Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-4_15-cv-00156/USCOURTS-azd-4_15-cv-00156-2/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Amy Ann Thomas, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Carolyn W. Colvin, Acting Commissioner

of Social Security,

Defendant. 

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 15-156-TUC-RCC (LAB)

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

The plaintiff filed this action for review of the final decision of the Commissioner for

Social Security pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). 

The case has been referred to the United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to the Rules

of Practice of this court. 

The Magistrate Judge recommends that the District Court, after its independent review,

remand this action for further proceedings. The Commissioner concedes the ALJ’s opinion

contains errors that necessitate remand. The Garrison test does not indicate that remand for

award of benefits is appropriate. See Garrison v. Colvin, 759 F.3d 995, 1020 (9th Cir. 2014).

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Thomas filed for disability insurance benefits on October 21, 2011. (Tr. 26) She

alleged disability beginning on March 1, 2011, due to back pain. (Tr. 223) Her claim was

denied initially (Tr. 122-125) and upon reconsideration (Tr. 126-128). Thomas requested

Case 4:15-cv-00156-RCC-LAB Document 22 Filed 11/25/15 Page 1 of 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

- 2 -

review and appeared with counsel at a hearing before Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) George

W. Reyes on August 23, 2013. (Tr. 43) In his decision, dated November 15, 2013, the ALJ

found Thomas cannot return to her past relevant work, but she can perform sedentary work as

a receptionist or data examination clerk. (Tr. 33)

Thomas appealed, but the Appeals Council denied review making the decision of the

ALJ the final decision of the Commissioner. (Tr. 1-4) Thomas subsequently filed this action

appealing that final decision. (Doc. 1) She argues the ALJ improperly discounted her treating

physicians’ opinions of disability, improperly discounted the opinion of the examining

psychologist, improperly discounted her subjective testimony of disability, failed to evaluate

the statements of the lay-witnesses, and failed to explain how she could perform two semiskilled occupations without identifying her transferable skills. (Doc. 16) In her response, the

Commissioner concedes that the ALJ’s decision contains errors warranting reversal. (Doc. 20,

p. 2) She argues, however, that the proper remedy is remand for further administrative

proceeding. In her reply, Thomas argues the case should be remanded for payment of benefits.

(Doc. 21)

Claimant’s Work History and Medical History

Thomas worked as a building inspector for Cochise County from 2006 to March of 2011,

her alleged onset date. (Tr. 224) In August of 2007, she was perched on a six-foot tall block

wall attempting to take photographs of a building. (Tr. 185, 744, 784) She was startled by a

dog and fell to the ground injuring her ankle and left knee. (Tr. 744) A week or two later, she

developed severe low back pain, which has apparently developed into arachnoiditis, an

inflamation of the membrane surrounding the spinal cord. (Tr. 836) Thomas reinjured her back

in October of 2008 (leaning forward to retrieve a document) and in March of 2009 (“‘jump[ing]’

onto a high-wheeled chair that was on a waxed linoleum floor”). (Tr. 186-187)

Conservative treatment was unsuccessful and in October of 2009, her physician, Emil

Annabi, M.D., implanted an intrathecal morphine catheter. (Tr. 836) The morphine pump

reduced her pain from a 7-8/10 to 5-6/10. (Tr. 602)

Case 4:15-cv-00156-RCC-LAB Document 22 Filed 11/25/15 Page 2 of 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

- 3 -

In March of 2011, Cochise County terminated her employment because they believed

she was unable to continue working as a building inspector. (Tr. 394-395) Thomas insisted that

she could perform all the duties except for roof inspections because she could not lift the ladder.

(Tr. 378) Thomas’s treating physician, Annabi, stated in March of 2011 that he believed

Thomas was able to work. (Tr. 515) March 1, 2011 is Thomas’s alleged disability onset date.

Thomas received unemployment benefits from April of 2011 to September of 2012. (Tr.

283-288) During this period, Thomas verified that she was able to work and looking for work.

(Tr. 289-364)

In November of 2011, Thomas began receiving treatment from Arnold Farr, M.D. (Tr.

602) In February of 2012, Farr’s diagnostic impression reads as follows: 1. low back pain, 2.

degenerative disc disease, 3. intrathecal pump management, 4. left leg sciatica, 5. muscle

spasm of the lumbar spine. (Tr. 599)

In August of 2013, Annabi wrote a summary of his findings. (Tr. 836) He listed his

diagnoses as 1. Arachnoiditis, 2. Herniated lumbar disks, 3. Lumbar radiculopathy, and 4.

Spinal stenosis. Id. He explained that Thomas could not work as a building inspector in March

of 2011. Id. He stated, “I feel that she could have only done sedentary work on a part time

basis (20 hours per week), she would also need frequent changes of position, in other words,

she could not sit for long periods of time (one hour) without being able to get up and move

around.” Id.

At the same time, Farr wrote his assessment of Thomas’s ability to work. (Tr. 837) He

stated, “She cannot do a full time job.” Id. “She needs training in another vocation.” Id.

The opinions of Annabi and Farr are contradicted by the opinions of the non-examining

state agency physicians, James Hopkins, M.D., and Melvin Roberts, M.D., who opined that

Thomas could perform sedentary work with some postural and environmental restrictions. (Tr.

99-101, 116-118)

Discussion

Case 4:15-cv-00156-RCC-LAB Document 22 Filed 11/25/15 Page 3 of 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

- 4 -

The Commissioner concedes that the ALJ’s opinion contains errors that warrant reversal.

