Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-3_12-cv-08100/USCOURTS-azd-3_12-cv-08100-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 864
Nature of Suit: Social Security - SSID Title XVI
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 

WO 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Samuel Neumann, 

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

Michael J. Astrue, Commissioner of Social 

Security Administration, 

Defendant.

No. CV-12-08100-PCT-NVW

ORDER 

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

decision of the Commissioner of Social Security Administration (“the Commissioner”), 

which denied him supplemental security income under section 1614(a)(3)(A) of the 

Social Security Act. Because the decision of the Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) is 

supported by substantial evidence and is not based on legal error, the Commissioner’s 

decision will be affirmed. 

I. BACKGROUND 

A. Factual Background 

Neumann was born in January 1987. He was initially diagnosed as having 

obsessive-compulsive disorder, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, and learning 

disabilities, but more recently has been diagnosed Asperger’s syndrome and anxiety 

disorder. 

He graduated from high school in Omaha, Nebraska, in 2005 and completed the 

equivalent of a couple of years of college in Iowa and Arizona. He has never been 

Case 3:12-cv-08100-NVW Document 20 Filed 02/08/13 Page 1 of 16
- 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 

employed or paid for his work, but he did participate in a church volunteer program 

painting houses and has worked at his father’s office filing and shredding documents. He 

participated in a “job shadowing” program at the Bent River Machine Shop where he 

observed machinists. Near the end of the program he was permitted to run a machine, but 

he did not properly load it and caused a thousand dollars of damage. Beginning in 

December 2008, Neumann participated in machinist training at the Maricopa Skills 

Center, but in January 2010 he was dropped from the program because of insufficient 

attendance. 

B. Procedural History 

On March 24, 2008, Neumann protectively applied for supplemental security 

income benefits, alleging disability beginning January 1, 2007. On September 8, 2010, 

he appeared with his attorney and testified at a hearing before the ALJ. A vocational 

expert also testified. 

On December 16, 2010, the ALJ issued a decision that Neumann was not disabled 

within the meaning of the Social Security Act. The Appeals Council denied his request 

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

Commissioner’s final decision. On May 24, 2012, Neumann sought review by the Court. 

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 

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 

Case 3:12-cv-08100-NVW Document 20 Filed 02/08/13 Page 2 of 16
- 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 

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

The ALJ is responsible for resolving conflicts in medical testimony, determining 

credibility, and resolving ambiguities. Andrews v. Shalala, 53 F.3d 1035, 1039 (9th Cir. 

1995). 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). 

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. § 416.920(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. § 416.920(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. 

§ 416.920(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 

impairments meets or equals an impairment listed in Appendix 1 to Subpart P of 20 

C.F.R. Pt. 404. § 416.920(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. § 416.920(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. 

Case 3:12-cv-08100-NVW Document 20 Filed 02/08/13 Page 3 of 16
- 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 

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

disabled. Id. 

IV. ANALYSIS 

At step one, the ALJ found that Neumann has not engaged in substantial gainful 

activity since March 24, 2008, the application date for benefits. At step two, the ALJ 

found that Neumann has the following impairments which are severe when considered in 

combination: a mild form of Asperger’s syndrome and an anxiety disorder. At step 

three, the ALJ determined that Neumann does not have an impairment or combination of 

impairments that meets or medically equals one of the impairments listed in 20 C.F.R. 

Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1. 

At step four, the ALJ determined that Neumann “has the residual functional 

capacity to perform light, unskilled, simple work that does not require interaction with 

the general public” and has no past relevant work. At step five, the ALJ concluded that, 

considering Neumann’s age, education, work experience, and residual functional 

capacity, there are jobs that exist in significant numbers in the national economy that he 

can perform. 

Neumann challenges the ALJ’s findings at the steps four and five. He contends 

that the ALJ’s residual functional capacity determination and finding that Neumann’s 

subjective symptom testimony is not entirely credible are not supported by substantial 

evidence. 

A. The ALJ Did Not Err in Weighing Medical Source Evidence. 

1. Legal Standard 

In weighing medical source opinions in Social Security cases, the Ninth Circuit 

distinguishes among three types of physicians: (1) treating physicians, who actually treat 

the claimant; (2) examining physicians, who examine but do not treat the claimant; and 

(3) non-examining physicians, who neither treat nor examine the claimant. Lester v. 

