Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_05-cv-04533/USCOURTS-cand-5_05-cv-04533-6/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 (DIWW)

---

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

 This disposition is not designated for publication and may not be cited. 1

Case No. C 05-04533 JF 

GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT;

DENYING DEFENDANT’S CROSS-MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT; AND REMANDING FOR

FURTHER PROCEEDINGS.

(JFEX1) 1

**E-Filed 3/29/07**

NOT FOR CITATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

DELBERT SIZELOVE,

 Plaintiff,

 v.

JO ANNE B. BARNHART, Commissioner of

Social Security,

 Defendant.

Case Number C 05-04533 JF

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND 1

DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION FOR SUMMARY

JUDGMENT; DENYING

DEFENDANT’S CROSS-MOTION

FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT; AND

REMANDING FOR FURTHER

PROCEEDINGS.

[re: docket nos. 17, 21]

Plaintiff Delbert Sizelove (“Sizelove”) seeks reversal of a decision by Defendant

Commissioner of Social Security (“Commissioner”) denying him supplemental security income

benefits. The challenged decision was rendered by Administrative Law Judge John I. Flanagan

(the “ALJ”) on November 26, 2003. The ALJ’s decision became final when the Appeals Council

of the Social Security Administration denied Sizelove’s request for review of the ALJ’s decision. 

Sizelove filed a motion for summary judgment on July 14, 2006. The Commissioner filed a

Case 5:05-cv-04533-JF Document 25 Filed 03/29/07 Page 1 of 14
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

 Sizelove received benefits based on alcoholism and drug dependency. The benefits 2

were terminated on January 1, 1997 due to changes in Social Security legislation. Tr. 78, 87, Ex.

B-2A.

Case No. C 05-04533 JF 

GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT;

DENYING DEFENDANT’S CROSS-MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT; AND REMANDING FOR

FURTHER PROCEEDINGS.

(JFEX1)

cross-motion for summary judgment on September 15, 2006. Sizelove filed a reply on October

4, 2006. The matter was submitted without oral argument. 

I. BACKGROUND

Sizelove is a fifty-nine year old man with a ninth grade education level. He has worked

in the past as a security guard, specifically as a gate guard. Ex. B-7E. He previously received

supplemental security income benefits from 1991 until the beginning of 1997. After the 2

termination of his benefits, Sizelove worked as a security guard from January 1997 through April

1998. On January 12, 1999, he reapplied for supplemental security income benefits alleging a

disability commencing on April 1, 1998. Tr. 195. His application was denied both initially and

upon reconsideration. A hearing took place before Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) Benjamin

F. Parks on April 26, 2000. Tr. 23. ALJ Parks found that the request for a hearing properly

related to a previous application Sizelove had made in 1996, and that there was no “good cause”

for Sizelove’s untimely filing of the hearing request. ALJ Parks dismissed the request for a

hearing. The Appeals Council denied Sizelove’s request for review on October 27, 2000. Ex. B4A. Sizelove then filed an action in this district on December 12, 2000. In May 2002, the

district court remanded the case back to the Commissioner with an order directing that the ALJ

adjudicate Sizelove’s claim based on his 1999 application rather than his previous 1996

application. Ex. 7A-2. ALJ Parks vacated his prior decision and amended the decision to

address Sizelove’s 1999 application. Ex. B-9A/2. 

Meanwhile, Sizelove filed another application for supplemental security income benefits

on January 11, 2001, alleging a disability since April 1, 1998. Ex. B-4D. The Social Security

Administration denied the application initially and upon reconsideration. Ex. B-6B. Sizelove

alleges that he became disabled due to problems with his back, knee, heart, and lungs, as well as

from depression. Ex. B-7E. Pursuant to Sizelove’s request, the ALJ held a de novo

Case 5:05-cv-04533-JF Document 25 Filed 03/29/07 Page 2 of 14
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

Case No. C 05-04533 JF 

GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT;

DENYING DEFENDANT’S CROSS-MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT; AND REMANDING FOR

FURTHER PROCEEDINGS.

