Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_15-cv-00455/USCOURTS-azd-2_15-cv-00455-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 863
Nature of Suit: Social Security - DIWC/DIWW (405(g))
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

Michael Troy Kelly, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Carolyn W. Colvin, Commissioner of the

Social Security Administration, 

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CIV 15-0455-PHX-MHB

ORDER

Pending before the Court is Plaintiff Michael Troy Kelly’s appeal from the Social

Security Administration’s final decision to deny his claim for disability insurance benefits.

After reviewing the administrative record and the arguments of the parties, the Court now

issues the following ruling.

I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Plaintiff filed an application for disability insurance benefits alleging disability

beginning April 1, 2010. (Transcript of Administrative Record (“Tr.”) at 16, 179-87.) His

application was denied initially and on reconsideration. (Tr. at 16, 64-91.) Thereafter,

Plaintiff requested a hearing before an administrative law judge, and a hearing was held on

May 9, 2013. (Tr. at 16, 32-63.) On June 28, 2013, the ALJ issued a decision finding that

Plaintiff was not disabled. (Tr. at 13-31.) The Appeals Council denied Plaintiff’s request for

review (Tr. at 1-7), making the ALJ’s decision the final decision of the Commissioner.

Plaintiff then sought judicial review of the ALJ’s decision pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).

\\\

Case 2:15-cv-00455-MHB Document 38 Filed 09/27/16 Page 1 of 13
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 -

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

The Court must affirm the ALJ’s findings if the findings are supported by substantial

evidence and are free from reversible legal error. See Reddick v. Chater, 157 F.3d 715, 720

(9th Cir. 1998); Marcia v. Sullivan, 900 F.2d 172, 174 (9th Cir. 1990). Substantial evidence

means “more than a mere scintilla” and “such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might

accept as adequate to support a conclusion.” Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389, 401

(1971); see Reddick, 157 F.3d at 720.

In determining whether substantial evidence supports a decision, the Court considers

the administrative record as a whole, weighing both the evidence that supports and the

evidence that detracts from the ALJ’s conclusion. See Reddick, 157 F.3d at 720. “The ALJ

is responsible for determining credibility, resolving conflicts in medical testimony, and for

resolving ambiguities.” Andrews v. Shalala, 53 F.3d 1035, 1039 (9th Cir. 1995); see

Magallanes v. Bowen, 881 F.2d 747, 750 (9th Cir. 1989). “If the evidence can reasonably

support either affirming or reversing the [Commissioner’s] conclusion, the court may not

substitute its judgment for that of the [Commissioner].” Reddick, 157 F.3d at 720-21.

III. THE ALJ’S FINDINGS

In order to be eligible for disability or social security benefits, a claimant must

demonstrate an “inability to engage in any substantial gainful activity by reason of any

medically determinable physical or mental impairment which can be expected to result in

death or which has lasted or can be expected to last for a continuous period of not less than

12 months.” 42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(1)(A). An ALJ determines a claimant’s eligibility for

benefits by following a five-step sequential evaluation:

(1) determine whether the applicant is engaged in “substantial gainful activity”;

(2) determine whether the applicant has a medically severe impairment or

combination of impairments;

(3) determine whether the applicant’s impairment equals one of a number of listed

impairments that the Commissioner acknowledges as so severe as to preclude the

applicant from engaging in substantial gainful activity;

Case 2:15-cv-00455-MHB Document 38 Filed 09/27/16 Page 2 of 13
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

 “Residual functional capacity” is defined as the most a claimant can do after

considering the effects of physical and/or mental limitations that affect the ability to perform

work-related tasks.

- 3 -

(4) if the applicant’s impairment does not equal one of the listed impairments,

determine whether the applicant is capable of performing his or her past relevant

work;

(5) if the applicant is not capable of performing his or her past relevant work,

determine whether the applicant is able to perform other work in the national

economy in view of his age, education, and work experience.

