Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-4_12-cv-00384/USCOURTS-azd-4_12-cv-00384-0/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

 1 At the hearing, Plaintiff’s counsel and the ALJ discussed Plaintiff’s possible eligibility

for Disability Insurance Benefits (DIB), in addition to SSI. (AR 42-44.) In his brief, Plaintiff

notes the issue is irrelevant unless the case is remanded. There is no record that Plaintiff has,

to date, sought DIB; therefore, the Court evaluates only the application for SSI currently

before it. Plaintiff can address this further on remand.

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Ricardo Enrique Luna, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Carolyn W. Colvin, 

Acting Commissioner of 

Social Security Administration, 

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-12-0384-TUC-DTF

ORDER

Plaintiff Ricardo Luna brought this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), seeking

judicial review of a final decision by the Commissioner of Social Security (Commissioner).

Before the Court are Plaintiff’s opening brief, Defendant’s Response and a Reply (Docs. 17,

20, 23.) The parties consented to exercise of jurisdiction by a Magistrate Judge, pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1). (Docs. 8, 11.) The Court finds this case should be remanded for

further proceedings.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Luna filed an application for Supplemental Security Income (SSI) on March 11,

2009.1

 (Administrative Record (AR) 133.) Luna alleged disability from March 1, 2009. (AR

133.) Luna’s application was denied upon initial review (AR 69) and on reconsideration (AR

Case 4:12-cv-00384-DTF Document 24 Filed 05/30/13 Page 1 of 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

- 2 -

74). A hearing was held on September 30, 2009 (AR 39-66), after which ALJ Larry E.

Johnson found that Luna was not disabled (AR 10-17). The Appeals Council denied Luna’s

request to review the ALJ’s decision. (AR 1.)

FACTUAL HISTORY

Luna was born on December 14, 1966, making him 42 at the alleged onset date of his

disability. (AR 133.) From 1993 to 2005, Luna worked in construction and as a cook, earning

negligible amounts some years up to approximately $11,000 for a few of the years. (AR 141,

154, 156.) Luna stopped working in May 2005, due to surgery for ulcers. (AR 154.) Luna

alleges he is unable to work due to psychological impairments. He has received all of his

mental health services from La Frontera, with records spanning from January 2009 to

September 2011.

The ALJ found that Luna had one severe impairment, affective disorder. (AR 12.) The

ALJ noted that Luna alleged additional mental health issues, PTSD, mood swings, auditory

hallucinations and lack of concentration, but determined that these were not severe in light

of his lack of participation in treatment and/or the fact that they were resolved with

medication. (AR 12-13.) The ALJ determined that Luna had the capacity to perform work

at all exertional levels with limited exposure to co-workers, supervisors and the general

public. (AR 15.) The ALJ ultimately concluded Luna could perform his past relevant work

as a cook and, based on the Medical-Vocational Rules, Luna could perform other work

available in the national economy. (AR 16-17.)

STANDARD OF REVIEW

The Commissioner employs a five-step sequential process to evaluate SSI claims. 20

C.F.R. § 416.920; see also Heckler v. Campbell, 461 U.S. 458, 460-462 (1983). To establish

disability the claimant bears the burden of showing he (1) is not working; (2) has a severe

physical or mental impairment; (3) the impairment meets or equals the requirements of a

listed impairment; and (4) claimant’s RFC precludes him from performing his past work. 20

C.F.R. § 416.920(a)(4). At Step Five, the burden shifts to the Commissioner to show that the

Case 4:12-cv-00384-DTF Document 24 Filed 05/30/13 Page 2 of 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

- 3 -

claimant has the RFC to perform other work that exists in substantial numbers in the national

economy. Hoopai v. Astrue, 499 F.3d 1071, 1074 (9th Cir. 2007). If the Commissioner

conclusively finds the claimant “disabled” or “not disabled” at any point in the five-step

process, he does not proceed to the next step. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(a)(4).

“The ALJ is responsible for determining credibility, resolving conflicts in medical

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

1995) (citing Magallanes v. Bowen, 881 F.2d 747, 750 (9th Cir. 1989)). The findings of the

Commissioner are meant to be conclusive if supported by substantial evidence. 42 U.S.C.

§ 405(g). Substantial evidence is “more than a mere scintilla but less than a preponderance.”

