Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-01650/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-01650-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 864
Nature of Suit: Social Security - SSID Title XVI
Cause of Action: 42:0405id Review of HHS Decision (SSID)

---

1

3:18-cv-01650-H-LL

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GINO INNOCENTI,

Plaintiff,

v.

NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Acting 

Commissioner of Social Security,

Defendant.

Case No.: 3:18-cv-01650-H-LL

ORDER:

(1)DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION FOR SUMMARY 

JUDGMENT 

[Doc. No. 12]

(2)GRANTING DEFENDANT’S 

MOTION FOR SUMMARY 

JUDGMENT

[Doc. No. 17]

On July 19, 2018, Plaintiff Gino Innocenti filed a complaint against Defendant 

Nancy A. Berryhill, the Acting Commissioner of Social Security, seeking judicial review 

of an administrative denial of disability benefits under the Social Security Act. (Doc. No. 

1.) On October 1, 2018, the Acting Commissioner answered Plaintiff’s complaint and 

lodged the administrative record. (Doc. Nos. 8, 9.) On November 8, 2018, Plaintiff filed a 

motion for summary judgment, asking the Court to reverse the Acting Commissioner’s 

Case 3:18-cv-01650-H-LL Document 21 Filed 06/05/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 10
2

3:18-cv-01650-H-LL

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

final decision and remand for further administrative proceedings. (Doc. No. 12.) On March 

25, 2019, the Acting Commissioner cross-moved for summary judgment, asking the Court 

to affirm the Acting Commissioner’s final decision. (Doc. No. 17.) For the reasons below, 

the Court denies Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, grants the Acting 

Commissioner’s motion for summary judgment, and affirms the Acting Commissioner’s 

final decision.

BACKGROUND

On July 8, 2015, Plaintiff, who was 58 years old at the time and had previously 

worked as an electrical engineer, applied for disability insurance benefits, claiming a 

disability onset date of June 12, 2015. (Doc. No. 9, AR 53, 152–53.) The Social Security 

Administration (“SSA”) initially denied Plaintiff’s application for benefits on August 24, 

2015 and denied reconsideration on October 14, 2015. (AR 76–87.) Plaintiff requested a 

hearing before an Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”), which was held on October 10, 

2017. (AR 29–52.) Plaintiff testified at the hearing and was represented by counsel. (Id.) 

The ALJ also heard testimony from Susan Creighten-Clavel, an independent vocational 

expert. (Id.)

On January 26, 2018, the ALJ issued a written decision, analyzing Plaintiff’s claim

and determining that Plaintiff had not met his burden of proof. (AR 18–25.) SSA

regulations require ALJs to use the following five-step inquiry when determining whether 

an applicant qualifies for disability benefits: (1) has the claimant been gainfully employed 

since the time of the disability onset date; (2) “is the claimant’s impairment severe”; 

(3) “does the impairment ‘meet or equal’ one of a list of specific impairments described in 

the regulations,” and if not, what is the claimant’s residual functional capacity (“RFC”)1

; 

(4) is the claimant capable of performing past relevant work; and (5) “is the claimant able 

to do any other work.” Tackett v. Apfel, 180 F.3d 1094, 1098-99 (9th Cir. 1999); see 20 

 

1 SSA regulations define residual functional capacity as “the most you can still do despite your 

limitations.” 20 C.F.R. § 416.945(a)(1).

Case 3:18-cv-01650-H-LL Document 21 Filed 06/05/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 10
3

3:18-cv-01650-H-LL

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.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(i)–(v). 

Here, the ALJ determined at step one that Plaintiff had not been gainfully employed 

since the disability onset date of June 12, 2015. (AR 20.) At step two, the ALJ found that 