(JFEX1)

administrative hearing on September 12, 2003 in Oakland, California. Cross-mot. Summ. J. at 2. 

Sizelove, who was represented by counsel, testified at the hearing, as did medical expert Dr.

Roger Freed (“Dr. Freed”) and vocational expert Gerald Belchick, Ph.D. (“Dr. Belchick”). Ex.

B-14B. 

The ALJ found that Sizelove is not disabled within the meaning of the Social Security

Act and therefore is not entitled to the benefits for which he applied. After consideration of the

entire record, including medical opinions described below, the ALJ found the following:

Sizelove has not engaged in substantial gainful activity since the alleged onset of the disability. 

Tr. 24. The ALJ then found that Sizelove suffers from chronic obstructive pulmonary disease,

obesity, chronic low back pain, and osteoarthritis of the knees. The ALJ held that these

impairments significantly limit Sizelove’s ability to perform basic work activities, and are

considered “severe” based on the requirements in the Regulations 20 C.F.R. §§ 416.921 and

416.920(c). However, the ALJ also found that these medically determinable impairments do not

meet or medically equal one of the listed impairments in Appendix 1, Subpart P, Regulation No.

4. Id.

The ALJ found that Sizelove did not meet the listing levels for a spinal disorder (1.04A),

joint dysfunction (1.02A), chronic pulmonary insufficiency (3.02A), and that consequently,

Sizelove’s obesity, chronic low back pain, osteoarthritis of the knees, and chronic obstructive

pulmonary disease do not meet the criteria for any musculoskeletal or respiratory impairment

listed in Sections 1.00 and/or 3.00 et. seq. Id. The ALJ additionally found that none of the

medical findings in the record is equal in severity or duration to any of the listed findings. 20

CFR 404.1526. 

The ALJ also found that there is not sufficient evidence in the record to support

Sizelove’s claims of hypertension, gastroesophageal reflux disease, a history of alcohol and

amphetamine abuse, and a mild adjustment disorder and/or depression imposing more than a

minimal effect on Sizelove’s ability to perform basic work activities. The ALJ found that those

impairments are not “severe.” Id. The ALJ did find, however, that Sizelove’s medically

Case 5:05-cv-04533-JF Document 25 Filed 03/29/07 Page 3 of 14
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

Case No. C 05-04533 JF 

GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT;

DENYING DEFENDANT’S CROSS-MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT; AND REMANDING FOR

FURTHER PROCEEDINGS.

(JFEX1)

determinable musculoskeletal and respiratory impairments significantly limit his ability to

perform basic work activities.

The ALJ found that Sizelove has the residual functional capacity to perform a full range

of light work, as defined by 20 CFR 416.967(b). Specifically, the ALJ found that Sizelove could

lift and/or carry up to twenty pounds occasionally and ten pounds frequently, stand, walk and/or

sit for up to six hours in an eight-hour workday, and he must alternate periodically between

sitting and standing in order to relieve his pain or discomfort. Tr. 28. Exs. B-3F/4, B-9F/5, and

B-17F/4. The ALJ commented that Sizelove had received steroid injections into both knees that

improved his bilateral knee pain. Sizelove also had a lumbosacral spine x-ray, which showed

only generalized degenerative changes of the lumbar spine, but with no other abnormalities. Ex.

B-14F/3.

The ALJ concurred with Belchick that Sizelove retains the residual functional capacity to

perform his past relevant work as a factory gate guard, as he in fact previously performed it. Tr.

29. The ALJ stated that he had considered Sizelove’s statements regarding pain and other

symptoms, and found the statements to be not credible to the extent that Sizelove claims he

cannot engage in any substantial gainful activity. Id.