Tackett v. Apfel, 180 F.3d 1094, 1098 (9th Cir. 1999) (quoting Matney v. Sullivan, 981 F.2d

1016, 1018 (9th Cir. 1992)). The court may overturn the decision to deny benefits only

“when the ALJ’s findings are based on legal error or are not supported by substantial

evidence in the record as a whole.” Aukland v. Massanari, 257 F.3d 1033, 1035 (9th Cir. 

2001). This is so because the ALJ “and not the reviewing court must resolve conflicts in the

evidence, and if the evidence can support either outcome, the court may not substitute its

judgment for that of the ALJ.” Matney, 981 F.2d at 1019 (quoting Richardson v. Perales, 402

U.S. 389, 400 (1971)); Batson v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 359 F.3d 1190, 1198 (9th Cir.

2004). The Commissioner’s decision, however, “cannot be affirmed simply by isolating a

specific quantum of supporting evidence.” Sousa v. Callahan, 143 F.3d 1240, 1243 (9th Cir.

1998) (citing Hammock v. Bowen, 879 F.2d 498, 501 (9th Cir. 1989)). Reviewing courts must

consider the evidence that supports as well as detracts from the Commissioner’s conclusion.

Day v. Weinberger, 522 F.2d 1154, 1156 (9th Cir. 1975).

DISCUSSION

Luna alleges the ALJ committed four errors, that he failed to properly evaluate the

opinions of Luna’s treating providers; failed to properly evaluate lay witness testimony;

failed to properly evaluate Luna’s credibility; and improperly relied upon the vocational

guidelines at Step Five.

Case 4:12-cv-00384-DTF Document 24 Filed 05/30/13 Page 3 of 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

- 4 -

Treating Providers

Plaintiff argues the ALJ failed to give weight to the favorable medical evidence from

his treating records. Plaintiff also argues there was no basis to dismiss the opinions of his

treating medical professionals. However, Plaintiff does not point to any “medical source

opinions,” and there are none in the records. See 20 C.F.R. § 416.913(c) (discussing medical

source opinions about the claimant’s abilities to work). Therefore, the Court evaluates solely

how the ALJ treated Luna’s medical records from La Frontera.

Plaintiff contends the ALJ discounted his medical records on improper grounds. The

ALJ found that Plaintiff had one severe impairment, an affective disorder. (AR 12.) The ALJ

failed to explain his dismissal of the uncontradicted diagnoses by Dr. Hanlon, an acceptable

medical source, as defined in the Social Security Administration regulations, 20 C.F.R.

§ 416.913(a). In an initial psychiatric diagnostic interview, Dr. Hanlon diagnosed Luna with

generalized anxiety, a psychotic disorder NOS, and PTSD. (AR 314.) Upon remand, the ALJ

must reconsider these diagnoses and what severe impairments Plaintiff has established.

The ALJ stated that he was discounting Plaintiff’s allegations of other mental

impairments – PTSD, mood swings and auditory hallucinations – because: (1) Plaintiff’s

treatment was solely through a court-ordered program, (2) his participation in therapy was

sporadic and he missed numerous sessions, (3) his nightmares, auditory hallucinations and

depression were resolved with medication, and he was stable when compliant with

medication, and (4) his setbacks were primarily related to alcohol relapse. (AR 12-13, 15-16.)

The Court finds this is not an accurate representation of the record as a whole and is not

supported by substantial evidence.

First, although Plaintiff appears to have begun treatment because it was required, he

completed the mandatory program in January 2010 (AR 480) and he was still receiving

treatment and medication through the same provider in July 2011 (AR 636). Second, it is

accurate that Plaintiff missed numerous therapy sessions but he continued to request therapy

and medication, including affirmatively requesting that therapy be reinstated when his

therapist dropped him for excessive missed appointments. (AR 269, 454.) An ALJ may not

Case 4:12-cv-00384-DTF Document 24 Filed 05/30/13 Page 4 of 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

 2 It is difficult to decipher from the record when Plaintiff was in full compliance with

his prescribed medication. For example, on September 22, 2010, Luna reported running out

of his medication and a bridge prescription was provided, but on October 8, 2010, he stated

that he had not taken his medication for two and a half months. (AR 405, 599, 603.) Also on

October 8, he told a different La Frontera employee that he felt his medications were not

working well at that time but did not indicate that he was not taking them. (AR 612.)

