Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-00546/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-00546-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 864
Nature of Suit: Social Security - SSID Title XVI
Cause of Action: 42:0402 Social Security Benefits

---

1 

18cv546-JLS(BLM) 

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 

DANIEL R. COFFMAN, 

Plaintiff,

v. 

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, 

Defendant.

Case No.: 18cv546-JLS(BLM) 

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION FOR 

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND 

DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, 

GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN 

PART DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR 

SUMMARY JUDGMENT, AND 

REMANDING FOR FURTHER 

PROCEEDINGS 

[ECF Nos. 20 and 21] 

Plaintiff Daniel R. Coffman brought this action for judicial review of the Social Security 

Commissioner’s (“Commissioner”) denial of his claim for disability insurance benefits. ECF No. 

1. Before the Court are Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment

1 [ECF No. 20 (“Pl.’s Mot.”)], 

Defendant’s Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment and Opposition to Plaintiff’s motion [ECF No. 

21-1 (“Def.’s Mot.”)],2 Plaintiff’s Opposition to Defendant’s Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment 

                                                      

1 Plaintiff labeled his Motion “Cross Motion for Summary Judgment,” however, the Court 

interprets ECF No. 20 to be Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment. 

2 Defendant’s Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment and Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion for 

Summary Judgment appear on the docket as two documents, ECF Nos. 21 & 22. However, the 

content of the documents is the same. For clarity, the Court will refer to Defendant’s crossCase 3:18-cv-00546-JLS-BLM Document 33 Filed 02/01/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 31
2 

18cv546-JLS(BLM) 

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 Reply [ECF No. 23 (“Pl.’s Oppo.”)], and Defendant’s Reply [ECF No. 26 (“Def.’ Reply”)]. 

This Report and Recommendation is submitted to United States District Judge Janis L. 

Sammartino pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Civil Local Rule 72.1(c) of the United States 

District Court for the Southern District of California. For the reasons set forth below, this Court 

RECOMMENDS that Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment be GRANTED IN PART AND 

DENIED IN PART, Defendant’s Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment be GRANTED IN PART 

AND DENIED IN PART, and the case be remanded for further proceedings. 

PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND 

On January 20, 2014, Plaintiff filed a Title II application for a period of disability and 

disability insurance benefits, alleging disability beginning on November 1, 2012. See 

Administrative Record (“AR”) at 135-46. Plaintiff also filed a Title XVI application for 

supplemental security income on January 24, 2014. AR at 147-57. Both claims were denied 

initially on January 1, 2015, and upon reconsideration on February 26, 2015, resulting in 

Plaintiff’s request for an administrative hearing. Id. at 190-96, 198-204. Plaintiff requested the 

administrative hearing on April 6, 2015. Id. at 205-06. 

On June 6, 2017, a hearing was held before Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) Keith 

Dietterle. Id. at 116-133. Plaintiff, as well as an impartial medical expert, Dr. Duby, testified at 

the hearing. Id. An impartial vocational expert (“VE”), Mr. Ramos was also present, but did not 

testify. Id. After questioning Dr. Duby, the ALJ concluded that additional records were needed 

in order for Dr. Duby to make a determination about Plaintiff’s condition. Id. at 129-130. 

Accordingly, the ALJ continued the hearing and did not determine whether Plaintiff was disabled 

and entitled to benefits. Id. at 133. 

On July 5, 2017, the hearing continued before ALJ Keith Dietterle. Id. at 10, 90-115. 

Plaintiff, a different VE, Connie Guillory, and Dr. Duby, testified at the hearing. Id. In a written 

decision dated August 18, 2017, ALJ Dietterle determined that Plaintiff had not been under a 

                                                      

motion and opposition as one document, namely, “Def.’s Mot.” 

Case 3:18-cv-00546-JLS-BLM Document 33 Filed 02/01/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 31
3 

18cv546-JLS(BLM) 

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

disability, as defined in the Social Security Act, from November 1, 2012 through the date of the 

ALJ’s decision. Id. at 7-28. Plaintiff requested review by the Appeals Council. Id. at 363-64. 

In an order dated February 28, 2018, the Appeals Council denied review of the ALJ’s ruling, and 

the ALJ’s decision therefore became the final decision of the Commissioner. Id. at 1-6. 

On March 15, 2018, Plaintiff, who is proceeding pro se, filed the instant action seeking 

judicial review by the federal district court. See ECF No. 1. On August 3, 2018, Plaintiff filed a 

Motion for Summary Judgment alleging “that the Commissioner’s final decision is not based on 

factual details,” that there are errors in Defendant’s Answer to Plaintiff’s Complaint, and that 

Plaintiff’s case “has not been reviewed by the Commissioner of Social Security and the 

Commissioner’s attorney team is not aware of [his] medical history.” Pl.’s Mot. at 2-3. Plaintiff 

requests “the full capped award for disability,” the “highest level of SSI supplemental income on 

their scale,” and “damages for emotional stress for having to go over this case packet” in the 

amount of $100,000. Id. at 3. Defendant filed a timely Cross-motion for Summary Judgment 

and Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment asserting that the ALJ properly found 

that “Plaintiff’s ulcerative colitis was severe, but not disabling.” Def’s Mot. at 5. Plaintiff opposed 

Defendant’s motion and replied by going through statements from Def’s Mot. and discussing his 

issues with those statements. Pl.’s Oppo. Defendant replies that the ALJ’s finding was supported 

by substantial evidence of record and that the ALJ fully considered all of the medical evidence 

of record in reaching his decision. Def.’s Reply at 1-2. Defendant further replies that Plaintiff 

improperly relies on newly submitted evidence that is outside of the relevant time period, 

immaterial, and fails to undermine the ALJ’s finding that Plaintiff was not disabled. Id. at 2-3. 

ALJ’s DECISION 

On August 23, 2017, the ALJ issued a written decision in which he determined that 

Plaintiff had not been under a disability, as defined in the Social Security Act, from November 1, 

2012 through the date of the ALJ’s decision. AR at 7-28. The ALJ determined that Plaintiff had 

not engaged in substantial gainful activity during the relevant time period. Id. at 13. The ALJ 

then considered all of Plaintiff’s medical impairments and determined that the following 

impairments were “severe” as defined in the Regulations: “ulcerative colitis; osteoarthritis of the 

Case 3:18-cv-00546-JLS-BLM Document 33 Filed 02/01/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 31
4 

18cv546-JLS(BLM) 

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

right hip; degenerative disease of the lumbar spine; osteoarthritis of the left hip; osteoarthritis 

of the cervical spine; sleep apnea; and, arthritis of the shoulders (20 CFR 404.1520(c) and 

416.920(c)).” Id. At step three, the ALJ found that Plaintiff’s medically determinable 

impairments or combination of impairments did not meet or medically equal the listed 

impairments. Id. In reaching this decision, the ALJ noted that each impairment did not meet 

or medically equal the severity of one of the listed impairments in 20 CFR part 404, Subpart P, 

Appendix 1. Id. 

At step four, the ALJ considered Plaintiff’s severe impairments and determined that his 

residual functional capacity (“RFC”) permitted him 

to perform light work as defined in 20 CFR 404.1567(b) and 416.967(b) except 

that the claimant can sit two hours at a time for a total of six hours in an eight 

hour day; stand one hour at a time for a total of two hours in an eight hour day; 

walk one hour at a time for a total of two hours in an eight hour day; occasionally 

lift twenty pounds, frequently lift ten pounds; frequently carry ten pounds; 

occasionally reach overhead with the right upper extremity; frequently reach 

overhead with the left upper extremity; all other reaching can be done frequently; 

occasional handling and fingering and feeling with both hands; frequent operation 

of foot controls bilaterally; occasional unprotected heights and temperature 

extremes; frequent fast moving machinery, wetness, humidity, driving automotive 

equipment, exposure to dust fumes gasses; vibrations. 

Id. at 14. The ALJ found that while Plaintiff’s “medically determinable impairments could 

reasonably be expected to cause the alleged symptoms,” Plaintiff’s “statements concerning the 

intensity, persistence and limiting effects of these symptoms are not entirely consistent with all 

the medical evidence and other evidence in the record.” Id. at 15. In reaching this decision, 

the ALJ gave significant weight to the medical records reflecting that Plaintiff’s conditions have 

significantly improved with treatment since late 2012 and some weight to the State Agency 

medical examiners. Id. at 15, 17. The ALJ explained 

[t]he objective medical evidence, showing rather routine and conservative 

management of the claimants conditions, and mostly mild to moderate imaging 

and clinical findings, simply does not establish physiological abnormalities, which 

Case 3:18-cv-00546-JLS-BLM Document 33 Filed 02/01/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 31
5 

18cv546-JLS(BLM) 

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 limit the claimant’s daily activities to the debilitating degree alleged or 

preclude the claimant from performing at the residual functional capacity as 

assessed above. 

Id. at 18. 

The ALJ concluded that Plaintiff is able to perform his past relevant work (“PRW”) as an 

electromechanical assembler and assembly supervisor as it is “actually and generally 

performed.” Id. 

STANDARD OF REVIEW 

Section 405(g) of the Social Security Act permits unsuccessful applicants to seek judicial 

review of the Commissioner’s final decision. 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). The scope of judicial review is 

limited in that a denial of benefits will not be disturbed if it is supported by substantial evidence 

and contains no legal error. Id.; see also Batson v. Comm’r Soc. Sec. Admin., 359 F.3d 1190, 

1193 (9th Cir. 2004). 

