Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-01349/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-01349-0/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 (DIWC)

---

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

Patricia Owens, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Linda S. McMahon, Acting

Commissioner of Social Security, 

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-06-1349-PHX-DGC

ORDER

Pending before the Court are Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and

Defendant’s cross-motion for summary judgment. Dkt. ##10, 16. The parties have filed

responses to the motions. Dkt. ##15, 19. As explained below, the Court will deny Plaintiff’s

motion and grant Defendant’s cross-motion.

I. Background.

Plaintiff applied for disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income

on November 19, 2000, claiming a disability onset date of January 29, 2000 due to back pain

and vision problems. Dkt. #8, Tr. 60-62. The application was denied initially and on

reconsideration. Tr. 29-30. A hearing before an Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) was

held on July 12, 2004. Tr. 230-63. The ALJ issued a written decision on August 27, 2004.

Tr. 17-26. The ALJ concluded that Plaintiff was disabled from the onset date through

July 27, 2001, that Plaintiff was able to perform a limited range of light work from

July 28, 2001 through December 10, 2003, and that thereafter Plaintiff was disabled due to

her vision problems. Id. The ALJ’s decision became Defendant’s final decision when the

Case 2:06-cv-01349-DGC Document 21 Filed 05/10/07 Page 1 of 3
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 -

Appeals Council denied review on April 19, 2006. Tr. 8-10. Plaintiff then commenced this

action for judicial review pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). Dkt. #1.

II. Standard of Review.

Defendant’s decision to deny benefits will be vacated “only if it is not supported by

substantial evidence or is based on legal error.” Robbins v. Soc. Sec. Admin., 466 F.3d 880,

882 (9th Cir. 2006). “‘Substantial evidence’ means more than a mere scintilla, but less than

a preponderance, i.e., such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate

to support a conclusion.” Id. In determining whether the decision is supported by substantial

evidence, the Court must consider the record as a whole, weighing both the evidence that

supports the decision and the evidence that detracts from it. See Reddick v. Charter, 157

F.3d 715, 720 (9th Cir. 1998).

III. Analysis.

The ALJ found that Plaintiff had severe degenerative disc disease and acute zonal

outer retinitis and that these impairments rendered her disabled through July 27, 2001.

Tr. 24-25, ¶¶ 3 & 6. The ALJ further found that Plaintiff’s condition had improved and that

she had the residual functional capacity to perform a limited range of light duty work from

July 28, 2001 through December 10, 2003. Tr. 25 ¶ 6. This finding was based in part on the

July 27, 2001 opinion of Plaintiff’s treating physician, Michael Winer, that Plaintiff was able

to perform light duty work. Tr. 21 (citing Tr. 162-63).

Following an office visit on May 30, 2001, Dr. Winer “released [Plaintiff] with light

restrictions of five pounds maximum lifting with no repetitive bending or stooping, four

hours per day.” Tr. 162. On July 27, 2001, Dr. Winer noted that Plaintiff had been “released

with light duty restrictions as of her 5/30/01 office visit.” Id. Dr. Winer opined that Plaintiff

remained on “light duty restrictions with lifting limited to five pounds, no continuous or

repetitive lifting, bending, or stooping, and she [was] to change positions frequently.”

Tr. 163.

Plaintiff argues that the ALJ erred in concluding that Plaintiff’s condition had

improved and that she was able perform light duty work as of July 28, 2001. Dkt. #12 at 4-5.

Case 2:06-cv-01349-DGC Document 21 Filed 05/10/07 Page 2 of 3
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 -

Specifically, Plaintiff contends that the ALJ erred in relying on Dr. Winer’s July 27, 2001

opinion because that opinion incorporated the restriction set forth in Dr. Winer’s June 1,

2001 treatment note that Plaintiff was able to work only four hours per day. Id.; see Tr.

162-63. Defendant argues that the ALJ did not err and that his decision is supported by

substantial evidence. Dkt. #16.

The Court “must uphold the ALJ’s decision where the evidence is susceptible to more

than one rational interpretation.” Andrews v. Shalala, 53 F.3d 1035, 1039-40 (9th Cir. 1995).

In this case, the ALJ’s interpretation of Dr. Winer’s July 27, 2001 treatment note was

rational. Nowhere in the note does Dr. Winer opine that Plaintiff was limited to light duty

work for only four hours per day. Tr. 162-63. Rather, it specifically states – without time

limitations – that Plaintiff was able to perform light duty work. Tr. 163. 

“The ALJ is responsible for determining credibility, resolving conflicts in medical

testimony, and for resolving ambiguities.” Andrews, 53 F.3d at 1039. The Court may not

“substitute its own determination of what the evidence shows for the ALJ’s if there is

sufficient evidence to support the ALJ’s outcome.” Young v. Sullivan, 911 F.2d 180, 184

(9th Cir. 1990); see 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) (stating that the “findings of the Commissioner . . .

as to any fact, if supported by substantial evidence, shall be conclusive”). Having considered

the entire record in this case, the Court concludes that the ALJ’s decision is supported by

substantial evidence and is not based on legal error. The Court accordingly will grant

summary judgment in Defendant’s favor.

IT IS ORDERED:

1. Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment (Dkt. #10) is denied.

2. Defendant’s cross-motion for summary judgment (Dkt. #16) is granted.

3. Defendant’s administrative decision is affirmed.

4. The Clerk shall terminate this action.

DATED this 10th day of May, 2007.

Case 2:06-cv-01349-DGC Document 21 Filed 05/10/07 Page 3 of 3