Plaintiff had the following severe impairments: degenerative disc disease of the spine and 

bursitis of the left shoulder. (Id.) At step three, the ALJ concluded that Plaintiff did not 

have an impairment or combination of impairments that amounted to one of the SSA 

regulations’ enumerated impairments. (AR 20–21.) The ALJ then determined that Plaintiff 

had a RFC to perform “light work,” as defined in 20 C.F.R. 404.1567(b), “except [that he] 

is limited to lifting 20 pounds occasionally, and ten pound frequently; sitting for six hours 

in an eight hour workday; standing and/or walking for six hours in an eight hour workday; 

occasionally stooping, kneeling, crouching, crawling, and climbing ramps or stair; no 

climbing of ladders, ropes, or scaffolds, occasional overhead reaching with the left upper 

extremity; and [he] should avoid concentrated exposure to extreme cold temperatures, 

wetness, unprotected heights, and vibration.” (AR 21–24.) At step four, the ALJ 

determined that Plaintiff is capable of performing past relevant work as an electrical design 

engineer based on the vocational expert’s testimony and information from the Dictionary 

of Occupational Titles. (AR 24–25.)

Consequently, the ALJ determined that Plaintiff was not disabled from June 11, 

2015, the alleged onset date, through January 26, 2018, the date of the ALJ’s decision. (AR 

25.) On May 24, 2018, the Social Security Appeals Council denied Plaintiff’s request for 

review, rendering the ALJ’s decision final. (AR 1–6.)

LEGAL STANDARDS

I. The Social Security Administration’s Sequential Five-Step Inquiry

The SSA employs a sequential five-step evaluation to determine whether a claimant 

is eligible for benefits under the Social Security Act. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(i)–(v). 

To qualify for disability benefits, a claimant must establish that he or she is “disabled,” 

meaning that the claimant is unable “to engage in any substantial gainful activity by reason 

of any medically determinable physical or mental impairment which can be expected to 

Case 3:18-cv-01650-H-LL Document 21 Filed 06/05/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 10
4

3:18-cv-01650-H-LL

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

result in death or which has lasted or can be expected to last for a continuous period of not 

less than 12 months.” 42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(1)(A); see Johnson v. Shalala, 60 F.3d 1428, 

1432 (9th Cir. 1995).

Step one in the sequential evaluation considers a claimant’s “work activity, if any.” 

20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(i), 416.920(a)(4)(i). An ALJ will deny a claimant disability 

benefits if the claimant is engaged in “substantial gainful activity.” Id. §§ 404.1520(b),

416.920(b).

If a claimant cannot provide proof of gainful work activity, the ALJ proceeds to 

step two to ascertain whether the claimant has a medically severe impairment or 

combination of impairments. Id. §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(ii), 416.920(a)(4)(ii). The so-called 

“severity regulation” dictates the ALJ’s step-two analysis. Bowen v. Yuckert, 482 U.S. 

137, 140–41 (1987). Specifically, an ALJ will deny a claimant’s disability claim if the 

ALJ does not find that a claimant suffers from a severe impairment, or combination of 

impairments, which significantly limits the claimant’s physical or mental ability to do 

“basic work activities.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(c), 416.920(c).

If the impairment is severe, however, the evaluation proceeds to step three. At step 

three, the ALJ determines whether the impairment is equivalent to one of several 

enumerated impairments that the SSA deems so severe as to preclude substantial gainful 

activity. Id. §§ 404.1520(d), 416.920(d). An ALJ conclusively presumes a claimant is 

disabled if the impairment meets or equals one of the enumerated impairments. Id.

If the ALJ concludes that a claimant does not suffer from one of the SSA

regulations’ enumerated severe impairments, the ALJ must determine the claimant’s RFC

before proceeding to step four of the inquiry. Id. §§ 404.1520(e), 416.920(e). An 

individual’s RFC is his or her ability to do physical and mental work activities on a 

sustained basis despite limitations from his or her impairments. See id. §§ 404.1545(a)(1), 

416.945(a)(1). The RFC analysis considers whether the claimant’s “impairment(s), and 

any related symptoms, such as pain, may cause physical and mental limitations that affect 

what [the claimant] can do in a work setting.” Id. In establishing a claimant’s RFC, the 

Case 3:18-cv-01650-H-LL Document 21 Filed 06/05/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 10
5

3:18-cv-01650-H-LL

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

ALJ must assess relevant medical and other evidence, as well as consider all of the 

claimant’s impairments, including impairments categorized as non-severe. Id.

§§ 404.1545(a)(3)–(4), (e), 416.945(a)(3)–(4), (e).

Given the claimant’s RFC, the ALJ determines at step four whether the claimant 

has the RFC to perform the requirements of his or her past relevant work. Id.

