Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_08-cv-00832/USCOURTS-casd-3_08-cv-00832-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 864
Nature of Suit: Social Security - SSID Title XVI
Cause of Action: 42:1383 Review of HHS Decision

---

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 - 08cv832-WQH-WMc

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

VERA J. EMMA,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 08cv832-WQH-WMc

ORDER

vs.

MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of

Social Security Administration,

Defendant.

HAYES, Judge:

The matter before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. # 13)

and Defendant’s Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. # 16).

I. Background

A. Procedural History

On April 21, 2005, Plaintiff filed an application for Social Security Disability Insurance

benefits (“SSDI”). (Doc. # 8 at 14). On June 3, 2005, Plaintiff’s application was denied. (Id.)

On April 14, 2006, Plaintiff’s request for SSDI was denied on reconsideration. (Id.) Plaintiff

requested an administrative hearing before an Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”), which took

place on February 20, 2007. (Id.)

At the February 20, 2007 hearing, Plaintiff testified that she cannot work due to bipolar

disorder, manifested as major depression; slow learning; sleep problems; and back pain

resulting from several motor vehicle accidents. (Id. at 17). Plaintiff, who was born on March

3, 1971, alleges a disability onset date of October 9, 2004. (Id. at 14, 25). 

Case 3:08-cv-00832-WQH-WMC Document 22 Filed 03/16/10 Page 1 of 12
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

 The Court declines to adopt the Report and Recommendation.

2

 “GAF” stands for “Global Assessment of Functioning.” GAF operates on a scale of

0-100, with higher scores indicating a greater level of functioning. See Diagnostic and

Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders.

- 2 - 08cv832-WQH-WMc

On March 28, 2007, the ALJ issued an opinion denying Plaintiff’s request for benefits.

(Id. at 26.) On March 28, 2008, the Appeals Counsel denied Plaintiff’s request for review. (Id.

at 4). Hence, the ALJ’s decision became the final decision of the Commissioner of Social

Security (“Commissioner”).

On May 7, 2008, Plaintiff initiated this action seeking judicial review of the

Commissioner’s decision to deny Plaintiff’s claim for benefits. (Doc. # 1).

On June 28, 2009, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Summary Judgment. (Doc. # 13). 

On September 2, 2009, Defendant filed a Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment. (Doc.

# 16).

On January 22, 2010, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation.

(Doc. # 20).1

 The Magistrate Judge recommended that Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary

Judgment be denied and Defendant’s Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment be granted.

On February 8, 2010, Plaintiff filed objections to the Report and Recommendation.

(Doc. # 21).

B. Medical Evidence in the Administrative Record

The following is a chronological overview of the medical evidence in the

Administrative Record.

In August 2002, Plaintiff was seen by Outpatient Psychiatric Services at the University

of California, San Diego (“UCSD”). (Doc. # 8 at 401-03). An initial assessment was done and

Plaintiff was diagnosed with “Bipolar I” and amphetamine dependance. (Id. at 403). At that

time, Plaintiff’s GAF was 55.2

 Plaintiff admitted to using crystal methamphetamine

“everyday” for the past 10 years. (Id. at 402). Plaintiff was prescribed medication. 

On May 20, 2003, Plaintiff was again seen by UCSD Outpatient Psychiatric Services.

(Id. at 227). Plaintiff’s GAF was 40. Plaintiff was reported as being well-groomed and

cooperative. Plaintiff stated that she had not used crystal methamphetamine for a “few weeks.”

Case 3:08-cv-00832-WQH-WMC Document 22 Filed 03/16/10 Page 2 of 12
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 - 08cv832-WQH-WMc

(Id.) Plaintiff was continued to be prescribed bipolar medication.

In July 2003, Dr. Ed O’Malley, M.D., a Board Certified Psychiatrist, reviewed

Plaintiff’s medical history in connection with an earlier application for SSDI benefits. (Id. at

334). Dr. O’Malley found affective disorders and substance addiction disorders. Dr. O’Malley

opined that Plaintiff was able understand and perform simple repetitive tasks; Plaintiff had the

ability to maintain the pace, persistence and concentration needed to perform unskilled work

over a forty-hour week; Plaintiff was precluded from work requiring frequent public contact;

Plaintiff was able to relate to coworkers and supervisors; and Plaintiff was able to adapt to

routine changes in the work place.