II. LEGAL STANDARD

A. Standard for Reviewing the Commissioner’s Decision

Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), this Court has the authority to review the

Commissioner’s decision denying Plaintiff benefits. The Commissioner’s decision (here the

decision of the ALJ) will be disturbed only if it is not supported by substantial evidence or if it is

based upon the application of improper legal standards. Moncada v. Chater, 60 F.3d 521, 523

(9th Cir. 1995); Drouin v. Sullivan, 966 F.2d 1255, 1257 (9th Cir. 1992). In this context, the

term “substantial evidence” means “more than a mere scintilla but less than a preponderance - it

is such relevant evidence that a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support the

conclusion.” Moncada, 60 F.3d at 523; Drouin, 966 F.2d at 1257. When determining whether

substantial evidence exists to support the ALJ’s decision, the Court examines the administrative

Case 5:05-cv-04533-JF Document 25 Filed 03/29/07 Page 4 of 14
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

A claimant’s residual functional capacity is what he or she can still do despite existing 3

exertional and nonexertional limitations. Cooper v. Sullivan, 880 F.2d 1152, 1155 n.5 (9th Cir.

1989).

Case No. C 05-04533 JF 

GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT;

DENYING DEFENDANT’S CROSS-MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT; AND REMANDING FOR

FURTHER PROCEEDINGS.

(JFEX1) 5

record as a whole, considering adverse as well as supporting evidence. Drouin, 966 F.2d at

1257; Hammock v. Bowen, 879 F.2d 498, 501 (9th Cir. 1989). Where evidence exists to support

more than one rational interpretation, the Court must defer to the decision of the ALJ. Moncada,

60 F.3d at 523; Drouin, 966 F.2d at 1258.

B. Standard for Determining Disability

A person is “disabled” for purposes of receiving social security benefits if he or she is

unable to engage in any substantial gainful activity due to a physical or mental impairment which

is expected to result in death or which has lasted or is expected to last for a continuous period of

at least twelve months. Drouin, 966 F.2d at 1257; Gallant v. Heckler, 753 F.2d 1450, 1452 (9th

Cir. 1984). In the first step, the Commissioner must determine whether the claimant currently is

engaged in substantial gainful activity; if so, the claimant is not disabled and the claim is denied. 

Id. If the claimant is not currently engaged in substantial gainful activity, the second step

requires the Commissioner to determine whether the claimant has a “severe” impairment or

combination of impairments which significantly limits the claimant’s ability to do basic work

activities; if not, a finding of “not disabled” is made and the claim is denied. Id. If the claimant

has a “severe” impairment or combination of impairments, the third step requires the

Commissioner to determine whether the impairment or combination of impairments meets or

equals an impairment in the Listing; if so, disability is conclusively presumed and benefits are

awarded. Id. If the claimant’s impairment or combination of impairments does not meet or

equal an impairment in the Listing, the fourth step requires the Commissioner to determine

whether the claimant has sufficient “residual functional capacity” to perform his or her past 3

work; if so, the claimant is not disabled and the claim is denied. Id. The plaintiff has the burden

of proving that he or she is unable to perform past relevant work. Drouin, 966 F.2d at 1257. If

the claimant meets this burden, a prima facie case of disability is established. The Commissioner

then bears the burden of establishing that the claimant can perform other substantial gainful

Case 5:05-cv-04533-JF Document 25 Filed 03/29/07 Page 5 of 14
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

 There are two ways for the Commissioner to meet the burden of showing that there is 4

other work in significant numbers in the national economy that claimant can do: (1) by the

testimony of a vocational expert or (2) by reference to the Medical-Vocational Guidelines. 

Tackett v. Apfel, 180 F.3d 1094, 1099 (9th Cir. 1999).

Case No. C 05-04533 JF 

GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT;

DENYING DEFENDANT’S CROSS-MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT; AND REMANDING FOR

FURTHER PROCEEDINGS.

(JFEX1) 6

work; the determination of this issue comprises the fifth and final step in the sequential analysis. 4

20 C.F.R.§§ 404.1520, 416.920; Lester v. Chater, 81 F.3d 821, 828 n.5 (9th Cir. 1995), as

amended April 9, 1996; Drouin, 966 F.2d at 1257.

III. DISCUSSION

Sizelove claims that the ALJ (1) committed an error of law by determining that

Sizelove’s adjustment disorder and depression disorder are not severe, (2) did not consider

whether Sizelove could perform sustained work activity at a light level of exertion, (3) failed to

ascertain the demands of Sizelove’s former work and to compare those demands with present

capacity, and (4) failed to make a bona fide credibility finding in his one-sentence reference to

Sizelove’s credibility in the decision. The Commissioner asserts that the ALJ properly assessed

the medical evidence. 