See Bowen v. Yuckert, 482 U.S. 137, 140-42 (1987) (citing 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520,

416.920). At the fifth stage, the burden of proof shifts to the Commissioner to show that the

claimant can perform other substantial gainful work. See Penny v. Sullivan, 2 F.3d 953, 956

(9th Cir. 1993).

At step one, the ALJ determined that Plaintiff had not engaged in substantial gainful

activity since April 1, 2010 – the alleged onset date – through his date last insured of

December 31, 2012. (Tr. at 18.) At step two, she found that Plaintiff had the following severe

impairments: lumbar degenerative disc disease, herniated disc, spondylosis and

radiculopathy, history of diverticulitis, colostomy and takedown, hernia repair, a major

depressive disorder, and anxiety disorder. (Tr. at 18.) At step three, the ALJ stated that

Plaintiff did not have an impairment or combination of impairments that met or medically

equaled an impairment listed in 20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1 of the

Commissioner’s regulations. (Tr. at 19-20.) After consideration of the entire record, the ALJ

found that, through the date last insured, Plaintiff retained “the residual functional capacity

to perform light work as defined in 20 CFR 404.1567(b) except that the claimant is limited

to performing the mental demands of simple work tasks.”1

 (Tr. at 20-24.) The ALJ

determined that Plaintiff was unable to perform past relevant work, but through the date last

insured, considering Plaintiff’s age, education, work experience, and residual functional

capacity, there were jobs that existed in significant numbers in the national economy that

Plaintiff could have performed. (Tr. at 24-25.) Therefore, the ALJ concluded that Plaintiff

Case 2:15-cv-00455-MHB Document 38 Filed 09/27/16 Page 3 of 13
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 -

was not under a disability from April 1, 2010, through December 31, 2012, the date last

insured. (Tr. at 25.)

IV. DISCUSSION

In his brief, Plaintiff contends that the ALJ erred by: (1) failing to properly weigh

medical source opinion evidence; (2) failing to properly consider his subjective complaints;

and (3) failing to properly consider lay witness or third-party statements. Plaintiff requests

that the Court remand for determination of benefits.

A. Medical Source Opinion Evidence

Plaintiff contends that the ALJ erred by failing to properly weigh medical source

opinion evidence. Specifically, Plaintiff argues that the ALJ improperly rejected the opinion

of treating physician Dale Ratcliffe, D.O., relying instead upon the opinions of the state

agency reviewing physicians and other objective medical evidence to discount Dr. Ratcliffe’s

opinion.

“The ALJ is responsible for resolving conflicts in the medical record.” Carmickle v.

Comm’r, Soc. Sec. Admin., 533 F.3d at 1164. Such conflicts may arise between a treating

physician’s medical opinion and other evidence in the claimant’s record. In weighing medical

source opinions in Social Security cases, the Ninth Circuit distinguishes among three types

of physicians: (1) treating physicians, who actually treat the claimant; (2) examining

physicians, who examine but do not treat the claimant; and (3) non-examining physicians,

who neither treat nor examine the claimant. See Lester v. Chater, 81 F.3d 821, 830 (9th Cir.

1995). The Ninth Circuit has held that a treating physician’s opinion is entitled to

“substantial weight.” Bray v. Comm’r, Soc. Sec. Admin., 554 F.3d 1219, 1228 (9th Cir. 2009)

(quoting Embrey v. Bowen, 849 F.2d 418, 422 (9th Cir. 1988)). A treating physician’s

opinion is given controlling weight when it is “well-supported by medically accepted clinical

and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial

evidence in [the claimant’s] case record.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2). On the other hand, if

a treating physician’s opinion “is not well-supported” or “is inconsistent with other

Case 2:15-cv-00455-MHB Document 38 Filed 09/27/16 Page 4 of 13
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 -

substantial evidence in the record,” then it should not be given controlling weight. Orn v.