Substantial evidence is “more than a mere scintilla, but may be less than a 

preponderance.” Lewis v. Apfel, 236 F.3d 503, 509 (9th Cir. 2001) (citation omitted). It is 

“relevant evidence that, considering the entire record, a reasonable person might accept as 

adequate to support a conclusion.” Id. (citation omitted); see also Howard ex rel. Wolff v. 

Barnhart, 341 F.3d 1006, 1011 (9th Cir. 2003). “In determining whether the [ALJ’s] findings 

are supported by substantial evidence, [the court] must review the administrative record as a 

whole, weighing both the evidence that supports and the evidence that detracts from the [ALJ’s] 

conclusion.” Reddick v. Chater, 157 F.3d 715, 720 (9th Cir. 1998) (citations omitted). Where 

the evidence can reasonably be construed to support more than one rational interpretation, the 

court must uphold the ALJ’s decision. See Batson, 359 F.3d at 1193. This includes deferring to 

the ALJ’s credibility determinations and resolutions of evidentiary conflicts. See Lewis, 236 F.3d 

at 509. 

Even if the reviewing court finds that substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s conclusions, 

the court must set aside the decision if the ALJ failed to apply the proper legal standards in 

weighing the evidence and reaching his or her decision. See Batson, 359 F.3d at 1193. Section 

Case 3:18-cv-00546-JLS-BLM Document 33 Filed 02/01/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 5 of 31
6 

18cv546-JLS(BLM) 

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

405(g) permits a court to enter judgment affirming, modifying, or reversing the Commissioner’s 

decision. 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). The reviewing court may also remand the matter to the Social 

Security Administration for further proceedings. Id. 

DISCUSSION 

Plaintiff seeks to have his case reviewed and for the Court to enter a decision in his favor. 

Pl.’s Mot. at 2. Plaintiff argues that Defendant did not properly review his case and does not 

understand his medical history. Id. at 3. Plaintiff also argues that he is still in treatment for his 

ulcerative colitis and that his medications have increased. Id. In support, Plaintiff has attached 

additional recent medical records to his motion. Id. Plaintiff further argues that in reaching his 

decision, the ALJ failed to consider Plaintiff’s urination problem, which is directly linked to his 

ulcerative colitis. Id. Plaintiff seeks (1) back pay, (2) costs, (3) “disbursement and damages for 

emotional distress for having to do a review [him]self[,]” (4) “the full capped award for disability” 

or the “highest level of SSI supplemental income on their scale[,]” (5) the amount of money 

that would be paid to an attorney to review his packet, and (6) $100,000 in emotional distress 

damages. Id. at 2-4. 

Defendant contends that substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s RFC finding that Plaintiff 

can perform light work and that the ALJ properly considered Plaintiff’s subjective complaints. 

Def.’s Mot. at 8-15. Defendant also contends that the medical records submitted by Plaintiff for 

the first time with his motion for summary judgment are not material evidence supporting a 

sentence six remand. Id. at 15-16. 

Plaintiff replies that the ALJ’s qualifications to decide his case are questionable and that 

Plaintiff included a list of impairments in his original filings that were not properly discussed or 

considered. Pl.’s Oppo. at 2. Plaintiff also replies that he reported that his ulcerative colitis was 

severe even though he did not have his colon removed and that his condition is not under control 

even with medication. Id. Plaintiff notes that he has been seen in the VA medical system on 

multiple occasions since November 2012. Id. at 3. Plaintiff further replies that he raised the 

issue of the limitation in his right arm during the hearing and that he now has arthritis in multiple 

parts of his body that is linked to his ulcerative colitis. Id. at 4. 

Case 3:18-cv-00546-JLS-BLM Document 33 Filed 02/01/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 6 of 31
7 

18cv546-JLS(BLM) 

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

Defendant reasserts its previous arguments and replies that the ALJ’s decision was 

supported by substantial evidence. Def.’s Reply at 1-2. Defendant also replies that the ALJ 

properly considered all of Plaintiff’s impairments and the medical evidence of record and states 

that “Plaintiff has not identified any medical evidence that undermines the ALJ’s conclusion that 

Plaintiff could perform a range of light work.” Id. at 2. Defendant further replies that the ALJ 

reasonably found that Plaintiff’s symptoms were sufficiently controlled with treatment and did 

not result in disabling limitations. Id. Defendant notes that Plaintiff’s new evidence is not 

material to this case and that the records that do pertain to the appropriate time period do not 

undermine the ALJ’s finding. Id. Finally, Defendants reply that the ALJ’s weighing of the 

evidence should be upheld as he was the fact finder in this matter and based his decision on a 

reasonable interpretation of the record. Id. at 3. 

A. Treating Physician 

Plaintiff argues that the ALJ did not properly review his case in light of his medical history 

or consider all of the relevant evidence. Pl.’s Mot. at 3; see also Pl.’s Oppo. at 3. While not 

clearly stated, Plaintiff appears to argue that the ALJ committed legal error because he did not 

properly consider the opinion of Plaintiff’s treating physician, Dr. Bittleman. Pl.’s Oppo. at 3. 

Plaintiff notes that the ALJ did not value Dr. Bittleman’s opinion classifying Plaintiff as 

permanently disabled in the VA medical system and that the ALJ was not qualified to reject the 

findings of his treating physician. Id. Defendant does not discuss Dr. Bittleman’s findings or 

provide a treating physician analysis, but contends that the ALJ’s RFC finding was supported by 

substantial evidence and notes that the opinions of Drs. Duby, Wellons, Do, and Doa were 

consistent with that evidence. Def.’s Mot. at 8. 

1. Relevant Law 

The opinion of a treating doctor generally should be given more weight than opinions of 

doctors who do not treat the claimant. See Turner v. Comm'r. of Soc. Sec., 613 F. 3d 1217, 

1222 (9th Cir. 2010) (citing Lester v. Chater, 81 F.3d 821, 830-31 (9th Cir. 1995)). If the treating 

doctor's opinion is not contradicted by another doctor, it may be rejected only for “clear and 

convincing” reasons supported by substantial evidence in the record. Id. (citing Lester, 81 F.3d 

Case 3:18-cv-00546-JLS-BLM Document 33 Filed 02/01/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 7 of 31
8 

18cv546-JLS(BLM) 

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

at 830-31). Even when the treating doctor's opinion is contradicted by the opinion of another 

doctor, the ALJ may properly reject the treating doctor's opinion only by providing “specific and 

legitimate reasons” supported by substantial evidence in the record for doing so. Id. (citing 

Lester, 81 F.3d at 830-31). This can be done by “setting out a detailed and thorough summary 

of the facts and conflicting clinical evidence, stating [his] interpretation thereof, and making 

findings.” Tommasetti v. Astrue, 533 F.3d 1035, 1041 (9th Cir. 2008) (citing Magallanes v. 

Bowen, 881 F.2d 747, 751 (9th Cir. 1989)). “The ALJ must do more than offer his conclusions. 

He must set forth his own interpretations and explain why they, rather than the doctors', are 

correct.” Orn v. Astrue, 495 F.3d 625, 632 (9th Cir. 2007) (quoting Embrey v. Bowen, 849 F.2d 

418, 421-22 (9th Cir. 1988)). “The opinion of a non-examining physician cannot by itself 

constitute substantial evidence that justifies the rejection of the opinion of either an examining 

physician or a treating physician; such an opinion may serve as substantial evidence only when 

it is consistent with and supported by other independent evidence in the record.” Townsend v. 

Colvin, 2013 WL 4501476, *6 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 22, 2013) (quoting Lester, 81 F.3d at 830–31) 

(citing Morgan, 169 F.3d at 600). 

If a treating doctor’s opinion is not afforded controlling weight, “the ALJ must consider 

the ‘length of the treatment relationship and the frequency of examination’ as well as the ‘nature 

and extent of the treatment relationship’ .... In addition, the ALJ must still consider the other 

relevant factors such as ‘the amount of relevant evidence that supports the opinion and the 

quality of the explanation provided’ and ‘the consistency of the medical opinion with the record 

as a whole.’” West v. Colvin, 2015 WL 4935491, at *8 (D. Or. Aug. 18, 2015) (quoting Orn, 495 

F.3d at 631; 20 C.F.R. §§ 416.927(c); and 404.1527(c)). 

2. Relevant Medical History, Findings, And Testimony 

In February 2014, Dr. Bittleman, Plaintiff’s primary care physician dating back to at least 

2013, opined that given Plaintiff’s “extreme fatigue and poor response to treatment for ulcerative 

colitis, the vet is unable to work at any job and should be considered completely disabled.” Id. 

at 732, 2336. He also stated that in his opinion, Plaintiff “will be unable to work in the 

foreseeable future at any job and should be considered permanently disabled.” Id. at 737, 2341. 

Case 3:18-cv-00546-JLS-BLM Document 33 Filed 02/01/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 8 of 31
9 

18cv546-JLS(BLM) 

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

In the Crohn’s and Colitis RFC Questionnaire and general Physical RFC Questionnaire where he 

wrote those opinions, Dr. Bittleman noted that Plaintiff had a fair prognosis, but that (1) 

Plaintiff’s symptoms were constantly severe enough to interfere with his attention and 

concentration, (2) Plaintiff was incapable of even “low stress” jobs, (3) Plaintiff would need to 

take several unscheduled restroom breaks during an eight-hour working day, (4) Plaintiff would 

need to lie down or rest during unpredictable intervals during an eight-hour work day, (5) 

Plaintiff is likely to be absent from work more than four days a month, and (6) Plaintiff was 

“unable to work at all.”3 Id. at 728-730, 735, 737, 2334-2335, 2338-2340. 

