Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-01838/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-01838-0/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

STEVEN MARCOTTE,

 Plaintiff,

v.

CAROLYN W. COLVIN,

Commissioner of Social

Security,

 Defendant.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Civil No. 12-CV-1838-AJB

(WVG)

AMENDED REPORT AND

RECOMMENDATION:

DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION FOR SUMMARY

JUDGMENT

(Doc. 13)

GRANTING DEFENDANT’S

MOTION FOR SUMMARY

JUDGMENT (Doc. 15)

I

INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff Steven Marcotte (“Plaintiff”) has filed a

Complaint for Judicial Review and Remedy On Administrative

Decision under the Social Security Act (“Act”). 42 U.S.C.

405(g). Defendant Carolyn W. Colvin (“Defendant”), has

filed an Answer to the Complaint and the Administrative

Record (“Tr.”), pertaining to this case. Plaintiff filed

a Motion for Summary Judgment. Defendant also filed an

12cv1838 1

Case 3:12-cv-01838-AJB-WVG Document 19 Filed 04/30/13 Page 1 of 23
 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

Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment and

a Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment. 

The Court, having reviewed Plaintiff’s Motion for

Summary Judgment, Defendant’s Opposition to Plaintiff’s

Motion for Summary Judgment, Defendant’s Cross Motion for

Summary Judgment, and the Administrative Record filed by

Defendant, hereby recommends that Plaintiff’s Motion for

Summary Judgment be DENIED, and Defendant’s Cross Motion

for Summary Judgment be GRANTED. 

II

STATEMENT OF FACTS

Plaintiff was born on July 21, 1957. Plaintiff

received a high school education (Tr. 160) and last worked

as an airport security screener (Tr. 193, 451). Plaintiff

applied for Disability Insurance Benefits on December 2,

2008. He alleged that he became unable to work on November

2, 2007.

In Plaintiff’s application for Disability Insurance

Benefits, he alleged that he was unable to work because of

weakness, fatigue, shortness of breath, joint and chest

pain, back and hip pain, two herniated discs, mental

confusion and an inability to concentrate. (Tr. 89-90). 

The ALJ, applying the five step sequential analysis

in 20 C.F.R. § 416.920, found Plaintiff was not disabled

in accordance with section 1614(a)(3)(A) of the Social

Security Act. The ALJ did find that the Plaintiff’s

residual functional capacity (“RFC”) included the ability

to perform light work as defined in 20 C.F.R. §

12cv1838 2

Case 3:12-cv-01838-AJB-WVG Document 19 Filed 04/30/13 Page 2 of 23
 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

404.1567(b), except with the ability to occasionally

climb, balance, stoop, crouch, kneel, or crawl. The ALJ

also found that Plaintiff must avoid exposure to wetness

and humidity, but can tolerate moderate exposure to

hazards, and avoid all exposure to fumes, odors, dust, and

gases (Tr. 19). 

Plaintiff argues that the ALJ erred in discrediting

Plaintiff’s treating physician, Dr. Nielsen, and not

finding him disabled. Dr. Nielsen determined that

Plaintiff could lift 10 pounds occasionally and five

pounds frequently; stand for thirty minutes at one time;

sit for two hours at one time; not tolerate dust, smoke,

and fumes; and could work for 2 hours per day (Tr. 25).

However, the ALJ discredited Dr. Nielsen because the

ALJ found that Dr. Nielsen’s opinion was unsupported by

objective medical evidence and primarily based on

Plaintiff’s subjective complaints. Thus, the ALJ found

that the Plaintiff had the RFC to do light work and denied

Plaintiff Disability Insurance Benefits. 

III

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On December 2, 2008, Plaintiff applied for

Disability Benefits and alleged that he became unable to

work on November 2, 2007. The Commissioner of Social

Security denied his application initially and on

reconsideration. Plaintiff then requested a hearing before

an Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”). On December 17, 2010,

Plaintiff and his attorney appeared at a hearing before an

12cv1838 3

Case 3:12-cv-01838-AJB-WVG Document 19 Filed 04/30/13 Page 3 of 23
 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

ALJ. On January 4, 2011, the ALJ found that Plaintiff was

not entitled to Disability Benefits because he could

perform jobs that existed in significant numbers in the

national economy. Plaintiff requested review by the

Appeals Council. The Appeals Council denied his request on

April 26, 2012. The ALJ’s decision then became the

Commissioner’s final decision.

IV

ALJ’S FINDINGS

The ALJ made the following pertinent findings:

1. [Plaintiff] last met the insured status

requirement of the Social Security Act on

December 31, 2009.

2. [Plaintiff] did not engage in substantial

gainful activity during the period of his

alleged onset date of November 2, 2007 through

his date last insured of December 31, 2009 (20

C.F.R. 404.1572 et seq.).