Astrue, 495 F.3d 624, 631 (9th Cir. 2007).

If a treating physician’s opinion is not contradicted by the opinion of another

physician, then the ALJ may discount the treating physician’s opinion only for “clear and

convincing” reasons. See Carmickle, 533 F.3d at 1164 (quoting Lester, 81 F.3d at 830). If

a treating physician’s opinion is contradicted by another physician’s opinion, then the ALJ

may reject the treating physician’s opinion if there are “specific and legitimate reasons that

are supported by substantial evidence in the record.” Id. (quoting Lester, 81 F.3d at 830).

Since the opinion of Dr. Ratcliffe was contradicted by the state agency reviewing

physicians, as well as, other objective medical evidence in the record, the specific and

legitimate standard applies.

Historically, the courts have recognized the following as specific, legitimate reasons

for disregarding a treating or examining physician’s opinion: conflicting medical evidence;

the absence of regular medical treatment during the alleged period of disability; the lack of

medical support for doctors’ reports based substantially on a claimant’s subjective complaints

of pain; and medical opinions that are brief, conclusory, and inadequately supported by

medical evidence. See, e.g., Bayliss v. Barnhart, 427 F.3d 1211, 1216 (9th Cir. 2005); Flaten

v. Secretary of Health and Human Servs., 44 F.3d 1453, 1463-64 (9th Cir. 1995); Fair v.

Bowen, 885 F.2d 597, 604 (9th Cir. 1989).

Citing to treatment records from Lincoln Wellness and Family Care (Tr. at 404-52),

the ALJ first noted that magnetic resonance imaging of Plaintiff’s lumbar spine taken in June

2011 demonstrated no acute lumbar spine fracture (Tr. at 21). The records indicated no

moderate or severe canal stenosis, but noted a small posterior annular tear at L3-L4 and

L5-Sl, and a desiccated disc at L3-L4, L4-L5 and L5-S1 with varying degrees of neural

foramina narrowing. The ALJ additionally found that according to records from John C.

Lincoln Hospital, Advanced Pain Management, and Desert Pain and Rehabilitation (Tr. at

370-96, 779-85, 792-835), Plaintiff reported good benefit from steroid injections and some

Case 2:15-cv-00455-MHB Document 38 Filed 09/27/16 Page 5 of 13
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 -

relief from epidural injections, and noted pain improvement with medication (Tr. at 21).

Plaintiff was observed to be able to sit, stand, and walk without difficulty.

The ALJ found that when examined in February 2013 at John C. Lincoln - Your

Family Medicine (Tr. at 1166-78), Plaintiff’s spine was of normal contour with no deformity

or swelling (Tr. at 22). There was no neurological or motor defect detected; straight leg

raising was negative; and Plaintiff walked with a normal gait. Further, records from Desert

Pain and Rehabilitation failed to indicate any abdominal pain (Tr. at 792-835, 1078-1156).

The ALJ concluded that the objective and clinical findings do not indicate disabling

impairments. (Tr. at 21-22.) Specifically, Plaintiff exhibited good musculoskeletal abilities,

good range of motion of the spines and joint, no atrophy and no gait abnormalities during

multiple examinations.

Dr. Ratcliffe submitted three opinions stating that Plaintiff was unable to sustain

competitive employment. (Tr. at 23-24, 1051-52, 1205-06, 1210.) In May 2012, Dr. Ratcliffe

stated that Plaintiff was unable to work eight hours a day, five days a week on a regular and

consistent basis due to lumbar degenerative disc disease, lumbar spondylosis, and pain

syndrome. (Tr. at 23-24, 1051-52.) In April 2013, Dr. Ratcliffe submitted another statement

that was substantially similar to the 2012 opinion, and he added wrist pain and abdominal

wall pain syndrome to his assessment. (Tr. at 1205-06.) In July 2012, Dr. Ratcliffe submitted

a statement that Plaintiff would benefit from disability because “return to work at this time

is not possible.” (Tr. at 1210.)