Dr. Wellons, a State Agency Medical Examiner who did not examine or treat Plaintiff, but 

reviewed his medical records, completed a Disability Determination Explanation form on July 24, 

2014 and opined that Plaintiff had a RFC that allowed Plaintiff to occasionally lift, carry, or 

upward pull twenty pounds, and frequently lift, carry, or upward pull ten pounds, stand, walk, 

or sit six hours in an eight hour day, be unlimited with pushing, pulling or operating hand or 

foot controls, and that Plaintiff had no manipulative, visual, communicative, or postural 

limitations. Id. at 143, 154. Dr. Do, a State Agency Medical Examiner who did not examine or 

treat Plaintiff, but reviewed his medical records, completed a Disability Determination 

Explanation form at the reconsideration level on January 5, 2015 and reached the same 

conclusion as Dr. Wellons. Id. at 158-185. 

Dr. Doa, a Board Eligible doctor of internal medicine, examined Plaintiff on April 7, 2014 

at the request of the Department of Social Services, and concluded that Plaintiff can lift, carry, 

push, or pull fifty pounds occasionally and twenty-five pounds frequently and can stand or walk 

for six hours in an eight hour workday. Id. at 1092, 1097. Dr. Doa also concluded that Plaintiff 

can frequently climb, stoop, kneel, and crouch and that Plaintiff had no manipulative, visual, 

                                                      

3 Dr. Bittleman further found that Plaintiff would only be able to sit and stand for less than two 

hours in an eight-hour work day and could only sit or stand for thirty minutes at one time before 

needing to do something else. AR at 730. Dr. Bittleman noted that Plaintiff could never lift and 

carry even less than ten pounds in an eight-hour workday or twist, stoop, crouch, or climb 

ladders, or stairs. Id. at 731, 735-736. 

Case 3:18-cv-00546-JLS-BLM Document 33 Filed 02/01/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 9 of 31
10 

18cv546-JLS(BLM) 

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

communicative, or environmental limitations. Id. at 1097. 

At Plaintiff’s hearing, Medical Expert (“ME”), Dr. Duby, who reviewed Plaintiff’s medical 

file, testified that Plaintiff was able to lift up to ten pounds frequently, lift eleven to twenty 

pounds occasionally, sit for two hours at a time for a total of six hours a day, stand and walk for 

one hour at a time for a total of two hours in one day, reach overhead with his right arm 

occasionally, reach overhead with his left hand frequently, and reach with both hands frequently. 

Id. at 93. Dr. Duby also testified that Plaintiff could handle, finger, and feel continuously with 

both hands, push and pull occasionally with the right hand and frequently with the left hand, 

frequently use both feet for foot controls, occasionally climb ramps, stairs, ladders, or scaffolds, 

balance, kneel, stoop, and crouch frequently, and crawl occasionally. Id. at 93-94. Dr. Duby 

further testified that Plaintiff could occasionally be exposed to unprotected heights, frequently 

be close to moving mechanical parts, operate a motor vehicle, be exposed to humidity and 

wetness, dust, odors, fumes, and pulmonary irritants, occasionally be exposed to extreme cold 

and heat, frequently be exposed to vibration, and had no noise limitations. Id. at 94. 

When asked if any of Plaintiff’s conditions met or equaled the Commissioner’s listings, Dr. 

Duby testified that he had a problem answering that question in part because he did not “have 

any GI clinic notes subsequent to November 2016 and those would be very important to me.” 

Id. at 92. When pressed to respond to the question “you don’t feel that [Plaintiff] meets or 

equals the gastro - - the ulcerative colitis listing/GI listing” based on the current information that 

he had, Dr. Duby responded “[i]t’s really hard to say without the doctor’s notes so I don’t think 

he meets or equals in that of the listings.” Id. at 93. When asked if the symptoms of ulcerative 

colitis would prevent a person from showing up to work, Dr. Duby responded 

I’m just going to keep reiterating I need the gastroenteroly [sic] assessment. I 

don’t think it’s sufficient for what I am supposed to be doing today to make my 

assessments based strictly upon [Plaintiff’s] complaints in the report. 

Id. at 95. After Plaintiff provided additional testimony about his symptoms, Dr. Duby was asked 

if that shed any additional light on the issues. Id. at 100. Dr. Duby testified that it did shed a 

little additional light, however, “I really do need the gastroenterology’s opinions and what they’re 

Case 3:18-cv-00546-JLS-BLM Document 33 Filed 02/01/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 10 of

 31
11 

18cv546-JLS(BLM) 

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

thinking and how – what they feel about [Plaintiff’s] condition.” Id. at 100. 

 At the end of his testimony, Dr. Duby went through Medical Listing 5.06 which discusses 

Inflammatory Bowel Disease (“IBD”) and includes ulcerative colitis. Id. at 100-103. Dr. Duby 

noted that 5.06 does not consider the frequency of bowel movements in determining the severity 

of a claimant’s IBD, but instead considers whether a patient is anemic, has low protein in their 

blood, or has involuntary weight loss, which Plaintiff did not have.4 Id. at 102-103. 

 3. ALJ’s Considerations 

In reaching his decision, the ALJ gave “very little weight” to the February 2014 opinion 

of Dr. Bittleman because it was “not supported by the record, including almost normal findings 

reported in his own treatment records.” AR at 17. The ALJ noted that Dr. Bittleman’s conclusion 

that Plaintiff would be absent from work more than four times per month was inconsistent with 

the record as a whole because Plaintiff had only been hospitalized once for a few days at the 

time Dr. Bittleman provided that opinion. Id. at 17-18. 

The ALJ gave some weight to the findings of Drs. Wellons and Do because additional 

evidence was provided at the hearing level showing that Plaintiff had other physical impairments 

causing additional functional limitations. Id. at 17. 

                                                      

4 Medical Listing 5.06 states “Inflammatory bowel disease (IBD)documented by endoscopy, 

biopsy, appropriate medically acceptable imaging, or operative findings with: A. Obstruction of 

stenotic areas (not adhesions) in the small intestine or colon with proximal dilatation, confirmed 

by appropriate medically acceptable imaging or in surgery, requiring hospitalization for intestinal 

decompression or for surgery, and occurring on at least two occasions at least 60 days apart 

within a consecutive 6-month period. OR B. Two of the following despite continuing treatment 

as prescribed and occurring within the same consecutive 6-month period: 1. Anemia with 

hemoglobin of less than 10.0 g/dL, present on at least two evaluations at least 60 days apart; 

or 2. Serum albumin of 3.0 g/dL or less, present on at least two evaluations at least 60 days 

apart; or 3. Clinically documented tender abdominal mass palpable on physical examination with 

abdominal pain or cramping that is not completely controlled by prescribed narcotic medication, 

present on at least two evaluations at least 60 days apart; or 4. Perineal disease with a draining 

abscess or fistula, with pain that is not completely controlled by prescribed narcotic medication, 

present on at least two evaluations at least 60 days apart; or 5. Involuntary weight loss of at 

least 10 percent from baseline, as computed in pounds, kilograms, or BMI, present on at least 

two evaluations at least 60 days apart; or 6. Need for supplemental daily enteral nutrition via a 

gastrostomy or daily parenteral nutrition via a central venous catheter. See 

https://www.ssa.gov/disability/professionals/bluebook/5.00-Digestive-Adult.htm#5_06. 

Case 3:18-cv-00546-JLS-BLM Document 33 Filed 02/01/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 11 of

 31
12 

18cv546-JLS(BLM) 

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

The ALJ gave little weight to Dr. Doa’s opinion because it was based on a one time 

examination of Plaintiff and, therefore, lacking “a longitudinal picture of [Plaintiff’s] health 

conditions.” Id. at 18. In addition, since the examination by Dr. Doa, Plaintiff has been 

diagnosed with additional impairments affecting his functioning. Id. 

The ALJ gave “great weight” to the testimony of the ME, Dr. Duby “because Dr. Duby is 

an expert and has reviewed the entire record including [Plaintiff’s] most recent testimony.” Id. 

at 17. The ALJ also gave great weight to Dr. Duby’s testimony because his opinion was fully 

supported by the evidence in the record showing that Plaintiff’s symptoms are controlled with 

conservative treatment.5 Id. 

4. Analysis 

Dr. Bittleman’s opinion was contradicted by Drs. Wellons, Do, Duby, and Dao. Id. at 136-

185, 1092-1097. Because Dr. Bittleman’s opinion was contradicted by other doctors, the ALJ 

may reject Dr. Bittleman’s opinion only by providing specific and legitimate reasons supported 

by substantial evidence in the record. Turner, 613 F. 3d at 1222 (citing Lester, 81 F.3d at 830-

31). In rejecting Dr. Bittleman’s opinion, the ALJ stated that the opinion was “poorly supported 

by the clinical findings and examinations of [Plaintiff]” and broadly cites to Exhibit 30. Id. at 17. 

