garcia v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 768 F.3d 925 (9th Cir. 2014) (substantial evidence standard in Social Security review)
Tidwell v. Apfel, 161 F.3d 599 (9th Cir. 1999) (substantial evidence; standard for overturning ALJ)
Parra v. Astrue, 481 F.3d 742 (9th Cir. 2007) (definition of substantial evidence)
Flaten v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 44 F.3d 1453 (9th Cir. 1995) (substantial evidence discussion)
Molina v. Astrue, 674 F.3d 1104 (9th Cir. 2012) (harmless error and evaluating daily activities in credibility determinations)
Thomas v. Barnhart, 278 F.3d 947 (9th Cir. 2002) (ALJ interpretation of evidence must be upheld when rational)