A. Severity of Mental Impairments 

Sizelove asserts that the ALJ improperly rejected his mental impairments as "non-severe"

at the second step of the disability analysis assessment, and that the ALJ lacked substantial

evidence to dismiss the mental impairment claims. Mot. Summ. J. at 8. The Commissioner

takes the position that Sizelove’s mental impairments do not impose significant limitations on

Sizelove’s ability to work, and, therefore, are not severe. 20 C.F.R. § 416.921, Mot. Cross

Summ. J. 3, Tr. 24. Sizelove argues that the “ALJ failed to consider that the severity inquiry is a

‘de minimus screening device to dispose of groundless claims.’” Edlund v. Massanari, 253. F.3d

1152, 1158 (9th Cir. 2001). Mot. Summ. J. at 8. Sizelove also argues that opinions in the

record of both treating and examining physicians establish evidence of the severity of his

depression.

Case 5:05-cv-04533-JF Document 25 Filed 03/29/07 Page 6 of 14
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

Case No. C 05-04533 JF 

GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT;

DENYING DEFENDANT’S CROSS-MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT; AND REMANDING FOR

FURTHER PROCEEDINGS.

(JFEX1) 7

1. Dr. Karon

Sizelove claims that the ALJ failed to give proper weight to Dr. Jeffrey Karon’s

employability/medical statement, dated June 8, 2000, which stated that Sizelove has “major

depression; unemployable (Class III) - unable to do any work. Status is: Persistent. Major

Depression.” Tr. 312-13. Dr. Karon is Sizelove’s treating physician. The Commissioner asserts

that the ALJ noted and rejected a subsequent December 2002 note by Dr. Karon, which stated

that Plaintiff was disabled due to numerous medical problems including depression. Tr. 28, 274. 

The ALJ found that the 2002 statement lacked support in the record, and noted that the record

showed only routine, outpatient care for Sizelove’s multiple symptoms since February 1999. Tr.

28. The record shows that the ALJ did not fail to consider Dr. Karon’s evaluation and opinion in

his step two determination. 

2. Dr. Richwerger

Sizelove also asserts that the ALJ failed to give weight to the employability/medical

statement of David C. Richwerger, Ed.D., dated August 24, 2000. Dr. Richwerger evaluated

Sizelove at the request of the Commissioner. His report stated that the “MMPI is indicative of

some anxiety, some physiological reactions to anxiety as in psychosomatic problems, and some

significant Axis II personality issues, especially in the area of schizoid or schizotypical.” Tr.

319. In other records, Dr. Richweger states that Sizelove has “Axis 1 Adjustment disorder with

depression secondary to health concerns.” Id. The claimant has the ability to maintain adequate

social functioning; however, the claimant would do better in a job with less social contact.” Id. 

The Commissioner points out that a state agency doctor reviewed Dr. Richwerger’s report

and found that Sizelove had no significant limitations on his ability to perform basic work

activities. Tr. 332, 112 (explanation for disability determination based on Dr. Richwerger’s

August 200 report). The ALJ was entitled to rely on Dr. Richwerger’s report in finding that

Sizelove does not have a severe mental impairment. 

3. Dr. Ratto 

Sizelove next argues that the ALJ failed to analyze properly Dr. Rosemarie Ratto’s

Case 5:05-cv-04533-JF Document 25 Filed 03/29/07 Page 7 of 14
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

Case No. C 05-04533 JF 

GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT;

DENYING DEFENDANT’S CROSS-MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT; AND REMANDING FOR

FURTHER PROCEEDINGS.

(JFEX1) 8

statement from May 22, 2001. Dr. Ratto, a consultative psychological examiner like Dr.