The ALJ further states that Plaintiff’s symptoms improved after being diagnosed with ulcerative 

colitis and that Plaintiff reported “doing good” and “feeling okay[,]” again generally citing to 

Exhibit 30F.6 Id. Exhibit 30F contains 368 pages of vitals, radiology reports, labs, consult 

requests, progress notes, and more from numerous doctors. Id. at 2654-3021. The ALJ states 

that he gives very little weight to Dr. Bittleman’s findings because they are “not supported by 

the record, including the almost normal findings reported in his own treatment records” and 

cites to Exhibits 5F (97 pages), 8F (5 pages), 15F (128 pages) and 16F (118 pages). Id. at 17. 

                                                      

5 At no point does the ALJ’s opinion address Dr. Duby’s repeated statements that there were 

additional medical records he believed were necessary to enable him to assess Plaintiff’s medical 

status. 

6 This argument is presented by the ALJ to support his rejection of Plaintiff’s subjective symptom 

testimony and not for the weight he assigned to Dr. Bittleman’s opinion. AR at 17. 

Case 3:18-cv-00546-JLS-BLM Document 33 Filed 02/01/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 12 of

 31
13 

18cv546-JLS(BLM) 

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

Apart from quoting two comments by Plaintiff, the ALJ fails to provide specific reasons 

for rejecting Dr. Bittleman’s findings or to identify the specific findings in Exhibits 5F, 8F, 15F, 

16F, and 30F that undermine Dr. Bittleman’s opinion. Id. at 17. The ALJ does not satisfy his 

burden of “setting out a detailed and thorough summary of the facts and conflicting clinical 

evidence, stating his interpretation thereof, and making findings.” Trevizo v. Berryhill, 871 F.3d 

664, 675 (9th Cir. 2017). As explained by the Ninth Circuit: 

To say that medical opinions are not supported by sufficient objective findings 

does not achieve the level of specificity our prior cases have required even when 

the objective factors are listed seriatim. The ALJ must do more than offer his own 

conclusions. He must set forth his own interpretation and explain why he, rather 

than the doctors, are correct. 

Regenniter v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 166 F.3d 1294, 1299 (9th Cir. 1999). 

The one specific reason that the ALJ does provide - that Dr. Bittleman’s opinion that 

Plaintiff would be absent from work more than four times per month is inconsistent with the 

records because when Dr. Bittleman provided this opinion, Plaintiff had only been hospitalized 

once for a few days - is misleading and not a legitimate reason for not giving weight to Dr. 

Bittleman’s opinion. Id. at 18. 

Dr. Bittleman’s opinion is dated February 2014. Id. at 732, 2336. The medical evidence 

shows that Plaintiff was admitted to the emergency room on (1) November 7, 2012 for diarrhea 

and bloody stool [see id. at 640], (2) November 16, 2012 for colitis and anemia [see id. at 640], 

(3) April 1, 2013 for benign essential hypertension [see id. at 638], (4) August 12, 2013 for 

orthostatic hypotension, ulcerative colitis, intestinal infection due to clostridium, and unspecified 

essential hypertension [see id. at 635], (5) September 3, 2013 for a bacterial infection due to 

anaerobes, clostridium difficile infection [see id. at 634], (6) September 24, 2013 for ulcerative 

colitis, infectious colitis, enteritis, gastroenteritis, and intestinal infection due to clostridium 

difficile, bloody stool [see id. at 633-635, 676], (7) from October 30, 2014 to November 5, 2014 

for abdominal pain and worsening diarrhea due to an ulcerative colitis flare [see id. at 2486], 

(8) from January 12-15, 2015 for bloody diarrhea due to an ulcerative colitis flare [see id. at 

Case 3:18-cv-00546-JLS-BLM Document 33 Filed 02/01/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 13 of

 31
14 

18cv546-JLS(BLM) 

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

2483-2485], and (9) January 13, 2017 for frequent urination and odynophagia [see id. at 2657]. 

While Plaintiff may only have been admitted to the hospital once at the time of Dr. Bittleman’s 

opinion, the records shows that he was experiencing symptoms with enough severity to send 

him to the emergency room on numerous occasions. Additionally, while Plaintiff may not have 

been admitted to the hospital in all of these instances, an injury, illness, or symptom requiring 

hospitalization is not the only reason an individual might miss work due to an impairment. It is 

possible for an individual to be too ill to attend work, but not ill enough to require admission 

into the hospital. It also is possible that the time required for treatments, such as Remicade 

infusions, may impact an individuals’ ability to attend work on a consistent basis. Accordingly, 

the Court finds that this is not a specific and legitimate reason for rejecting Dr. Bittleman’s 

opinion. 

In addition, the ALJ did not consider the length of the treatment relationship between 

Plaintiff and Dr. Bittleman nor the frequency of examination or nature and extent of the 

treatment relationship. See West, 2015 WL 4935491, at *8; Pierce v. Colvin, 2014 WL 2159388, 

at *2 (C.D. Cal. May 23, 2014) (stating that “[e]ven when not entitled to controlling weight, 

‘treating source medical opinions are still entitled to deference and must be weighed’ in light of 

(1) the length of the treatment relationship; (2) the frequency of examination; (3) the nature 

and extent of the treatment relationship; (4) the supportability of the diagnosis; (5) consistency 

with other evidence in the record; and (6) the area of specialization.”) (citing Edlund v. 

Massanari, 253 F.3d 1152, 1157 n.6 (9th Cir. 2001)). 

Finally, it is well settled that an ALJ has an affirmative duty to fully and fairly develop the 

record. Tonapetyan v. Halter, 242 F.3d 1144, 1150 (9th Cir. 2001). “The ALJ's duty to 

supplement a claimant's record is triggered by ambiguous evidence, the ALJ's own finding that 

the record is inadequate or the ALJ's reliance on an expert's conclusion that the evidence is 

ambiguous.” Webb v. Barnhart, 433 F.3d 683, 687 (9th Cir. 2006). “The ALJ may discharge 

this duty in several ways, including: subpoenaing the claimant's physicians, submitting questions 

to the claimant's physicians, continuing the hearing, or keeping the record open after the hearing 

to allow supplementation of the record.” Tonapetyan, 242 F.3d at 1150. 

Case 3:18-cv-00546-JLS-BLM Document 33 Filed 02/01/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 14 of

 31
15 

18cv546-JLS(BLM) 

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

In Tonapetyan, the Court found that while the ALJ did not specifically find that evidence 

of the plaintiff’s mental impairment was ambiguous or that the record was inadequate, the 

medical expert whose opinion the ALJ relied heavily on, did find just that. Id. While testifying, 

the medical expert described the lack of certain records as “confusing,” recommended that a 

more detailed report be obtained, and “remained equivocal throughout his testimony.” Id. 

Because the ALJ relied heavily on the ME’s opinion, the Court found that “the ALJ was not free 

to ignore [the ME’s] equivocations and his concern over the lack of a complete record upon 

which to assess Tonapetyan’s mental impairment” or the ME’s recommendation that a more 

detailed medical report be obtained. Id. at 1150-1151. The ALJ’s decision to do so constituted 

reversible error and the court remanded for further development of the record. Id. at 1151. 

Similarly, here while the ALJ did not find that the evidence was ambiguous or inadequate, 

he assigned “great weight” to the medical opinions of Dr. Duby who testified that the he did not 

have access to all of the necessary medical records,7 that the missing records “would be very 

important to [him,]” and who struggled to fully respond to the ALJ’s question due to a lack of 

information. AR at 92, 95, 100, and 101. Because of the weight the ALJ assigned to Dr. Duby’s 

opinion, the ALJ should have addressed Dr. Duby’s concerns about the inadequacy of the medical 

record before him and fairly developed the record.8 

                                                      

7 Specifically, Dr. Duby testified that he did not “really have any GI clinical notes subsequent to 

November of 2016” and later that he did not “have any gastroenterology clinic notes for the last 

seven months.” AR at 92, 95. 

8 See Labrown v. Astrue, 2012 WL 5499985, at *6 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 13, 2012) (reversing and 

remanding the ALJ’s decision where ALJ relied heavily on the testimony of the medical expert, 

but ignored the medical expert’s “equivocations and his concern over the lack of a complete 

record upon which to assess” Plaintiff's mental impairment and noting that “the ALJ had a duty 

to supplement the record to resolve the ambiguities identified by the doctor.”) (citing Tate v. 

Astrue, 2012 WL 1229886, at *6 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 12, 2012) (ALJ erred in not further developing 

record when “ME suggested that it was difficult for her to form an opinion with respect to 

Plaintiff's disability” and ultimate assessment of Plaintiff's RFC was “highly equivocal”) and Rosol 

v. Astrue, 2009 WL 3122779, at *3 (C.D. Cal. Sept.25, 2009) (“Having relied on the ME's opinion, 

the ALJ is not free to ignore the ME's equivocal testimony that there was insufficient evidence 

without treatment records to review.”)). 

Case 3:18-cv-00546-JLS-BLM Document 33 Filed 02/01/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 15 of

 31
16 

18cv546-JLS(BLM) 

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

B. Subjective Symptom Testimony 

Plaintiff argues that the ALJ failed to consider all of his symptoms such as frequent 

urination. Pl.’s Mot. at 3. Defendant argues that the ALJ properly considered Plaintiff’s 

subjective complaints. Def.’s Mot at 12-15. 