Finding that Dr. Ratcliffe’s opinions were not supported by the objective medical

evidence of record, the ALJ did not assign his opinions any significant weight. (Tr. at 23-24.)

Specifically, although Dr. Ratcliffe reported that Plaintiff suffers from moderately severe

pain which prevents him from performing work related activity, the ALJ found that the

medical evidence demonstrated that Plaintiff’s pain responded well to medications and other

treatment. Further, the ALJ found that objective medical imaging did not indicate disabling

impairment.

Case 2:15-cv-00455-MHB Document 38 Filed 09/27/16 Page 6 of 13
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 -

Lastly, the ALJ addressed the conclusions reached by the state agency reviewing

physicians supporting a finding of not disabled. (Tr. at 24.) The ALJ stated that “[a]lthough

these physicians were non-examining, and therefore their opinions do not as a general matter

deserve as much weight as those of examining or treating physicians, those opinions do

deserve significant weight, particularly in a case like this in which there exists a number of

other reasons to reach similar conclusions.”

The Court finds that the ALJ properly weighed the medical source opinion evidence,

and gave specific and legitimate reasons, based on substantial evidence in the record, for

discounting Dr. Ratcliffe’s opinions. The ALJ properly discredited the medical opinions due

to inconsistencies with Plaintiff’s treatment record and the medical evidence as a whole. See

20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(4) (stating an ALJ must consider whether an opinion is consistent

with the record as a whole); Batson v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 359 F.3d 1190, 1195 (9th Cir.

2004) (ALJ may discredit treating physicians’ opinions that are conclusory, brief, and

unsupported by the record as a whole, or by objective medical findings). And, the opinions

of the state agency reviewing physicians were consistent with the other objective medical

evidence of record. See Thomas v. Barnhart, 278 F.3d 947, 957 (9th Cir. 2002) (“The

opinions of non treating or non examining physicians may also serve as substantial evidence

when the opinions are consistent with independent clinical findings or other evidence in the

record.”). Therefore, the Court finds no error.

B. Plaintiff’s Subjective Complaints

Plaintiff argues that the ALJ erred in rejecting his subjective complaints in the absence

of clear and convincing reasons for doing so.

To determine whether a claimant’s testimony regarding subjective pain or symptoms

is credible, the ALJ must engage in a two-step analysis. “First, the ALJ must determine

whether the claimant has presented objective medical evidence of an underlying impairment

‘which could reasonably be expected to produce the pain or other symptoms alleged.’ The

claimant, however, ‘need not show that her impairment could reasonably be expected to

cause the severity of the symptom she has alleged; she need only show that it could

Case 2:15-cv-00455-MHB Document 38 Filed 09/27/16 Page 7 of 13
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

 With respect to the claimant’s daily activities, the ALJ may reject a claimant’s

symptom testimony if the claimant is able to spend a substantial part of her day performing

household chores or other activities that are transferable to a work setting. See Fair, 885 F.2d

at 603. The Social Security Act, however, does not require that claimants be utterly

incapacitated to be eligible for benefits, and many home activities may not be easily

transferable to a work environment where it might be impossible to rest periodically or take

medication. See id.

- 8 -

reasonably have caused some degree of the symptom.’” Lingenfelter v. Astrue, 504 F.3d

1028, 1036-37 (9th Cir. 2007) (citations omitted). “Second, if the claimant meets this first

test, and there is no evidence of malingering, ‘the ALJ can reject the claimant’s testimony

about the severity of her symptoms only by offering specific, clear and convincing reasons

for doing so.’” Id. at 1037 (citations omitted). General assertions that the claimant’s

testimony is not credible are insufficient. See Parra v. Astrue, 481 F.3d 742, 750 (9th Cir.

