Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-00232/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-00232-1/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 (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

1 07CV232

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ROZANNE E. BAZINET,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 07CV232 BTM (NLS)

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION FOR SUMMARY

JUDGMENT AND DENYING

DEFENDANT’S CROSS MOTION

FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

vs.

MICHAEL J. ASTRUE,

Defendant.

I. INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff Rozanne Bazinet alleges that she became disabled as of December 1, 2000

due to spastic colon, fibromyalgia, vertigo, chronic fatigue, impaired gastrointestinal function,

a neurological impairment, and chronic temporomandibular joint dysfunction. (Tr.19)

Plaintiff’s application for Disability Insurance Benefits under the Social Security Act (“Act”)

was denied initially and on reconsideration. (Tr. 37-42) Plaintiff filed a request for hearing and

testified at the hearing on March 9, 2006. (Tr. 43-45, 703-718) The Administrative Law

Judge (“ALJ”) denied benefits in a decision dated May 23, 2006, concluding that Plaintiff was

not disabled within the meaning of the Act. (Tr. 15-29) The decision of the Social Security

Administration became final when the Appeals Council denied Plaintiff’s request for review.

(Tr. 3-6) Plaintiff then commenced this action, seeking judicial review under 42 U.S.C. §

405(g).

Plaintiff has filed a motion for summary judgment and Defendant has filed a crossCase 3:07-cv-00232-BTM-NLS Document 16 Filed 02/19/08 Page 1 of 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

2 07CV232

motion for summary judgment. For the reasons discussed below, Plaintiff’s motion for

summary judgment is GRANTED, Defendant’s cross-motion is DENIED, and the case is

remanded to the ALJ for a calculation of benefits.

II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

Plaintiff was born in August 1949. She has a college education and a Ph.D. and had

a successful private practice as a psychologist before the onset of her alleged disability. 

Dr. Bazinet alleges that she became disabled on December 1, 2000 as a result of a

combination of spastic colon, fibromyalgia, vertigo, chronic fatigue, impaired gastrointestinal

function, a neurological impairment, and chronic temporomandibular joint dysfunction. Below

are relevant excepts from Plaintiff’s medical record. 

Plaintiff was examined by Isaac Silberman, M.D., on June 27, 2000 (Tr. 251-62). At

that time, Dr. Silberman noted patient suffered symptoms including, “upper GI symptoms,”

“generalized fatigue as well as hip, neck shoulder and back pain” and sensitivity to chemicals

and other substances accompanied by ”headaches, intestinal cramping and mental

fogginess.” (Tr. 251) Dr. Silberman diagnosed irritable bowel syndrome, migraines, multiple

chemical sensitivities, and myofascial pain syndrome. (Tr. 252) 

Plaintiff was also treated by Charles Moss, M.D., from June 27, 2000 through

November 14, 2000. (Tr. 263-291) His notes contain references to chronic diarrhea, pain in

hips, joints, shoulders and neck, mold sensitivity, allergies and gastrointestinal complaints.

(Tr. 289-91)

At the March 9, 2006 hearing before the ALJ, Plaintiff testified that she was unable

to work as of December 1, 2000 due to multiple symptoms. She identified symptoms of

ongoing irritable bowel syndrome such as having attacks of diarrhea ten to fifteen times a

day, allergies to molds, chemicals and inhalant sprays and fumes, vertigo, ongoing

headaches, and chronic pain in her hands, fingers, neck, jaw, teeth and hips. (Tr. 707-708,

712) Plaintiff testified that she is always in pain, ranging from a 3 to 4 pain level on average

and sometimes reaching 8 on bad days. (Tr. 708) Plaintiff explained that she needs to rest

during the day and that she takes at least one nap per day that lasts for an hour. (Tr. 709)

Case 3:07-cv-00232-BTM-NLS Document 16 Filed 02/19/08 Page 2 of 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

3 07CV232

She further stated that she cannot track her thoughts, gets overwhelmed, cannot follow

directions, and makes mistakes. (Tr. 714) Plaintiff testified that she could do some chores

such as washing dishes but only if she went slowly and at her own pace. (Tr. 715-716) After

doing such chores, however, she would be fatigued and need to rest. (Id.)