1. Relevant Law 

The Ninth Circuit has established a two-part test for evaluating a claimant’s subjective 

symptoms. See Lingenfelter v. Astrue, 504 F.3d 1028, 1036 (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. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). The claimant, however, need not 

prove that the impairment reasonably could be expected to produce the alleged degree of pain 

or other symptoms; the claimant need only prove that the impairment reasonably could be 

expected to produce some degree of pain or other symptom. Id. If the claimant satisfies the 

first element and there is no evidence of malingering, then the ALJ “can [only] reject the 

claimant’s testimony about the severity of her symptoms . . . by offering specific, clear and 

convincing reasons for doing so.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). “General 

findings are insufficient; rather, the ALJ must identify what testimony is not credible and what 

evidence undermines the claimant’s complaints.” Reddick, 157 F.3d at 722 (quoting 

Lester v. Chater, 81 F.3d 821, 834 (9th Cir. 1995)). The ALJ’s findings must be “sufficiently 

specific to permit the court to conclude that the ALJ did not arbitrarily discredit [Plaintiff’s] 

testimony.” Thomas v. Barnhart, 278 F.3d 947, 958 (9th Cir. 2002). 

When weighing the claimant’s testimony, “an ALJ may consider . . . reputation for 

truthfulness, inconsistencies in testimony or between testimony and conduct, daily activities, 

and unexplained, or inadequately explained, failure to seek treatment or follow a prescribed 

course of treatment.” Orn v. Astrue, 495 F.3d 625, 636 (9th Cir. 2007) (internal quotation marks 

and citation omitted). An ALJ also may consider the claimant’s work record and testimony from 

doctors and third parties regarding the “nature, severity, and effect of the symptoms” of which 

the claimant complains. Thomas, 278 F.3d at 958–59 (internal quotation marks and citation 

Case 3:18-cv-00546-JLS-BLM Document 33 Filed 02/01/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 16 of

 31
17 

18cv546-JLS(BLM) 

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

omitted); see also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c). If the ALJ’s finding is supported by substantial 

evidence, the court may not second-guess his or her decision. See Thomas, 278 F.3d at 959; 

Carmickle v. Comm’r, Soc. Sec. Admin., 533 F.3d 1155, 1162-63 (9th Cir. 2008) (where the ALJ’s 

credibility assessment is supported by substantial evidence, it will not be disturbed even where 

some of the reasons for discrediting a claimant’s testimony were improper). 

Neither party contests the ALJ’s determination that Plaintiff has the following severe 

impairments: “ulcerative colitis; osteoarthritis of the right hip; degenerative disease of the 

lumbar spine; osteoarthritis of the left hip; osteoarthritis of the cervical spine; sleep apnea; and, 

arthritis of the shoulders (20 CFR 404.1520(c) and 416.920(c)).” AR at 13. Because the ALJ 

determined that Plaintiff’s “medically determinable impairments could reasonably be expected 

to cause the alleged symptoms”—a finding that is not contested by either party—the first prong 

of the ALJ’s inquiry regarding Plaintiff’s subjective symptoms is satisfied. See AR at 15; see also 

Lingenfelter, 504 F.3d at 1036; Pl.’s Mot.; Def.’s Mot. Furthermore, neither party alleges that 

the ALJ found that Plaintiff was malingering. See Pl.’s Mot.; Def.’s Mot. As a result, the Court 

must determine whether the ALJ provided clear and convincing reasons for discounting Plaintiff’s 

subjective claims regarding his symptoms. See Lingenfelter, 504 F.3d at 1036. 

The ALJ identified a number of reasons for discounting Plaintiff’s subjective claims. See 

AR at 15-18. The Court will consider each reason individually. 

2. Inconsistent with Medical Evidence 

The ALJ found Plaintiff’s “statements concerning the intensity, persistence and limiting 

effects of [his] symptoms are not entirely consistent with the medical evidence and other 

evidence in the record for the reasons explained in [his] decision.” AR at 15. With regards to 

Plaintiff’s claim that he is disabled because of “HTN, ulcerative colitis, uncontrolled bowel, 

constant urination, rectal pain, dizziness and constant dehydration[,]” the ALJ stated that: 

The objective medical evidence, showing rather routine and conservative 

management of the claimant’s conditions, and mostly mild to moderate imaging 

and clinical findings, simply does not establish physiological abnormalities, which 

would limit the claimant’s daily activities to the debilitating degree alleged or 

Case 3:18-cv-00546-JLS-BLM Document 33 Filed 02/01/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 17 of

 31
18 

18cv546-JLS(BLM) 

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

preclude the claimant from performing at the residual functional capacity as 

assessed above. 

Id. at 18. With regard to Plaintiff’s ulcerative colitis, the ALJ considered Plaintiff’s testimony that 

he continues to have up to five bowel movements a day and found it to be a sign that Plaintiff’s 

condition had improved with treatment as he had previously reported having ten to twelve bowel 

movements a day. Id. at 15-16 (citing AR at 1981, 2000, 2900, 2936, 2980). The ALJ noted 

that the record shows a reduction in the number of Plaintiff’s daily bowel movements since 2012 

and that there have been no reports of malnutrition, anemia, or ongoing pain treatment due to 

Plaintiff’s colitis treatments. Id. The ALJ also considered Plaintiff’s testimony regarding the fact 

that although he had lost sixteen pounds in the past few months, he had gained about twenty 

pounds since 2012 when he was first diagnosed with ulcerative colitis and he requested help 

with weight loss in 2017. Id. at 15-16. The ALJ cited to the record and noted that Plaintiff had 

a BMI of 30.0 – 30.9 in February 2017. Id. at 16 (citing AR at 2574). Finally, the ALJ focused 

on the fact that Plaintiff’s treatments have been successful in reducing his symptoms and “ha[ve] 

been conservative in nature” without any reported side effects. Id. at 17. 

With regard to Plaintiff’s diabetes mellitus, the ALJ found that it was controlled with diet 

only, no medication or insulin, and that his visual acuity remained the same despite mild diabetic 

retinopathy. Id. at 16 (citing AR at 2580, 2650). With regard to Plaintiff’s orthopedic 

impairments, the ALJ found that despite Plaintiff’s complaints of severe pain, the medical records 

showed little or mild findings and conservative treatment was successful in reducing Plaintiff’s 

pain and other symptoms. Id. The ALJ further noted that the medical evidence does not support 

Plaintiff’s allegation that he cannot do much activity during his day as it shows generally normal 

exams, that his conditions are well controlled with treatment, and that he suffers no side effects 

from his treatment. Id. at 17. The ALJ noted that no surgical intervention has been 

recommended and that some of his issues were identified as normal aging that “comes with the 

passing years.” Id. at 16 (quoting AR at 2652). Finally, with regard to Plaintiff’s sleep apnea, 

the ALJ found that it was moderate and being treated with a CPAP device and instruction to lose 

weight. Id. at 16 (citing AR at 2670-2674, 2676-2677, 2779-2780). 

Case 3:18-cv-00546-JLS-BLM Document 33 Filed 02/01/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 18 of

 31
19 

18cv546-JLS(BLM) 

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

The Court's review of the cited medical records establishes that there is evidence in the 

record supporting the ALJ's determination that Plaintiff's subjective symptoms and pain are not 

consistent with the objective medical evidence. While the absence of objective medical evidence 

to support plaintiff's subjective complaints is a factor an ALJ can consider in discrediting 

symptom testimony, it cannot be the sole factor. See Reddick, 157 F.3d at 722 (citing Bunnell, 

947 F.2d 341, 343 (9th Cir.1991). Thus, this reason is not sufficient unless there is at least one 

other reason for rejecting Plaintiff's subjective symptoms. 

3. Activities of Daily Living 

The ALJ found that Plaintiff’s described daily activities are limited to the extent one would 

expect given the complaints he has made regarding his symptoms and limitations. AR at 17. 

However the ALJ found that while Plaintiff claims to do very little during his day, the medical 

evidence indicates that this is not due to his impairments which are well controlled with 

prescribed treatments. Id. Defendant argues that the ALJ provided valid reasons to discount 

Plaintiff’s statements that he had completely disabling symptoms and limitations. See Def.’s 

Mot. at 15. 

In determining a plaintiff's credibility, an ALJ may consider whether a plaintiff's daily 

activities are consistent with the asserted symptoms. See Thomas, 278 F.3d at 958–59 (quoting 

Light, 119 F.3d at 792); see also Social Security Ruling 96–7p (stating that “the adjudicator must 

consider in addition to the objective medical evidence when assessing the credibility of an 

individual's statements: [ ] The individual's daily activities”).9 While the fact that a plaintiff can 

participate in various daily activities does not necessarily detract from the plaintiff’s credibility 

as to his specific limitations or overall disability, “a negative inference is permissible where the 

activities contradict the other testimony of the claimant, or where the activities are of a nature 

and extent to reflect transferable work skills.” Elizondo v. Astrue, 2010 WL 3432261, at *5 (E.D. 

Cal. Aug. 31, 2010). “Daily activities support an adverse credibility finding if a claimant is able 

                                                      

9 Social Security Rulings are binding on ALJs. See Terry v. Sullivan, 903 F.2d 1273, 1275 n. 1 

(9th Cir.1990). 