- 5 -

draw inferences based on a failure to seek treatment without inquiring for an explanation by

the claimant or considering other record evidence that may explain the lack of care. SSR 96-

7p. The ALJ did not seek an explanation for lack of treatment during the hearing or from the

record. (AR 28-42.) Additionally, lack of treatment is a questionable basis on which to reject

mental health claims because mental illness may impair judgment resulting in failure to seek

assistance. Nguyen v. Chater, 100 F.3d 1462, 1465 (9th Cir. 1996); Pate-Fires v. Astrue, 564

F.3d 935, 945-46 (8th Cir. 2009). Unlike an assertion of pain, for which failure to seek

treatment is incongruous with a disabling condition, not seeking mental health treatment is

consistent with the impairment. This is evidenced in this case by Luna’s anxiety and paranoia

which often prevented him from leaving his house.

Third, the record does not demonstrate that Plaintiff was consistently stable when he

complied with his prescribed medication. The record indicates that even when Luna did

follow the prescribed medication regimen, the drugs were not consistently effective in

relieving his symptoms.2

 In March 2009, Luna indicated his nightmares were relieved and

he was having few hallucinations but he was still anxious; in May and June 2009, he was

anxious, having a hard time leaving his house, depressed, hearing voices, and requested a

medication change; in August 2009, Luna was depressed and hearing voices but

volunteering, however, he had quit by the following month because he was paranoid and

afraid to leave his house, and the doctor altered his medication again; in January and

February 2010, Luna indicated his medications were not working well and they were

changed because many of his symptoms were not controlled; in March and April, he reported

some improvement from the switch to Prozac; by May, he felt the medications were not

working well and he was depressed; in June and July 2010, he had been inconsistent with his

Case 4:12-cv-00384-DTF Document 24 Filed 05/30/13 Page 5 of 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

 3 The GAF is a 100-point scale that measures a person’s overall level of psychological,

social and occupational functioning on a hypothetical continuum. See American Psychiatric

Ass’n, Diagnostic & Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (“DSM IV”), at 32, 34 (4th ed.

2000). Lower numbers indicate more severe symptoms. A rating of 41 to 50 indicates

serious symptoms or “serious impairment in social, occupational, or school functioning.” Id.

at 34; see also Brueggemann v. Barnhart, 348 F.3d 689, 695 (8th Cir. 2003) (noting that a

GAF of 50 reflects serious limitations and the vocational expert believed it precluded finding

work).

- 6 -

medication and he was very anxious and depressed; in August and October 2010, Luna

indicated medication was not effective (and he may have been not compliant in taking them)

and they were changed; in November 2010, when he was having hallucinations, restless sleep

and racing thoughts, his medications were changed again; and after running out of

medication and restarting, they were changed again in June and July 2011. (AR 275, 277,

289, 291, 295, 305, 351, 356, 359, 366, 369, 371, 372, 379, 387, 405, 412, 426, 433, 476,

477, 486, 489, 491, 493, 495, 512, 514, 581, 584, 612, 636, 639, 660.) There is no extended

period of time during which Luna’s symptoms were controlled by medication, and his mental

health providers continued to alter his prescriptions because they were not wholly effective.

Additionally, Plaintiff was assigned a Global Assessment of Functioning (GAF) score

of 48 at the time of intake, January 2009, and it was found to be 50 in January 2011, and 48

in April 2011.3

 (AR 327, 646, 657.) Luna also was determined to be seriously mentally ill

for purposes of Arizona’s behavioral health system, based on a diagnosis of schizophrenia.

(AR 337.) The ALJ failed to consider this evidence.

Fourth, Luna’s setbacks were not primarily related to a relapse with alcohol. The

medical records span from January 2009 to September 2011. (AR 321, 633.) The references

to alcohol consumption are limited to three or four specific instances during a few month

period, December 2009 to March 2010. (AR 355, 468, 491, 493, 495, 504.) In April 2010,

Luna requested medication to decrease his craving for alcohol and the record does not reveal

any subsequent issues with alcohol. (AR 359.) The severity of Luna’s symptoms do not

appear connected to his consumption of alcohol, with the exception of an increase in suicidal

Case 4:12-cv-00384-DTF Document 24 Filed 05/30/13 Page 6 of 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

 4 The Commissioner argues that the ALJ found Luna’s activities of daily living (ADL)

inconsistent with his alleged symptoms. (Doc. 20 at 8.) The ALJ made no finding of

inconsistency. When evaluating Step Three, the ALJ determined that Luna had no restrictions

in ADL (AR 14) but did not relate this finding to his subsequent credibility assessment (AR

15-16). Further, as discussed below in relation to lay witness testimony, the ALJ’s finding

regarding ADL was not supported by substantial evidence.

