Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-3_15-cv-08096/USCOURTS-azd-3_15-cv-08096-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 863
Nature of Suit: Social Security - DIWC/DIWW (405(g))
Cause of Action: 42:405 Review of HHS Decision (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 

William Rodgers, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Carolyn W. Colvin, Acting Commissioner 

of Social Security, 

Defendant. 

No. CV-15-08096-PCT-NVW 

ORDER 

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

decision of the Commissioner of Social Security (“the Commissioner”), which denied 

him disability insurance benefits under sections 216(i) and 223(d) 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 

Plaintiff was born in April 1962. He completed three years of college and worked 

as an electrician. He has been diagnosed with irritable bowel syndrome and adjustment 

disorder with mixed anxiety and depression. 

On January 28, 2010, Plaintiff applied for disability insurance benefits, alleging 

disability beginning January 1, 2009. On March 8, 2012, he appeared with his attorney 

Case 3:15-cv-08096-NVW Document 22 Filed 03/24/16 Page 1 of 7
- 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 

and testified at a hearing before the ALJ. On March 26, 2012, the ALJ issued a decision 

that Plaintiff was not disabled within the meaning of the Social Security Act. 

On March 11, 2013, the Appeals Council granted Plaintiff’s request for review 

under the substantial evidence provision of the Social Security Administration 

regulations, 20 C.F.R. § 404.970. Under the authority of 20 C.F.R. § 404.977, the 

Appeals Council vacated the ALJ’s hearing decision and remanded the case to the ALJ 

with instructions. 

On March 5, 2013, the ALJ held a video hearing at which Plaintiff appeared with 

his attorney and testified. On February 6, 2014, the ALJ issued a decision that Plaintiff 

was not disabled within the meaning of the Social Security Act. On April 17, 2015, the 

Appeals Council denied Plaintiff’s request for review of the hearing decision, making the 

ALJ’s February 6, 2014 decision the Commissioner’s final decision. On June 1, 2015, 

Plaintiff sought review of the ALJ’s February 6, 2014 decision by this Court. 

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW 

The district 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. 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); accord 

Molina v. Astrue, 674 F.3d 1104, 1111 (9th Cir. 2012) (“Even when the evidence is 

susceptible to more than one rational interpretation, we must uphold the ALJ’s findings if 

they are supported by inferences reasonably drawn from the record.”). 

III. FIVE-STEP SEQUENTIAL EVALUATION 

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. § 404.1520(a). At the first step, the 

Case 3:15-cv-08096-NVW Document 22 Filed 03/24/16 Page 2 of 7
- 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 

ALJ determines whether the claimant is engaging in substantial gainful activity. 20 

C.F.R. § 404.1520(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. § 404.1520(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 medically equals an 

impairment listed in Appendix 1 to Subpart P of 20 C.F.R. Pt. 404. § 404.1520(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. 

§ 404.1520(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. § 404.1520(a)(4)(v). If so, the claimant is not disabled. 

Id. If not, the claimant is disabled. Id. 

In his March 26, 2012 decision, the ALJ found at step one that Plaintiff met the 

insured status requirements of the Social Security Act through September 30, 2012, and 

that he had not engaged in substantial gainful activity since January 1, 2009. At step two, 

the ALJ found that Plaintiff had the following severe impairment: adjustment disorder 

with mixed emotional expression. At step three, the ALJ determined that Plaintiff did not 

have an impairment or combination of impairments that meets or medically equals an 

impairment listed in 20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1. At step four, the ALJ 

found that Plaintiff: 

has the residual functional capacity to perform a full range of work at all 

exertional levels but with the following nonexertional limitations: the 

claimant is capable of simple, unskilled work. 

The ALJ further found that Plaintiff was unable to perform any past relevant work. At 

step five, the ALJ concluded that, considering Plaintiff’s age, education, work 

Case 3:15-cv-08096-NVW Document 22 Filed 03/24/16 Page 3 of 7
- 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 

experience, and residual functional capacity, there were jobs that existed in significant 

numbers in the national economy that Plaintiff could perform. 

The Appeals Council remanded this case to the ALJ for a “more comprehensive 

discussion of the impact of the claimant’s mental limitations on the claimant’s residual 

functional capacity” and determination of the proper last dated insured for disability 

benefits. The Appeals Council stated that the ALJ’s determination that Plaintiff’s mental 

impairment limits him to simple, unskilled work “may not adequately account for the 

claimant’s moderate limitations in concentration, persistence, or pace.” The Appeals 

Council also stated that updated information indicated that Plaintiff’s date last insured 

had changed from September 30, 2012, to September 30, 2014. 

The Appeals Council ordered the ALJ to (1) obtain additional evidence concerning 

the claimant’s mental impairments, including psychological testing and medical source 

statements, if warranted and available; (2) identify evidence supporting the assessed 

limitations in the claimant’s maximum residual functional capacity; (3) explain why 

certain mental restrictions were found to affect the claimant’s residual functional 

capacity; (4) include in the residual functional capacity specific restrictions related to 

concentration, persistence, or pace, or explain why they are not included; and (5) obtain 

evidence from a vocational expert to clarify the effect of the assessed limitations on the 

claimant’s occupational base. 

