Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01372/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01372-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 864
Nature of Suit: Social Security - SSID Title XVI
Cause of Action: 42:405 Review of HHS Decision (SSID)

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MARIA MORENO,

Plaintiff,

v.

CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Commissioner 

of Social Security

Defendant.

1:13-cv-1372 BAM

ORDER REGARDING PLAINTIFF’S 

SOCIAL SECURITY COMPLAINT

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff Maria Moreno (“Plaintiff”) seeks judicial review of a final decision of the 

Commissioner of Social Security (“Commissioner” or “Defendant”) denying her applications for 

disability insurance benefits pursuant to Title II of the Social Security Act. The matter is 

currently before the Court on the parties’ briefs, which were submitted, without oral argument, to 

the Honorable Barbara A. McAuliffe, United States Magistrate Judge.1(See, Docs. 14, 17, and 

18).

 

1 The parties consented to the jurisdiction of the United States Magistrate Judge. (See Docs. 7& 8).

Case 1:13-cv-01372-BAM Document 19 Filed 03/04/15 Page 1 of 11
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

FACTS AND PRIOR PROCEEDINGS2

1. Background

On March 8, 2010, Plaintiff filed applications for disability insurance, alleging disability 

beginning June 26, 2009. AR 142-150. Her application was denied initially and on 

reconsideration. AR 75-78; 81-85. Subsequently, Plaintiff requested a hearing before an 

Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”). AR 88-90. ALJ Michael Haubner held a hearing on 

February 6, 2012 (AR 26-59), and issued an order denying benefits on May 6, 2011. AR 12-19. 

Plaintiff filed an appeal and submitted additional medical evidence to the Appeals Council on 

April 17, 2012. AR 329-337. On July 3, 2013, the Appeals Council denied review, rendering 

that the final decision of the Commissioner. AR 1-6. Plaintiff sought judicial review by 

commencing the instant action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 405(g), 1383(c)(3).

2. The Disability Determination Standard and Process

To qualify for benefits under the Social Security Act, Plaintiff must establish that he or 

she is unable to engage in substantial gainful activity due to a medically determinable physical or 

mental impairment that has lasted or can be expected to last for a continuous period of not less 

than twelve months. 42 U.S.C. § 1382c(a)(3)(A). An individual shall be considered to have a 

disability only if:

his physical or mental impairment or impairments are of such severity that he is 

not only unable to do his previous work, but cannot, considering his age, 

education, and work experience, engage in any other kind of substantial gainful 

work which exists in the national economy, regardless of whether such work exists 

in the immediate area in which he lives, or whether a specific job vacancy exists 

for him, or whether he would be hired if he applied for work.

42 U.S.C. § 1382c(a)(3)(B).

To achieve uniformity in the decision-making process, the Commissioner has established 

“a sequential five-step process” for evaluating a claimant’s alleged disability. 20 C.F.R. § 

 

2 References to the Administrative Record will be designated as “AR,” followed by the appropriate page number.

Case 1:13-cv-01372-BAM Document 19 Filed 03/04/15 Page 2 of 11
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3

404.1520(a) (f); Lester v. Chater, 81 F.3d 821, 828 n.5 (9th Cir. 1995) (as amended Apr. 9, 1996). 

At step one, the Commissioner determines whether the claimant is currently engaged in 

substantial gainful activity; if so, the claimant is not disabled and the claim must be denied. 20 

C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(i). If the claimant is not engaged in substantial gainful activity, the 

second step requires the Commissioner to determine whether the claimant has a “severe”3

impairment or combination of impairments significantly limiting her ability to do basic work 

activities; if not, the claimant is not disabled and the claim must be denied. 20 C.F.R. § C.F.R. § 

404.1520(a)(4)(ii). If the claimant has a “severe” impairment or combination of impairments, the 

third step requires the Commissioner to determine whether the impairment or combination of 

impairments meets or equals an impairment in the Listing of Impairments (“Listing”) set forth at 

20 C.F.R., Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1; if so, disability is conclusively presumed and 

benefits are awarded. C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(iii). If the claimant's impairment or combination 

of impairments does not meet or equal an impairment in the Listing, the fourth step requires the 

Commissioner to determine whether the claimant has sufficient residual functional capacity 

(“RFC”) to perform her past work; if so, the claimant is not disabled and the claim must be 

denied. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(iv). The claimant has the burden of proving that he or she is 

unable to perform past relevant work. Drouin v. Sullivan, 966 F.2d 1255, 1257 (9th Cir. 1992). If 

the claimant meets that burden, a prima facie case of disability is established. Id. In that event, or 

if the claimant has no past relevant work, the Commissioner then, in the fifth and final step of the 

sequential analysis, bears the burden of establishing that the claimant is not disabled because she 

can perform other substantial, gainful work available in the national economy. 20 C.F.R. §

404.120(a)(4)(v); Lester, 81 F.3d at 828 n. 5; Drouin, 966 F.2d at 1257.