Richwerger, diagnosed Sizlove with a depressive disorder. Dr. Ratto states:

The profile indicates that the patient is experiencing moderate 

to severe distress characterized by worry, is very alienated and 

has problems forming close relationships. He feels hopeless and 

is likely to have suicidal ideation . . . He is able to get along with 

others but due to current emotional difficulties some problems may 

arise . . . Considering his emotional difficulties, he may have 

difficulties with the stress of employment; however, this is difficult

to discern from this brief assessment.

Tr. 362-63. The Commissioner notes that the state agency psychiatrist, George Norbeck, M.D.,

reviewed Dr. Ratto’s report, and found a non-severe mental impairment; accordingly, the

Commissioner argues that the ALJ properly relied on Dr. Ratto’s report to find that Sizelove does

not have a severe mental impairment. Tr. 444, 447, 449-50. The ALJ cited the fact that Dr.

Ratto took Sizelove off depression medication a week after she made the statement quoted

above. Tr. 362-63. While Sizelove confirms this, he also asserts that additional evidence in the

record shows that he resumed antidepressants, and was also given additional medication. Tr.

270-71, 273. When determining whether substantial evidence exists to support the ALJ's

decision, the Court examines the administrative record as a whole, considering adverse as well as

supporting evidence. Drouin, 966 F.2d at 1257; Hammock v. Bowen, 879 F.2d 498, 501 (9th Cir.

1989). The record reflects that the ALJ properly relied on Dr. Ratto’s report and properly

weighed the conflicting evidence in the record. While Dr. Ratto’s medical notes include

indications that Sizelove suffered from depression, there is substantial evidence in the record

supporting the ALJ's decision to consider Sizelove’s mental impairments "non-severe." Dr.

Norbeck reviewed Dr. Ratto’s report, and found a non-severe mental impairment. Tr. 444, 447,

449-50. This Court must defer to the ALJ's weighing of the conflicting evidence. 

4. ALJ’s Failure to Discuss Sizelove’s Degrees of Limitation in Decision

Sizelove asserts that 20 C.F.R § 404.1520(b)(3) requires the ALJ to makes specific

findings as to the degree of limitation in the following functional areas: activities of daily living,

social function; concentration, persistence, or pace; and episodes of decompensation. While

Case 5:05-cv-04533-JF Document 25 Filed 03/29/07 Page 8 of 14
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

Case No. C 05-04533 JF 

GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT;

DENYING DEFENDANT’S CROSS-MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT; AND REMANDING FOR

FURTHER PROCEEDINGS.

(JFEX1) 9

acknowledging that the ALJ did not comply fully with this requirement, the Commissioner

argues that the omission was harmless because substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s finding

that Plaintiff does not have a severe mental impairment. The Commissioner argues further that

20 C.F.R. § 416.920a(3)(3) implies that ALJs may seek testimony by a medical expert to make

such findings. Cross-Motion 5. The Commissioner emphasizes that Dr. Freed, a medical expert,

testified at the hearing and reviewed the reports of both Dr. Ratto and Dr. Richwerger. Tr. 50. 

Dr. Freed testified that the records show either adjustment disorder with depression, or

depressive disorder. Tr. 51. He also noted the four functional areas in his testimony when

stating that there is no evidence that Sizelove experiences any restriction of activities of daily

living, and that he experiences only mild difficulty maintaining social functioning, mild

impairment of persistence and pace, and no episodes of decompensation. Tr. 52. 

The Commissioner’s contention that a medical expert’s testimony during the hearing is

sufficient to remedy the absence of specific findings by the ALJ is not supported by the plain

language of 20 C.F.R. § 416.920a(e)(2). As noted above, the regulation requires that the ALJ’s

decision include specific findings as to the degree of limitation in each of the functional areas. 

The Commissioner’s reliance on Matthews v. Shalala, 10 F.3d 678, 681 (9th Cir. 1993)

(harmless error found where there was other reliable evidence), is misplaced. Matthews held that

it was harmless error for an ALJ to fail to include all work limitations in a hearing hypothetical. 

The case at hand does not relate to a hypothetical, but instead involves the ALJ’s failure to

comply with express legal requirements as to what must be addressed in a written decision. 

