Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_13-cv-00627/USCOURTS-azd-2_13-cv-00627-0/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 

WO 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Maria Holzman, 

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

Carolyn W. Colvin, Acting Commissioner 

of Social Security, 

Defendant. 

No. CV-13-00627-PHX-NVW 

ORDER 

Plaintiff Maria Holzman seeks review under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) of the final 

decision of the Commissioner of Social Security (“the Commissioner”), which denied her 

disability insurance benefits under sections 216(i) and 223(d) of the Social Security Act. 

Because the decision of the Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) is not supported by 

substantial evidence and is based on legal error, the Commissioner’s decision will be 

vacated and the matter remanded for further administrative proceedings. 

I. BACKGROUND 

A. Factual Background 

Holzman was born in July 1959 and was 49 years old on the alleged disability 

onset date. She has been diagnosed with numerous conditions including, but not limited 

to, systemic lupus erythematosus (“SLE”), rheumatoid arthritis, hiatal hernia with gastro 

esophageal reflux disease (“GERD”), asthma, breast cancer in remission, and 

fibromyalgia. 

Case 2:13-cv-00627-NVW Document 14 Filed 01/14/14 Page 1 of 9
- 2 - 

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 

Holzman has a bachelor’s degree in sociology. She worked as a teacher’s aide for 

four and a half years, until September 2008 when she kept getting pneumonias and 

bronchitis. For about a month in 1999, she worked as an office worker answering 

telephones. 

B. Procedural History 

On April 26, 2010, Holzman protectively applied for disability insurance benefits, 

alleging disability beginning September 10, 2008. On December 9, 2011, she appeared 

with her attorney and testified at a hearing before the ALJ. A vocational expert also 

testified. 

On January 3, 2012, the ALJ issued a decision that Holzman was not disabled 

within the meaning of the Social Security Act. The Appeals Council denied Holzman’s 

request for review of the hearing decision, making the ALJ’s decision the 

Commissioner’s final decision. On March 27, 2013, Holzman sought review by this 

Court. 

In her Reply Brief (Doc. 13), Holzman summarizes the issues she presents on 

appeal as follows: 

(1) Whether the ALJ went through the proper analysis and 

considered listings 14.02 for lupus and 14.09 for arthritis; 

(2) Whether the ALJ erred by failing to assess Ms. Holzman’s 

fibromyalgia and celiac disease; and 

(3) Whether the ALJ justified his determination that Ms. 

Holzman is not credible. 

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW 

The district court reviews only those issues raised by the party challenging the 

ALJ’s decision. See Lewis v. Apfel, 236 F.3d 503, 517 n.13 (9th Cir. 2001). The court 

Case 2:13-cv-00627-NVW Document 14 Filed 01/14/14 Page 2 of 9
- 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 

may set aside the Commissioner’s disability determination only if the determination is 

not supported by substantial evidence or is based on legal error. Orn v. Astrue, 495 F.3d 

625, 630 (9th Cir. 2007). Substantial evidence is more than a scintilla, less than a 

preponderance, and relevant evidence that a reasonable person might accept as adequate 

to support a conclusion considering the record as a whole. Id. In determining whether 

substantial evidence supports a decision, the court must consider the record as a whole 

and may not affirm simply by isolating a “specific quantum of supporting evidence.” Id. 

As a general rule, “[w]here the evidence is susceptible to more than one rational 

interpretation, one of which supports the ALJ’s decision, the ALJ’s conclusion must be 

upheld.” Thomas v. Barnhart, 278 F.3d 947, 954 (9th Cir. 2002) (citations omitted). 

Harmless error principles apply in the Social Security Act context. Molina v. 

Astrue, 674 F.3d 1104, 1115 (9th Cir. 2012). An error is harmless if there remains 

substantial evidence supporting the ALJ’s decision and the error does not affect the 

ultimate nondisability determination. Id. The claimant usually bears the burden of 

showing that an error is harmful. Id. at 1111. 

III. FIVE-STEP SEQUENTIAL EVALUATION PROCESS 

To determine whether a claimant is disabled for purposes of the Social Security 

Act, the ALJ follows a five-step process. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a). The claimant bears 

the burden of proof on the first four steps, but at step five, the burden shifts to the 

Commissioner. Tackett v. Apfel, 180 F.3d 1094, 1098 (9th Cir. 1999). 

At the first step, the ALJ determines whether the claimant is engaging in 

substantial gainful activity. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(i). If so, the claimant is not 

disabled and the inquiry ends. Id. At step two, the ALJ determines whether the claimant 

has a “severe” medically determinable physical or mental impairment. 