Case 3:18-cv-00546-JLS-BLM Document 33 Filed 02/01/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 19 of

 31
20 

18cv546-JLS(BLM) 

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

to spend a substantial part of her day engaged in pursuits involving the performance of physical 

functions or skills that are transferable to a work setting.” Id. (citing Orn, 495 F.3d at 639; 

Morgan, 169 F.3d at 600; Thomas, 278 F.3d at 959). “A claimant’s performance of chores such 

as preparing meals, cleaning house, doing laundry, shopping, occasional childcare, and 

interacting with others has been considered sufficient to support an adverse credibility finding 

when performed for a substantial portion of the day.” Elizondo, 2010 WL 3432261, at *5 (citing 

Stubbs-Danielson v. Astrue, 539 F.3d 1169, 1175 (9th Cir. 2008); Burch v. Barnhart, 400 F.3d 

676, 680–81 (9th Cir. 2005); Thomas, 278 F.3d at 959; Morgan, 169 F.3d at 600; Curry v. 

Sullivan, 925 F.2d 1127, 1130 (9th Cir. 1990)). 

In his adult function report, Plaintiff wrote that he did not have a problem dressing, 

bathing, caring for his hair, shaving or feeding himself. AR at 464. Plaintiff further wrote that 

he could do tasks like cooking, laundry, cleaning, ironing, mowing, paying bills, and grocery 

shopping as long as he stayed close to a bathroom, but that he needed reminders to take care 

of his personal needs and to take his medicine. Id. at 464-467. Plaintiff also reported that he 

plans his errands around eating and bathroom locations because if he eats prior to leaving the 

house, he is likely to have a bowel movement shortly thereafter and at times he has no warning 

in advance. Id. at 436. Plaintiff did not testify at the hearing regarding his activities of daily 

living. Id. at 89-115. 

Apart from referencing Plaintiff’s “described daily activities[,]” the ALJ neither described 

specific activities that Plaintiff engaged in that would bear on his ability to engage in the activities 

of the workplace, nor discussed whether Plaintiff engaged in those activities for a substantial 

part of the day and on a daily basis. Id. at 17; see also Reddick, 157 F.3d at 722 (holding that 

sporadic activities followed by periods of rest are not inconsistent with subjective complaints of 

severe pain). Without such additional facts, Plaintiff’s ability to care for his personal needs does 

not undermine his position that he cannot work, and is not a clear and convincing reason for 

finding Plaintiff less than fully credible. See Vertigan v. Halter, 260 F.3d 1044, 1050 (9th Cir. 

2001) (“the mere fact that a plaintiff has carried on certain daily activities, such as grocery 

shopping, driving a car, or limited walking for exercise, does not in any way detract from her 

Case 3:18-cv-00546-JLS-BLM Document 33 Filed 02/01/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 20 of

 31
21 

18cv546-JLS(BLM) 

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

credibility as to her overall disability.”); Heine-O'Brien v. Astrue, 359 Fed.Appx. 699, 701 (9th 

Cir. 2009) (citing Orn, 495 F.3d at 639) (the ability to care for personal needs does not 

necessarily indicate the ability to perform gainful employment); Garrison v. Colvin, 759 F.3d 995, 

1016 (9th Cir. 2014) (quoting Reddick, 157 F.3d at 722) (“[r]ecognizing that ‘disability claimants 

should not be penalized for attempting to lead normal lives in the face of their limitations,’ we 

have held that ‘[o]nly if [her] level of activity were inconsistent with [a claimant’s] claimed 

limitations would these activities have any bearing on [her] credibility.”) (alterations in original). 

Accordingly, the ALJ failed to provide the requisite clear and convincing reasons for 

finding Plaintiff not fully credible based on Plaintiff’s daily activities. The ALJ also failed to 

establish that Plaintiff’s daily activities are transferable to a work setting and are performed for 

a substantial part of the day and on a daily basis. See White, 2014 WL 4187823, at *7 (ALJ 

must “specify how plaintiff’s ability to perform such tasks would translate into an ability to 

perform gainful employment.”). The Court therefore disregards this reason for discounting 

Plaintiff’s credibility. 

4. Conservative Treatment 

In determining Plaintiff’s credibility, the ALJ noted that Plaintiff had been treated with 

various medication and infusion therapies which significantly reduced his symptoms and stated 

that “although [Plaintiff] received treatment for the allegedly disabling impairments, this 

treatment appears to be very successful in reducing his symptoms and has been conservative 

in nature. In addition there are no reported side effects.” AR at 15, 17. Plaintiff challenges the 

ALJ’s findings and argues that as of September 25, 2018, his ulcerative colitis is not being 

controlled. Pl.’s Oppo. at 2, 3. Defendant contends that “[t]he ALJ reasonably concluded that 

Plaintiff’s ulcerative colitis was not disabling because it was effectively managed with medication 

treatment.” Def.’s Mot. at 15. 

“[E]vidence of ‘conservative treatment’ is sufficient to discount a claimant's testimony 

regarding severity of an impairment.” Parra v. Astrue, 481 F.3d 742, 750–51 (9th Cir. 2007) 

(citation omitted) (finding that treatment with over-the-counter pain medication was 

conservative treatment). Claims of a lack of improvement may be rejected by pointing to clear 

Case 3:18-cv-00546-JLS-BLM Document 33 Filed 02/01/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 21 of

 31
22 

18cv546-JLS(BLM) 

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 convincing evidence that directly undermines it, such as evidence that a claimant’s 

symptoms improved with the use of medication. See Morgan v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 

169 F.3d 595, 599 (9th Cir. 1999). 

In support of his findings, the ALJ noted that in with respect to Plaintiff’s diabetes, the 

disease is controlled with diet only and no medications, including insulin, has been prescribed 

or necessary. Id. at 16 (citing AR at 2748 (“CURRENT DIABETES THERAPY: Diet”)). With 

respect to Plaintiff’s orthopedic impairments, the ALJ noted that “[n]o surgical intervention has 

ever been recommended[,]” Plaintiff participated in physical therapy, and was provided with 

knee braces, a lumbar corset, and a heating pad. Id. (citing AR at 2748, 2757, 2773, 2790, 

2817, and 2914). Finally, with respect to Plaintiff’s sleep apnea, the ALJ noted that Plaintiff was 

provided with a CPAP device and advised to lose weight. Id. (citing AR at 2779-2780 (“Even 

modest weight reduction may result in significant reduction of OSA severity and in some cases 

it could be curative”)). 

In regards to Plaintiff’s ulcerative colitis, the ALJ noted that Plaintiff has been treated with 

medications and infusion therapies. Id. at 15. The ALJ further noted that Plaintiff received very 

little treatment in 2013 for his ulcerative colitis and that after a brief hospitalization in 2014, 

Plaintiff’s condition improved with less bowel movements, seepage of stool, and bleeding, 

although the urgency of Plaintiff’s bowel movements and his complaints of abdominal pain did 

increase in November 2016 and March 2017 respectively. Id. at 15-16 (citing AR at Exhibits 

16F, 19F, 21F, and 30F). 

In light of the above, the Court concludes that the ALJ’s finding that Plaintiff’s 

conservative treatment has been successful in reducing Plaintiff’s symptoms was supported by 

substantial evidence in the record and provides a clear and convincing reason for discounting 

his subjective claims. See id. at 17; see also Nash v. Astrue, 2012 WL 6700582, at *9 (C.D. Cal. 

Dec. 21, 2012) (declining to “second guess” the ALJ's characterization as “routine conservative 

treatment” the prescribing of pain medicine, muscle relaxers, Humira injections, Remicade 

infusions, physical therapy, weight management, healthy diet, home exercise, Suboxone 

treatment, and acupuncture for pain and ankylosing spondylitis); but see Jones v. Astrue, 2008 

Case 3:18-cv-00546-JLS-BLM Document 33 Filed 02/01/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 22 of

 31
23 

18cv546-JLS(BLM) 

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

WL 1970645, at *16 (E.D. Cal. May 5, 2008) (suggesting Remicade and Humira injections were 

not conservative treatment). 

5. Side Effects of Medication 

In reaching his credibility determination, the ALJ relied in part on the fact that Plaintiff 

did not report any medication side effects. AR at 17. 

Typically, an “ALJ may consider the lack of side effects from prescribed medications in 

weighing credibility.” Mossett, 2008 WL 2783177 at *5 (citing Orteza v. Shalala, 50 F.3d 748, 

750 (9th Cir.1995) (stating that “[a]n ALJ is clearly allowed to consider the ability to perform 

household chores, the lack of side effects from prescribed medications, and the unexplained 

absence of treatment for excessive pain,” as well as the presentation of conflicting information 

about drug use)). Here, however, Plaintiff's lack of side effects from his medication is not a 

sufficient basis for discounting his symptom testimony. 

Plaintiff does not allege that he is impaired due to the side effects of his medication nor 

does he testify about the side effects of his medication or claim that he is unable to work due 

to the side effects of his medication.10 AR at 89-115. The ALJ fails to address how Plaintiff's 

lack of side effects from his medication impacts his credibility. As such, the ALJ’s finding that 

the side effects of Plaintiff’s medications would not prevent Plaintiff from performing within the 

RFC that he found, is not relevant to the ALJ’s credibility finding and does not constitute a clear 

and convincing reason to discount plaintiff's subjective testimony. See Manzo v. Astrue, 2011 

WL 3962254, *8 (C.D. Cal. Sept.7, 2011) (finding that the ALJ failed to state clear and convincing 

reasons for rejecting plaintiff's testimony and stating “it is not clear why the ALJ referred to the 

lack of side effects of Plaintiff's medications, or how the lack of side effects reflected poorly on 

Plaintiff's credibility. Plaintiff was prescribed pain medication by his physicians, but Plaintiff did 

                                                      

10 Plaintiff does mention that his use of 6MP, an anti-TNF therapy which turns off your immune 

system, injured his liver at one point and that another treatment left him dehydrated, but does 

not claim to be permanently impaired or unable to work as a result of those side effects. AR at 

106-107. Plaintiff also notes that many things could happen to someone with all of his 

treatments. Id. 

