Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-01452/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-01452-0/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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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

Debora Bryant, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Michael J. Astrue, Commissioner of Social

Security, 

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-08-01452-PHX-FJM

ORDER

Plaintiff seeks judicial review under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) of the Social Security

Administration's decision denying her continuing disability status. We have before us

plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, statement of facts, and memorandum of points and

authorities (docs. 11, 12, & 13), and defendant’s answering brief (doc. 16). 

In 2002, plaintiff was found to be disabled due to carpel tunnel syndrome and cervical

bulging discs. In December 2004, the Social Security Administration determined that

plaintiff’s disability had improved and that she was no longer entitled to benefits. The

Administration’s decision was upheld by a disability hearing officer in July 2005, and

plaintiff requested review by an Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”). After a June 8, 2006

hearing, the ALJ concluded that plaintiff’s disability had ended on December 1, 2004. This

decision became the final decision of the Commissioner when the Appeals Council denied

plaintiff’s request for review on July 8, 2008. 

Case 2:08-cv-01452-FJM Document 17 Filed 07/13/09 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

1

Plaintiff also refers to a prescriptive note authored by Dr. Badihian in September

2005, which comments that “Mrs. Bryant [has] been placed on total disability.” Tr. at 531.

We need not address this note because it is an observation on plaintiff’s status rather than a

medical opinion. 

- 2 -

An ALJ’s decision to deny or award benefits will be overturned “only if it is not

supported by substantial evidence or is based on legal error.” Magallanes v. Bowen, 881

F.2d 747, 750 (9th Cir. 1989) (quotation omitted). Plaintiff claims that the ALJ made a legal

error by improperly rejecting a medical assessment completed by her treating physician, B.

Badihian, D.O., in November 2005.1

 In his assessment, Dr. Badihian concluded that plaintiff

was able to sit and stand or walk for a total of six hours in an eight hour work day in four

hour increments, bend, squat, crawl, climb, and reach frequently, and lift up to five pounds

occasionally, but was not able to perform continuous pushing and pulling of controls or fine

manipulations. Tr. at 496-98. Dr. Badihian also concluded that plaintiff’s activities were

limited by moderately severe pain. Id.

The ALJ considered Dr. Badihian’s assessment, but ultimately did not give it

substantial weight. Id. at 17. The ALJ determined that the assessment was too restrictive in

light of other objective medical evidence and was contradicted by the opinion of a treating

orthopedic surgeon, Dr. Scott A. Graham. Id. Although generally given deference, a treating

physician’s opinion may be rejected where the opinion is “brief, conclusory, and

inadequately supported by clinical findings.” Thomas v. Barnhart, 278 F.3d 947, 957 (9th

Cir. 2002) (citation omitted); see also Batson v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 359 F.3d 1190, 1195

(9th Cir. 2004). Nothing in the record indicates the bases for Dr. Badihian’s assessment, and

the ALJ’s determination was based on other substantial evidence. We conclude, therefore,

that the ALJ did not err in rejecting Dr. Badihian’s opinion where, as here, it was conclusory

and unsupported by objective medical information.

Plaintiff also argues that the ALJ erred by misreading a CT scan of her neck

performed in 2003. The ALJ remarked that the 2003 CT scan “was normal,” Tr. at 14, but

according to plaintiff, the CT scan showed only soft tissue and “cannot be construed as

Case 2:08-cv-01452-FJM Document 17 Filed 07/13/09 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

2

Plaintiff referenced this evidence in her letter to the Appeals Council, but it was not

mentioned in the Appeals Council’s July 8, 2008 decision. 

- 3 -

defining no abnormalities to the cervical spine.” Motion for Summary Judgment at 6. The

ALJ’s reference to plaintiff’s 2003 CT scan, however, was included with his finding that

plaintiff suffered from cervical degenerative disc disease as of December 1, 2004. Plaintiff

has failed to address how her cervical spine issues affect her ability to perform light work.

Plaintiff has not set forth, and there is no evidence in the record of, any functional limitations

as a result of bulging cervical discs that the ALJ failed to consider. See Burch v. Barnhart,

400 F.3d 676, 684 (9th Cir. 2005). 

Plaintiff also claims that it was error for the ALJ to fail to consider, or include with

the record, a cervical MRI performed in August 2006 submitted after her hearing but before

the ALJ’s decision.2

 Remand for consideration of new evidence is appropriate only where

plaintiff can show: (1) that new material evidence is available; and (2) good cause for having

failed to present the evidence earlier. 42 U.S.C. § 405(g); Mayes v. Massanari, 276 F.3d 453,

462 (9th Cir. 2001). Regardless of whether plaintiff would be able to show good cause,

plaintiff cannot establish that the August 9, 2006 MRI is material. To meet the burden on

materiality, plaintiff must show “that there is a ‘reasonable possibility’ that the new evidence

would have changed the outcome of the administrative hearing.” Mayes, 276 F.3d at 462.

Even if the 2006 MRI had been part of the record before the ALJ, substantial evidence

supports the ALJ’s findings and inferences. Moreover, plaintiff has again failed to address

how these degenerative changes affect her functional abilities or would have changed the

ALJ’s decision. 

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED DENYING plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment

(doc. 11). The decision of the Commission is affirmed. 

DATED this 10th day of July, 2009.

Case 2:08-cv-01452-FJM Document 17 Filed 07/13/09 Page 3 of 3