Case 3:12-cv-08100-NVW Document 20 Filed 02/08/13 Page 4 of 16
- 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 

Chater, 81 F.3d 821, 830 (9th Cir. 1995). Generally, more weight should be given to the 

opinion of a treating physician than to the opinions of non-treating physicians. Id. 

Where a treating physician’s opinion is not contradicted by another physician, it may be 

rejected only for “clear and convincing” reasons, and where it is contradicted, it may not 

be rejected without “specific and legitimate reasons” supported by substantial evidence in 

the record. Id. Moreover, the Commissioner must give weight to the treating physician’s 

subjective judgments in addition to his clinical findings and interpretation of test results. 

Id. at 832-33. 

Further, an examining physician’s opinion generally must be given greater weight 

than that of a non-examining physician. Id. at 830. As with a treating physician, there 

must be clear and convincing reasons for rejecting the uncontradicted opinion of an 

examining physician, and specific and legitimate reasons, supported by substantial 

evidence in the record, for rejecting an examining physician’s contradicted opinion. Id.

at 830-31. 

The opinion of a non-examining physician is not itself substantial evidence that 

justifies the rejection of the opinion of either a treating physician or an examining 

physician. Id. at 831. “The opinions of non-treating or non-examining physicians may 

also serve as substantial evidence when the opinions are consistent with independent 

clinical findings or other evidence in the record.” Thomas, 278 F.3d at 957. Factors that 

an ALJ may consider when evaluating any medical opinion include “the amount of 

relevant evidence that supports the opinion and the quality of the explanation provided; 

the consistency of the medical opinion with the record as a whole; [and] the specialty of 

the physician providing the opinion.” Orn, 495 F.3d at 631. 

The Commissioner is responsible for determining whether a claimant meets the 

statutory definition of disability and does not give significance to a statement by a 

Case 3:12-cv-08100-NVW Document 20 Filed 02/08/13 Page 5 of 16
- 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 

medical source that the claimant is “disabled” or “unable to work.” 20 C.F.R. 

§ 416.927(d). 

2. Medical Source Evidence 

a. Patricia Wicks, Ph.D., Treating Psychologist 

On December 11, 2006, when Neumann was moving from Omaha, Nebraska, to 

Clarkdale, Arizona, Dr. Wicks summarized the results of multiple assessments that she 

had administered to Neumann. She diagnosed Neumann with obsessive compulsive 

disorder and possible Asperger’s syndrome and schizotypal personality disorder. She 

recommended “brief, focused treatment” during Neumann’s “initial transition to a new 

geographical and psychological home.” 

b. Joel Fick, Ph.D., Examining Specialist in 

Neuropsychological Testing 

On January 20, 2007, Dr. Fick administered multiple assessments to Neumann 

during a seven-hour testing session. He concluded that Neumann was suffering from 

three co-occurring conditions that seemed to be impacting his academic functioning: a 

mild form of Asperger’s syndrome, obsessive-compulsive disorder by history, and 

attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (inattentive type). Dr. Fick also concluded that 

Neumann appeared to have learning disorders affecting his auditory processing, reading 

comprehension, and spelling skills because his performance in these areas was lower than 

would be expected with his above-average level of intelligence. Dr. Fick recommended 

that Neumann be provided with strategies and skills to specifically deal with his learning 

disorders and that he seek assistance for disabled students in college, such as extra time 

for tests and reduced distractions during examinations. Dr. Fick also recommended that 

Neumann continue individual and co-occurring family therapy to help him deal with 

stress associated with learning and being successful in school: 

For example, parents often place high expectations of [] 

academic success on their children. It may be possible that 

Sam needs to be praised for his effort as opposed to his 

Case 3:12-cv-08100-NVW Document 20 Filed 02/08/13 Page 6 of 16
- 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 

achievement to alleviate the internal stress that seems to be 

present based on past reports of OCD. Additionally, 

individual therapy could teach stress management skills such 

as diaphragmatic breathing and other relaxation techniques to 

prevent stress from deleterious effects. 

c. Stephen Gill, Ph.D., Examining State Agency Psychological Consultant 

On June 30, 2008, Dr. Gill performed a psychological evaluation at the request of 

the state agency. He also reviewed the assessments by Dr. Fick and Dr. Wicks and the 

April 19, 2008 third-party function report by Neumann’s mother. He diagnosed 

Neumann as having autism spectrum disorder, Asperger’s type, not otherwise specified. 