Case 3:18-cv-00546-JLS-BLM Document 33 Filed 02/01/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 23 of

 31
24 

18cv546-JLS(BLM) 

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

not complain of any side effects due to the medication”); see also Mossett, 2008 WL 2783177 

at *5 (finding that the “the absence of medication side effects is immaterial to the ALJ's credibility 

determination in this case” because the plaintiff did not allege that he was impaired due to the 

side effects of his medication and noting that the plaintiff did not testify about the side effects 

of his medication, allege that he was unable to work due to his medication, or report any 

disabling side effects from his medication to any physician.). 

6. Conclusion 

The ALJ provided clear and convincing reasons for discounting Plaintiff’s subjective claims 

regarding his symptoms. In addition to providing substantial evidence to support his finding 

that Plaintiff’s claims were inconsistent with the medical evidence, the ALJ properly provided 

substantial evidence in support of his finding that conservative treatment has been successful 

in reducing Plaintiff’s symptoms. Accordingly, the Court RECOMMENDS that Plaintiff’s motion 

for summary judgment be DENIED on this ground. 

C. Plaintiff’s Additional Medical Evidence & Sentence Six Remand 

Plaintiff’s motion states that he has attached additional medical evidence that he believes 

has not been taken into consideration and that shows he is still trying to successfully manage 

his ulcerative colitis and that he has had to increase his medication. Pl.’s Mot. at 3, 7 (“Exh. 5”), 

8 (“Exh. 6”), 9 (“Exh. 7), and 10 (“Exh. 8”). Plaintiff also attaches medical evidence to his 

opposition showing that (1) the uncontrolled ulcerative colitis is contributing to his other physical 

limitations such as arthritis and lower back pain, (2) he suffers from a pinched nerve in his neck 

that has led to limitations and (3) he had a suspected stroke or brain infection. Pl.’s Oppo. at 

3-4, 12-15 (“Pl.’s Oppo. Exh. 4”), 16-32 (“Pl.’s Oppo. Exh. 5”), 33-34 (“Pl.’s Oppo. Exh. 6”), 35-

42 (“Pl.’s Oppo. Exh. 7”). 

Defendant contends that Plaintiff’s recently submitted medical evidence is not material to 

the instant matter because it is not related to the relevant time period in this case which is 

November 1, 2012 – August 23, 2017. Def.’s Mot. at 17-18. Defendant therefore contends that 

no further administrative proceedings should be ordered to evaluate the records and that Plaintiff 

can instead submit the new evidence as part of a new disability application. Id. at 18. 

Case 3:18-cv-00546-JLS-BLM Document 33 Filed 02/01/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 24 of

 31
25 

18cv546-JLS(BLM) 

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

While Plaintiff does not explicitly state that he is seeking remanded in light of new 

evidence, he is proceeding pro se and the Court will analyze this issue out of an abundance of 

caution. 

Section 405(g) of Title 42 of the United States Code “authorizes district courts to review 

administrative decisions in Social Security benefit cases.” Akopyan v. Barnhart, 296 F.3d 852, 

854 (9th Cir. 2002). Pursuant to sentences four and six of section 405(g), a district court may 

remand a case to the Commissioner of Social Security. 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). A remand pursuant 

to sentence six does not constitute a final judgment and can only occur “(1) “where the 

Commissioner requests a remand before answering the complaint,” or (2) “where new, material 

evidence is adduced that was for good cause not presented to the agency.” Little v. Colvin, 

2015 WL 8485238, at *6 (D. Or. Dec. 9, 2015) (quoting Akopyan, 296 F.3d at 854). A claimant 

bears the burden of showing materiality and good cause. Id. Materiality for purposes of section 

405(g) means that the evidence “bear[s] directly and substantially on the matter in dispute,” 

and there is a “reasonabl[e] possibility that the new evidence would have changed the outcome” 

of the ALJ's determination. Bruton v. Massanari, 268 F.3d 824, 827 (9th Cir. 2001) (quoting 

Booz v. Secretary, 734 F.2d 1378, 1380-81 (9th Cir. 1984)). Good cause is demonstrated by 

showing that the new evidence was not available earlier. Little v. Colvin, 2015 WL 8485238 at 

*6. 

Many of the documents that Plaintiff submitted as new evidence are dated September 

2017 or later. See Exhs. 8 and 7; see also Pl.’s Oppo. Exhs. 1 and 4. Here, the ALJ issued his 

decision on August 23, 2017. AR at 19. As stated above, evidence is new and material only 

where it relates to the period on or before the date of the ALJ’s decision. Benveniste v. Astrue, 

2010 WL 3582208, at *3 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 9, 2010) (“evidence is new and material only where it 

relates to the period on or before the date of the ALJ's decision”) (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.970). 

Accordingly, the Court must examine all of the documents dated August 24, 2017 or later to 

determine whether they relate to Plaintiff’s medical conditions on or before August 23, 2017. If 

the documents relate to Plaintiff’s medical condition prior to August 24, 2017, the Court must 

determine whether the records are material and if there is good cause for Plaintiff’s failure to 

Case 3:18-cv-00546-JLS-BLM Document 33 Filed 02/01/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 25 of

 31
26 

18cv546-JLS(BLM) 

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

include them in the original proceeding. The Court has identified the following categories of 

documents that were created after August 23, 2017: 

1. Emails from Dr. Bittleman 

Plaintiff’s evidence includes five emails from Dr. Bittleman dated September 26, 2017, 

October 10, 2017, July 20, 2018, July 23, 2018, and August 14, 2018. The emails (1) show that 

an EME test revealed that a pinched nerve in Plaintiff’s neck is the cause of the arm pain Plaintiff 

has experienced [see Pl.’s Oppo. Exh. 4], (2) discuss Plaintiff’s neck MRI and conclude that 

physical therapy and pain management were the best treatment for Plaintiff, not surgery which 

Dr. Bittleman did not think would help Plaintiff [see id.], (3) note that Plaintiff’s liver tests were 

“up slightly,” but would be monitored and that Plaintiff’s A1C was “excellent at 6.5” which was 

a good thing [see Exh. 8], (4) recognize an increase in Plaintiff’s duloxetine dose to reduce pain 

from 60mg to 90 mg [see Exh. 7], and (5) confirm that Plaintiff’s vitamin D level in August 2018 

was “fine at 41” [see Pl.’s Oppo. Exh. 1]. 

2. Radiology Report 

The August 10, 2018 report, taken in response to Plaintiff’s report of pain, reviewed 

images of Plaintiff’s elbow (two views), wrists (three or more views), hands (three or more 

views), and shoulders (two or more views). Pl.’s Oppo. Exh. 5 at 16. Some of the images were 

compared to a June 27, 2017 shoulder radiograph. Id. The report impressions noted “[n]o 

acute osseous abnormality, [m]ild degenerative changes of the right radiocarpal and right first 

carpometacarpal joints, [m]oderate osteoarthrosis of the left radiocarpal and left distal 

radiounlar joints, [m]ild osteoarthrosis of the left first carpometacarpal joint, and [m]ild 

osteoarthrosis of the acromioclavicular joints bilaterally.” Id. at 17. 

3. Internet Searches 

 Plaintiff’s new evidence includes printouts from various internet searches regarding his 

conditions. Specifically, Plaintiff includes the results of a September 11, 2017 Google search on 

ulcerative colitis which defines the condition and discusses its prevalence, symptoms, and 

treatments. Pl.’s Oppo. Exh. 5. Plaintiff also includes an article from the Arthritis Foundation on 

IBS defining the condition and discussing it causes, symptoms, and treatment. Id. The article 

Case 3:18-cv-00546-JLS-BLM Document 33 Filed 02/01/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 26 of

 31
27 

18cv546-JLS(BLM) 

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

was printed on September 25, 2018. Id. 

4. Miscellaneous 

 The remaining documents include (1) findings from a May 31, 2018 exam stating that 

Plaintiff was seen for a follow-up of ulcerative colitis and that he was exhibiting symptoms 

possibly consistent with IBS and increasing his medication (Vedolizumab), (2) an undated 

medication list [see Exh. 5], (3) a September 26, 2017 Nerve Conduction Study and 

Electromyography Report stating that the evidence supports “mild to moderate bilateral chronic 

C8 radiculopathies without ongoing denervation[,]” [see Pl.’s Oppo. Exh.4], (4) an October 6, 

2017 VA note from Margaret Mends, Pharm. D. stating that Plaintiff has ulcerative colitis and 

that his symptoms have increased while on Vedolizumab [see Pl.’s Oppo. Exh. 4], (5) an August 

17, 2018 nurse note stating that Plaintiff complained of more GI symptoms and developed 

diarrhea [see Pl.’s Oppo. Exh. 1], and (6) prescription history information that was last updated 

on September 25, 2018 [see Pl.’s Oppo. Exh. 7]. 