Board certified psychiatrist Sidney Bolter, M.D. testified as a medical expert at the

administrative hearing at the ALJ’s request. Based solely on a review of “various neuropsych” reports, Dr. Bolter opined that Plaintiff, based on her cognitive limitations, could work

as long as limited to simple non-public tasks, with minimal contact with peers and

supervisors. (Tr. 726)

Board certified neurologist Victor Schorn, M.D. testified as a medical expert at the

administrative hearing at the ALJ’s request. Dr. Schorn found that Plaintiff equaled the listing

12.07 for a somatoform disorder as of December 1, 2000 and noted that Plaintiff had also

been diagnosed with chronic fatigue syndrome and fibromyalgia. (Tr. 727-728, 703). Dr.

Schorn found that Plaintiff would be moderately limited in her activities of daily living,

markedly limited in social functioning, and markedly limited in her ability to maintain

concentration persistence and pace in work or a work-like setting. (TR 729-730). He

therefore concluded that Plaintiff was disabled. 

Vocational expert Nelly Katsell also testified at the administrative hearing. The

vocational expert indicated that with the specified limitations of light work involving “simple

repetitive tasks, non-public, minimal contact with peers and supervisors,” Plaintiff could fill

positions such as garment sorter, small products assembler, and presser. (TR 734)

On May 23, 2006, the ALJ issued a decision finding that Dr. Bazinet was not disabled.

At step one of the five step sequential evaluation process, the ALJ found that Plaintiff had

not worked since the onset of her disability. At step two, the ALJ found Plaintiff severely

impaired due to irritable bowel syndrome and other gastrointestinal problems; mild toxic/

metabolic encephalopathy with organic brain dysfunction; and chronic fatigue. At step three,

ALJ Steinman found that Plaintiff’s medically determinable impairments did not meet or

medically equal any of the listings of impairments. The ALJ found that Plaintiff retained the

Case 3:07-cv-00232-BTM-NLS Document 16 Filed 02/19/08 Page 3 of 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

4 07CV232

residual functional capacity for work at the light exertion level with the limitation to simple,

repetitive tasks, no public contact, and minimal contact with peers and supervisors. At step

four, the ALJ found that Dr. Bazinet could not perform her past work as a psychologist. At

step five, based on the testimony of the vocational witness, the ALJ found that Dr. Bazinet

could do other work such as the jobs of garment sorter, small products assembly, and

presser. (Tr.19-28)

III. STANDARD OF REVIEW

The Commissioner’s denial of benefits may be set aside if it is not supported by

substantial evidence or is based on legal error. Green v. Heckler, 803 F.2d 528, 529

(9th Cir. 1986). Substantial evidence is more than a scintilla, but less than a

preponderance. Reddick v. Chater, 157 F.3d 715, 720 (9th Cir. 1998). It is “relevant

evidence which a reasonable person might accept as adequate to support a

conclusion.” Id. To determine whether substantial evidence supports the decision, a

district court must review the administrative record as a whole, weighing both the

evidence that supports and the evidence that detracts from the decision. Id. The court

must uphold the decision if the evidence can reasonably support either affirming or

reversing the ALJ’s conclusion. Id. at 720-21.

To qualify for disability benefits, the claimant must show that a medically

determinable physical or mental impairment prevents her from engaging in substantial

gainful activity, and the impairment is expected to result in death or has lasted or is

expected to last for a continuous period of at least twelve months. 42 U.S.C. §

423(d)(1)(A); Reddick, 157 F.3d at 721. The claimant carries the initial burden of

proving disability. 42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(5); Reddick, 157 F.3d at 721. If the claimant

establishes that she is unable to do her prior work, the burden shifts to the defendant to

show that the claimant can perform other substantial gainful work that exists in the

national economy. Reddick, 157 F.3d at 721.