3. Through the date last insured, [Plaintiff]

had the following severe impairments:

degenerative disease of the lumbar spine,

arthritis of the left knee, asthmatic

bronchitis, and obstructive sleep apnea (20

C.F.R. 404.15209(c)).

********

The record established that [Plaintiff] had

asthma with wheezing and decreased air movement

in the lungs, with complaints of shortness of

breath (Exhibit 1F/61-52, 2F/25-26; 5F/12; 6F;

18F/10; 19F).

********

[Plaintiff]’s pulmonary test completed on May

14, 2008 revealed findings consistent with mild

obstructive airflow limitation principally

involving the small airways and evidence of

post bronchodilator reversibility. 

********

12cv1838 4

Case 3:12-cv-01838-AJB-WVG Document 19 Filed 04/30/13 Page 4 of 23
 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

Because these are medically determinable

impairments that have lasted more than 12

months and cause more than a slight limitation

of [Plaintiff]’s physical or mental ability to

do basic work activities, the Administrative

Law Judge finds at step two of the sequential

disability analysis that [Plaintiff]’s

impairments are “severe” as defined by the

Regulations. 

The undersigned took into consideration all of

the [Plaintiff]’s other diagnosed conditions,

including gastroesophageal reflux disease,

bilateral tinnitus, and finds that there is

minimal clinical evidence to corroborate or

support any finding of significant impact

related to them. The record is insufficient to

establish severe physical impairments related

to them. 

[Plaintiff] does not have a medically determinable mental impairment that causes more than

minimal limitation in [Plaintiff]’s ability to

perform basic mental work activities and is

therefore non-severe. The record contains no

evidence of prior or current mental health

treatment or psychiatric hospitalization, and

the medical evidence of record fully supports

a finding of non-severe mental impairment. 

4. Through the date last insured, [Plaintiff]

did not have an impairment or combination of

impairments that met or medically equaled one

of the listed impairments in 20 C.F.R. 404,

Subpart. P, Appendix 1 (20 C.F.R. 404.1520(d),

404.1525 and 404.1526).

********

5. After careful consideration of the entire

record, the undersigned finds that, through the

date last insured, [Plaintiff] had the residual

functional capacity to perform light work as

defined in 20 C.F.R. 404.1567(b) except with

the ability to occasionally climb, balance,

stoop, crouch, kneel, or crawl. [Plaintiff]

must avoid concentrated exposure to wetness and

humidity and moderate exposure to hazards, and

avoid all exposure to fumes, odors, dust, and

gases. 

In making this finding, the undersigned has

considered all symptoms and the extent to which

these symptoms can reasonably be accepted as

consistent with the objective medical evidence

and other evidence, based on the requirements

12cv1838 5

Case 3:12-cv-01838-AJB-WVG Document 19 Filed 04/30/13 Page 5 of 23
 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

of 20 C.F.R. 404.1529 and SSRs 96-4p and 96-7p.

The undersigned has also considered opinion

evidence in accordance with the requirements of

20 C.F.R. 404.1527 and SSRs 96-2p, 96-5p, 96-

6p, and 06-3p. 

********

After careful consideration of the evidence,

the undersigned finds that the [Plaintiff]’s

medically determinable impairments could

reasonably be expected to cause the alleged

symptoms; however, the [Plaintiff]’s statements

concerning the intensity, persistence and

limiting effects of these symptoms are not

credible to the extent they are inconsistent

with the above residual functional capacity

assessment. 

In terms of [Plaintiff]’s alleged inability to

do work due to degenerative disc disease of the

lumbar spine, arthritis of the left knee,

asthmatic bronchitis, and obstructive sleep

apnea, the record does not contain evidence

which shows that [Plaintiff] is functionally

unable to work.

The objective medical evidence is fully

consistent with the above residual functional

capacity and is inconsistent with the

allegations of disabling levels of pain.

Physical examinations were generally

unremarkable with few abnormal findings. On

October 13, 2007, Vail Valley Medical Center

reported the [Plaintiff] had vital signs within

normal limits; and normal HEENT1/, neck,

cardiovascular, abdomen, extremities, and

neurological examinations. 

The weight of objective evidence does not

support the claim’s of [Plaintiff]’s disabling

limitations to the degree alleged. Records from

the Cassidy Medical Group, dated January 2,

2008 through April 25, 2008, indicate that the

[Plaintiff]’s back examinations were

unremarkable with no gross deformities, no

tenderness to palpation, and findings within

normal limits in sensory, motor, and reflex

examinations. 

During the period of adjudication, the treating

doctor’s clinical findings were quite minimal

1/

 HEENT stands for the head, ears, eyes, nose, and throat portion of the

doctor’s examination. 

12cv1838 6

Case 3:12-cv-01838-AJB-WVG Document 19 Filed 04/30/13 Page 6 of 23
 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

and not at a level considered to be disabling.