- 7 -

ideation during that time period. (AR 468, 502, 504, 506.) Rather, it appears that when his

symptoms were particularly exacerbated he would turn to alcohol to relieve them.

In sum, the Court finds the ALJ failed to give sufficient weight to Luna’s medical

records or to support his decision with substantial evidence. Upon remand, the ALJ must

consider the entirety of the medical record when evaluating Steps Two and Three and

Plaintiff’s RFC. 

Plaintiff’s Credibility

The ALJ found Plaintiff’s statements concerning the severity of his symptoms not

credible to the extent inconsistent with the ALJ’s RFC finding.4

 (AR 16.)

In general, “questions of credibility and resolution of conflicts in the testimony are

functions solely” for the ALJ. Parra v. Astrue, 481 F.3d 742, 750 (9th Cir. 2007) (quoting

Sample v. Schweiker, 694 F.2d 639, 642 (9th Cir. 1982)). However, “[w]hile an ALJ may

certainly find testimony not credible and disregard it . . . [the court] cannot affirm such a

determination unless it is supported by specific findings and reasoning.” Robbins v. Soc. Sec.

Admin., 466 F.3d 880, 884-85 (9th Cir. 2006); Bunnell v. Sullivan, 947 F.2d 341, 345-346

(9th Cir. 1995) (requiring specificity to ensure a reviewing court the ALJ did not arbitrarily

reject a claimant’s subjective testimony); SSR 96-7p. “To determine whether a claimant’s

testimony regarding subjective pain or symptoms is credible, an ALJ must engage in a twostep analysis.” Lingenfelter v. Astrue, 504 F.3d 1028, 1035-36 (9th Cir. 2007). 

“First, the ALJ must determine whether the claimant has presented objective medical

evidence of an underlying impairment ‘which could reasonably be expected to produce the

pain or other symptoms alleged.’” Id. at 1036 (quoting Bunnell, 947 F.2d at 344). ALJ

Johnson found Luna had satisfied part one of the test by proving an impairment that could

Case 4:12-cv-00384-DTF Document 24 Filed 05/30/13 Page 7 of 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

- 8 -

produce the symptoms alleged. (AR 16.) Second, if “there is no affirmative evidence of

malingering, the ALJ can reject the claimant’s testimony about the severity of her symptoms

only by offering specific, clear and convincing reasons for doing so.” Tommasetti v. Astrue,

533 F.3d 1035, 1039 (9th Cir. 2008) (quoting Smolen v. Chater, 80 F.3d 1273, 1281, 1283-84

(9th Cir. 1996)). The ALJ did not find, and the record does not reveal, any evidence of

malingering; therefore, to support his discounting of Luna’s credibility regarding the severity

of his symptoms, the ALJ had to provide clear and convincing, specific reasons. See Vasquez

v. Astrue, 572 F.3d 586, 592 (9th Cir. 2008) (quoting Lingenfelter, 504 F.3d at 1036).

The ALJ’s conclusion that Luna was not entirely credible was based on his finding

that when Luna was compliant with his medication he could function and was stable. (AR

15.) Further, the ALJ noted that Luna did not seek consistent therapeutic treatment, but

maintained his prescriptions, suggesting he was stable with medication. (AR 16.)

As addressed extensively above, the Court determined that the ALJ’s finding – that

Plaintiff was stable when taking his medication – was not supported by substantial evidence.

This finding is not a clear and convincing reason to reject Plaintiff’s credibility. Also

discussed above, the ALJ failed to make any inquiry regarding Luna’s lack of treatment;

therefore, he cannot rely upon it when resolving his claims. As illustrated by Luna’s

difficulty in leaving his house due to his impairment, lack of treatment for mental illness is

not a well-founded reason to reject such claims. See Nguyen v. Chater, 100 F.3d at 1465;

Pate-Fires, 564 F.3d at 945-46. Additionally, Luna never left treatment for an extended

period of time. Despite some gaps in therapy, he always sought further medical care. The

ALJ erred in his evaluation of Plaintiff’s credibility.