The determination of whether a claimant is disabled is governed by a five-step

Case 3:07-cv-00232-BTM-NLS Document 16 Filed 02/19/08 Page 4 of 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

5 07CV232

process as follows: (1) Is the claimant engaging in substantial gainful activity? If so, the

claimant is not disabled. If not, the evaluation proceeds to step two. (2) Does the

claimant have a “severe” impairment? If so, the evaluation proceeds to step three. If

not, the claimant is not disabled. (3) Does the claimant’s impairment or combination of

impairments meet or equal an impairment listed in 20 C.F.R., Pt. 404, Subpt. P, App. 1?

If so, the claimant is disabled. If not, the evaluation proceeds to step four. (4) Is the

claimant capable of performing past work? If so, the claimant is not disabled. If not, the

evaluation proceeds to step five. (5) Does the claimant have the residual functional

capacity to perform any other work? If so, the claimant is not disabled. If not, the

claimant is disabled. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520; see also Lester v. Chater, 81 F.3d

821, 828 n.5 (9th Cir. 1995).

IV. DISCUSSION

Plaintiff contends that the ALJ’s reasons for discrediting her allegations of pain

were legally insufficient. Once the claimant produces evidence of an underlying impairment,

the ALJ may not discredit the testimony as to the severity of the pain merely because it is

unsupported by objective medical evidence. Bunnell v. Sullivan, 947 F.2d 341, 343 (9th

Cir. 1991) (en banc). The ALJ must provide “clear and convincing” reasons for rejecting

the claimant’s testimony unless there is affirmative evidence that the claimant is

malingering. Swenson v. Sullivan, 876 F.2d 683, 687 (9th Cir. 1989). The ALJ also must

identify what testimony is not credible and what evidence undermines the claimant’s

complaints. Lester, 81 F.3d at 834.

The Court notes that the ALJ’s opinion does not note any presence of malingering.

The Court must therefore determine whether the reasons given by the ALJ for rejecting

Plaintiff’s testimony as to the severity of her alleged pain symptoms are clear and convincing.

First, the ALJ found that the objective medical evidence in Plaintiff’s medical record

prior to December 2000 did not support the conclusion that Plaintiff was disabled and

precluded from doing all work. (TR.26) As the ALJ himself notes, the medical evidence

establishes that Plaintiff suffered from the following severe impairments during the relevant

Case 3:07-cv-00232-BTM-NLS Document 16 Filed 02/19/08 Page 5 of 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

6 07CV232

time period: (1) irritable bowel syndrome and other gastrointestinal problems; (2) mild

toxic/metabolic encephalopathy with organic brain dysfunction; (3) and chronic fatigue.

Because Plaintiff produced evidence of underlying impairments, the ALJ could not properly

discredit Plaintiff’s pain testimony based on a lack of objective medical evidence. See

Bunnell, 947 F.2d at 343. The Court therefore finds that the ALJ’s first reason is not clear

and convincing. Indeed, when the vocational expert (VE) was asked whether Plaintiff could

perform any work given the conditions of avoiding fumes and using the restroom 10-15 times

a day, the VE testified that she would not be able to do any work. (Tr. 736-37) The same

conclusion was reached by the VE if Plaintiff would miss 4 days a month due to illness.

Given the irritable bowel syndrome, allergies and chronic fatigue, Plaintiff would likely miss

several days of work each month. The medical records support the existence of these

conditions prior to December 1, 2000. Thus it was error to reject Plaintiff’s credibility in this

regard. 

Second, the ALJ found that the “description of symptoms prior to December 2000

given by the claimant’s treating and examining physicians do not support the allegation that

the claimant is disabled.” (Tr. 27) To the contrary, although the doctors’ notes in question

do not state explicitly that the symptoms are disabling, the symptoms noted by physicians

during the year 2000 corroborate Plaintiff’s description of her symptoms during the ALJ

hearing. Dr. Silberman noted gastrointestinal symptoms, fatigue, general pain and also a

painful sensitivity to chemicals. (Tr. 251) Dr. Moss’s treatment notes also contain references

to chronic diarrhea, pain in hips, joints, shoulders and neck, mold sensitivity, allergies and