On April 14, 2008, Frank Nolan, M.D., reported

[Plaintiff] had lungs clear of auscultation2/

with no rales, rhonchi, or wheezes; heart rate

and rhythm, with no murmurs or rubs; mild

tenderness of the lumbar spine, and normal heel

and toe walking. On June 23, 2008 Dr. Nolan

reported [Plaintiff] was pleasant and in no

distress and had vital signs within normal

limits; lungs clear to auscultation with no

rales, rhonchi, or wheezes; normal heart rate

and rhythm, with no murmurs or rubs; normal

heel and toe walking; mild pain with low back

pain lumbar percussion, with reduced forward

flexion; straight leg raising testing

borderline on the left. 

On April 21, 2008, Martin M. Nielsen, M.D.,

[Plaintiff]’s treating physician, reported the

[Plaintiff] had vital signs within normal

limits; and normal HEENT, neck cardiovascular,

abdomen, and neurological examinations.

Subsequent reports during the period of

adjudication did not reveal significant changes

in the [Plaintiff]’s overall condition. 

******* 

Additional reports from [Plaintiff]’s treating

doctor were generally unremarkable with no

significant objective findings to support a

more restrictive residual functional capacity.

Dr. Nielsen reported on January 13, 2009 that

[Plaintiff] was seen for complaints related to

asthma. Examination however revealed

[Plaintiff]’s chest was clear and had “good eye

contact; exchange!”. 

Other examinations completed by Dr. Nielsen

were unremarkable with reported wheezing but

generally clear exchange.

Reporting from a state consultative examiner

indicated an unremarkable examination with no

significant objective findings to support a

more restrictive residual functional capacity. 

********

The [Plaintiff] was examined by various medical

facilities which did not find significant

abnormalities during examination.

2/

Sounds arising from the organs, usually the lungs. 

12cv1838 7

Case 3:12-cv-01838-AJB-WVG Document 19 Filed 04/30/13 Page 7 of 23
 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

********

Additional medical evidence of record showed

unremarkable physical examinations that do not

support a disabling impairment. 

Diagnostic findings were unremarkable and did

not show any significant pulmonary or other

medical condition to support the [Plaintiff]’s

claim of disabling symptoms. On October 13,

2007, the [Plaintiff] underwent chest x-rays

due to reported shortness of breath. The study

revealed the lungs were aerated and free of

infiltrates or nodules. Other findings were

within normal limits. An electrocardiogram

(EKG) performed on October 13, 2007 was

reported to be normal. On October 25, 2007, the

[Plaintiff] had myocardial stress test or

exercise treadmill test due to reported chest

pain. The findings were reported to be normal

with nothing to suggest stress-induced

ischemia3/ with exercise. There was no clinical

angina4/ reported. 

********

Subsequent diagnostic studies were also

unremarkable. Chest x-rays completed on October

28, 2008 due to post bronchoscopy was negative

with findings of stable heart size; stable

vascular findings; clear lung parenchyma5/; and

no pleural effusion. On August 1, 2009, TriCity Medical Center reported that [Plaintiff]

was seen for reported crushing anterior chest

discomfort and dyspnea (shortness of breath).

Chest x-rays however showed a right middle lobe

pneumonia and labs were generally normal with

normal white blood pressure reading of cells. 

In evaluating [Plaintiff]’s subjective

complaints of pain and pulmonary complaints

under the factors at 20 C.F.R. 404.1529 and

Social Security Ruling 96-7p, the undersigned

notes that the [Plaintiff]’s treatment has been

conservative in nature and not the type one

would expect from a disabling condition; the

record does not contain evidence that the

[Plaintiff]’s medications caused adverse side 

3/

Deficient supply of blood to an area of the body as a result of

obstruction of the inflow of blood. 

4/

A disease marked by attacks of intense pain.

5/

The essential and distinctive tissue of an organ.

12cv1838 8

Case 3:12-cv-01838-AJB-WVG Document 19 Filed 04/30/13 Page 8 of 23
 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

effects that would preclude sustained work

activity; and the record does not provide

abnormal findings on examination and diagnostic

work-up to support his alleged disabling

condition. Moreover, despite complaints of

fatigue and shortness of breath, he describes

an active life that includes an ability to walk

his dog, cook dinner, work on his personal

website, go grocery shopping two to three times

weekly, do household chores including cleaning

and vacuuming, drive, and attend doctors

appointments. The evidence is inconsistent with

limitations that would preclude sustained work

activity, and is consistent with an ability to

do less than a wide range of light work

activity.

Other considerations in evaluating

[Plaintiff]’s credibility include the fact that

the record reflects clinical findings which

revealed the [Plaintiff]’s treatment was

effective in stabilizing his pulmonary and low

back pain back conditions. The [Plaintiff] was

given Metoporol for shortness of breath and

reported he felt better. On November 2, 2007,

the [Plaintiff]’s lungs were reported to be

improved with nebulization therapy. The

[Plaintiff] reported on November 13, 2007 that

he felt he was having some improvement with his

shortness of breath with Prednisone and inhaler

therapy. On December 17, 2009, [Plaintiff]

reported to DDS that the nebulizer helped him

and gives him up to four hours of breathing

without his throat closing up. On May 1, 2008

Dr. Sebahar reported that [Plaintiff] had

moderate improvement with epidural steroid

injections. 