///

 

3

Severe means that the impairment limits the claimant’s physical or mental ability to do basic work activities. See 

20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(c).

Case 1:13-cv-01372-BAM Document 19 Filed 03/04/15 Page 3 of 11
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

4

3. Summary of the ALJ’s Findings and Decision

Using the Social Security Administration’s five-step sequential evaluation process, the 

ALJ determined that Plaintiff did not meet the disability standard. AR 21-29. More particularly, 

the ALJ found that Plaintiff had not engaged in substantial gainful activity since June 26, 2009. 

AR 14. Further, the ALJ identified carpal tunnel syndrome, non-malignant ovary tumors, status 

post anemia, anxiety symptoms, as medically determinable impairments, and noted Plaintiff 

suffered from questionable sleep apnea and questionable fibromyalgia. However, the ALJ found 

that none of these conditions rose to the level of a “severe” impairment, individually or in 

combination. AR 14. The ALJ concluded that Plaintiff did not suffer from a disability and 

concluded the inquiry at step two of the sequential process. 14-18. Accordingly, the ALJ found 

that Plaintiff was not disabled. AR 19.

4. The Appeals Council’s Decision

After the ALJ issued a decision denying benefits, Plaintiff submitted additional medical 

records to the Appeals Council from Comprehensive Sleep Diagnostics dated October 28, 2011. 

AR 4-5. (“sleep study”). The sleep study diagnosed Plaintiff with moderate sleep apnea and 

indicated that her sleep efficiency worsened with CPAP titration. AR 330-337. On July 3, 2013, 

the Appeals Council denied Plaintiff’s request for review. AR 1. The Appeals Council stated 

that it had considered Plaintiff’s arguments with respect to the ALJ’s decision, as well as the new 

evidence subsequently submitted directly to the Appeals Council. AR 1, 5. The Appeals Council 

“found that this information [did] not provide a basis for changing the Administrative Law 

Judge’s decision.” AR 2. 

STANDARD OF REVIEW

Under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), this Court reviews the Commissioner's decision to determine 

whether (1) it is supported by substantial evidence, and (2) it applies the correct legal standards. 

Case 1:13-cv-01372-BAM Document 19 Filed 03/04/15 Page 4 of 11
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

5

See Carmickle v. Commissioner, 533 F.3d 1155, 1159 (9th Cir. 2008); Hoopai v. Astrue, 499 F.3d 

1071, 1074 (9th Cir. 2007). 

“Substantial evidence means more than a scintilla but less than a preponderance.” 

Thomas v. Barnhart, 278 F.3d 947, 954 (9th Cir. 2002). It is “relevant evidence which, 

considering the record as a whole, a reasonable person might accept as adequate to support a 

conclusion.” Id. Where the evidence is susceptible to more than one rational interpretation, one 

of which supports the ALJ's decision, the ALJ's conclusion must be upheld.” Id.

DISCUSSION4

Here, Plaintiff argues that this Court should remand this case so that the ALJ can consider 

the new medical evidence that was sent to the Appeals Council because this recent evaluation 

establishes disability. More specifically, Plaintiff contends that these records establish that her 

sleep apnea is a severe impairment, thereby rendering the ALJ’s previous findings of no disability 

at step two improper. The Commissioner argues that Plaintiff’s untimely submission of evidence 

does not justify remand because she has not established good cause for the late submission of 

evidence. Moreover, even if the court were to consider the new evidence, the records submitted 

merely establishes a diagnosis of sleep apnea which does not establish a severe impairment at step 

two. Upon a review of the record, the Court finds that the case should not be remanded.