Because the decision in this case lacks the necessary findings regarding Sizelove’s degree of

limitations related to his depression, the case must be remanded for a proper determination as to

the severity of Sizelove’s mental impairments.

B. Sizelove’s Ability to Perform Sustained Work Activity at a Light Level of Exertion

Sizelove asserts that the ALJ failed to provide specific and legitimate reasons for

rejecting the examining and treating physicians’ favorable findings regarding Sizelove’s ability to

perform sustained work activity. Motion 12-15. The Commissioner argues that the ALJ properly

Case 5:05-cv-04533-JF Document 25 Filed 03/29/07 Page 9 of 14
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

Case No. C 05-04533 JF 

GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT;

DENYING DEFENDANT’S CROSS-MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT; AND REMANDING FOR

FURTHER PROCEEDINGS.

(JFEX1) 10

discounted Dr. Karon’s opinions that Sizelove is disabled because Dr. Karon did not indicate that

Sizelove has any specific functional limitations. The ALJ found that Dr. Karon’s statements

were not supported by the record, and that other medical opinions contradicted Dr. Karon’s

conclusions. Transcript 25-28. The ALJ stated in his opinion that “it would appear that Dr.

Karon’s assessment is a bit overstated and unsupported by the evidence of record, as the record

shows that the claimant has received primarily routine, outpatient care for his multiple symptoms

since at least February 1999. In that regard, the treatment records provided by Dr. Karon do not

support his determination that the claimant is ‘disabled.’” Tr. 28. 

The ALJ specifically noted that two examining doctors, Marion Guyer, M.D., and Saeed

Zamani, M.D., both stated that Sizelove could perform light work. Transcript 27-28, 325, 345. 

Where the opinion of the claimant’s treating physician is contradicted, and the opinion of the

nontreating source is based on independent clinical findings that differ from those of the treating

physician, the opinion of the nontreating source may itself be substantial evidence. Andrews v.

Shalala, 53 F.3d 1035, 1041 (9th Cir. 1995). Accordingly, the ALJ properly relied on the

medical opinions of Dr. Guyer and Dr. Zamani. 

Sizelove also claims that the ALJ did not make a finding as to whether he gave Dr.

Zamani’s consultative exam report any weight. Dr. Zamani noted that Sizelove needs to be in a

position where “he must periodically alternate sitting and standing to relieve the pain or

discomfort” any weight. Tr. 345. The ALJ noted in his decision that Sizlove’s past position as a

gate guard did not require continuous sitting, standing or walking. Tr. 29, 55-58, 74. The

Commissioner argues that any failure on the part of the ALJ to indicate the weight he accorded to

Dr. Zamani’s report was harmless error because the ALJ concluded that Sizelove had the residual

functional capacity to perform his past work as a gate guard as he actually performed it. Tr. 29,

30. See Stout v. Commissioner, 454 F.3d 1050, 1055 (9 Cir. 2006) (harmless error rule applies th

where mistake was irrelevant to the ALJ’s ultimate disability conclusion). Accordingly, the ALJ

properly assessed Sizelove’s ability to do light work. 

Case 5:05-cv-04533-JF Document 25 Filed 03/29/07 Page 10 of 14
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

Case No. C 05-04533 JF 

GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT;

DENYING DEFENDANT’S CROSS-MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT; AND REMANDING FOR

FURTHER PROCEEDINGS.

(JFEX1) 11

C. ALJ’s Assessment of Sizelove’s Ability to Perform Past Work

Sizelove claims that the ALJ failed to compare the demands of Sizelove’s former work

with his present capacity in accordance with 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(e) at step four of the five-step

determination. Sizelove also contends that the ALJ failed to conduct a “function-by-function”

analysis, which compares a claimant’s residual functional capacity to the demands of the

claimant’s past relevant work. If the claimant does not present a listed impairment, then the ALJ

will determine whether the impairment prevents the claimant from returning to “past relevant

work” at step four of the analysis. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(e). In his decision, the ALJ stated that

Sizelove could return to his past work as a security guard which requires “light “ exertion, but

was actually performed by Sizelove in a sedentary manner since he was a gate guard. Tr. 29. 