In addition, the fact that [Plaintiff]

continued to smoke despite having asthma and a

medical recommendation that he cease smoking

suggest that the symptoms may not have been as

serious as has been alleged in connection with

this application and appeal. On November 2,

2007, John R. Campbell, P.A., reported that

[Plaintiff] was seen for sever shortness of

breath and increasing cough and congestion.

Despite the [Plaintiff]’s complaints, it was

reported that the [Plaintiff] was “still

smoking” despite having “clearly worsening lung

function.” On April 21, 2008, [Plaintiff]

reported that he smoked 1/4 to 1⁄2 pack of

cigarettes a day until two weeks previously.

The [Plaintiff] had smoked for six to seven

years. On March 21, 2009, Andrew J. Hall, M.D.,

reported that the [Plaintiff] smelled of

12cv1838 9

Case 3:12-cv-01838-AJB-WVG Document 19 Filed 04/30/13 Page 9 of 23
 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

tobacco and the [Plaintiff] reported that he

smoked once in a “blue moon.” On July 28, 2009,

records from the Tri-City Medical Center

indicate that the [Plaintiff] resumed smoking

two weeks previously when he started to

drinking alcohol again. It was reported on

August 1, 2009 that the [Plaintiff] was smoking

up to a pack of cigarettes a day. 

********

Finally ,the record showed that the [Plaintiff]

continued his substance abuse during the period

of adjudication. On July 28, 2009, records from

the Tri-City Medical Center indicate that the

[Plaintiff] [sic] a longitudinal summary

history of alcoholism that he resumed two weeks

previously. It was reported that the

[Plaintiff] had been alcohol free for the

previous 11 months up until two weeks ago. The

[Plaintiff] was discharged on July 31, 2009

with diagnosis that included relapse into

alcohol and tobacco use. There is an indication

that the [Plaintiff]’s alcohol contributed to

his smoking habit and may have exacerbated his

asthmatic condition. 

As for the opinion evidence, the residual

functional capacity assessment is based, in

large part, on the testimony of John R. Morse,

M.D., the medical expert. Dr. Morse is Board

Certified in Internal Medicine and Cardiology.

Dr. Morse testified that he had reviewed the

entire medical file as outlined above. He gave

a detailed longitudinal summary of the

[Plaintiff]’s medical history noting the

various diagnostic findings, specifically the

lumbar spine MRI that showed disc bulging at

L4-5, and he found that from the alleged onset

date of November 2, 2007 through the date last

insured of December 31, 2009, the [Plaintiff]

had severe impairments of degenerative disc

disease of the lumbar spine, arthritis of the

left knee with arthroscopy in May 2009,

asthmatic bronchitis, and obstructive sleep

apnea. He stated that although there are may be

or not be sciatica, the [Plaintiff] had no

neurological defects, normal sensory exam, and

normal motor strength. Dr. Morse testified that

he had no current update on the status of the

[Plaintiff]’s left knee condition. He also

stated that the [Plaintiff] had a bout of

pneumonia in July 2009, but the [Plaintiff] was

treated and since then has been on medical

supervision and takes medication for his

condition. Dr. Morse testified that, based on

12cv1838 10

Case 3:12-cv-01838-AJB-WVG Document 19 Filed 04/30/13 Page 10 of 23
 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

his review of the medical evidence of record

and the [Plaintiff]’s testimony, the

[Plaintiff] does not have any impairment or

combination of impairments that meet or equal

any of the criteria set forth in the Listing of

Impairments in 20 C.F.R., Part 404 Subpart P,

Appendix 1, Part A. Based on those records and

the [Plaintiff]’s testimony, it was his expert

medical opinion that the [Plaintiff] had the

ability to lift 20 pounds occasionally and 10

pounds frequently, sit six hours in an eight

hour workday, and stand and/or walk six hours

in an eight hour workday; and occasionally

climb, balance, stoop, kneel, crouch, or crawl,

and avoid concentrated exposure to wetness and

humidity and all exposure to fumes, odors,

dust, gas, and ventilation, and moderate

exposure to hazards and heights. Dr. Morse

testified that the above noted condition

existed from the alleged onset date of November

2, 2007 through the date last insured of

December 31, 2009. In addition to the entire

medical file, the medical expert based his

opinion on Exhibits 12F/3-6; 27F/6 and 7;

30F/8, 9, 10, 34, 38, 39; and 31F/3-7. 