In July 2003, Dr. Sabourin, M.D., a Board Certified Orthopaedic Surgeon, saw Plaintiff

for an orthopaedic consultation. (Id. at 335-39). Plaintiff complained of “[p]ain in the low

back, pain in the wrists, and pain in the neck” arising from “five separate car accidents.” (Id.

at 335). Dr. Sabourin opined that, “[b]ased on my examination of this patient today, from an

orthopedic point of view, this patient has no restrictions.” (Id. at 339).

In October 2003, Plaintiff was seen by Outpatient Psychiatric Services. (Id. at 231).

Plaintiff’s GAF was 50. Plaintiff was reported as being sober, stable, and attending adult

school programming for a GED and then possibly technical school. 

In January 2004, Plaintiff was seen by Dr. Anna Jamieson, M.D. at UCSD Outpatient

Psychiatric Services. (Id. at 235). Plaintiff was seeking to renew her medication. Plaintiff’s

response to treatment was reported as good. Plaintiff’s behavior was appropriate; her speech

was normal; her thought process was normal; her judgment was fair. Dr. Jamieson reported

that Plaintiff’s progress toward her goals was “good,” although Dr. Jamieson was “unclear

about meth use.” (Id.) 

On January 27, 2004, Plaintiff was seen by Joseph Dreyer, Master of Social Work, at

UCSD Outpatient Psychiatric Services. (Id. at 236). Plaintiff reported sobriety for two weeks.

Plaintiff’s mood was depressed.

In March 2004, Dreyer saw Plaintiff. (Id. at 244). Plaintiff’s condition was described

as “actively using meth” and “dysphoric mood.” (Id.)

Case 3:08-cv-00832-WQH-WMC Document 22 Filed 03/16/10 Page 3 of 12
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 - 08cv832-WQH-WMc

In April 2004, Dreyer saw Plaintiff. (Id. at 246). Plaintiff reported “two days sobriety”

and she was described as having a “stable” and “cooperative” mood. (Id.)

In June 2004, Plaintiff was seen by Dr. Takamura, M.D., at UCSD Outpatient

Psychiatric Services. (Id. at 247). Dr. Takamura reported that Plaintiff was agitated and

yelling and “definitely seems high on drugs.” (Id.) Plaintiff was taken to the Emergency

Room, with “restraint needed” by security officers. (Id.)

On October 9, 2004, Dr. Matthew Carroll, M.D. saw Plaintiff at the San Diego County

Psychiatric Hospital, where she was taken by police after “she apparently jumped off a small

balcony.” (Id. at 250). Plaintiff admitted to using crystal methamphetamine. Plaintiff’s

actions were “of a violent nature,” and “[i]t took three rather muscular police officers to take

her down and handcuff her.” (Id. at 252). Plaintiff’s diagnosis was amphetamine intoxication

and her GAF was 35. 

On November 15 2004, Plaintiff was seen by Dr. Emily Tocha, M.D. at UCSD

Outpatient Psychiatric Services. (Id. at 256). Plaintiff was seeking refills of her medication.

Plaintiff was reported as behaving appropriately and having good eye contact. Plaintiff stated

that in “a few days,” she was “going into a three month rehab program.” (Id.)

In January 2005, Plaintiff was seen by Dr. Brian Bromley, D.O., staff psychiatrist at San

Diego County Hospital. (Id. at 237-40). Plaintiff reported that she left a rehabilitation

program because she “became defiant with house rules.” (Id. at 237). Plaintiff reported that

her medication “helps her a lot because ‘I’m less confrontational ... my moods are more stable

and I’m not as argumentative.’” (Id.) Dr. Bromley indicated that Plaintiff’s GAF was 66. Dr.

