Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-01216/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-01216-0/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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Cynthia Howard, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Michael J. Astrue, 

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-11-1216-PHX-FJM

ORDER

The court has before it plaintiff’s opening brief (doc. 13), defendant’s response (doc.

16), and plaintiff’s reply (doc. 17).

I

This case arises from a denial by the Social Security Administration of an application

for disability benefits and supplemental security income filed by plaintiff on September 19,

2006, alleging a disability onset of September 1, 2005. The claim was denied initially and

upon reconsideration. After a hearing on June 9, 2009, the administrative law judge (ALJ)

issued a decision denying benefits. The decision became the final decision of the

Commissioner when the Appeals Council denied plaintiff’s request for review. Plaintiff then

filed this action for judicial review under 42 U.S.C. §§ 405(g) and 1383(c)(3).

A district court may set aside a denial of benefits “only if it is not supported by

substantial evidence or if it is based on legal error.” Thomas v. Barnhart, 278 F.3d 947, 954

(9th Cir. 2002). Substantial evidence is “relevant evidence which, considering the record as

Case 2:11-cv-01216-FJM Document 18 Filed 10/09/12 Page 1 of 5
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 -

a whole, a reasonable person might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. 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. (citation omitted). 

Plaintiff alleges disability due to the late effects of a stroke, degenerative disc disease,

carpal tunnel syndrome, frequent headaches, neck and back pain, insomnia, anxiety, loss of

balance, irritability, dizziness, double vision, hearing loss, depression, panic attacks, and

memory loss. She claims that she can lift no more than 8 pounds, her sleep is poor due to

pain, and she requires 2 naps each day. She tends to isolate herself, has crying spells, and

a general loss of interest in normal activities. 

The ALJ found that plaintiff has mood and anxiety disorders, fibromyalgia, bilateral

carpal tunnel syndrome, migraine headaches, a history of stroke without residual effects, and

a history of seizure activity, but that no impairment or combination of impairments meets or

equals one of the listed impairments in 20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1. 

The ALJ discounted plaintiff’s subjective complaints of debilitating symptoms and

concluded that plaintiff has the residual functional capacity to perform light work, reduced

by lifting and carrying up to 20 pounds occasionally and 10 pounds frequently; sitting,

standing, and walking to 6 hours a day; unlimited pushing and pulling; no climbing ladders,

ropes or scaffolds; occasional climbing, balancing and crawling; frequent stooping, kneeling,

crouching, reaching, handling and fingering bilaterally; no concentrated exposure to extreme

heat, fumes, odors, or other respiratory irritants; with the mental capacity to perform simple

and detailed job tasks on a sustained basis with minimal social interaction. Based on

vocational expert testimony, the ALJ found that plaintiff is capable of performing her past

relevant work as an accountant, which is sedentary and skilled. Accordingly, the ALJ

concluded that plaintiff is not disabled. 

Plaintiff challenges that decision, arguing that the ALJ erred by discrediting her

subjective complaints of limiting symptoms, by improperly weighing the medical source

opinion evidence, and by failing to properly consider third-party reporting of plaintiff’s

mother.

Case 2:11-cv-01216-FJM Document 18 Filed 10/09/12 Page 2 of 5
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 -

II

Plaintiff first argues that the ALJ erred in failing to properly weigh her subjective

complaints. The ALJ must first consider whether there is objective medical evidence of an

underlying impairment that could reasonably be expected to produce the alleged symptoms.

Smolen v. Chater, 80 F.3d 1273, 1281 (9th Cir. 1996). Second, if there is no evidence of

malingering, the ALJ must cite “specific, clear and convincing reasons” for disregarding

reported symptoms. Id.

Here, the ALJ found that objective medical evidence could reasonably be expected

to cause the alleged symptoms. Tr. 23. He concluded, however, that the plaintiff’s

statements concerning the intensity, persistence and limiting effects of these symptoms are

not fully credible. Id. 

