Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_03-cv-02951/USCOURTS-cand-3_03-cv-02951-0/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)

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

HELEN MOAK,

Plaintiff,

 v

JO ANNE B BARNHART, Commissioner

of Social Security,

Defendant.

 /

No C-03-2951 VRW

 ORDER

Plaintiff Helen Moak brings this action under 42 USC

section 405(g), challenging the final decision of the Social

Security Administration (SSA) denying her application for social

security disability benefits. The parties have filed cross-motions

for summary judgment. For the reasons stated herein, the court

GRANTS plaintiff’s motion for remand and DENIES defendant Jo Anne B

Barnhart’s motion for summary judgment. 

Plaintiff is in her mid-forties. She has not completed

high school. Her jobs include in-home aide to a quadriplegic

individual, Safeway Stores courtesy clerk and waitress. On

September 29, 2000, plaintiff filed an application for social

security disability benefits claiming disability based on chronic

\\

Case 3:03-cv-02951-VRW Document 18 Filed 06/15/05 Page 1 of 6
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

muscle spasms in her “back, neck, arms, legs everywhere,” AR 94,

carpal tunnel syndrome, weak knees, weak ankles, chronic neck and

back pain, pelvic pain, year-round allergies, asthma, depression,

high blood pressure, “retain water,” overweight. Id. At time of

hearing, plaintiff reported her recent weight to be 300 lbs. AR 48.

 The SSA denied plaintiff’s request for benefits initially,

on reconsideration, on appeal and after a hearing before an

administrative law judge (ALJ). On May 2, 2003, the SSA’s Appeals

Council denied plaintiff’s request for review of the decision of the

ALJ, rendering the agency’s decision final. AR 4-6. Before the

court is the record of proceedings before the SSA. The court must

determine whether to affirm or reverse the agency’s decision or

remand the case back to the SSA for further proceedings. 

The court's jurisdiction is limited to determining whether

the SSA's denial of benefits is supported by substantial evidence in

the administrative record. 42 USC § 405(g). A district court may

overturn a decision to deny benefits only if the decision is not

supported by substantial evidence or if the decision is based on

legal error. See Andrews v Shalala, 53 F3d 1035, 1039 (9th Cir

1995); Magallanes v Bowen, 881 F2d 747, 750 (9th Cir 1989). 

In his eight-page decision, the ALJ reviewed the medical

evidence from treating and consulting physicians and concluded that

plaintiff’s combination of impairments, while “severe” within the

meaning of 20 CFR § 416.921, did not meet the criteria for

“disability” within the meaning of the Social Security Act and its

implementing regulations, i e, “unable to do any substantial gainful

activity by reason of any medically determinable physical or mental

impairment which can be expected to result in death or which has

\\

Case 3:03-cv-02951-VRW Document 18 Filed 06/15/05 Page 2 of 6
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

lasted or can be expected to last for a continuous period of not

less than 12 months.” 20 CFR § 404.1527. 

The ALJ found that several of plaintiff’s impairments were

“severe” within the meaning of 20 CFR § 416.921, including “chronic

low back pain with mild to moderate degeneration, a history of

asthma, hypertension and gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD)

controlled with medication, asymptomatic hepatitis C infection,

bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome with scheduled release surgery and

a depressive disorder * * *.” AR 15. In concluding that

plaintiff’s impairments were not disabling, the ALJ stated “[t]he

medical evidence of record establishes that many of the claimant’s

impairments are controlled with medication or asymptomatic, and that

her orthopedic impairments are among mild to moderate severity

[sic].” AR 16. The ALJ’s decision discussed in some detail the

medical evidence in the record. Regarding orthopedic complaints, he

noted “[t]he claimant’s treating physician indicates that the

claimant’s chronic back pain represented with some findings on x-ray

supporting degenerative joint disease [but this disease] * * * was

at the early level so that the claimant was able to stand and walk

without complaints of back pain and the examination results were

essentially normal.” Id. He also noted that a consulting medical

examiner for the SSA stated that “while the claimant does have

degenerative joint disease of her spine, she is not precluded from

all physical activities.” AR 17. 