He opined that Neumann is capable of self-managing his own funds and that: 

The patient, in consideration of OCD issues and issues of 

mutual reciprocity affecting his social contacts, is in a 

position to learn and implement a simple repetitive task in the 

appropriate working environment that would be supportive of 

the differences in his social interactions. 

d. Brady Dalton, Psy.D., State Agency Reviewing Consultant 

On July 28, 2008, Dr. Dalton reviewed Neumann’s medical records and completed 

a Mental Residual Functional Capacity Assessment and a Psychiatric Review Technique. 

Dr. Dalton found no evidence of limitation regarding Neumann’s ability to remember 

locations and work-like procedures, understand and remember very short and simple 

instructions, understand and remember detailed instructions, carry out very short and 

simple instructions, and carry out detailed instructions. Dr. Dalton assessed Neumann as 

not significantly limited in his ability to sustain an ordinary routine without special 

supervision, make simple work-related decisions, ask simple questions or request 

assistance, accept instructions and respond appropriately to criticism from supervisors, 

respond appropriately to changes in the work setting, be aware of normal hazards and 

take appropriate precautions, travel in unfamiliar places or use public transportation, and 

set realistic goals or make plans independently of others. Dr. Dalton assessed Neumann 

Case 3:12-cv-08100-NVW Document 20 Filed 02/08/13 Page 7 of 16
- 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 

as moderately limited in his ability to maintain attention and concentration for extended 

periods; perform activities within a schedule, maintain regular attendance, and be 

punctual within customary tolerances; work in coordination with or proximity to others 

without being distracted by them; complete a normal workday and workweek without 

interruptions from psychologically based symptoms and perform at a consistent pace 

without an unreasonable number and length of rest periods; interact appropriately with 

the general public; get along with coworkers or peers without distracting them or 

exhibiting behavioral extremes; and maintain socially appropriate behavior and adhere to 

basic standards of neatness and cleanliness. Dr. Dalton did not find Neumann to be 

markedly limited in any area. 

In comments elaborating on his assessments, Dr. Dalton stated that Neumann 

“appears to have a fair ability to sustain attention throughout extended periods of time (up 

to 2 hours at a time),” “appears to have a fair ability to perform at a consistent pace 

particularly if he is engaged in a simple to semi-skilled task,” and “appears to have an 

adequate ability to maintain [a] regular schedule.” These comments addressing areas for 

which Dr. Dalton assessed Neumann’s ability as moderately limited indicate that Dr. 

Dalton did not interpret “moderately limited” as precluding all work. 

e. David Yandell, Ph.D., State Agency Reviewing Consultant 

On November 28, 2008, Dr. Yandell reviewed and affirmed Dr. Dalton’s 

assessment and conclusion that Neumann is able to perform simple and complex job 

tasks and would be best placed in a work setting that does not require a great deal of 

social interaction. 

f. Mark Wellek, M.D., Treating Physician 

On January 29, 2010, Dr. Wellek wrote to Neumann’s attorney for the purpose of 

documenting his Social Security claim: 

I first saw Mr. Neumann in January 2008. It was clear at the 

outset that he suffered from High Level Autism and screening 

Case 3:12-cv-08100-NVW Document 20 Filed 02/08/13 Page 8 of 16
- 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 

testing (enclosed) confirmed that. He had never been treated 

for his disorder. Instead, other examiners did the usual and 

mistaken thing and treated him (unsuccessfully) for Attention 

Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder. The medication provided to 

him for that only served to agitate him. Rather than work 

with him behaviorally (to talk with people, to manage his own 

tantrums) he simply got unhelpful medicine. 

At present, I am allowed to see Sam infrequently. I have just 

been notified that he has been dropped from a skills training 

program for nonattendance. His prognosis is guarded. He is 

prescribed Effexor XR 225mgm per day. 