As summarized above, the majority of the documents dated after August 23, 2017 are 

not material as they do not “bear directly and substantially on the matter in dispute,” and there 

is no “reasonabl[e] possibility that the new evidence would have changed the outcome” of the 

ALJ's determination. Bruton, 268 F.3d at 827 (quoting Booz, 734 F.2d at 1380-81). Appropriate 

vitamin D and A1C levels, increased pain, medication, and liver tests, and symptoms consistent 

with IBS eight to twelve months after Plaintiff’s hearing, generic internet articles, and changes 

in prescriptions, are not materially relevant to Plaintiff’s medical condition prior to August 23, 

2017. To the extent that there are records that may pertain to Plaintiff’s medical condition prior 

to his hearing, Plaintiff provides no good cause for his failure to include them in the record that 

was before the ALJ. See Pl.’s Mot; see also Pl.’s Oppo. Additionally, The Ninth Circuit has held 

that if the new evidence merely shows that the claimant’s condition deteriorated after the 

administrative hearing, then it is not material to the claimant’s condition during the time at issue. 

See Sanchez v. Sec'y of Health and Human Serv., 812 F.2d 509, 512 (9th Cir. 1987). 

Some of the new evidence submitted by Plaintiff is dated before August 23, 2017. These 

documents include various radiology reports. The reports span from November 7, 2012 through 

Case 3:18-cv-00546-JLS-BLM Document 33 Filed 02/01/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 27 of

 31
28 

18cv546-JLS(BLM) 

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

March 29, 2017. Pl.’s Oppo. Exh. 5. The November 7, 2012 testing was done in response to 

Plaintiff’s abdominal cramps and included “ABDOMEN 2 VIEWS, SUPINE AND UPRIGHT/OR 

DECUBITUS.” Id. at 9. The report impression states that the images show an unremarkable 

bowel gas pattern without bowl distension, no pneumoperitoneum, no evidence of urolithiasis, 

and “abnormal convexity of the femoral necks bilaterally, query cam type femoral acetabular 

impingement syndrome. Traumatic changes at the superior acetabular rims bilaterally with an 

os acetabulum on the left.” Id. An October 23, 2015 report reviewed images of Plaintiff’s pelvis 

and two views of his hip and was taken in response to Plaintiff’s complaints of pain. Id. at 13. 

The report found normal osseous mineralization, no fractures, maintained osseous alignment, 

moderate right and mild left hip osteoarthrosis, ossicles adjacent to both acetabula, degenerative 

disc disease at L5-S2, and unremarkable soft tissue. Id. The June 27, 2016 report, taken due 

to Plaintiff’s ulcerative colitis and steroid exposure, reviewed Plaintiff’s bone density and 

vertebral deformity assessment. Id. at 11. The report found that Plaintiff had normal bone 

mass, but risk factors including glucocorticoid therapy. Id. at 12. The November 20, 2016 

report, taken due to Plaintiff’s “TIA”11 reviewed an MRI of Plaintiff’s brain without contrast. 

Oppo. Exh. 6. The impression stated “[n]o actue intracranial abnormality. Sequelae of 

hypertensive changes suspected.” Id. The March 29, 2017 report taken in response to Plaintiff’s 

report of pain reviewed five images of Plaintiff’s lumbar spine and a single image of his pelvis. 

Oppo. Exh. 5 at 14. The impression was that there was “[n]o acute fracture of the lumbar spine 

or pelvis[,]” “[c]hronic bilateral pars defects at L5, Grade 1 anterolisthesis of L5 upon S2 has 

slightly increased since 2004” possibly indicating segmental instability, “[m]oderate degenerative 

disc disease ar L5-S1 is similar[,]” and “[m]ild-to-moderate right and mile left hip osteoarthrosis 

are unchanged.” Id. at 14-15. 

                                                      

11 TIA stands for Transient Ischemic Attack which “is like a stroke, producing similar symptoms, 

but usually lasting only a few minutes and causing no permanent damage.” 

https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/transient-ischemic-attack/symptomscauses/syc-20355679. 

Case 3:18-cv-00546-JLS-BLM Document 33 Filed 02/01/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 28 of

 31
29 

18cv546-JLS(BLM) 

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

Plaintiff also included (1) an article that was published in June 2017 from Harvard Health 

Publishing entitled Arthritis Associated with Inflammatory Bowel Disease What Is It?, (2) a 

February 29, 2016 gastroenterology outpatient note stating that Plaintiff reported feeling okay 

with no seepage of stool, five bowel movements per day, some liquid and soft stools, some right 

side abdominal pain, mild joint pains in hips, ankles, and knees12, and (3) a January 12, 2015 

VA Admissions and Discharges summary after Plaintiff’s complaint of bloody diarrhea and 

diagnosing an ulcerative colitis flare. See Oppo. at 8-9 (“Oppo. Exh. 2”); see also Oppo. at 10-

11 (“Oppo. Exh. 3”); and Oppo. Exh. 5. 

Despite the fact that each of the documents was dated well before Plaintiff’s July 5, 2017 

hearing, Plaintiff offers no explanation as to why the documents were not included in the 

materials he presented to the ALJ let alone good cause for the failure. See Pl.’s Mot; see also 

Pl.’s Oppo. Because Plaintiff has not demonstrated good cause, the Court need not consider 

whether the evidence is material. See Scarpati v. Secretary of Health & Human Serv., 1993 U.S. 

App. Lexis 21763, *4-*5 (9th Cir. 2013) (“[s]ince we find that she did not demonstrate good 

cause for the failure to introduce the evidence in the administrative hearing, we need not address 

the materiality of the information”). 

Because Plaintiff is unable to satisfy both the materiality and good cause prongs required 

for a sentence six remand, the Court RECOMMENDS that a request to remand pursuant to 

sentence six be DENIED. 

REMAND v. REVERSAL 

“The decision whether to remand for further proceedings or simply to award benefits is 

within the discretion of [the] court.” McAllister v. Sullivan, 888 F.2d 599, 603 (9th Cir. 1989) 

(internal citation omitted). “Remand for further administrative proceedings is appropriate if 

enhancement of the record would be useful.” Benecke v. Barnhart, 379 F.3d 587, 593 

(9th Cir. 2004). On the other hand, if the record has been fully developed such that further 

                                                      

12 This document does not qualify as new evidence because it is already a part of the record 

that was reviewed by the ALJ. See AR at 2000. Accordingly, the Court will not consider this 

documents in its analysis of a sentence six remand. 

Case 3:18-cv-00546-JLS-BLM Document 33 Filed 02/01/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 29 of

 31
30 

18cv546-JLS(BLM) 

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

administrative proceedings would serve no purpose, “the district court should remand for an 

immediate award of benefits.” Id. “More specifically, the district court should credit evidence 

that was rejected during the administrative process and remand for an immediate award of 

benefits if (1) the ALJ failed to provide legally sufficient reasons for rejecting the evidence; 

(2) there are no outstanding issues that must be resolved before a determination of disability 

can be made; and (3) it is clear from the record that the ALJ would be required to find the 

claimant disabled were such evidence credited.” Id. (citing Harman v. Apfel, 211 F.3d 1172, 

1178 (9th Cir. 2000)). The Ninth Circuit has not definitely stated whether the “credit-as-true” 

rule is mandatory or discretionary. See Vasquez v. Astrue, 572 F.3d 586, 593 (9th Cir. 2009) 

(acknowledging that there is a split of authority in the Circuit, but declining to resolve the 

conflict); Luna v. Astrue, 623 F.3d 1032, 1035 (9th Cir. 2010) (finding rule is not mandatory 

where “there are ‘outstanding issues that must be resolved before a proper disability 

determination can be made’” (internal citation omitted)); Shilts v. Astrue, 400 F. App’x 183, 

184-85 (9th Cir. Oct. 18, 2010) (explaining that “evidence should be credited as true and an 

action remanded for an immediate award of benefits only if [the Benecke requirements are 

satisfied]” (internal citation omitted)). 

Here, because the Court finds that the record is incomplete, further administrative 

proceedings to develop the record would be useful and is appropriate. See Benecke, 379 F.3d 

at 593. Similarly, an immediate award of benefits is not appropriate because there are 

outstanding issues that must be resolved before a determination of disability can be made. 

See id. Therefore, this Court RECOMMENDS REVERSING the decision of the ALJ and 

REMANDING for further proceedings to address the errors noted above. 

CONCLUSION 

For the reasons set forth above, this Court RECOMMENDS that Plaintiff’s Motion for 

Summary Judgment be GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART, Defendant’s CrossMotion for Summary Judgment be GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART, and the case 

be remanded for further proceedings. 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that any written objections to this Report and 

Case 3:18-cv-00546-JLS-BLM Document 33 Filed 02/01/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 30 of

 31
31 

18cv546-JLS(BLM) 

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

Recommendation must be filed with the Court and served on all parties no later than February 

15, 2019. The document should be captioned “Objections to Report and Recommendation.” 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that any reply to the objections shall be filed with the Court

and served on all parties no later than March 1, 2019. The parties are advised that failure to 

file objections within the specified time may waive the right to raise those objections on appeal 

of the Court’s order. Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Ylst, 951 

F.2d 1153, 1157 (9th Cir. 1991). 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: 2/1/2019 

Case 3:18-cv-00546-JLS-BLM Document 33 Filed 02/01/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 31 of

 31