2007). The ALJ must identify “what testimony is not credible and what evidence undermines

the claimant’s complaints.” Id. (quoting Lester, 81 F.3d at 834).

In weighing a claimant’s credibility, the ALJ may consider many factors, including,

“(1) ordinary techniques of credibility evaluation, such as the claimant’s reputation for lying,

prior inconsistent statements concerning the symptoms, and other testimony by the claimant

that appears less than candid; (2) unexplained or inadequately explained failure to seek

treatment or to follow a prescribed course of treatment; and (3) the claimant’s daily

activities.” Smolen v. Chater, 80 F.3d 1273, 1284 (9th Cir. 1996); see Orn, 495 F.3d at 637-

392

. The ALJ also considers “the claimant’s work record and observations of treating and

examining physicians and other third parties regarding, among other matters, the nature,

onset, duration, and frequency of the claimant’s symptom; precipitating and aggravating

factors; [and] functional restrictions caused by the symptoms ... .” Smolen, 80 F.3d at 1284

(citation omitted).

At the hearing, Plaintiff testified that he has been unable to work due to back and leg

pain, exacerbated by sitting, standing, walking, and lifting. (Tr. at 40.) Plaintiff explained that

he has tried all forms of treatment, including medication, injections, and a back brace, but

Case 2:15-cv-00455-MHB Document 38 Filed 09/27/16 Page 8 of 13
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 -

prescribed treatment modalities have been largely ineffective. (Tr. at 41-42, 44.) During the

day, Plaintiff follows prescribed care and lies down.

Plaintiff described low back pain with pain and numbness that radiates down the legs.

The radiating pain is sharp, and goes into the toes. (Tr. at 41.) Injections and a TENS unit

provided only temporary, if any, relief. (Tr. at 42.) Pain severity will fluctuate between a 5

and 7, on a 10 point scale. (Tr. at 43.) On average, Plaintiff can sit for 20-45 minutes at a

time, before needing to rise. (Tr. at 45.) He can stand 15 minutes at a time, or walk one-half

of a block, and then needs to rest. Lifting is limited 10 pounds. (Tr. at 46.)

Plaintiff also discussed his secondary depression as well as anxiety and emotional

lability. (Tr. at 49-50.) Relevant symptoms of depression and anxiety include shortness of

breath, and a feeling like he is having a heart attack. The severe anxiety symptoms can last

5-25 minutes, and they occur 2-3 times daily. Plaintiff has tried marijuana for symptom

relief, but it was ineffective. (Tr. at 51.)

Having reviewed the record along with the ALJ’s credibility analysis, the Court finds

that the ALJ made sufficient credibility findings and identified clear and convincing reasons

supported by the record for discounting Plaintiff’s statements regarding his pain and

limitations. Although the ALJ recognized that Plaintiff’s medically determinable impairments

could reasonably be expected to cause the alleged symptoms, she also found that Plaintiff’s

statements concerning the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of the symptoms were

not fully credible. (Tr. at 20-21.) “[Q]uestions of credibility and resolutions of conflicts in

the testimony are functions solely of the ALJ.” Greger v. Barnhart, 464 F.3d 968, 972 (9th

Cir. 2006) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). The court defers to the ALJ’s

credibility determination “where, as here, the evidence reasonably supports the ALJ’s

decision.” Stubbs-Danielson v. Astrue, 539 F.3d 1169, 1174 (9th Cir. 2008).