He is unable to care for himself independently and is disabled 

in nearly every sense of the word. 

Dr. Wellek said that Neumann’s chart would not be provided for reasons of privacy. The 

screening testing described as enclosed is not included in the administrative record, and 

Dr. Wellek did not provide any assessment of Neumann’s work-related abilities. 

3. The ALJ’s Residual Functional Capacity Determination 

In his opening brief, Neumann contends that the ALJ erred by determining he “has 

the residual functional capacity to perform light, unskilled, simple work that does not 

require interaction with the general public” because it does not include all of the 

moderate limitations1

 found by Dr. Dalton. In his reply brief, Neumann contends that the 

ALJ relied too much on Dr. Dalton’s assessment, which was prepared in July 2008, 

before Neumann’s training at the Maricopa Skills Center was terminated for insufficient 

attendance. 

 1

 Neumann contends that because the rating “Moderately Limited” on the Mental 

Residual Functional Capacity Assessment means greater limitation than the rating “Not 

Significantly Limited,” “Moderately Limited” means significantly limited. Regardless of 

the scope that “significantly” could encompass in other contexts, here “Moderately 

Limited” means more than “Not Significantly Limited” and less than “Markedly 

Limited.” It does not mean that the claimant has no ability in the specific area. 

Case 3:12-cv-08100-NVW Document 20 Filed 02/08/13 Page 9 of 16
- 10 - 

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 

First, the ALJ did not err in weighing the medical source evidence. He properly 

rejected Dr. Wellek’s conclusory statement that Neumann is disabled, which is a 

determination reserved to the Commissioner. He also did not err by finding that no 

persuasive evidence of record supported Dr. Wellek’s conclusory statement that 

Neumann is “unable to care for himself.” He assigned “significant evidentiary weight” to 

Dr. Fick’s and Dr. Gill’s assessments, to the extent indicated in the ALJ’s assessment. 

The ALJ also assigned significant evidentiary weight to Dr. Dalton’s and Dr. Yandell’s 

opinions and assessments, specifically that Neumann is able to perform simple and 

complex job tasks and would be best placed in a work setting that does not require a great 

deal of social interaction. The medical source evidence to which the ALJ assigned 

significant weight is uncontradicted by other medical sources except for Dr. Wellek’s 

conclusory statements that were properly rejected. 

Second, the ALJ was not required to determine that Neumann’s residual functional 

capacity was severely limited merely because he determined that Neumann had 

impairments that were severe when considered in combination. The ALJ’s residual 

functional capacity determination does not conflict with Dr. Dalton’s assessment that 

Neumann has moderate limitations in his ability to maintain attention and concentration 

and perform at a consistent pace, but he appears to be able to sustain attention for up to 

two hours at a time and appears to be able to perform at a consistent pace, particularly if 

he is engaged in a simple to semi-skilled task. Further, the ALJ’s residual functional 

capacity determination reflects Dr. Dalton’s opinion that Neumann is moderately limited 

in interacting appropriately with the general public. And, despite a moderate limitation in 

his ability to maintain a regular schedule, Dr. Dalton opined that Neumann appeared to 

have an adequate ability to maintain a regular schedule. 

Finally, the ALJ did not err by failing to give controlling weight to Neumann’s 

unsuccessful experience at the Maricopa Skills Center from December 2008 through 

Case 3:12-cv-08100-NVW Document 20 Filed 02/08/13 Page 10 of 16
- 11 - 

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 

January 2010. The only medical source evidence after Neumann began training at the 

Maricopa Skills Center is the January 29, 2010 letter from Dr. Wellek, which stated that 

he was “allowed to see Sam infrequently.” The ALJ was not required to conclude that 

Neumann’s inability to maintain regular attendance at the Maricopa Skills Center 

demonstrated conclusively that he would not be able to maintain regular attendance at a 

job under different circumstances. 

B. The ALJ Complied with the Social Security Administration’s Program 

Operations Manual System DI 25020.010. 