§§ 404.1520(f), 416.920(f). If a claimant has the RFC to carry out his or her past relevant 

work, the claimant is not disabled. Id. Conversely, if the claimant does not have the RFC 

to perform his or her past relevant work, or does not have any past relevant work, the 

analysis presses onward.

At the fifth and final step of the SSA’s inquiry, the ALJ must determine whether 

the claimant is able to do any other work in light of his or her RFC, age, education, and 

work experience. Id. §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(v), (g)(1), 416.920(a)(4)(v), (g)(1). If the claimant 

is able to do other work, the claimant is not disabled. Id. §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(v), 

416.920(a)(4)(v). However, if the claimant is not able to do other work and meets the 

duration requirement of twelve months, the claimant is disabled. Id. Although the claimant 

generally continues to have the burden of proving disability at step five, a limited burden 

shifts to the SSA, such that the SSA must present evidence demonstrating that other jobs

the claimant can perform—allowing for RFC, age, education, and work experience—exist 

in significant numbers in the national economy. Tackett, 190 F.3d at 1099.

II. Standard of Review

Unsuccessful applicants for social security disability benefits may seek judicial 

review of a Commissioner’s final decision in a federal district court. See 42 U.S.C. 

§ 405(g). “As with other agency decisions, federal court review of social security 

determinations is limited.” Treichler v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 775 F.3d 1090, 1098 

(9th Cir. 2014). The court will “disturb the Commissioner’s decision to deny benefits ‘only 

if it is not supported by substantial evidence or is based on legal error.’” Id. (quoting 

Andrews v. Shalala, 53 F.3d 1035, 1039 (9th Cir. 1995)). “Substantial evidence means 

more than a mere scintilla but less than a preponderance; it is such relevant evidence as a 

Case 3:18-cv-01650-H-LL Document 21 Filed 06/05/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 5 of 10
6

3:18-cv-01650-H-LL

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

reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.” Bray v. Comm’r of 

Soc. Sec. Admin., 554 F.3d 1219, 1222 (9th Cir. 2009) (quoting Andrews, 53 F.3d at 1039). 

The Court must consider the record as a whole, weighing both the evidence that supports 

and the evidence that detracts from the Commissioner’s determination. Garrison v. Colvin, 

759 F.3d 995, 1009 (9th Cir. 2014). “Where the evidence as a whole can support either a 

grant or a denial, [a court] may not substitute [its] judgment for the ALJ’s.” Bray, 554 F.3d 

at 1222 (quoting Massachi v. Astrue, 486 F.3d 1149, 1152 (9th Cir. 2007)). “The ALJ is 

responsible for determining credibility, resolving conflicts in medical testimony, and for 

resolving ambiguities.” Garrison, 759 F.3d at 1010 (quoting Andrews, 53 F.3d at 1039).

“The administrative law judge is not bound by the uncontroverted opinions of the 

claimant’s physicians on the ultimate issue of disability, but he cannot reject them without 

presenting clear and convincing reasons for doing so.” Reddick v. Chater, 157 F.3d 715, 

725 (9th Cir. 1998) (internal quotation marks and bracket omitted) (quoting Matthews v. 

Shalala, 10 F.3d 678 (9th Cir.1993)).

Even if the ALJ commits legal error, a reviewing court will uphold the decision 

where that error is harmless—that is, where the error is “inconsequential to the ultimate 

nondisability determination.” Molina v. Astrue, 674 F.3d 1104, 1115 (9th Cir. 2012) 

(citation omitted). “[T]he burden of showing that an error is harmful normally falls upon 

the party attacking the agency’s determination.” Id. at 1111 (quoting Shinseki v. Sanders, 

556 U.S. 396, 409 (2009)). 

DISCUSSION

Plaintiff argues that the ALJ erred on step four because it concluded that Plaintiff 

could perform occasional overhead reaching with the left upper extremity despite Dr. 

Thomas Sabourin opining that Plaintiff could not work with his left arm above shoulder 

level on the left, and that such an error was harmful. (Doc. No. 12-1.) The Acting 

Commissioner argues that the ALJ appropriately weighed the medical evidence in the 

record and that the ALJ’s decision is supported by substantial evidence. (Doc. No. 17-1.)