§ 404.1520(a)(4)(ii). If not, the claimant is not disabled and the inquiry ends. Id. At step 

three, the ALJ considers whether the claimant’s impairment or combination of 

Case 2:13-cv-00627-NVW Document 14 Filed 01/14/14 Page 3 of 9
- 4 - 

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 

impairments meets or medically equals an impairment listed in Appendix 1 to Subpart P 

of 20 C.F.R. Pt. 404. § 404.1520(a)(4)(iii). If so, the claimant is automatically found to 

be disabled. Id. If not, the ALJ proceeds to step four. At step four, the ALJ assesses the 

claimant’s residual functional capacity and determines whether the claimant is still 

capable of performing past relevant work. § 404.1520(a)(4)(iv). If so, the claimant is not 

disabled and the inquiry ends. Id. If not, the ALJ proceeds to the fifth and final step, 

where he determines whether the claimant can perform any other work based on the 

claimant’s residual functional capacity, age, education, and work experience. 

§ 404.1520(a)(4)(v). If so, the claimant is not disabled. Id. If not, the claimant is 

disabled. Id. 

At step one, the ALJ found that Holzman meets the insured status requirements of 

the Social Security Act through December 31, 2013, and that she has not engaged in 

substantial gainful activity since September 10, 2008, the alleged onset date. At step two, 

the ALJ found that Holzman has the following severe impairments: GERD, SLE, 

SIADH, breast cancer in remission, arthritis, depression, asthma, hypertension, hiatal 

hernia with GERD, and rheumatoid arthritis. At step three, the ALJ determined that 

Holzman does not have an impairment or combination of impairments that meets or 

medically equals an impairment listed in Appendix 1 to Subpart P of 20 C.F.R. Pt. 404. 

At step four, the ALJ found that Holzman: 

has the residual functional capacity to perform light work as 

defined in 20 CFR 404.1567(b) with the following 

exceptions: can occasionally climb ladders, ropes, or 

scaffolds; can frequently climb ramps or stairs; can 

occasionally crawl; should avoid concentrated exposure to 

extreme temperatures, both hot and cold, extreme direct 

sunlight, irritants such as fumes, odors, dusts and gases; avoid 

concentrated exposure to moving machinery and unprotected 

height; and limited to simple, unskilled work. 

Case 2:13-cv-00627-NVW Document 14 Filed 01/14/14 Page 4 of 9
- 5 - 

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 

The ALJ further found that Holzman is capable of performing past relevant work as a 

teacher aide II and office worker. Alternatively, the ALJ concluded that, considering 

Holzman’s age, education, work experience, and residual functional capacity, there are 

other jobs that exist in significant numbers in the national economy that Holzman could 

perform. 

IV. ANALYSIS 

A. The ALJ Failed to Consider Listings 14.02 for Lupus and 14.09 for 

Inflammatory Arthritis. 

At step three of the five-step sequential evaluation process, the ALJ must consider 

whether the claimant’s impairment or combination of impairments meets or medically 

equals an impairment listed in Appendix 1 to Subpart P of 20 C.F.R. Pt. 404. 

§ 404.1520(a)(4)(iii). Here, at step three, the ALJ determined that Holzman does not 

have an impairment or combination of impairments that meets or medically equals an 

impairment listed in Appendix 1 to Subpart P of 20 C.F.R. Pt. 404, but stated reasons 

relevant only to whether the severity of Holzman’s mental impairment satisfied a listing. 

The ALJ found that Holzman’s severe impairments include lupus (SLE), but did 

not provide any analysis of whether this impairment alone or in combination with other 

impairments meets or medically equals listing 14.02 (systemic lupus erythematosus). 

The ALJ also found that Holzman’s severe impairments include rheumatoid arthritis, but 

did not provide any analysis of whether this impairment alone or in combination with 

other impairments meets or medically equals listing 14.09 (inflammatory arthritis). 

Listing 14.09 expressly includes rheumatoid arthritis. 

The Court cannot evaluate whether the ALJ’s determination that Holzman does 

not have an impairment or combination of impairments that meets or medically equals a 

listing is based on substantial evidence because the ALJ’s hearing decision does not 

provide his analysis, if any. 

Case 2:13-cv-00627-NVW Document 14 Filed 01/14/14 Page 5 of 9
- 6 - 

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 

B. The ALJ Erred by Failing to Assess Ms. Holzman’s Fibromyalgia and 

Celiac Disease. 

Holzman’s allegations of severe impairment due to fibromyalgia and celiac 

disease were presented to the ALJ, and he excluded them from the list of severe 

impairments without explanation. He carefully explained why he did not consider her 

alleged poor concentration and poor vision to be severe impairments, but provided no 

explanation regarding fibromyalgia and celiac disease even though he mentions in 

passing elsewhere that she has fibromyalgia. 

The Court cannot evaluate whether the ALJ’s determination that Holzman is not 

severely impaired by fibromyalgia and celiac disease because the ALJ’s hearing decision 

does not provide his analysis, if any. 

C. The ALJ Justified His Determination that Ms. Holzman Is Not Fully 

Credible. 

In evaluating the credibility of a claimant’s testimony regarding subjective pain or 

other symptoms, such as fatigue, the ALJ is required to engage in a two-step analysis: (1) 

determine whether the claimant presented objective medical evidence of an impairment 

that could reasonably be expected to produce some degree of the pain or other symptoms 

alleged; and, if so with no evidence of malingering, (2) reject the claimant’s testimony 

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

for the rejection. Vasquez v. Astrue, 572 F.3d 586, 591 (9th Cir. 2009). 