Nuemann contends that the ALJ failed to comply with the Social Security 

Administration’s Program Operations Manual System DI 25020.010 by concluding that 

he “is capable of making a successful adjustment to work in jobs that exist in significant 

numbers in both the regional and national economies” when Dr. Dalton found him to be 

moderately limited in his ability to maintain attention and concentration for extended 

periods and commented that Neumann “appears to have a fair ability to sustain attention 

throughout extended periods of time (up to 2 hours at a time).” The Social Security 

Administration’s Program Operations Manual System DI 25020.010(B)(2)(a) includes 

among the “mental abilities needed for any job” “the ability to maintain concentration 

and attention for extended periods (the approximately 2-hour segments between arrival 

and first break, lunch, second break, and departure).” DI 25020.010(B)(3)(d) states that 

to perform unskilled work the claimant must show the ability to “maintain attention for 

extended periods of 2-hour segments (concentration is not critical).” Dr. Dalton’s use of 

the phrase “fair ability” indicates he believed that Neumann has adequate ability to 

sustain attention for up to 2 hours at a time. Thus, the ALJ’s residual capacity 

determination does not conflict with the Social Security Administration’s Program 

Operations Manual System DI 25020.010. 

Case 3:12-cv-08100-NVW Document 20 Filed 02/08/13 Page 11 of 16
- 12 - 

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 

C. The ALJ Did Not Err in Evaluating Neumann’s Credibility. 

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

other symptoms, 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 Neumann’s medically determinable impairments could 

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

Neumann’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. The ALJ found Neumann’s statements not credible to 

the extent he claims he is unable to work due to his impairments and their related 

symptoms because the medical evidence does not support Neumann’s allegation. 

On April 18, 2008, Neumann reported that his daily activities were housework and 

running errands. He said that he helped care for the family dog by walking her, feeding 

her, taking her to the vet, and giving her baths. He said that he had no problem with 

personal care and he did not need help or reminders regarding personal needs, grooming, 

or taking medicine. He reported that he could prepare one or two course meals and he 

prepared meals daily. He also reported that he is able to wash dishes, do laundry, and 

clean bathrooms without assistance. He said that he goes out daily, is able to walk and 

drive, and is able to go out alone. He reported shopping weekly and running errands 

when needed. He said that he is able to read and listen to audio books, use the internet, 

play video games, play with the dog, and watch television without problems. He also 

reported that he attended an autism support group monthly and did not need anyone to 

Case 3:12-cv-08100-NVW Document 20 Filed 02/08/13 Page 12 of 16
- 13 - 

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 

remind him to go or to accompany him. He reported that he does not handle stress well, 

but handles changes in routine moderately well. He said that he was born with his 

conditions and there had been no changes in what he is able to do. 

At the administrative hearing on September 8, 2010, Neumann testified that he has 

been diagnosed with Asperger’s syndrome, which affects his ability to deal with stress, 

and when stress builds up, he “will literally shut down” and is not able to do anything. 

He also testified that he had graduated from high school and had acquired several years 

of college credit at colleges in Iowa and Arizona. He said that he had applied for jobs, 

but had never been hired. He had done church volunteer work painting houses. He said 

that he drives a car, had lived alone in an apartment in Phoenix for one year and four 

months, and is able to cook and clean for himself. 

Neumann also testified that while living alone and enrolled at the Maricopa Skills 

Center, he was not able to get to class on a regular schedule even though he had an alarm 

clock and his vocational rehabilitation counselor called him every morning for several 

weeks. Neumann said that even when he was ready to leave his apartment for the 

Maricopa Skills Center on time, it was difficult for him to go because of anxiety, and he 

was “thrown out of the program” because of his lack of attendance. 

Neumann contends that the ALJ erred by finding his statements not credible to the 

extent he claims he is unable to work due to his impairments and their related symptoms 

because the ALJ did not give proper weight to Neumann’s lack of attendance at the 

Maricopa Skills Center or his mother’s personal observations regarding his ability to care 

for himself. Mrs. Neumann’s April 19, 2008 Third-Party Function Report stated that her 

son needed to be reminded to shave, brush his teeth, and clean the kitchen and bathroom. 