A. The New Evidence Before the Appeals Council

In Brewes v. Commissioner, 682 F.3d 1157 (9th Cir. 2012), the Ninth Circuit considered 

the question of whether evidence submitted for the first time to the Appeals Council must be 

considered by the district court on appeal:

We are persuaded that the administrative record includes evidence 

submitted to and considered by the Appeals Council. The 

 

4 The Court has carefully reviewed and considered all of the briefs, including the arguments, points and authorities, 

and exhibits. Any omission of reference to a specific argument or brief is not to be construed that the Court did not 

consider the argument or brief.

Case 1:13-cv-01372-BAM Document 19 Filed 03/04/15 Page 5 of 11
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

6

Commissioner's regulations permit claimants to submit new and 

material evidence to the Appeals Council and require the Council to 

consider that evidence in determining whether to review the ALJ's 

decision, so long as the evidence relates to the period on or before 

the ALJ's decision. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.970(b ). Claimants need 

not show “good cause” before submitting new evidence to the 

Appeals Council. See id.; see also O'Dell, 44 F.3d at 858. The 

Council will grant the request for review “if it finds that the 

administrative law judge's action, findings, or conclusion is 

contrary to the weight of the evidence currently of record.” 20 

C.F.R. § 404.970(b) (emphasis added). “Because the regulations 

require the Appeals Council to review the new evidence, this new 

evidence must be treated as part of the administrative record.” 

Perez v. Chater, 77 F.3d 41, 45 (2d Cir.1996).

Brewes, 682 F.3d at 1162. 

The Court concluded, “[w]e hold that when the Appeals Council considers new evidence 

in deciding whether to review a decision of the ALJ, that evidence becomes part of the 

administrative record, which the district court must consider when reviewing the Commissioner’s 

final decision for substantial evidence.” Id. at 1163. In specifically rejecting Defendant’s 

argument to the contrary, the Court explained: 

First, we do not agree with the Commissioner’s contention that 

Brewes must show that the letter meets § 405(g)’s materiality 

standard. Section 405(g) materiality is not at issue here because that 

standard applies only to new evidence that is not part of the 

administrative record and is presented in the first instance to the 

district court. See 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) (“The [district] court may ... 

at any time order additional evidence to be taken before the 

Commissioner, . . . but only upon a showing that there is new 

evidence which is material and that there is good cause for the 

failure to incorporate such evidence into the record in a prior 

proceeding.”). As discussed above, evidence submitted to and

considered by the Appeals Council is not new but rather is part of 

the administrative record properly before the district court. Here, 

the Appeals Council accepted Brewes' proffered new evidence and 

made it part of the record, apparently concluding that it was 

material within the meaning of 20 C.F.R. § 404.970(b). The 

Commissioner does not contend that the Council erred by 

considering this additional evidence.

Id. at 1164.

Here, the medical records from the Comprehensive Sleep Diagnostics were considered by 

Case 1:13-cv-01372-BAM Document 19 Filed 03/04/15 Page 6 of 11
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

7

the Appeals Counsel. AR 330-337. All documents were made a part of the administrative record. 

AR 4-5. Accordingly, this Court will consider this evidence in its review of the administrative 

record. Id. at 1163. 

B. The Commissioner’s Decision is Based on Substantial Evidence

As a preliminary matter, the Court is not persuaded by Plaintiff’s argument that this case 

should be remanded to the ALJ so that he may consider the new evidence. In this instance, the 

Appeals Council has already considered the evidence and found that the information does not 

provide a basis for changing the ALJ’s decision. AR 2. The Appeals Council is not required to 

provide a “detailed rationale” or make any particularized evidentiary showing as to why it 

rejected a post hearing opinion. See Taylor v. Comm. of Soc. Sec. Admin., 659 F. 3d 1228, 1233 

(9th Cir. 2011); Warner v. Astrue, 859 F. Supp. 2d 1107, 1115 (C.D. Cal. 2012) (under Taylor, the 

Appeals Council is excused from offering any explanation for rejecting post-hearing treating 

source opinions); accord Crater v. Astrue, 2012 WL 3106625, *5 (C.D. Cal. July 30, 2012). The 

issue before this Court, therefore, is whether the Commissioner’s determination that Plaintiff is 

not disabled is supported by substantial evidence in light of the post-hearing medical reports. A 

review of the record reveals that that Appeals Council did not commit error.