Bromley reported that Plaintiff’s mood was euthymic; her insight was excellent; she was alert;

and her thoughts were logical, clear and coherent.

On March 22, 2005, Plaintiff was seen by Dr. Vanessa Greenwood, M.D. at UCSD

Outpatient Psychiatric Services. (Id. at 258). Plaintiff’s medication was refilled and she was

reported as being pleasant and cooperative.

On April 4, 2005, Plaintiff was seen by Dr. Greenwood. (Id. at 259). Plaintiff was

reported as being pleasant, cooperative with a good mood. Plaintiff was “actively looking to

Case 3:08-cv-00832-WQH-WMC Document 22 Filed 03/16/10 Page 4 of 12
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 - 08cv832-WQH-WMc

get into massage school.” (Id.) Dr. Greenwood reported that Plaintiff was capable of working

4-5 hours per day. (Id. at 261). Dr. Greenwood stated that Plaintiff has “no problems” with

“social functioning” or “task completion,” but Plaintiff “does have anxiety in stressful

situations, [Plaintiff] may retreat and withdraw under strain.” (Id. at 264). 

On May 2, 2005, Dr. Greenwood saw Plaintiff. (Id. at 260). Plaintiff reported that she

was feeling “much more mood stable” and she had been sober for 5-6 months. (Id.)

On May 31, 2005, Dr. Gina Rivera-Miya, M.D., a state agency consultant, completed

a mental residual functional capacity assessment of Plaintiff. (Id. at 346-51). Dr. Rivera-Miya

reviewed the medical records and opined: “[O]verall, [Plaintiff] is able to do basic activities

with some limited social contact. Early [mental status examinations] were adverse due to

+drugs and non-compliance to treatment. Subsequent records show good response to meds and

improved [mental status examinations]. Condition seems stable as her medications’ dosage

have remained the same. Overall evidence is consistent with [Plaintiff] being able to perform

non-public [simple and repetitive tasks].” (Id. at 351). 

On December 5, 2005, Plaintiff was seen by Dr. Nicole Esposito M.D. at UCSD

Outpatient Psychiatric Services. (Id. at 270). Dr. Esposito stated that Plaintiff’s mood was

“good” but she was “easily distracted.” (Id.) Plaintiff reported “irritability” is a problem on

the days in which Plaintiff forgets to take her medication. (Id.) Dr. Esposito confirmed a

diagnosis of “bipolar”. (Id.) Dr. Esposito stated: “[Plaintiff] is applying for SSI which I

support given her ongoing daily difficulties with irritability [and] distractability[;] I believe she

would have difficulty working.” (Id.)

On January 13, 2006, Dr. Esposito saw Plaintiff. (Id. at 271). Dr. Esposito stated that

Plaintiff’s mood was “good” and “stable.” (Id.) Plaintiff reported ongoing difficulties with

increased appetite which Plaintiff attributed to one of her medications, Depakote. Dr. Esposito

discussed the risks of discontinuing the medication, but Plaintiff “believes [it] is worth the risk

to get the benefit of weight loss.” (Id.) Dr. Esposito ordered Plaintiff to taper off the Depakote

and begin a new medication.

On February 21, 2006, Plaintiff was seen by Dr. Olga Becker, M.D. at UCSD

Case 3:08-cv-00832-WQH-WMC Document 22 Filed 03/16/10 Page 5 of 12
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 - 08cv832-WQH-WMc

Outpatient Psychiatric Services. (Id. at 272). Plaintiff’s mood was described as “good.” (Id.)

Dr. Becker indicated that Plaintiff was “doing well for the last two months since [the drug]

Abilify was started.” (Id.) Dr. Becker stated that Plaintiff “wants to take only one medication

in the future.” (Id.)

On March 21, 2006, Dr. Becker saw Plaintiff. (Id. at 275). Dr. Becker and Plaintiff

discussed Plaintiff’s medication regime, which included taking Abilify 10 mg daily. (Id. at

379).