The testimony of Dr. Morse is considered

persuasive and entitled to considerable weight

in reaching a conclusion as to the

[Plaintiff]’s residual functional capacity (20

C.F.R. 404.1527, 416.927) because the medical

expert is a specialist who is familiar with SSA

policy and regulations, he reviewed the

complete documentary record, and he provided a

detailed explanation with references to the

evidence in the record to support his opinion.

In addition, it was well-supported by the

medical evidence, including the [Plaintiff]’s

medical history and clinical and objective

signs and findings as well as detailed

treatment notes, which provides a reasonable

basis for [Plaintiff]’s chronic symptoms.

Moreover, his opinion was not inconsistent with

other substantial evidence in the record. 

The medical record contains numerous opinions

from a state consultative examiner and various

state consultants regarding the work-related

restrictions imposed by the [Plaintiff]’s

impairments. These opinions are described

below. The opinions support a residual

functional capacity of less than the full range

of light work and were therefore given great

weight. The reports were well-supported by the

medical evidence, including the [Plaintiff]’s

medical history and clinical and objective

12cv1838 11

Case 3:12-cv-01838-AJB-WVG Document 19 Filed 04/30/13 Page 11 of 23
 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

signs and findings. Moreover, the opinions are

not inconsistent with other substantial

evidence of record.

On May 12, 2009, state consultative examiner

Dr. Sabourin found the [Plaintiff] could lift

and carry 20 pounds occasionally and 10 pounds

frequently; stand and walk up to six hours in

an eight hour workday after his knee heal

within one year will be able to occasionally

climb, stoop, kneel, and crouch. 

On May 18, 2009, Pamela Ombres, M.D., a state

consultant, reported that she had reviewed the

entire record and affirmed Dr. Sabourin’s

findings in the state consultative examination,

dated May 12, 2009. 

A Physical Residual Functional Capacity

Assessment, dated June 18, 2009, by Pamela

Ombres, M.D., a state medical consultant,

reported that the [Plaintiff] could lift and

carry 20 pounds occasionally and 10 pounds

frequently; stand and walk about six hours in

an eight hour workday and sit about six hours

in an eight hour workday; with pushing and

pulling limitations in the left knee; and could

occasionally climb ramps and stairs,

occasionally balance, stoop, kneel, crouch and

crawl, but never climb ladders, ropes, or

scaffolds. The [Plaintiff] was found to need to

avoid even moderate exposure to concentrated

exposure to fumes, odors, dusts, gases, poor

ventilation, etc., and hazards (machinery,

heights, etc.), and concentrated exposure to

wetness and humidity. 

On December 17, 2009, J. Ross, M.D., a state

consultant, reported that he had reviewed the

entire record and affirmed Dr. Ombres’ findings

in the Physical Residual Functional Capacity

Assessment, dated June 18, 2009. 

On November 30, 2010 Dr. Nielsen found that

[Plaintiff] could lift 10 pounds occasionally

and 5 pounds frequently; stand 30 minutes at

one time; and sit two hours at one time. [Plaintiff] was found unable to tolerate dust,

smoke, and fumes. Dr. Nielsen found that [Plaintiff] had the ability to work for two hours

per day. 

A treating physician’s medical opinion, on the

issue of the nature and severity of an impairment, is entitled to special significance; and,

when supported by objective medical evidence

12cv1838 12

Case 3:12-cv-01838-AJB-WVG Document 19 Filed 04/30/13 Page 12 of 23
 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

and consistent with otherwise substantial

evidence of record, entitled to controlling

weight (Social Security Ruling 96-2p). However,

the undersigned, pursuant to 20 C.F.R. 404.1527

and Social Security Ruling 96-2p, finds no

support in the findings reported by Dr.

Nielsen. The report primarily summarizes

[Plaintiff]’s subjective complaints and

diagnoses but does not present objective

clinical or laboratory diagnostic findings that

support its conclusions. Accordingly, the

undersigned gives little evidentiary weight to

this opinion which, if otherwise accepted as

credible, would indicate that [Plaintiff] could

not perform any kind of work. 

********

In sum, the above residual functional capacity

assessment is supported by the record, when

considered as a whole, and especially in light

of the paucity of clinical deficit noted upon

physical examinations and diagnostic studies,

the relevant conservative treatment during the

period of adjudication, the reported

improvement with treatment, his lack of

reported significant adverse side effects from

medications, the analgesic medication history

which is inconsistent with claimed severity of

pain, and [Plaintiff]’s own description of his

daily activities. And the record showed that

[Plaintiff] lacked credibility on several

issues and it is therefore highly suggestive

that [Plaintiff] exaggerated his symptoms, and

therefore was not found to be an entirely

credible witness. In addition, a medical

opinion from the medical expert was found to be

fully consistent with the residual functional

capacity and was given great weight for the

reasons cited above. The evidence is

inconsistent with limitations that would

preclude sustained work activity, and is

consistent with an ability to do less than a

wide range of light work activity. 