On remand, at step one, the ALJ found that Plaintiff met the insured status 

requirements of the Social Security Act through September 30, 2015. The ALJ also 

found that Plaintiff engaged in substantial gainful activity from January 1, 2009, through 

December 31, 2010, although Plaintiff alleged disability beginning January 1, 2009. The 

ALJ found that Plaintiff did not engage in substantial gainful activity after December 31, 

2010, for a continuous period of at least 12 months. The ALJ’s remaining findings 

addressed the period following December 31, 2010. 

At step two, the ALJ found that Plaintiff has the following medically determinable 

impairments: adjustment disorder with mixed anxiety and depressed mood and 

Case 3:15-cv-08096-NVW Document 22 Filed 03/24/16 Page 4 of 7
- 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 

posttraumatic stress disorder. After considering the evidence of record, the ALJ 

concluded that Plaintiff does not have an impairment or combination of impairments that 

has significantly limited, or is expected to significantly limit, his ability to perform basic 

work-related activities for 12 months. Therefore, at step two, the ALJ concluded Plaintiff 

does not have a severe impairment or combination of impairments. Upon that 

conclusion, Plaintiff is considered not disabled and the ALJ’s inquiry was complete. See

20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(ii). 

IV. ANALYSIS 

Plaintiff contends that the ALJ’s second decision is invalid and not reviewable by 

the Court because the ALJ did not do everything ordered by the Appeals Council, and 

therefore the Court should review the ALJ’s first decision. However, under 42 U.S.C.A. 

§ 405(g), the Court has jurisdiction to review only final decisions of the Commissioner of 

Social Security. “A claimant may obtain judicial review of a decision by an 

administrative law judge if the Appeals Council has denied the claimant’s request for 

review, or of a decision by the Appeals Council when that is the final decision of the 

Commissioner.” 20 C.F.R. § 422.210(a). The ALJ’s first decision was reviewed by the 

Appeals Council and vacated. The first decision is not a final decision of the 

Commissioner, and the Court has no authority to review it. Therefore, the Court reviews 

only the ALJ’s second decision, which was made final on April 17, 2015, when the 

Appeals Council denied Plaintiff’s request for review. 

Plaintiff also contends the ALJ failed to provide legally sufficient reasons for 

giving little weight to the March 6, 2012 medical source statement from treating 

physician Lisa Parsons, M.D. The form was completed by Joan Malone, Adult 

Psychiatric Mental Health Nurse Practitioner,1

 and Dr. Parsons added the statement, “I 

 1

 Under 20 C.F.R. § 404.1513(a), only licensed physicians, licensed or certified 

psychologists, licensed optometrists, licensed podiatrists, and qualified speech-language 

pathologists are considered “acceptable medical sources.” Molina v. Astrue, 674 F.3d 

1104, 1111 (9th Cir. 2012). “Other sources,” including nurse practitioners and 

physicians’ assistants, are not entitled to the same deference as “acceptable medical 

Case 3:15-cv-08096-NVW Document 22 Filed 03/24/16 Page 5 of 7
- 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 

agree with the assessments above by Joan Malone.” Although Plaintiff contends that Dr. 

Parsons treated Plaintiff “for the entire relevant time period,” none of the treatment 

records cited by Plaintiff show that Dr. Parsons ever personally saw Plaintiff. 

In deciding weight to give any medical opinion, the ALJ must consider not only 

whether the source has a treating or examining relationship with the claimant, but also 

whether the treatment or examination is related to the alleged disability, the length of the 

relationship, frequency of examination, supporting evidence provided by the source, and 

medical specialization of the source. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c). Generally, more weight 

should be given to the opinion of a treating physician than to the opinions of physicians 

who do not treat the claimant, and the weight afforded a non-examining physician’s 

opinion depends on the extent to which he provides supporting explanations for his 

opinions. Garrison v. Colvin, 759 F.3d 995, 1012 (9th Cir. 2014). The opinion of any 

physician, including that of a treating physician, need not be accepted “if that opinion is 

brief, conclusory, and inadequately supported by clinical findings.” Bray v. Comm’r of 

Soc. Sec. Admin., 554 F.3d 1219, 1228 (9th Cir. 2009). An ALJ may reject standardized, 

check-the-box forms that do not contain any explanation of the bases for conclusions. 

Molina v. Astrue, 674 F.3d 1104, 1111 (9th Cir. 2012). 

The ALJ gave little weight to the March 6, 2012 medical source statement signed 

by Dr. Parsons because it does not cite specific objective clinical or diagnostic findings 

that support its conclusions, it appears to be largely based on Plaintiff’s subjective 

complaints, and it is contradicted by the objective psychometric testing administered by 

the consultative psychological examiner. Further, the medical source statement opines 

that despite medication and counselling, Plaintiff would have “fair” to “poor” ability in 

nearly all domains of work-related mental functioning, including social interaction. But 

Plaintiff “reports being able to go out in public, engage in remunerative employment 

 

sources.” Id. Information from “other sources” cannot establish the existence of a 

medically determinable impairment. 

Case 3:15-cv-08096-NVW Document 22 Filed 03/24/16 Page 6 of 7
- 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 

activity where he interacts with co-workers, supervisors, and third persons, and that he 

has a stable marital relationship, and attends church services regularly.” Thus, the ALJ 

provided legally sufficient reasons for giving little weight to the March 6, 2012 medical 

source statement signed by Dr. Parsons. 

The decision of the ALJ is supported by substantial evidence and is not based on 

legal error. 

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 23rd day of March, 2016. 

Case 3:15-cv-08096-NVW Document 22 Filed 03/24/16 Page 7 of 7