On March 28, 2006, Dr. Esposito completed a mental impairment questionnaire for

Plaintiff. (Id. at 366-71). Dr. Esposito stated that Plaintiff had “schizoaffective disorder,

bipolar type” and “meth dependence in sustained full remission.” (Id. at 366). Dr. Esposito

reported that Plaintiff’s GAF was 55. Dr Esposito stated: “Since [Plaintiff] has been able to

establish ongoing sobriety, she has been committed to coming to appointments and taking

meds as prescribed. She is much improved. ... At times [Plaintiff] has displayed rapid speech,

decrease[]d impulse control[,] irritability and inappropriate laughter.” (Id.) Dr. Esposito

opined that Plaintiff has “none-mild” restriction of activities of daily living, marked difficulties

in maintaining social functioning, moderate difficulties in maintaining concentration,

persistence or pace, and no episodes of decompensation within the past year. (Id. at 370).

On April 12, 2006, Dr. H.N. Hurwitz, M.D., a Board Certified Psychiatrist and state

agency consultant, completed a reconsideration of Dr. Rivera-Miya’s May 31, 2005 assessment

of Plaintiff. (Id. at 372). Dr. Hurwitz stated that the “most recent notes show [Plaintiff] is

stable with a normal [mental status examination].” (Id.) Dr. Hurwitz affirmed Dr. RiveraMiya’s opinion of the evidence being consistent with Plaintiff being able to perform nonpublic simple and repetitive tasks.

On September 15, 2006, Plaintiff was seen by Dr. Kathleen Erwin, M.D. at UCSD

Outpatient Psychiatric Services. (Id. at 377). Plaintiff stated that she was “doing well” and

her mood was “fine.” (Id.) Dr Erwin reported: “No depressed mood, energy is variable but

mostly low, sleep is usually OK but sometimes she wakes at night and takes 2-3 hours to get

back to sleep.” (Id.)

Case 3:08-cv-00832-WQH-WMC Document 22 Filed 03/16/10 Page 6 of 12
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 - 08cv832-WQH-WMc

On October 24, 2006, Plaintiff was seen by Dr. Erwin. (Id. at 376). Plaintiff reported

“feeling more depressed, mostly because she has no friends. Her social contacts were all drugrelated, and she is now clean and sober.” (Id.) Dr. Erwin discussed increasing the dosage of

Abilify, but decided to keep the dosage at 5 mg daily.

On December 4, 2006, Plaintiff was seen by Dr. Erwin. (Id. at 375). Plaintiff reported

that she was “depressed” and had “intense cravings for meth and dreams re: using. [Plaintiff]

now is >18 months sober.” (Id.) Dr. Erwin opined that Plaintiff’s “psychosis is stable, [but]

her depression is worse and she is at high risk of drug relapse.” (Id.)

On January 9, 2007, Plaintiff was seen by Dr. Erwin. (Id. at 374). Plaintiff stated that

she had a depressed mood. Dr. Erwin stated that Plaintiff’s “level of function is quite low,

though she is able to care for her son successfully.” (Id.) Dr. Erwin recommended increasing

the dosage of Ambilify to 10 mg a day, but noted that she “will proceed carefully as [Plaintiff]

had akathisia at a dose of 20 mg a day.” (Id.)

C. ALJ’s Opinion

After a discussion of the medical evidence and Plaintiff’s testimony, the ALJ

determined that Plaintiff was not entitled to SSDI benefits. (Id. at 26). The ALJ found

Plaintiff had not engaged in gainful activity since 1993, and the medical evidence established

she suffered from the severe impairments of bipolar disorder and substance abuse addiction

disorder (i.e. methamphetamine dependence) in sustained remission. (Id. at 17). The ALJ

found that the record did not support Plaintiff’s claims of fatigue, sleep problems and back

pain. (Id. at 18). The ALJ concluded Plaintiff’s impairments, or combinations thereof, failed

to meet or equal the criteria of any of the sections listed in the Social Security Regulations.

(Id. at 19). The ALJ rejected Plaintiff’s allegations of disabling limitations and determined

that, since October 4, 2004, Plaintiff “has had a residual functional capacity with no exertional

limitations and the ability to perform nonpublic simple and repetitive tasks.” (Id.)