6. Through the date last insured, [Plaintiff]

was unable to perform any past relevant work

(20 C.F.R. 404.1565). 

********

10. 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

12cv1838 13

Case 3:12-cv-01838-AJB-WVG Document 19 Filed 04/30/13 Page 13 of 23
 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

national economy that [Plaintiff] could have

performed (20 C.F.R. 404.1569 and 404.1569(a)). 

11. [Plaintiff] was not under disability, as

defined in the Social Security Act, at any time

from November 2, 2007, the alleged onset date,

through December 31, 2009, the date last

insured (20 C.F.R. 404.1520(g)). (TR. 15-27).

V

STANDARD OF REVIEW

On review, a district court may only disturb the

Commissioner’s final decision “if it is based on legal

error or if the fact findings are not supported by

substantial evidence.” Sprague v. Bowen, 812 F.2d 1226,

1229 (9th Cir. 1987); see Villa v. Heckler, 797 F.2d 794,

796 (9th Cir. 1986). Substantial evidence is defined as

“relevant evidence that a reasonable mind might accept as

adequate to support the conclusion.” Richardson v.

Perales, 402 U.S. 389, 401 (1971); Matthews v. Shalala, 10

F.3d 678, 679 (9th Cir. 1993). A reviewing court’s role is

not to determine whether the record can support the

Plaintiff’s alternative view of the evidence, but whether

substantial evidence support’s the ALJ’s conclusion. Burch

v. Barnhart, 400 F.3d 676, 679 ( 9th Cir. 2005) (“Where

evidence is susceptible to more than one rational

interpretation, it is the ALJ’s conclusion that must be

upheld.”). 

The court cannot affirm the Commissioner’s final

decision based upon an isolated amount of supporting

evidence. Rather, the court must examine the administrative record as a whole. Gonzalez v. Sullivan, 914

12cv1838 14

Case 3:12-cv-01838-AJB-WVG Document 19 Filed 04/30/13 Page 14 of 23
 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

F.2d 1197, 1200 (9th Cir. 1990). Furthermore, the court

must set aside the Commissioner’s decision, even if

substantial evidence supports the decision, if the

Commissioner applied improper legal standards to reach the

decision. See, e.g., Benitez v. Califano, 573 F.2d 653,

655 (9th Cir. 1978).

VI

SUMMARY OF APPLICABLE LAW

A. Social Security Act and Disability Determination

The Act provides for the payment of insurance

benefits to persons who contributed to the program and who

suffer from physical or mental disability. 42 U.S.C. §

423(a)(1)(D). The Act defines “disability” as the

“inability to engage in any substantial gainful activity

by reason of any medically determinable physical or mental

impairment which can be expected to last for a continuous

period of not less than 12 months...” Id. An

Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) will review an initial

disability determination at an administrative hearing. 20

C.F.R. § 404.929 (2013). 

The Secretary of the Social Security Administration

established a five-step sequential evaluation process for

an ALJ at a hearing to determine whether the claimant

qualifies as disabled. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520, 416.920

(2013). The ALJ will address the following five steps to

determine if a person is disabled: first, whether the

claimant is engaged in substantial gainful activity;

second, whether the claimant has a medically severe

12cv1838 15

Case 3:12-cv-01838-AJB-WVG Document 19 Filed 04/30/13 Page 15 of 23
 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

impairment or combination of impairments; third, whether

the claimant has a severe impairment that is equivalent to

a listed impairment that precludes substantial gainful

activity; fourth, whether the claimant may perform work he

performed in the past despite a severe impairment; fifth,

whether the claimant is able to perform other work in the

national economy in view of his age, education, and work

experience. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(2013). 

B. ALJ Determination of Residual Functional Capacity

Prior to step four, the ALJ must determine the

claimant’s residual functional capacity “to do physical

and mental work activities on a sustained basis despite

limitations from his impairments.” See 20 C.F.R. §

404.1520. The ALJ must assess all of the “relevant medical

and other evidence” and consider “all of the claimant’s

impairments, including impairments that are not severe,”

to determine the claimant’s RFC. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(e),

404.1545(a)(3). Amongst all of the relevant evidence, the

Social Security Administration favors the opinion of

treating physicians and the ALJ may determine that the

treating physician’s opinion controls the disability

determination or credit the opinion with significant

weight. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c) (2012).

The ALJ should find that the treating physician’s

opinion controls the disability determination if

“medically accepted clinical and laboratory diagnostic

techniques” support the opinion and the opinion

corresponds with other substantial evidence in the case

12cv1838 16

Case 3:12-cv-01838-AJB-WVG Document 19 Filed 04/30/13 Page 16 of 23
 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

record. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2)(2012).6/ However, if the

ALJ decides that the treating physician’s opinion does not

control the disability determination, then the ALJ

considers specified factors to determine the weight of the

opinion. Orn v. Astrue, 495 F.3d 625, 631 (9th Cir. 2007).