gastrointestinal complaints. (Tr. 289-91). These symptoms noted in Plaintiff’s medical records

shortly prior to the alleged disability onset date are consistent with Plaintiff’s testimony that

during this time period she was in constant pain ranging from level 3 or 4 to 8 due to a

combination of her diarrhea, chemical sensitivity, and pain in her limbs. The ALJ has

identified no convincing reason to disbelieve Plaintiff’s allegations regarding her level of pain

as a result of these symptoms. Nor has the ALJ articulated any reason to disbelieve her

testimony that she is also fatigued to the point that she can only do simple chores slowly and

Case 3:07-cv-00232-BTM-NLS Document 16 Filed 02/19/08 Page 6 of 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

1 While the Court finds the ALJ’s reasons for rejecting the opinion of Dr. Schorn

problematic, the Court declines to reach the issue of whether the ALJ erred on this ground

because the Court decides that the ALJ should have credited Plaintiff’s pain testimony. 

7 07CV232

needs rest after the performance of any such chores. Finally, there is no basis to reject the

fact that Plaintiff would have to use the restroom 10 to 15 times per day and would have to

miss work several days a month. The Court therefore finds that the ALJ’s second reason is

not clear and convincing. 

Third, the ALJ notes that he incorporated Plaintiff’s pain and symptom allegations into

his finding of residual functional capacity. The Court disagrees. Plaintiff testified that during

the relevant time period, in addition to her constant pain levels, she suffered from diarrhea

10-15 times a day (Tr. 712), was unable to sit for long periods of time because of pain in her

hip (Tr. 710), needed to rest after even mild chores. (Tr. 715-716), and takes a nap during

the day (Tr. 709). The ALJ’s finding of residual capacity and his hypothetical to the

vocational expert do not take into consideration Plaintiff’s need for frequent breaks due to

diarrhea and pain, inability to remain seated, or just generalized fatigue. (Tr. 23) When the

need to take frequent breaks due to diarrhea were added to the hypothetical, the VE testified

that Plaintiff could not do any work. (Tr. 736-37) These limitations are not consistent with the

ALJ’s finding that Plaintiff is capable of the full range of light work consisting of simple,

repetitive tasks involving no public contact and minimal contact with peers and supervisors.

 For the reasons set forth above, the Court concludes that the ALJ failed to provide

legally sufficient reasons for rejecting Plaintiff’s pain testimony.1

 The Court should credit

evidence rejected by the ALJ as true and remand for an immediate award of benefits if (1)

the ALJ failed to provide legally sufficient reasons for rejecting evidence; (2) there are no

outstanding issues that must be resolved before the disability determination can be made;

and (3) it is clear from the record that the ALJ would be required to find the claimant disabled

were such evidence credited. Harman v. Apfel, 211 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2000). During

the ALJ hearing, the vocational expert was asked to consider a hypothetical which

incorporated some of the pain testimony given by Plaintiff. When asked whether Plaintiff

could work at the light jobs identified if she had to use the bathroom 10 to 15 times a day due

Case 3:07-cv-00232-BTM-NLS Document 16 Filed 02/19/08 Page 7 of 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

8 07CV232

to her gastrointestinal condition or miss about 4 days a month due to her pain and fatigue,

the vocational expert testified that Plaintiff could not sustain a job under those conditions.

(Tr. 736-737) If Plaintiff’s allegations of pain in her limbs, chronic diarrhea, chronic fatigue,

need for frequent breaks and painful sensitivity to the environment were credited, the ALJ

would be required to find that Plaintiff is disabled. The Court therefore GRANTS Plaintiff’s

motion for summary judgment [Doc. 11], DENIES Defendant’s cross-motion for summary

judgment [Doc. 14] , and REMANDS this case for an award of benefits. The Court also

GRANTS Defendant’s motion to substitute attorney [Doc. 12]. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: February 19, 2008

Honorable Barry Ted Moskowitz

United States District Judge

Case 3:07-cv-00232-BTM-NLS Document 16 Filed 02/19/08 Page 8 of 8