In reaching his decision, the ALJ considered the April 4, 2005 provider statement from

Dr. Greenwood “that the claimant does not have any limitations that affect her ability to work

or participate in education or training.” (Id. at 20). The ALJ also relied upon the assessments

Case 3:08-cv-00832-WQH-WMC Document 22 Filed 03/16/10 Page 7 of 12
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 - 08cv832-WQH-WMc

completed by the state agency medical consultants Dr. Rivera-Miya and Dr. Hurwitz. (Id.)

The ALJ found the opinions of treating physicians Dr. Greenwood and Dr. Esposito

regarding Plaintiff’s disability were not entitled to controlling weight for the following

reasons:

First, the opinion[] of Dr. Greenw[oo]d ... [is] not well supported. Dr.

Greenw[oo]d’s opinion is devoid of a diagnosis and supporting objective

medical findings.

Second, Dr. Greenw[oo]d’s opinion is on the claimant’s physical condition but

her specialty is psychiatry.

Third, Dr. Greenw[oo]d’s opinion is refuted by Dr. Sabourin’s July 31, 2003

report that the claimant has no physical restrictions as well as the failure of the

claimant’s other physicians to describe her to have significant physical

limitations.

Fourth, the opinions are contradicted by the repeated descriptions of the

claimant’s mood as euthymic, okay, or good: Dr. Bromley on January 28, 2005;

Dr. Greenw[oo]d on March 22, 2005, April 4, 2005, and May 2, 2005; Dr.

Esposito on December 5, 2005 and January 13, 2006; and Dr. Becker on

February 21, 2006.

Fifth, the opinions are inconsistent with Dr. Greenw[oo]d’s April 4, 2005 report

that the claimant does not have any limitations that affect her ability to work or

participate in education or training.

Sixth, the opinions are refuted by Dr. Greenw[oo]d’s April 4, 2005 report that

the claimant has no problems with social functioning and that the claimant’s task

completion ability is not affected by her mental condition.

Seventh, the opinions are contrary to the conclusions of Dr. Rivera-Miya and Dr.

Hurwitz that the claimant is able to sustain nonpublic simple and repetitive

tasks.

Eighth, the opinions are inconsistent with the weight of the record as a whole

and are therefore entitled to reduced weight.

Ninth, the determination that the claimant is not disabled is an issue reserved to

the Commissioner and even treating source opinions on such issues are never

entitled to controlling weight or special significance. 

(Id. at 21-22 (citations and emphasis omitted)). The ALJ stated that he gave greater weight to

the opinions of Dr. Becker, Dr. Bromley, Dr. Hurwitz, Dr. Rivera-Miya, Dr Sabourin, as well

as the December 5, 2005 and January 13, 2006 reports of Dr. Esposito, and the March 22,

2005, April 4, 2005, and May 2, 2005 reports of Dr. Greenwood. (Id. at 22). 

The ALJ stated the following “clear and convincing reasons [that] the allegations of the

Case 3:08-cv-00832-WQH-WMC Document 22 Filed 03/16/10 Page 8 of 12
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

 Only those reasons related to Plaintiff’s claim on appeal are quoted herein.

- 9 - 08cv832-WQH-WMc

claimant’s disabling limitations are not credible”:3

[T]he analysis of the opinions of Dr. Greenw[oo]d ... and Dr. Esposito is

incorporated by reference herein. 

[T]he claimant’s course of treatment has reflected a conservative approach. 

[T]he record does not indicate that the claimant’s medications are ineffective or

that they cause her debilitating side effects. ...

[T]he claimant complains of slow learning and poor concentration, but the

evidence shows otherwise. Dr. Bromley described the claimant to have logical,

clear and coherent thought on January 28, 2005. Dr. Esposito reported the

claimant to have a linear thought process on January 13, 2006. Olga Becker,

M.D. ... reported the claimant to have linear thought processes on February 21,

2006 [and] March 21, 2006. 