Notably, the ALJ decision contains no reference to

plaintiff’s testimony at the hearing. At the hearing held November

20, 2002, plaintiff (who was not represented) testified at length

about her physical and mental limitations. She testified, inter

Case 3:03-cv-02951-VRW Document 18 Filed 06/15/05 Page 3 of 6
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

alia that: she had to have her son help her put her socks and shoes

on and clean the house; she used a mobility cart when shopping in

stores; she could sit for an hour only “sometimes * * * [depending]

on how much pain I’m in,” AR 50-51; she could stand and walk for

only a couple of minutes, after which her son would get her a

wheelchair and push her in a wheelchair “because I hurt too bad,” AR

52; and she used a cane because she was afraid of her knee giving

out. Id. 

The ALJ stated his responsibility vis-a-vis plaintiff’s

contentions about pain thusly: “the undersigned must consider all

symptoms, including pain, and the extent to which these symptoms can

reasonably be accepted as consistent with the objective medical

evidence and other evidence * * *.” AR 16. This is a legally

incorrect summary of an ALJ’s responsibility when the claimant’s

testimony about subjective pain symptoms appears to be in conflict

with the medical evidence in the record. 

The law governing the ALJ’s responsibilities in cases

involving excess pain is well-developed in this circuit. “Excess

pain” is “pain at a level above that supported by medical

findings.” Chavez v Department of Health and Human Services, 103

F3d 849 (9th Cir 1996). If a claimant is able to produce objective

medical evidence of an underlying impairment, an ALJ may not reject

his subjective complaints based solely on lack of objective medical

evidence to corroborate the alleged severity of pain. Moisa v

Barnhart, 367 F3d 882, 885 (9th Cir 2004). If the ALJ finds the

claimant’s pain testimony not to be credible, the ALJ “must

specifically make findings that support this conclusion.” Id. 

Absent “affirmative evidence that the claimant is malingering,” the

\\

Case 3:03-cv-02951-VRW Document 18 Filed 06/15/05 Page 4 of 6
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

ALJ must provide clear and convincing reasons for rejecting the

claimant’s testimony regard the severity of symptoms. Id. 

“General findings are insufficient; rather, the ALJ must identify

what testimony is not credible and what evidence undermines the

claimant’s complaints.” Lester v Chater, 81 F3d 821, 834 (9th Cir

1996).

In a case in which the ALJ has improperly rejected the

claimant’s testimony regarding her limitations, and the claimant

would be disabled if the testimony were credited, remand for the

purpose of having the ALJ make findings regarding that testimony is

normally not required. Lester, 81 F3d at 834. Here, however, the

ALJ’s rejection of plaintiff’s testimony is at best implicit, and,

moreover, it is apparent from the court’s review of the

administrative record that there are good reasons to doubt

plaintiff’s credibility. 

For example, at the hearing the plaintiff told the ALJ

that she “used to do drugs but * * * quit doing that a long time

ago.” AR 49. “How long ago?” the ALJ asked, to which plaintiff

answered “in the 80's for couple years and that was it.” Id. 

According to medical evidence in the record, however, plaintiff

reported to a mental health professional that she had used

methamphetamine not only in 1986, but also “briefly” in 1992 and

1996. AR 252. Treatment notes from Del Norte Community Health

Center dated May 2000 include the following notation: “The patient

states that she has been using IV drugs, specifically shooting up

crank and sharing a needle with one other individual. * * * She has

now left this person and has been clean for 2-1/2 months.” AR 200.

\\

\\

Case 3:03-cv-02951-VRW Document 18 Filed 06/15/05 Page 5 of 6
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

It is not the reviewing court’s role to make a

determination about a disability claimant’s credibility, nor does

the court undertake to do so in this case; the above example is

included only for the purpose of establishing that it would not be

appropriate to deem plaintiff’s statements at the hearing about her

pain admitted, given plaintiff’s contradictory statements

on another matter of medical importance apparent from the record. 

This case is hereby ordered remanded to the SSA for the

purpose of reconciling plaintiff’s testimony about her pain and

physical limitations with the medical evidence and making

appropriate findings about plaintiff’s credibility as required by

the applicable Ninth Circuit precedents. 

The clerk is directed to enter judgment in favor of

plaintiff and to close the file and terminate all pending motions. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

 

VAUGHN R WALKER

United States District Chief Judge

Case 3:03-cv-02951-VRW Document 18 Filed 06/15/05 Page 6 of 6