At step two of the sequential evaluation process, the ALJ must conclude whether Plaintiff 

suffers from a “severe” impairment. The regulations define a non-severe impairment as one that 

does not significantly limit [the claimant’s] physical and mental ability to do basic work 

activities. An impairment is not severe “if the evidence establishes a slight abnormality that has 

‘no more than a minimal effect on an individual’s ability to work.’” Smolen v. Chater, 80 F. 3d 

1273, 1290 (9th Cir. 1996). To satisfy step two's requirement of a severe impairment, the 

claimant must prove the existence of a physical or mental impairment by providing medical 

evidence consisting of signs, symptoms, and laboratory findings; the claimant's own statement of 

Case 1:13-cv-01372-BAM Document 19 Filed 03/04/15 Page 7 of 11
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

8

symptoms alone will not suffice. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1508. The effects of all symptoms must be 

evaluated on the basis of a medically determinable impairment which can be shown to be the 

cause of the symptoms. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529. 

The step two inquiry is a de minimis screening device to dispose of groundless or 

frivolous claims. Bowen v. Yuckert, 482 U.S. 137, 153-154 (1987). Further, the ALJ must 

consider the combined effect of all of the claimant's impairments on his or her ability to function, 

without regard to whether each alone was sufficiently severe. 42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(2)(B). The 

combined effect “shall be considered throughout the disability determination process. The 

adjudicator's role at step two is further explained by SSR 85-28:

A determination that an impairment(s) is not severe requires a 

careful evaluation of the medical findings which describe the 

impairment(s) and an informed judgment about its (their) limiting 

effects on the individual's physical and mental ability(ies) to 

perform basic work activities; thus, an assessment of function is 

inherent in the medical evaluation process itself. At the second step 

of sequential evaluation, then, medical evidence alone is evaluated 

in order to assess the effects of the impairment(s) on ability to do 

basic work activities.

SSR 85-28.

Here, the ALJ determined Plaintiff had medically determinable impairments of carpel 

tunnel syndrome, non-malignant ovary tumors, status post anemia, anxiety symptoms, 

fibromyalgia, and myalgias/arthralgias. He also noted that Plaintiff had questionable sleep apnea 

and questionable fibromayalgia. AR 14. In doing so, the ALJ noted that Plaintiff had little 

treatment for the sleep apnea, that she had refused a sleep evaluation, and no definitive diagnosis 

had been confirmed. AR 17. Plaintiff argues that the new evidence establishes a medically 

determinable impairment and that this impairment is severe. The Court disagrees. 

When an individual applies for disability, an assessment of whether one’s physical or 

mental condition is medically determinable is necessary. When making this determination, the 

Case 1:13-cv-01372-BAM Document 19 Filed 03/04/15 Page 8 of 11
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

9

Commissioner considers the following :

If you are not doing substantial gainful activity, we always look 

first at your physical or mental impairment(s) to determine whether 

you are disabled or blind. Your impairment must result from 

anatomical, physiological, or psychological abnormalities which 

can be shown by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory 

diagnostic techniques. A physical or mental impairment must be 

established by medical evidence consisting of signs, symptoms, and 

laboratory findings, not only by your statement of symptoms (see § 

404.1527). (See § 404.1528 for further information about what we 

mean by symptoms, signs, and laboratory findings.)

20 C.F.R. § 404.1508

(b) Signs are anatomical, physiological, or psychological 

abnormalities which can be observed, apart from your statements 

(symptoms). Signs must be shown by medically acceptable clinical 

diagnostic techniques. Psychiatric signs are medically demonstrable 

phenomena that indicate specific psychological abnormalities, e.g., 

abnormalities of behavior, mood, thought, memory, orientation, 

development, or perception. They must also be shown by 

observable facts that can be medically described and evaluated.

(c) Laboratory findings are anatomical, physiological, or 

psychological phenomena which can be shown by the use of a 

medically acceptable laboratory diagnostic techniques. Some of 

these diagnostic techniques include chemical tests, 

electrophysiological studies (electrocardiogram, 

electroencephalogram, etc.), roentgenological studies (X-rays), and 

psychological tests.

20 C.F.R § 404.1528

Here, the sleep study conducted on October 28, 2012, revealed that Plaintiff suffers from 

moderate sleep apnea and that her sleep efficiency worsened with CPAP titration. AR 330. 