The specified factors include the examining relationship,

treatment relationship, length of treatment,

supportability, consistency, and specialization. See 20

C.F.R. § 404.1527(d) (2012). The ALJ also utilizes the

specified factors to determine credibility and resolve

conflicts between multiple medical opinions and evidence

in the record. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2). Benton v.

Barnhart, 331 81 F.3d 821, 831 (citing Thomas v. Barnhart,

278 F.3d 947, 956 (9th Cir. 2002)); Orn, 495 F.3d at 631.

When presented with multiple medical opinions, an

ALJ should generally afford more weight to the opinion of

a treating physician than to the opinion of non-treating

physicians. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)(2012); Benton, 331

F.3d at 1036 [citing Lester v. Chater, 81 F.3d 821, 831

(9th Cir. 1995)]. Frequently, an ALJ should credit the

treating physician’s opinion with the greatest weight even

though the ALJ determined that the opinion should not

control the disability determination. S.S.R. 96-2P.

Although a treating physician’s opinion is entitled to

deference, the ALJ may reject the treating physician’s

opinion in favor of another physician’s opinion if the

6/

It is not necessary for Plaintiff to contest the ALJ’s finding that Dr.

Nielsen’s opinion was not entitled to controlling weight. Here, Plaintiff only

appeals the ALJ’s rejection of Dr. Nielsen’s opinion.

12cv1838 17

Case 3:12-cv-01838-AJB-WVG Document 19 Filed 04/30/13 Page 17 of 23
 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

evidence in the record supports the alternative

conclusion. See Orn, 495 F.3d at 632. 

An ALJ must “provid[e] ‘specific and legitimate

reasons’ supported by substantial evidence in the record”

in order to reject a treating physician’s opinion in favor

of another doctor’s opinion. Benton, 331 F.3d at 1036. An

ALJ establishes “specific and legitimate” reasons when the

ALJ “sets out a detailed and thorough summary of the facts

and conflicting clinical evidence, stating his

interpretation thereof, and making findings.” Magallanes

v. Bowen, 881 F.2d 747, 751 (citing Cotton v. Bowen, 799

F.2d 1403, 1408). The ALJ must not only offer his

conclusions, he must also explain why his interpretations

are correct. Orn, 495 F.3d at 631 (citing Embrey v. Bowen,

849 F.2d 418, 421-422 (9th Cir. 1988)). The ALJ properly

rejects the opinion of a treating physician and resolves

the conflicts in the record when he sufficiently explains

why his interpretations are correct. See id. 

C. Remedy

If the district court finds error with the ALJ’s

determination, the court may remand the case to the Social

Security Administration to award benefits or for

additional evidence and findings. Swenson v. Sullivan, 876

F.2d 683, 689 (9th Cir. 1989). Courts typically remand for

an award of benefits “where (1) the ALJ has failed to

provide legally sufficient reasons for rejecting such

evidence, (2) there are no outstanding issues that must be

resolved before a determination of disability can be made,

12cv1838 18

Case 3:12-cv-01838-AJB-WVG Document 19 Filed 04/30/13 Page 18 of 23
 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

and (3) it is clear from the record that the ALJ would be

required to find the claimant disabled were such evidence

credited.” Smolen v. Chater, 80 F.3d 1273, 1292 (9th Cir.

1996); see also Harmon v. Apfel, 211 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th

Cir. 2000). The court should award benefits if the ALJ

fully developed the record and another “administrative

proceeding would serve no useful purpose.” See Smolen, 80

F.3d at 1292. 

In contrast, the district court should remand the

case for additional evidence and findings “where there are

outstanding issues that must be resolved before a

determination of disability can be made, and it is not

clear from the record that the ALJ would be required to

find the claimant disabled if all of the evidence were

properly evaluated, remand is appropriate.” Harman, 211

F.3d at 1179-81. Furthermore, the court should remand a

case if additional proceedings can remedy defects in the

original administrative proceedings. McAllister v.

Sullivan, 888 F.2d 599, 603 (9th Cir. 1989)(citing Lewin

v. Schweiker, 654 F.2d 631, 635 (9th Cir. 1981)).

Essentially, “the decision of whether to remand for

further proceedings turns upon the likely utility of such

proceedings.” Harman, 211 F.3d at 1179 (citing Lewin, 654

F.2d at 635). 

12cv1838 19

Case 3:12-cv-01838-AJB-WVG Document 19 Filed 04/30/13 Page 19 of 23
 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

VII

DISCUSSION

A. The ALJ Provided Specific And Legitimate Reasons

Supported by Substantial Evidence For Discounting

The Opinion of Plaintiff’s Treating Physician

The ALJ provided “specific and legitimate” reasons

for rejecting the opinion of Dr. Nielsen, Plaintiff’s

treating physician, because the ALJ accurately and

thoroughly discussed the entire medical record and

substantial evidence supports his findings. The ALJ must

set forth “specific and legitimate reasons supported by

substantial evidence in the record” to reject the opinion

of a treating physician. Benton, 331 F.3d at 1036.