The Acting Commissioner further argues that even assuming the ALJ erred, any such error 

Case 3:18-cv-01650-H-LL Document 21 Filed 06/05/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 6 of 10
7

3:18-cv-01650-H-LL

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

would be harmless and therefore, non-reversible. (Id.) After thorough review of the 

administrative record and the parties’ arguments, the Court concludes that the ALJ did not 

err in its decision.

Here, Plaintiff’s primary complaint is of severe episodic low back pain. (See AR 22, 

53.) He also has psoriatic arthritis, which the medical evidence indicates has been well 

controlled with medication. (AR 22–23.) Although not his primary complaint, Plaintiff also 

has bursitis of the left shoulder. (AR 20.) The ALJ reviewed examinations of Plaintiff by 

two doctors, Dr. Cheryl Wright and Dr. Sabourin. (AR 23–24.) Dr. Sabourin conducted a 

consultative orthopedic examination of Plaintiff on May 22, 2017. (AR 277–82.) Following

the examination, Dr. Sabourin opined:

I feel he could lift or carry 20 pounds occasionally and 10 pounds frequently. 

He could stand and walk up to 6 hours of an eight-hour workday. He could sit 

for 6 hours of an eight-hour workday. Posture limitations, he could climb, 

stoop, kneel, and crouch occasionally limited by his back disease. He has 

manipulative limitations. He cannot work with the left arm above shoulder 

level on the left. He has no gross or fine manipulation limitations as his 

psoriatic arthritis is well controlled. Based on this evaluation, I could not find 

enough wrong with this individual that he would need a cane to ambulate.

(AR 282.) 

In its decision, the ALJ stated with regards to Dr. Sabourin’s opinion:

Some weight is given to this opinion, as the degree of limitation is consistent 

with the objective medical evidence in the record, which consists mostly of 

the claimant’s complaints of pain and of the imaging studies demonstrating 

the claimant’s degenerative disc disease in the lumbar spine. Less weight is 

given to Dr. Sabourin’s opinion that the claimant could occasionally climb, as 

his degenerative disc disease is likely to preclude any climbing of ladders, 

ropes, or scaffolds. Additionally, given the nature of the claimant’s ongoing 

joint and back pain, environmental limitations, such as avoiding concentrated 

exposure to wetness, unprotected heights, vibration, and extreme cold 

temperatures, are appropriate.

(AR 24.) Upon review the entire medical record, the ALJ concluded that Plaintiff had “the 

residual functional capacity to perform light work except that he “is limited to lifting 20 

pounds occasionally, and ten pound frequently; sitting for six hours in an eight hour 

Case 3:18-cv-01650-H-LL Document 21 Filed 06/05/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 7 of 10
8

3:18-cv-01650-H-LL

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

workday; standing and/or walking for six hours in an eight hour workday; occasionally 

stooping, kneeling, crouching, crawling, and climbing ramps or stair; no climbing of 

ladders, ropes, or scaffolds, occasional overhead reaching with the left upper extremity; 

and [he] should avoid concentrated exposure to extreme cold temperatures, wetness, 

unprotected heights, and vibration.” (AR 21.) The ALJ concluded with these limitations in 

mind and based on the testimony of the vocational expert and information in the Dictionary 

of Occupational Titles, Plaintiff remains able to perform his past work as an electrical 

design engineer. (AR 24–25.) Plaintiff argues that the ALJ erred by concluding that he 

could perform “occasional” overhead reaching on the left rather than no overhead reaching 

on the left, as opined by Dr. Sabourin. (Doc. No. 12-1.) 

An ALJ must consider all evidence, including medical opinions, in determining 

whether the claimant is disabled. See 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(b). Generally, the ALJ should 

give more weight to a treating doctor’s opinion than to the opinion of a doctor who did not 

treat the claimant. Lester v. Chater, 81 F.3d 821, 830 (9th Cir. 1995). Similarly, the ALJ 

should give more weight to an examining doctor’s opinion than to the opinion of a doctor 

who did not examine the claimant. Id. The ALJ must assign weight to medical opinions 

according to several factors, including supportability of the opinion and consistency with 

the record as a whole. See 20 C.F.R. § 416.927(c). When there is a material conflict in the 

evidence, such as the presence of contradictory medical evidence, only the ALJ can resolve 

it. See Vincent v. Heckler, 739 F.2d 1393, 1395 (9th Cir. 1984). “The ALJ need not accept 

the opinion of any physician, including a treating physician, if that opinion is brief, 

conclusory, and inadequately supported by clinical findings.” Thomas v. Barnhart, 278 

F.3d 947, 957 (9th Cir. 2002).