Therefore, laboratory findings indicating that Plaintiff suffers from a medically determinable 

impairment exists. However, the mere diagnosis of an impairment is not sufficient to sustain a 

finding of disability. Key v. Heckler, 754 F.2d 1545, 1549 (9th Cir. 1985); see also Matthews v. 

Case 1:13-cv-01372-BAM Document 19 Filed 03/04/15 Page 9 of 11
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

10

Shalala, 10 F.3d 678, 680 (9th Cir. 1993) (mere existence of impairment is insufficient proof of 

disability). The severity regulation requires a claimant to show that she has an impairment or 

combination of impairments which “significantly limit[s]” the “abilities and aptitudes necessary 

to do most jobs.” 20 CFR §§ 404.1521; Bowen v. Yuckert, 482 U.S. 137, 146 (1987) (if a 

claimant's impairments are “not severe enough to limit significantly the claimant's ability to 

perform most jobs, by definition the impairment does not prevent the claimant from engaging in 

any substantial gainful activity”). Plaintiff bears the burden to establish by a preponderance of 

the evidence the existence of a severe impairment that prevents performance of substantial gainful 

activity and that this impairment lasted for at least twelve continuous months. 20 C.F.R. §§ 

404.1505(a), 404.1512; Bowen, 482 U.S. at 146; Casey v. Shalala, 999 F.2d 542, 542 (9th Cir. 

1993); 42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(5)(A) (a claimant will not be considered to be under a disability unless 

he or she furnishes medical and other evidence of the existence thereof); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1512(c) 

(“[a claimant] must provide evidence ... showing how [the alleged] impairment(s) affects ... [his 

or her] functioning”). 

Here, the record does not reveal any functional limitations based on the sleep apnea that 

would significantly impact Plaintiff’s ability to work.

5

 While there is mention that Plaintiff 

reported she was fatigued at various times (AR 52-54; 248, 264, and 308), no medical records, 

including the one Plaintiff submitted to the Appeals Council establishes that this condition

prevents her from engaging in substantial gainful activity. To the contrary, as noted by the ALJ,

Plaintiff was evaluated by Dr. Stewart a treating psychologist (AR 244-248); Dr. Murphy, PsyD, 

a consultative psychologist (AR 253-258); and Dr. Stolz, a consultative physician. AR 260-265. 

None of those doctors indicated that Plaintiff was unable to work due to her sleep apnea, or any of 

the other medically determinable impairments. AR 17-18. Moreover, Dr. Jamora, M.D., a non-

 

5

The entire medical record was reviewed by the Court. AR 203-337. The Court will discuss the relevant portions of 

the medical record as needed in the following discussion.

Case 1:13-cv-01372-BAM Document 19 Filed 03/04/15 Page 10 of 11
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

11

examining state agency psychiatrist (AR 268-282), and Dr. Jackson, M.D., a non-examining state 

agency doctor (AR 283-285), determined that Plaintiff did not suffer from any physical or 

psychological severe impairment. AR 17, 268, 285. Non-examining state agency doctors Brian 

Ginsburg, M.D. and Dr. A. Garcia concurred that none of Plaintiff’s conditions are severe 

impairments. AR 17; 290-291.

Given the above, the Commissioner correctly concluded that Plaintiff’s sleep apnea 

individually, or in combination with any of the other medically determinable impairments, does 

not prevent her from performing most jobs. Plaintiff’s statement as to her pain or other 

symptoms alone shall not be conclusive evidence of disability. 42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(5)(A). 

Moreover, here, the ALJ found Plaintiff’s testimony not credible and the Plaintiff has not 

challenged this finding. AR 18-19. Thus, the Plaintiff did not meet her burden to establish that 

her impairments were severe, even with the additional medical evidence from the sleep study. 

Accordingly, the Commissioner’s finding that Plaintiff did not suffer from any severe 

impairments is proper.

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, the Court finds that the ALJ’s decision is supported by substantial 

evidence in the record as a whole and is based on proper legal standards. Accordingly, this Court 

DENIES Plaintiff’s appeal from the administrative decision of the Commissioner of Social 

Security. The Clerk of this Court is DIRECTED to enter judgment in favor of Defendant Carolyn 

W. Colvin, Commissioner of Social Security and against Plaintiff Maria Moreno.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 4, 2015 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:13-cv-01372-BAM Document 19 Filed 03/04/15 Page 11 of 11