Sizelove has the burden of proving that he was unable to perform his past work, both as

he actually performed it, and as the job was generally performed in the national economy. Pinto

v. Massanari, 249 F.3d 840, 844-45. Sizelove did not meet this burden. Substantial evidence

illustrates that Sizelove could perform all of the duties of his former job, as he actually performed

it. During the hearing, Sizelove testified that he had to walk very short distances, and did not

have to do any lifting as a gate guard. Tr. 57-58. In addition, Dr. Belchick testified that the job

was more sedentary than light. The ALJ’s decision adequately explained his reasoning in finding

that Plaintiff could perform such work. Tr. 28, 29. 

D. ALJ’s Assessment of Sizelove’s Credibility

Finally, Sizelove asserts that Social Security Ruling 96-7p mandates that the adjudicator

must consider the claimant’s subjective complaints, and that the ALJ failed to make a bona fide

credibility finding. Social Security Ruling 96-7p states: “It is not sufficient for the adjudicator to

make a single, conclusory statement that ‘the individuals’s allegations have been considered’ or

that ‘the allegations are (or are not) credible.’” The ALJ did make a general statement that he did

not find Sizelove’s subjective complaints wholly credible. Tr. 28, 29. 

However, the statement is taken out of context. If the ALJ’s interpretation of a claimant’s

contentions is reasonable and supported by substantial evidence, even where a contrary finding

Case 5:05-cv-04533-JF Document 25 Filed 03/29/07 Page 11 of 14
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

Case No. C 05-04533 JF 

GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT;

DENYING DEFENDANT’S CROSS-MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT; AND REMANDING FOR

FURTHER PROCEEDINGS.

(JFEX1) 12

may also be reasonable, it is not the Court’s role to second-guess it. Rollins v. Massanari, 261

F.3d 853, 857 (9th Cir. 2001). The record contains a specific statement by the ALJ that among

his reasons for discounting Sizelove’s testimony are the absence evidence that Sizelove has

sought psychotherapy, as well as Sizelove’s continued smoking and drinking despite his

pulmonary ailments and history of alcoholism. Tr. 29 (citing Tr. 479 as an example). The ALJ

also properly commented on Sizelove’s use of an unprescribed cane at the hearing. Tr. 28-29. 

The ALJ properly considered the medical evidence including x-rays showing only lumbar

degeneration. Tr. 29, 497. While the ALJ made a general statement that Sizelove is not “wholly

credible”, he also cited specific evidence supporting his credibility finding. If the evidence can

support either outcome, the Court may not substitute its judgment for that of the ALJ. Tackett v.

Apfel, 180 F.2d 1094, 1098 (9thCir. 1999).

Case 5:05-cv-04533-JF Document 25 Filed 03/29/07 Page 12 of 14
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

Case No. C 05-04533 JF 

GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT;

DENYING DEFENDANT’S CROSS-MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT; AND REMANDING FOR

FURTHER PROCEEDINGS.

(JFEX1) 13

IV. ORDER

Good cause therefore appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

(1) Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN 

PART;

(2) Defendant’s cross-motion for summary judgment is DENIED; and

(3) this case is REMANDED to the Social Security Administration for further

proceedings consistent with this opinion. 

DATED: March 29, 2007

 

JEREMY FOGEL

United States District Judge

Case 5:05-cv-04533-JF Document 25 Filed 03/29/07 Page 13 of 14
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

Case No. C 05-04533 JF 

GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT;

DENYING DEFENDANT’S CROSS-MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT; AND REMANDING FOR

FURTHER PROCEEDINGS.

(JFEX1) 14

This Order has been served upon the following persons:

John C. Cusker john.cusker@ssa.gov 

Harvey Peter Sackett hps@hpspc.com, lucyc@sackettlaw.com; julie@sackettlaw.com;

 juanita@sackettlaw.com 

Sara Winslow sara.winslow@usdoj.gov, kathy.terry@usdoj.gov;

claire.muller@usdoj.gov 

Case 5:05-cv-04533-JF Document 25 Filed 03/29/07 Page 14 of 14