Lay Witness Testimony

In March 2009, Natalia Luna, Plaintiff’s mother, completed a function report about

Luna. (AR 164-71.) She stated that “at times” Plaintiff would help out at home and with his

grandchild, and on a “good day” he did laundry and household chores. (AR 165, 166.) She

stated that he would only go to the grocery store when she was available and that he was too

nervous to drive. (AR 167.) She affirmed that Plaintiff needed reminders to go to therapy or

Case 4:12-cv-00384-DTF Document 24 Filed 05/30/13 Page 8 of 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

- 9 -

doctor’s appointments. (AR 168.) She indicated he had problems with his memory,

completing tasks, concentration and following instructions. (AR 169.) At the October 2010

hearing, she testified that he was paranoid, couldn’t function, had memory lapses and forgot

things like food in the oven. (AR 60-61.) She felt some of the symptoms might be aggravated

by the medication not working properly or Luna not getting the right dosages. (AR 61, 62.)

Luna’s wife also testified at the hearing, stating that she removed a gun from his hand

when he was trying to shoot himself in the head. (AR 63.) She stated that Luna thinks his

family members are trying to hurt him, that he’s paranoid and psychotic. (AR 63-64.) She

noted that on the medications he takes he does not really function and she has to make him

take a shower and get dressed. (AR 64.) She also stated that he will not leave the house

without her or his mother. (Id.) She indicated that, at that time, she and Luna’s mother were

doing the housework and cooking for him. (AR 64-65.)

The ALJ discussed Luna’s mother’s statement only when evaluating Plaintiff’s

activities of daily living for Step Three of the analysis. (AR 14.) He mentioned solely the

function report and summarized it as establishing that Plaintiff cared for his wife, five

children and grandchild, including preparing meals, doing laundry, chores and yard work.

(Id.) This is not a complete representation of the lay witness testimony, which indicated that,

as of March 2009, Luna did some household chores on days he felt good. However, at the

time of the hearing, his wife indicated he was not doing any of those activities and his mother

said that things caught on fire in the oven because he forgot them. Further, they both stated

he was not functional and he would not leave the house without his wife or mother. The ALJ

erred in implicitly rejecting this testimony without providing reasons specific to each witness.

Stout v. Comm’r, Social Sec. Admin., 454 F.3d 1050, 1053 (9th Cir. 2006).

Nonexertional Limitations

Luna argues that the ALJ failed to fully consider his nonexertional limitations, which

would require the testimony of a vocational expert. Because the Court already is remanding

this matter for further proceedings, it does not reach this issue. After the ALJ reconsiders the

medical record, Luna’s credibility, lay witness testimony, Steps Two and Three, and Luna’s

Case 4:12-cv-00384-DTF Document 24 Filed 05/30/13 Page 9 of 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

- 10 -

RFC, he will have to reassess Steps Four and/or Five. If appropriate at that time, he should

obtain the testimony of a vocational expert.

CONCLUSION

A federal court may affirm, modify, reverse, or remand a social security case. 42

U.S.C. § 405(g). When a court finds that an administrative decision is flawed, the remedy

should generally be remand for “additional investigation or explanation.” INS v. Ventura, 537

U.S. 12, 16 (2006) (quoting Fla. Power & Light Co. v. Lorion, 470 U.S. 729, 744 (1985));

see also Moisa v. Barnhart, 367 F.3d 882, 886 (9th Cir. 2004). However, if there are no

outstanding issues because “the record has been developed fully and further administrative

proceedings would serve no useful purpose, the . . . court should remand for an immediate

award of benefits.” Benecke v. Barnhart, 379 F.3d 587, 593 (9th Cir. 2004). Here,

outstanding issues remain because after the ALJ reassesses Luna’s severe impairments at

Step Two, he must evaluate the remaining steps and Luna’s RFC. See Kent v. Astrue, 335 F.

App’x 673, 675 (9th Cir. 2009). This process may include again scheduling a consultative

exam and obtaining vocational testimony as necessary. On remand, Plaintiff should clarify

if he is also seeking DIB and, if so, should complete any necessary steps to pursue such

benefits.

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that this case is remanded to the ALJ for a new hearing and further

proceedings, pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). The Clerk of Court should

enter judgment and close this case.

DATED this 28th day of May, 2013.

Case 4:12-cv-00384-DTF Document 24 Filed 05/30/13 Page 10 of 10