[T]he evidence rebuts the claims of the claimant’s disabling depression. Dr.

Bromley found the claimant to have an euthymic mood on January 28, 2005.

Dr. Greenw[oo]d reported the claimant to have an okay mood on March 22,

2005; an euthymic mood on April 4, 2005; and an okay mood on May 2, 2005.

Dr. Esposito described the claimant to have a good mood on December 5, 2005

[and] January 13, 2006. Dr. Becker reported the claimant to have a good mood

on February 21, 2006. ... 

Dr. Sabourin reported the claimant to have no physical restrictions on July 31,

2003. The claimant denied to Dr. Carroll on October 9, 2004 that she has any

chronic medical problems. ...

[T]he claimant was able to participate in the administrative hearing and respond

to the questioning without any apparent difficulties.

(Id. at 22-24 (citations omitted)). 

The ALJ found that Plaintiff has no past relevant work; she has an eleventh grade

education; and she is literate in and able to communicate in English. (Id. at 25). Given his

findings, the ALJ determined that Medical-Vocational Rule 204.00 directs a finding of “not

disabled” for Plaintiff since her alleged disability onset date. (Id. at 25-26). The ALJ noted

that Public Law 104-21 prohibits a finding of disability when a substance addiction disorder

is a contributing factor material to the claimant’s disability. The ALJ stated that because he

found Plaintiff not to be disabled, “the issue of whether the claimant’s substance addiction

disorder is material to her disability does not arise in this decision.” (Id. at 26).

II. Standard of Review

When an applicant’s claim for disability benefits under the Social Security Act has been

Case 3:08-cv-00832-WQH-WMC Document 22 Filed 03/16/10 Page 9 of 12
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 - 08cv832-WQH-WMc

denied, she may seek judicial review of the Commissioner’s decision. See 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).

Where, as in this case, “the Appeals Council denies a request for review of an ALJ’s decision,

the decision of the ALJ represents the final decision of the Commissioner.” Batson v. Comm’r

of Soc. Sec. Admin., 359 F.3d 1190, 1193 n.1 (9th Cir. 2004) (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.981). A

reviewing court will reverse the ALJ’s decision only if “it is based upon legal error or is not

supported by substantial evidence.” Bayliss v. Barnhart, 427 F.3d 1211, 1214 n.1 (9th Cir.

2005) (citation omitted). “Substantial evidence is such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind

might accept as adequate to support a conclusion” and is “more than a mere scintilla but less

than a preponderance.” Webb v. Barnhart, 433 F.3d 683, 686 (9th Cir. 2005) (citation

omitted). “If the record would support more than one rational interpretation, we defer to the

ALJ’s decision.” Bayliss, 427 F.3d at 1214 n.1 (citation omitted).

III. Contentions of the Parties

The single contention raised by Plaintiff is: “The ALJ’s rejection of the opinion of Dr.

Esposito is based on legal error and not supported by substantial evidence.” (Doc. # 13-1 at

6). Plaintiff contends that “[b]y rule, the Social Security Administration favors the opinion of

a treating physician [such as Dr. Esposito] over non-treating physicians [such as Dr. RiveraMiya and Dr. Hurwitz].” (Id. at 8). Plaintiff contends:

Of the nine reasons the ALJ gave to reject the opinions of Dr. Greenwood and

Dr. Esposito, none of them specifically mention Dr. Esposito by name. The first

three are specific to Dr. Greenwood, as such they cannot be specific and

legitimate reasons for rejecting the opinion of Dr. Esposito. The remaining

reasons are not specific and legitimate reasons based on substantial evidence in

the record.

(Doc. # 21 at 1-2).

Defendant contends that “[i]t was reasonable for the ALJ to discount Dr. Espo[s]ito’s

unsupported opinion based in part on ... inconsistencies [between Dr. Esposito’s opinion and

other evidence in the record], especially considering that the ALJ provided numerous

additional reasons also supported by substantial evidence.” (Doc. # 16-1 at 5). Defendant also

points to reports by treating physicians Dr. Becker, Dr. Bromely and Dr. Esposito indicating

that Plaintiff was stable with consistent medication.