Regarding plaintiff’s mental complaints, the ALJ stated that the medical record shows

“some mild symptoms and limitations in social and occupational functioning.” Id. The ALJ

relied on medical expert testimony that plaintiff’s mental condition improved with treatment

at Terros, and “resulted in no more than mild restrictions in activities of daily living,

moderate limitation in social functioning, mild limitations in concentration, persistence and

pace, and no episodes of decompensation of an extended duration.” Id. The ALJ further

relied on a medical source statement by a treating source at Terros concluding that plaintiff

“ha[d] no more than moderate limitation relating to other people, maintaining daily activities,

responding appropriately to supervisors, coworkers and customary work pressures, and

perform complex tasks.” Tr. 23-24 (citing Tr. 997-100). The ALJ also relied on an

evaluation by state agency psychologist, Shannon Tromp, PhD., who opined that claimant

can manage her own finances, had no more than moderate limitations in her ability to

complete a normal workday and workweek, with occasional marked limitations in her ability

to get along with coworkers or peers. Tr. 24. The ALJ also noted that plaintiff is

independent in self care, but requires help with heavy housework. Tr. 21. 

Regarding plaintiff’s physical complaints, the ALJ referred to a cervical spine MRI

showing mild degenerative disc change at C4-5, with no evidence of disc herniation or

Case 2:11-cv-01216-FJM Document 18 Filed 10/09/12 Page 3 of 5
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 -

significant stenosis. Tr. 24. Progress notes showed an “immediate improvement” in

plaintiff’s wrist pain following the right carpal tunnel release treatment on January 11, 2007.

Id. Her treating physicians noted that medication is somewhat effective for headache pain,

Tr. 503, 599-600, and that headache frequency and severity had improved, Tr. 842. 

We conclude that these findings are sufficiently specific, clear and convincing to

support the finding that plaintiff’s subjective complaints of disabling symptoms are not fully

credible.

III

Plaintiff next argues that the ALJ erred by improperly weighing medical source

opinion evidence. Where a treating physician’s opinion is not contradicted by another doctor

it may be rejected only for “clear and convincing” reasons. Lester v. Chater, 81 F.3d 821,

830 (9th Cir. 1996).

Dr. Walter, a licensed psychologist retained by plaintiff for a disability review,

performed psychological testing and a clinical examination, and opined that plaintiff’s

impairments result in moderate to severe limitations in mental functioning and prevent her

from working on a full-time basis. Tr. 1033-42, 1193. The ALJ discounted this opinion

because it was based on a one-time evaluation and was inconsistent with multiple medical

source opinions in the greater objective record which show mostly mild to moderate

limitations in mental functioning. Tr. 24. 

Dr. Tromp evaluated the plaintiff for the state agency and found that plaintiff had no

significant limitations in her ability to perform activities within a schedule, maintain regular

attendance, to sustain an ordinary routine without special supervision, and to maintain

socially appropriate behavior; is moderately limited in her ability to respond appropriately

to changes in the work setting, to complete a normal workday and workweek without

interruptions from psychologically based symptoms, to interact appropriately with the public,

accept instructions, respond appropriately to criticism from supervisors, and maintain

attention and concentration for extended periods; and markedly limited in her ability to get

along with coworkers or peers. Tr. 163-65. The ALJ accorded Dr. Tromp’s opinion greater

Case 2:11-cv-01216-FJM Document 18 Filed 10/09/12 Page 4 of 5
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 -

weight since it was consistent with the greater objective medical record. Tr. 24. 

We conclude that the ALJ provided clear and convincing reasons for assigning weight

to the medical source opinions. 

IV

Finally, plaintiff argues that the ALJ erred in discounting the third-party testimony of

her mother. The ALJ reasoned that while the objective medical record shows that plaintiff’s

impairments result in some restrictions, it fails to support the assertion that plaintiff is

disabled. Lay testimony is competent evidence of the severity of impairment and must be

considered unless the ALJ expressly determines to disregard it and gives reasons germane

to each witness for doing so. Dodrill v. Shalala, 12 F.3d 915, 919 (9th Cir. 1993). 

Plaintiff’s mother’s testimony is contradicted by her own testimony that plaintiff can

do light cleaning and laundry for 3 hours a day twice a week. In addition, the ALJ found

significant that plaintiff’s mother’s assertion that plaintiff cannot make her own meals is

contradicted by plaintiff’s own statement that she always makes lunch and dinner for her

parents. Tr. 25 (citing Tr. 155). 

We conclude that the ALJ provided relevant reasons for discrediting the testimony of

plaintiff’s mother. 

V

Based on the foregoing, we conclude that the ALJ’s conclusion that plaintiff is not

disabled is supported by substantial evidence in the record. Therefore, IT IS ORDERED

AFFIRMING the decision of the Commissioner denying disability benefits. 

DATED this 4th day of October, 2012.

Case 2:11-cv-01216-FJM Document 18 Filed 10/09/12 Page 5 of 5