Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-00409/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-00409-0/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

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Ronald Mahar, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Michael J. Astrue, Commissioner of Social

Security Administration, 

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-08-0409-PHX-FJM

ORDER

Plaintiff filed an application for supplemental security income benefits on June 30,

2005, alleging disability due to degenerative disc disease, degenerative joint disease, and

facet arthritis of the lumbar spine, beginning January 7, 1994. Following a hearing, the

administrative law judge (“ALJ”) issued a decision finding that plaintiff was not disabled and

denying benefits. The decision became the final decision of the Commissioner when the

Appeals Council denied plaintiff’s request for review. Plaintiff then filed this action for

judicial review pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 405(g) and 1383(c)(3). 

We now have before us plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment (doc. 18) and

supporting memorandum (doc. 19), and defendant’s cross-motion for summary judgment

(doc. 24) and supporting memorandum (doc. 26). Neither party filed a response or reply.

Case 2:08-cv-00409-FJM Document 27 Filed 03/27/09 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 -

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

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

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

a whole, a reasonable person might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. Where the

evidence is susceptible to more than one rationale interpretation, one of which supports the

ALJ’s decision, the ALJ’s conclusion must be upheld.” Id. (citation omitted).

The ALJ found that plaintiff can lift or carry 10 pounds frequently and 20 pounds

occasionally; sit, stand or walk for six hours in an eight-hour day; with no limits on his

ability to operate hand or foot controls. Tr. 16. The ALJ concluded that plaintiff retains the

residual functional capacity to perform a full range of light work, and therefore he is not

disabled. Id.

Plaintiff argues that the ALJ erred in discounting the opinion of treating physician,

Belal Sharaf, M.D. Dr. Sharaf completed a medical assessment, indicating that plaintiff

retained the residual functional capacity to sit for three hours, stand/walk for two hours; lift

6 to 10 pounds frequently, and 21 to 25 pounds occasionally–findings that would preclude

him from full-time employment. Tr. 178-79. The ALJ rejected Dr. Sharaf’s opinion to the

extent that it was inconsistent with the record as a whole, which otherwise indicated that

plaintiff is not disabled.

The ALJ relied on the opinion of examining physician Ronald D. Barker, M.D., who

described plaintiff “with heavy calluses on his hands, well-developed musculature in both

extremities, back and abdomen and deeply tanned from the sun,” indicating “ongoing heavy

physical activity.” Tr. 142, 18. Dr. Barker noted that plaintiff could walk on his heels and

toes, hop on each foot, squat and rise from a squatting position without assistance. Tr. 18.

He experienced no pain with straight leg raising, either sitting or lying down. (Plaintiff

denied that he hopped up and down or raised his legs during his examination by Dr. Barker.)

Tr. 18. Dr. Barker concluded that plaintiff retained the functional capacity to perform work

at a medium level of exertion. 

Case 2:08-cv-00409-FJM Document 27 Filed 03/27/09 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 -

The ALJ also relied on the opinion of treating pain management specialist, Albert

Yeh, M.D., who consistently noted that plaintiff did not have any pain symptoms on straight

leg raising, focal weakness, muscular atrophy or cervical radicular pain. Tr. 18. He further

noted that plaintiff had normal reflexes but had some pain over the lumbar facet joints upon

palpation and spasm. He diagnosed plaintiff’s lumbar degenerative joint disease/facet

arthritis as mild. Tr. 19.

An examining physician’s independent clinical findings that differ from the findings

of a treating physician are substantial evidence to support an ALJ’s decision to discount the

opinion of a treating physician. Orn v. Astrue, 495 F.3d 625, 632 (9th Cir. 2007). Dr. Barker

and Dr. Yeh’s independent examinations support the ALJ’s conclusion that plaintiff’s

impairment is not so severe as to prevent him from working. Dr. Sharaf based his assessment

on notes from Dr. Yeh, yet Dr. Yeh’s assessment did not support a finding of disability.

Therefore, the ALJ properly rejected Dr. Sharaf’s opinion to the extent it was inconsistent

with Dr. Yeh’s findings, and to the extent it was inconsistent with the record as a whole. 

Plaintiff also argues that the ALJ erred because he mistakenly reported that plaintiff

was 36 years old at the time of his application for benefits, when in fact he was 47 years old.

The regulations define a “younger person” as one who is “under age 50.” 20 C.F.R. §

416.963(c). Notwithstanding the ALJ’s misstatement, plaintiff fit within the category of

“younger person” under the regulations, and therefore plaintiff’s age was not a determining

factor in the ALJ’s conclusion that plaintiff was not disabled.

Based on the foregoing, we conclude that substantial evidence in the record supports

the ALJ’s determination that plaintiff is not disabled.

IT IS ORDERED GRANTING defendant’s cross-motion for summary judgment

(doc. 24), and DENYING plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment (doc. 18). 

DATED this 27th day of March, 2009.

Case 2:08-cv-00409-FJM Document 27 Filed 03/27/09 Page 3 of 3