First, the ALJ found that Holzman’s medically determinable impairments could 

reasonably be expected to cause the alleged symptoms. Second, the ALJ found 

Holzman’s statements regarding the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of the 

symptoms not credible to the extent they are inconsistent with the ALJ’s residual 

functional capacity assessment. 

Holzman contends that she is unable to perform light work with the limitations the 

ALJ identified in his residual functional capacity determination. Holzman testified, “I 

Case 2:13-cv-00627-NVW Document 14 Filed 01/14/14 Page 6 of 9
- 7 - 

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 

live on my recliner because I hurt all the time.” She testified that she needs to elevate her 

feet and change positions frequently. She also testified that she drives to get mail from 

the mailbox about five or six houses from hers. She said she has difficulty gripping 

things, opening jars, and writing, but she is able to lift a gallon of milk and use a 

computer and computer mouse. She said she has difficulty sleeping at night, does not 

nap, and rests all day. She testified that she has pain in all of her joints. She said that she 

goes to a nearby grocery store if she needs one or two items, and her husband does the 

weekly grocery shopping. But she also testified she can shower, wash her hair, dress 

herself, put on her shoes, tie shoelaces, and drive. Further, Holzman testified that in the 

last year she had developed memory problems. She said she has poor concentration, gets 

lost driving places, and while watching a movie or television she “spaces out.” 

The ALJ observed that Holzman’s “allegations regarding the severity of her 

symptoms and limitations is diminished because those allegations are greater than 

expected in light of the objective evidence of record.” The ALJ noted that Holzman 

received only routine conservative treatment for her impairments. He also stated that 

treatments for arthritis, fibromyalgia, chronic fatigue, and asthma appeared to be 

successful. Holzman contends her “major issue is fibromyalgia, which has no treatment 

beyond medication and rest,” but the ALJ referred to rheumatology treatment notes 

(without record citation) showing that Holzman’s fibromyalgia was being treated 

successfully with gabapentin. 

Holzman also contends that she “regularly went to the hospital” for pulmonary 

issues and recurrent pneumonia and “there is no commonly prescribed treatment she did 

not perform for her conditions.” But the records she cites show only that she was 

hospitalized for pneumonia December 21-26, 2008, during which she reported previous 

hospitalizations. The discharge report by Michael Schlossberg, M.D., states that, upon 

consultation with a pulmonologist, “the overall clinical picture was most consistent with 

Case 2:13-cv-00627-NVW Document 14 Filed 01/14/14 Page 7 of 9
- 8 - 

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 

aspiration pneumonia related to the underlying hiatal hernia” and that he told the patient 

“she should be evaluated by a surgeon for repair of the hiatal hernia.” 

The ALJ also considered that Holzman’s husband reported that she is able to 

prepare simple meals, do laundry and housework, drive, and walk 1⁄2 block. Although the 

ALJ concluded that Holzman’s husband’s statement contradicted her testimony that her 

husband does the chores such as cooking and housekeeping, in fact Holzman did not 

directly answer the question whether she is able to do any cooking or housecleaning. 

Instead, she said that she “Swiffers” and picks up “a little bit”, and her house is not clean. 

The ALJ’s error is harmless because whether Holzman’s husband does any chores is 

irrelevant. Holzman’s husband reported that Holzman is able to do more than she admits 

despite limitations recognized by the ALJ. 

Thus, the ALJ gave specific, clear, and convincing reasons for finding Holzman’s 

subjective complaints less than fully credible. 

D. This Case Will Be Remanded for Further Administrative Proceedings. 

If the ALJ’s decision is not supported by substantial evidence or suffers from legal 

error, the court has discretion to reverse and remand either for an award of benefits or for 

further administrative proceedings. Smolen v. Chater, 80 F.3d 1273, 1292 (9th Cir. 

1996); Sprague v. Bowen, 812 F.2d 1226, 1232 (9th Cir. 1987). “Remand for further 

proceedings is appropriate if enhancement of the record would be useful.” Benecke v. 

Barnhart, 379 F.3d 587, 593 (9th Cir. 2004). “Conversely, where the record has been 

developed fully and further administrative proceedings would serve no useful purpose, 

the district court should remand for an immediate award of benefits.” Id. (citing Smolen, 

80 F.3d at 1292). 

Here, the record has not been developed fully, and further administrative 

proceedings are required. Therefore, Holzman’s request for remand for immediate award 

of benefits will be denied. 

Case 2:13-cv-00627-NVW Document 14 Filed 01/14/14 Page 8 of 9
- 9 - 

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 

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the final decision of the Commissioner of 

Social Security is VACATED and this case is REMANDED for further proceedings 

consistent with this opinion. The Clerk shall enter judgment accordingly and shall 

terminate this case. 

Dated this 14th day of January, 2014. 

Case 2:13-cv-00627-NVW Document 14 Filed 01/14/14 Page 9 of 9