Significantly, in addressing Plaintiff’s credibility, the ALJ relied on several

inconsistencies between Plaintiff’s statements and the other evidence of record. (Tr. at 21-

23.) See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(4) (stating an ALJ must consider whether there are

conflicts between a claimant’s statements and the rest of the evidence). Initially, as the Court

Case 2:15-cv-00455-MHB Document 38 Filed 09/27/16 Page 9 of 13
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 -

has examined above, the ALJ determined that the objective medical evidence and clinical

findings did not support the degree of severity alleged by Plaintiff. See Bray, 554 F.3d at

1227 (upholding credibility determination where ALJ pointed out that claimant’s statements

at the hearing did not comport with objective evidence in her medical record). The ALJ

stated, “the objective medical evidence does not document that the claimant’s impairments

are disabling. The claimant exhibited good musculoskeletal abilities, good range of motion

of the spines and joint, no significant neurological deficits, no atrophy and no gait

abnormalities during multiple examinations. As well, he exhibited good mental status on

multiple occasions. Objective imaging and clinical findings did not indicate disabling

symptoms. While the claimant’s impairments might be expected to impose some limitations,

those limitations are adequately accommodated in this decision’s residual functional

capacity. The need to use a restroom every two hours does not require an unreasonable

number or length of breaks.” (Tr. at 22.) Further, the ALJ found that the medical evidence

demonstrated that Plaintiff’s symptoms improved with treatment. (Tr. at 20-24.) Again, as

noted above, Plaintiff reported that his pain medication reduced his pain without side effects,

and that he received “good benefit” from epidural steroid injections.

The ALJ gave other reasons for discounting Plaintiff’s credibility. The ALJ analyzed

Plaintiff’s activities of daily living. (Tr. at 21.) “[I]f the claimant engages in numerous daily

activities involving skills that could be transferred to the workplace, an adjudicator may

discredit the claimant’s allegations upon making specific findings relating to the claimant’s

daily activities.” Bunnell v. Sullivan, 947 F.2d 341, 346 (9th Cir. 1991) (citing Fair, 885 F.2d

at 603); see Berry v. Astrue, 622 F.3d 1228, 1234-35 (9th Cir. 2010) (claimant’s activities

suggested a greater functional capacity than alleged). The ALJ found that although Plaintiff

testified that he experiences severe musculoskeletal pain which prevents him from

performing many activities of daily living, the record revealed that he “leads a more active

lifestyle than what he alleged to during the hearing.” (Tr. at 21.) Plaintiff reported that he

helps care for his children by preparing meals, helping them with homework and getting

them ready for school; he is independent in self-care; he drives and rides in a car; he goes

Case 2:15-cv-00455-MHB Document 38 Filed 09/27/16 Page 10 of 13
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 -

shopping in stores; he watches the children all day until his wife gets home from work; and

he prepares meals occasionally during the day.

While not alone conclusive on the issue of disability, an ALJ can reasonably consider

a claimant’s daily activities in evaluating the credibility of his subjective complaints. See,

e.g., Stubbs-Danielson, 539 F.3d at 1175 (upholding ALJ’s credibility determination based

in part of the claimant’s abilities to cook, clean, do laundry, and help her husband with the

finances); Burch v. Barnhart, 400 F.3d 676, 680-81 (9th Cir. 2005) (upholding ALJ’s

credibility determination based in part on the claimant’s abilities to cook, clean, shop, and

handle finances).

The ALJ identified other reasons, including, that Plaintiff provided inconsistent

reports regarding substance abuse, and testimony suggesting that Plaintiff’s unemployment

may have been unrelated to his medical impairments. (Tr. at 23); see Molina v. Astrue, 674

F.3d 1104, 1112 (9th Cir. 2012) (in considering the claimant’s testimony, the ALJ may use

ordinary techniques of credibility evaluation, such as a claimant’s reputation for

truthfulness).

In summary, the Court finds that citing to the record, the ALJ identified multiple

inconsistencies that undermined the veracity of Plaintiff’s allegations. While perhaps the

individual factors, viewed in isolation, are not sufficient to uphold the ALJ’s decision to

discredit Plaintiff’s allegations, each factor is relevant to the ALJ’s overall analysis, and it

was the cumulative effect of all the factors that led to the ALJ’s decision. The Court

concludes that the ALJ has supported her decision to discredit Plaintiff’s allegations with

specific, clear and convincing reasons and, therefore, the Court finds no error.