“Specific and legitimate” reasons are more than the ALJ’s

conclusions, he must state the conflicts in the record and

his interpretation thereof. See Orn, 495 F.3d at 631.

Here, the ALJ thoroughly stated the conflicts

between the opinions and residual functional capacity

assessments of multiple doctors in the record. The ALJ

detailed the opinions and RFC determinations of Dr Morse,

Dr. Sabourin, Dr. Ombres, Dr. Ross, and Dr. Nielson (Tr.

23 - 25). Furthermore, the ALJ adequately interpreted the

record, stating that Dr. Morse:

Reviewed the complete documentary record, and he

provided a detailed explanation with references

to the evidence in the record to support his

opinion. In addition, it was well-supported by

the medical evidence, including the

[Plaintiff]’s medical history and clinical and

objective signs and findings as well as detailed

treatment notes, which provides a reasonable

basis for [Plaintiff]’s chronic symptoms (Tr.

23).

12cv1838 20

Case 3:12-cv-01838-AJB-WVG Document 19 Filed 04/30/13 Page 20 of 23
 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

Furthermore, the ALJ presented the history of the treating

relationship between Dr. Nielsen and Plaintiff, including

references to multiple visits and Dr. Nielsen’s remarks

about those visits. The ALJ then found that there is “no

support in the findings reported by Dr. Nielsen. The

report primarily summarizes the [Plaintiff]’s subjective

complaints and diagnoses but does not present objective

clinical or laboratory diagnostic findings that support

its conclusion (Tr. 25).” The ALJ detailed the conflicting

evidence, discussed his interpretations, and, thus,

provided “sufficient and legitimate reasons” for rejecting

the opinion of Dr. Nielsen in favor of the RFC

determinations of other physicians. 

Furthermore, the court may only disturb the

Commissioner’s final decision “if the fact findings are

not supported by substantial evidence.” Sprague, 812 F.2d

at 1229. Substantial evidence is defined as “relevant

evidence that a reasonable mind might accept as adequate

to support the conclusion.” Matthews, 10 F.3d at 679. Even

when more than one rational interpretation explains the

evidence, so long as a rational interpretation supports

the Commissioner’s decision, the court should affirm the

Commissioner’s decision. See Thomas v. Barnhart, 278 F.3d

947, 954 (9th Cir. 2002). 

Here, substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s

finding that “objective clinical or laboratory diagnostic

findings” did not support Dr. Nielsen’s RFC assessment.

The exams conducted by Dr. Nielsen showed mostly normal

12cv1838 21

Case 3:12-cv-01838-AJB-WVG Document 19 Filed 04/30/13 Page 21 of 23
 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

results, abnormal results were inconsistent and controlled

with treatment, and the record includes many remarks from

Dr. Nielsen stating “good exchange” (Tr. 735, 736, 738, 

739, 740, 741). While Plaintiff cites one pulmonary

functioning test that showed “moderate obstructive airway

disease,” substantial evidence in the record still

supports the ALJ’s overall finding that the “objective

clinical or laboratory diagnostic findings” did not

support Dr. Nielsen’s restrictive RFC assessment (Tr.

922). In this case, the repeat normal findings during Dr.

Nielsen’s exams, successful symptom relief with treatment,

and recitation of Plaintiff’s subjective complaints

reasonably, rationally, and adequately support the ALJ’s

finding that objective evidence did not support Dr.

Nielsen’s limited RFC analysis (Tr. 735, 736, 738, 739,

740, 741, 745, 750,751). 

VIII

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION

After a review of the record in this matter, the

undersigned Magistrate Judge RECOMMENDS that the Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment be DENIED and the

Defendant’s Cross Motion for Summary Judgment be GRANTED. 

This Report and Recommendation of the undersigned

Magistrate Judge is submitted to the United States

District Judge assigned to this case, pursuant to the

provision of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)

IT IS ORDERED that no later than May 24, 2013, any

party to this action may file written objectives with the

12cv1838 22

Case 3:12-cv-01838-AJB-WVG Document 19 Filed 04/30/13 Page 22 of 23
 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

Court and serve a copy on all parties. The document should

be captioned “Objections to Report and Recommendation.” 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that any reply to the objections shall be filed with the court and served on all

parties no later than June 7, 2013. The parties are

advised that failure to file objections within the

specified time may waive the right to raise those

objections on appeal of the Court’s order. Martinez v.

Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 

DATED: April 30, 2013

 Hon. William V. Gallo

 U.S. Magistrate Judge

12cv1838 23

Case 3:12-cv-01838-AJB-WVG Document 19 Filed 04/30/13 Page 23 of 23