Here, the Court concludes that the ALJ appropriately weighed Dr. Sabourin’s 

opinion in light of the medical evidence in the record, and supported its decision with 

substantial evidence. In his claim for disability, Plaintiff alleges that his impairments are 

degenerative disc disease and arthritis. (AR 53.) Plaintiff’s allegation did not involve his 

shoulder, and the opinion by Plaintiff’s treating doctor, Dr. Wright, does not involve his 

Case 3:18-cv-01650-H-LL Document 21 Filed 06/05/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 8 of 10
9

3:18-cv-01650-H-LL

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

shoulder. (See AR 53–61, 230–60.) In its decision, the ALJ states that “[t]reatment records 

indicate the claimant has complained of low pack pain fairly consistently since the alleged 

onset date, but include little to no evidence of issues in other joints.” (Id.) The ALJ 

emphasized that Plaintiff’s treating rheumatologist provided a sole diagnosis of “chronic 

low back pain[.]” (Id.; see AR 230–60.) The ALJ concluded that “while there is objective 

medical evidence of impairment, specifically relating to chronic low back pain, the 

evidence is inconsistent with the degree of limitation alleged by the claimant.” (AR 23.) 

In reviewing Dr. Sabourin’s findings, the ALJ provided sufficient reasoning for 

concluding that Dr. Sabourin’s opinion should be given some weight. (AR 24.) Dr. 

Sabourin’s opinion that Plaintiff “cannot work with the left arm above shoulder level on 

the left” was not based on an actual diagnosis, but was merely inferred. (See AR 282.) Dr. 

Sabourin in his opinion states that Plaintiff has “probably adhesive capsulitis but perhaps 

degenerative arthritis in the left should joint and no x-rays are available.” (Id.) Dr. 

Sabourin’s examination of Plaintiff’s shoulders showed that “[h]e had some pain at the 

extremes of motion. There was minimal tenderness. There was no redness or swelling and 

no crepitus. Strength was satisfactory.” (AR 280.) Thus, the ALJ accorded proper weight 

to Dr. Sabourin’s opinion that Plaintiff could perform no overhead reaching on his left side 

because that opinion was “brief, conclusory, and inadequately supported by clinical 

findings.” Thomas, 278 F.3d at 957.

Ultimately, “[u]pon careful consideration of [Plaintiff’s] allegations; the medical 

findings and opinions; and the record as a whole,” the ALJ concluded that Plaintiff 

remained able to perform occasional overhead reaching on his left side. (AR 24.)

Consistent with SSA regulations, the ALJ considered the supportability of Dr. Sabourin’s 

opinion and consistency with the record as a whole, and thusly accorded appropriate weight 

to Dr. Sabourin’s opinion. See 20 C.F.R. § 416.927(c). Accordingly, the ALJ properly 

weighed the medical evidence and provided substantial evidence for its decision that 

Plaintiff was not disabled within the meaning of the Act because given his residual 

functional capacity, he can continue to perform his past work as an electrical design 

Case 3:18-cv-01650-H-LL Document 21 Filed 06/05/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 9 of 10
10

3:18-cv-01650-H-LL

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

engineer. Thus, the Court affirms the ALJ’s decision because it is supported by substantial

evidence and was not the result of any legal error. See Treichler, 775 F.3d at 1098.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court denies Plaintiff’s motion for summary 

judgment, grants the Acting Commissioner’s motion for summary judgment, and affirms 

the Acting Commissioner’s final decision. The Court directs the Clerk to enter judgment 

in favor of Defendant.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: June 5, 2019

 

MARILYN L. HUFF, District Judge

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Case 3:18-cv-01650-H-LL Document 21 Filed 06/05/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 10 of 10