//

Case 3:08-cv-00832-WQH-WMC Document 22 Filed 03/16/10 Page 10 of 12
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

 Plaintiff has not raised the issue of whether the ALJ properly rejected Dr.

Greenwood’s opinion. Therefore, this issue is not addressed. See Rudebusch v. Hughes, 313

F.3d 506, 521 (9th Cir. 2002).

- 11 - 08cv832-WQH-WMc

IV. Analysis

“As a general rule, more weight should be given to the opinion of a treating source than

to the opinion of doctors who do not treat the claimant.... Even if the treating doctor’s opinion

is contradicted by another doctor, the Commissioner may not reject this opinion without

providing specific and legitimate reasons supported by substantial evidence in the record for

so doing.” Lester v. Chater, 81 F.3d 821, 830 (9th Cir. 1995) (citations omitted). “[T]he

report of a non-treating, non-examining physician, combined with the ALJ’s own observance

of the claimant’s demeanor at the hearing” is not alone sufficient to constitute substantial

evidence “and, therefore, does not support the Commissioner’s decision to reject an examining

physician’s opinion that the claimant was disabled.” Id. at 831 (citing Gallant v. Heckler, 753

F.2d 1450, 1456 (9th Cir. 1984)). However, the Ninth Circuit has “upheld the Commissioner’s

decision to reject the opinion of a treating ... physician, based in part on the testimony of a

nonexamining medical advisor.” Id. (citing Roberts v. Shalala, 66 F.3d 179 (9th Cir. 1995);

Andrews v. Shalala, 53 F.3d 1035, 1043 (9th Cir. 1995); Magallanes v. Bowen, 881 F.2d 747,

751-55 (9th Cir. 1989)). 

In rejecting the opinions of treating physicians Dr. Esposito and Dr. Greenwood that

Plaintiff is unable to work, the ALJ relied in part on the opinions of nonexamining medical

advisors Dr. Rivera-Miya and Dr. Hurwitz.4

 The ALJ also relied upon other evidence in the

record, including contradictory statements made by Dr. Greenwood and Dr. Esposito. (Doc.

# 8 at 21-22.) The ALJ relied upon Dr. Greenwood’s April 4, 2005 opinion that Plaintiff did

not have any limitations that affected her ability to work, and Plaintiff had no problems with

social functioning or task completion ability. (Id. at 20). Dr. Esposito’s stated basis for

supporting Plaintiff’s disability application was Plaintiff’s “ongoing daily difficulties with

irritability [and] distractability.” (Id. at 270; see also id. at 21). The ALJ reasonably found this

opinion to be “contradicted by the repeated descriptions of the claimant’s mood as euthymic,

okay, or good” in the treatment notes of Dr. Bromley, Dr. Greenwood, Dr. Esposito and Dr.

Case 3:08-cv-00832-WQH-WMC Document 22 Filed 03/16/10 Page 11 of 12
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 - 08cv832-WQH-WMc

Becker. (Id. at 21). “The ALJ is responsible for determining credibility, resolving conflicts

in medical testimony, and for resolving ambiguities. [A court] must uphold the ALJ’s decision

where the evidence is susceptible to more than one rational interpretation.” Andrews, 53 F.3d

at 1039-40 (citation omitted).

After reviewing the Administrative Record and the submissions of the parties, the Court

concludes that the ALJ articulated specific and legitimate reasons, based upon substantial

evidence, for not giving controlling weight to the opinion of Dr. Esposito regarding Plaintiff’s

disability. The Court concludes that the ALJ’s decision is supported by substantial evidence

and is free from legal error.

V. Conclusion

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. # 13)

is DENIED and Defendant’s Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. # 16) is

GRANTED.

The Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment for Defendant and against Plaintiff.

DATED: March 16, 2010

WILLIAM Q. HAYES

United States District Judge

Case 3:08-cv-00832-WQH-WMC Document 22 Filed 03/16/10 Page 12 of 12