On April 26, 2010, she wrote that when Neumann was to begin working at the Maricopa 

Skills Center in December 2008 (at the age of 21), he moved into an apartment two hours 

away from his parents and “was living on his own for the first time.” She reported that 

Case 3:12-cv-08100-NVW Document 20 Filed 02/08/13 Page 13 of 16
- 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 

when he did not begin work as scheduled because he said he had the flu, she came to 

Phoenix and took Neumann to Dr. Wellek, who explained that Neumann likely would be 

anxious about leaving his apartment on a shortened time schedule and navigating an 

unfamiliar city in the volume of traffic, the normal “first day” worries would magnify, 

and his anxiety would worsen as he missed more days. Mrs. Neumann also opined that 

Neumann “does not value personal hygiene or cleanliness of his living space”: 

He understands why it is important to be clean, and does 

shower every day, but that is where it ends. Even as a child it 

was next to impossible to get him to brush his teeth, trim his 

nails, or eat foods that will promote lifelong health. He 

refuses to brush his teeth, shave, or wear clothes without 

holes in them, especially if left to his own devices. His 

appearance and health deteriorated during his time in 

Phoenix. He ate almost exclusively pre-packaged, processed 

food or fast food. He gained a large amount of weight and 

appeared disheveled and unclean. . . . 

Since Sam was ten years old, he had the chore of cleaning the 

kitchen in our house, but it was a struggle every single day to 

get him to fulfill the expectation of what that meant. 

Arguments ensued over the fact that he not only had to empty 

the dishwasher, but he also had to put all the dishes away. As 

we moved Sam into his own apartment, we were very 

concerned about how he would maintain it. 

He engaged in hoarding behavior collecting junk mail, plastic 

bags, soda bottles, and empty food boxes and cans on all flat 

surfaces such as counters, tables, and floors. This paired with 

refusal to open any windows caused his apartment to smell 

very stale and unpleasant, which he claimed not to notice. 

When asked, Sam indicated his apartment complex had no 

recycling and he was saving those things to take in. After a 

month went by and nothing had been done, I cleaned it out 

and threw it away. He was very upset but returned to the 

behavior when I left and had a new collection by the time I 

returned. Occasionally he would bring the recycling 2 hours 

Case 3:12-cv-08100-NVW Document 20 Filed 02/08/13 Page 14 of 16
- 15 - 

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 

to our home in Clarkdale to dispose of it properly, but he 

never found a recycling place in Phoenix. 

In addition to that instance, Sam consistently demonstrated a 

lack of initiative with self-sufficiency. His dishwasher quit 

working while he lived there. He was coming home for the 

weekend, so rather than call his landlord, he brought his dirty 

dishes home with him. I explained that he would need to call 

the landlord and make a report. He was overwhelmed with 

the information and asked me to deal with it. I called the 

landlord and arranged to have it fixed. Sometime later, his 

disposal became clogged and stopped working. He called me 

and asked me to take care of it again. This time, I explained 

the process and told him that he would have to deal with it. It 

took him about two weeks, but he eventually made 

arrangements and it was fixed as well. 

Since Moving Home 

Sam is less conversational and more standoffish than he was 

when he left a year ago. His personal habits have deteriorated 

significantly and he still makes consistently poor food 

choices. He is still not brushing his teeth or shaving. He has 

had a very difficult time reintegrating to daily routines of our 

household including chores and family outings. . . . 

The ALJ referred to specific medical evidence in the record and Mrs. Neumann’s 

April 26, 2010 statement as not supporting Neumann’s allegation that he is unable to 

work. Mrs. Neumann’s statement describes a young man who is understandably anxious 

about living and driving in Phoenix and beginning a new job; does not comply with his 

mother’s preferences for his eating, grooming, and clothing; wants to recycle even when 

inconvenient; and avoids communication with his parents. In light of all of the evidence 

submitted, the ALJ did not err by finding Neumann’s testimony not credible to the extent 

that he alleges that he is not able to perform light, unskilled, simple work that does not 

require interaction with the general public. 

Case 3:12-cv-08100-NVW Document 20 Filed 02/08/13 Page 15 of 16
- 16 - 

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 affirmed. The Clerk shall enter judgment accordingly and shall 

terminate this case. 

Dated this 8th day of February, 2013. 

Case 3:12-cv-08100-NVW Document 20 Filed 02/08/13 Page 16 of 16