The only issue then is whether the action should be remanded for further proceedings or for

payment of benefits. Ordinarily, if the Commissioner is reversed, the court should remand for

further administrative proceedings. The court may, however, remand for payment of benefits

if “(1) the record has been fully developed and further administrative proceedings would serve

no useful purpose; (2) the ALJ has failed to provide legally sufficient reasons for rejecting

evidence, whether claimant testimony or medical opinion; and (3) if the improperly discredited

evidence were credited as true, the ALJ would be required to find the claimant disabled on

remand.” Garrison v. Colvin, 759 F.3d 995, 1020 (9th Cir. 2014). Thomas argues in her reply

that the Garrison test is satisfied because the ALJ failed to provide clear and convincing reasons

for discounting her subjective testimony of disability and failed to properly credit the opinions

of the treating physicians, Annabi and Farr. The court does not agree.

First, the court finds that the ALJ provided clear and convincing reasons for discounting

Thomas’s allegation of disabling pain. See Lester v. Chater, 81 F.3d 821, 834 (9th Cir. 1995)

(“Unless there is affirmative evidence showing that the claimant is malingering, the

Commissioner’s reasons for rejecting the claimant’s testimony must be clear and convincing.”).

The ALJ noted that in March of 2011, her alleged onset date, Thomas disputed her firing

arguing that she was able to continue working as a building inspector. (Tr. 378) Her only stated

qualification was that she could not perform roof inspections because she could not lift the 50-

pound ladder. (Tr. 234, 378, 383) Moreover, the ALJ noted that Thomas collected

unemployment benefits from April of 2011 to September of 2012. (Tr. 283-288) During this

period, Thomas verified that she was able to work and was looking for work. (Tr. 289-364)

These facts are inconsistent with Thomas’s allegation of disabling pain starting in March of

2011. See Smolen v. Chater, 80 F.3d 1273, 1284 (9th Cir. 1996) (When determining a claimant’s

credibility the ALJ may consider among other things “prior inconsistent statements concerning

the symptoms, and other testimony by the claimant that appears less than candid.”); Lucey v.

Astrue, 2012 WL 3094958, 5 (D.Ariz. 2012) (“[T]he ALJ did not err in considering Plaintiff’s

receipt of unemployment benefits when making his credibility finding.”).

Case 4:15-cv-00156-RCC-LAB Document 22 Filed 11/25/15 Page 4 of 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

- 5 -

The court further finds that the ALJ provided legally sufficient reasons for discounting

the opinions of the treating physicians, Annabi and Farr. Their opinions of disability were

contradicted by the opinions of the non-examining state agency physicians. (Tr. 99-101, 116-

118) The ALJ may reject a treating physician’s contradicted opinion only if he sets forth

“specific and legitimate reasons supported by substantial evidence in the record.” Lester v.

Chater, 81 F.3d 821, 830 (9th Cir.1996) (punctuation modified).

The ALJ noted that both doctors, Annabi and Farr, relied on the claimant’s allegation of

disabling pain when formulating their opinions of disability. (Tr. 31) As the court noted above,

the ALJ found the claimant’s pain testimony to be less than totally reliable. See Batson v.

Commissioner of Social Security Administration, 359 F.3d 1190, 1196 (9th Cir. 2004). The ALJ

further noted that Annabi’s opinion letter was written approximately two years after he last

examined her. (Tr. 32) And at that time, he stated that he believed that she was able to work.

Id. It is therefore unclear why Annabi now believes Thomas is disabled.

The ALJ found Farr’s opinion of disability was not supported by his treatment notes

wherein he states that Thomas “is doing much better with her pain. . . .” (Tr. 32, 762) The ALJ

also suggested that Farr’s opinion of disability was not supported by the MRI studies that

revealed only “mild” degenerative changes. Claimants need not, however, provide objective

evidence for the level of pain that they experience provided that the medical record provides

evidence for a condition that would be expected to result in some measure of pain. See Bunnell

v. Sullivan, 947 F.2d 341, 345 (9th Cir. 1991). On the other hand, “an ALJ need not accept a

treating physician’s opinion that is conclusory and brief and unsupported by clinical findings.”

Tonapetyan v. Halter, 242 F.3d 1144, 1149 (9th Cir. 2001). The ALJ provided specific and

legitimate reasons for discounting the opinions of the treating physicians, Annabi and Farr.

As the respondent concedes, the ALJ’s decision contains errors that require reversal. The

Garrison test, however, is not satisfied, and the action should be remanded for further

administrative proceedings. See Garrison v. Colvin, 759 F.3d 995, 1020 (9th Cir. 2014). 

RECOMMENDATION

Case 4:15-cv-00156-RCC-LAB Document 22 Filed 11/25/15 Page 5 of 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

- 6 -

For the foregoing reasons, the Magistrate Judge recommends that the District Court, after

its independent review, enter an order remanding the plaintiff’s claim for further proceedings.

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), any party may file and serve written objections within

14 days after being served with a copy of this Report and Recommendation. If objections are

not timely filed, the party’s right to de novo review may be waived. The Local Rules permit

the filing of a response to an objection. They do not permit the filing of a reply to a response

without leave of the court..

DATED this 25th day of November, 2015.

Case 4:15-cv-00156-RCC-LAB Document 22 Filed 11/25/15 Page 6 of 6