C. Lay Witness/Third-Party Statements

Plaintiff contends that the ALJ erred in failing to properly consider the statements of

his wife who submitted reports depicting her observations as to Plaintiff’s pain and the effect

thereof. (Tr. at 245-60, 289-96.) Ms. Kelly noted that her husband has difficulty with

prolonged sitting, standing, and walking; and cannot lift much weight. Due to pain, Plaintiff

has no consistent daily routine. He needs to periodically rest throughout the day.

Case 2:15-cv-00455-MHB Document 38 Filed 09/27/16 Page 11 of 13
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

- 12 -

In determining whether a claimant is disabled, an ALJ must consider lay witness

testimony regarding the claimant’s inability to work. See Bruce v. Astrue, 557 F.3d 1113,

1115 (9th Cir. 2009) (citing Stout v. Comm’r, Soc. Sec. Admin., 454 F.3d 1050, 1053 (9th Cir.

2006)). An ALJ cannot disregard lay witness testimony without comment, see Bruce, 557

F.3d at 1115 (citing Nguyen v. Chater, 100 F.3d 1462, 1467 (9th Cir. 1996)), but may do so

only upon providing specific reasons that are “germane to each witness.” Id. (quoting

Nyugen, 100 F.3d at 1467); Stout, 454 F.3d at 1054. When an ALJ errs in failing “to properly

discuss competent lay testimony favorable to the claimant, a reviewing court cannot consider

the error harmless unless it can confidently conclude that no reasonable ALJ, when fully

crediting the testimony, could have reached a different disability determination.” Stout, 454

F.3d at 1056.

Here, the ALJ considered the third-party statements and found that the statements

were not supported by the objective medical evidence. (Tr. at 24.) The ALJ additionally

stated that the statements were not persuasive of additional restrictions in Plaintiff’s residual

functional capacity. The ALJ recognized that Ms. Kelly was concerned for Plaintiff, but

stated that the limits she finds were not supported by the objective medical evidence. Lastly,

the ALJ stated that Ms. Kelly is not qualified to make a diagnosis regarding Plaintiff’s

impairments.

The Court finds that the ALJ properly considered the third-party statements set forth

in the record and appropriately disregarded the statement by providing specific reasons

“germane to each witness.” See Bayliss, 427 F.3d at 1218 (affirming rejection of lay witness

testimony that was inconsistent with claimant’s daily activities and objective medical

evidence); Valentine v. Comm’r Soc. Sec. Admin., 574 F.3d 685, 694 (9th Cir. 2009) (where

lay witness testimony was similar to the claimant’s own complaints, which the ALJ had

discredited for clear and convincing reasons, it followed that the ALJ also gave germane

reasons for rejecting the lay testimony).

Even if there was a failure to properly discuss the third-party statements, the Court

finds that no reasonable ALJ, even if fully crediting the statement, could have reached a

Case 2:15-cv-00455-MHB Document 38 Filed 09/27/16 Page 12 of 13
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

- 13 -

different disability determination. The limitations and symptoms contained in the third-party

statement are entirely similar to and consistent with, those which Plaintiff described in his

own testimony. As a result, because this Court concludes that the ALJ’s decision to discredit

Plaintiff’s testimony was supported by substantial evidence, and because the third-party

statement was consistent with Plaintiff’s testimony, it was reasonable for an ALJ to disregard

that statement as well.

V. CONCLUSION

Substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s decision to deny Plaintiff’s claim for

disability insurance benefits in this case. Consequently, the ALJ’s decision is affirmed.

Based upon the foregoing discussion,

IT IS ORDERED that the decision of the ALJ and the Commissioner of Social

Security be affirmed;

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment

accordingly. The judgment will serve as the mandate of this Court.

DATED this 26th day of September, 2016.

Case 2:15-cv-00455-MHB Document 38 Filed 09/27/16 Page 13 of 13