Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-01093/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-01093-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 863
Nature of Suit: Social Security - DIWC/DIWW (405(g))
Cause of Action: 42:206 Social Security Benefits

---

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

RICHARD MICHAEL TWAY,

Plaintiff,

v.

MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner

of Social Security,

Defendant.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Civil No. 12-1093-WQH(WVG)

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR

SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND GRANTING

DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY

JUDGMENT

(DOC. NOS. 15, 18)

 I

 INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff Richard Michael Tway (“Plaintiff”), filed a

Complaint for Review of the Final Decision of the Commissioner of

Social Security (“Complaint”). Defendant Michael J. Astrue,

Commissioner of Social Security, (“Defendant”), filed an Answer to

the Complaint and lodged the Administrative Record (“Tr.”),

pertaining to this case. Plaintiff has filed a Motion for Summary

Judgment (“Plaintiff’s MSJ”). Defendant has filed an Opposition to

Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment and a Cross-Motion for

Summary Judgment (“Defendant’s MSJ”). Plaintiff has also filed a

12cv1093 1

Case 3:12-cv-01093-WQH-WVG Document 24 Filed 11/29/12 Page 1 of 29
 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

Reply Memorandum in Support of his Motion for Summary Judgment and

an Opposition to Defendant’s Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment.

Upon examination of the entire record, the Court RECOMMENDS

Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment be DENIED, and Defendant’s

Cross Motion for Summary Judgment be GRANTED.

II

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On April 13, 2010, Plaintiff filed a claim for disability

benefits, alleging disability beginning June 13, 2002 (TR. 15). On

August 10, 2010, the Defendant denied the initial claim for

benefits, and on September 9, 2010, denied reconsideration (TR. 15). 

Plaintiff had two hearings before Administrative Law Judge

Edward D. Steinman (“ALJ”), which were held on April 26, 2011 and

September 6, 2011 (TR. 15). Plaintiff, represented by counsel,

testified at the first hearing before the ALJ (TR. 15).

Plaintiff appealed the ALJ’s decision to the Social Security

Appeals Council (TR. 7-10). On February 3, 2012, the Appeals

Council denied review of the ALJ’s decision and the ALJ’s decision

became the final opinion of the Commissioner (TR. 7-10). On May 3,

2012 Plaintiff filed a Complaint in this Court for Review of the

Commissioner’s Final Decision.

III

SUMMARY OF APPLICABLE LAW

 Title II of the Social Security Act, (“ACT”) as amended,

provides for the payment of insurance benefits to persons who have

contributed to the program and who suffer from a physical or mental

disability. 42 U.S.C. § 423 (a)(1)(D). Title XVI of the Act

provides for the payment of disability benefits to indigent persons

12cv1093 2

Case 3:12-cv-01093-WQH-WVG Document 24 Filed 11/29/12 Page 2 of 29
 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

under the Supplemental Security Income (SSI) program. § 1382 (a). 

Both titles of the Act define “disability” as the “inability to

engage in any substantial gainful activity by reason of any

medically determinable physical or mental impairment which can be

expected to last for a continuous period of not less than 12

months...” Id. The Act further provides that an individual:

shall be determined to be under a disability only if

his physical or mental impairment or impairments are

of such severity that he is not only unable to do his

previous work but cannot, considering his age,

education, and work experience, engage in any other

kind of substantial gainful work which exists in the

national economy, regardless of whether such work

exists in the immediate area in which he lives, or

whether a specific job vacancy exists for him, or

whether he would be hired if he applied for work. Id.

The Secretary of the Social Security Administration has

established a five-step sequential evaluation process for determining whether a person is disabled. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520, 416.920.

Step one determines whether the claimant is engaged in “substantial

gainful activity.” If he is, disability benefits are denied. 20

C.F. R. §§ 404.1520(b), 416.920(b). If he is not, the decision

maker proceeds to step two, which determines whether the claimant

has a medically severe impairment or combination of impairments. 

That determination is governed by the “severity regulation” at issue

in this case. The severity regulation provides in relevant part:

If you do not have any impairment or combination of

impairments which significantly limits your physical

12cv1093 3

Case 3:12-cv-01093-WQH-WVG Document 24 Filed 11/29/12 Page 3 of 29
 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

or mental ability to do basic work activities, we will

find that you do not have a severe impairment and are,

therefore, not disabled. We will not consider your

age, education, and work experience. §§ 404.1520(c),

416.920(c). 

 The ability to do basic work activities is defined as “the

abilities and aptitudes necessary to do most jobs.” 20 C.F.R. §§

404.1521(b), 416.921(b). Such abilities and aptitudes include

“[p]hysical functions such as walking, standing, sitting, lifting,

pushing, pulling, reaching, carrying, or handling;” “[c]apacities

for seeing, hearing, and speaking;” “[u]nderstanding, carrying out,

and remembering simple instructions;” [u]se of judgment;”

“[r]esponding appropriately to supervision, co-workers, and usual

work situations;” and “[d]ealing with changes in a routine work

setting.” Id. 

If the claimant does not have a severe impairment or

combination of impairments, the disability claim is denied. 

If the impairment is severe, the evaluation proceeds to the

third step, which determines whether the impairment is equivalent to

one of a number of listed impairments that the Secretary acknowledges are so severe as to preclude substantial gainful activity. 20

C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(d), 416.920(d). If the impairment meets or equals

one of the listed impairments, the claimant is conclusively presumed

to be disabled. If the impairment is not one that is conclusively

presumed to be disabling, the evaluation proceeds to the fourth

step, which determines whether the impairment prevents the claimant

from performing work he has performed in the past. If the claimant

is able to perform his previous work, he is not disabled. 20 C.F.R.

12cv1093 4

Case 3:12-cv-01093-WQH-WVG Document 24 Filed 11/29/12 Page 4 of 29
 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

§§ 404.1520(e), 416.920(e). If the claimant cannot perform his

previous work, the fifth and final step of the process determines

whether he is able to perform other work in the national economy in

view of his age, education, and work experience. The claimant is

entitled to disability benefits only if he is not able to perform

other work. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(f), 416.920(f). 

As a general rule, more weight should be given to the opinion

of a treating source than to the opinion of doctors who do not treat

the claimant. Benton v. Barnhart, 331 F.3d 1030, 1036 (9th Cir.

2003)[citing Lester v. Chater, 81 F.3d 821, 831 (9th Cir. 1995)]. If

the treating doctor’s opinion is contradicted by another doctor, the

ALJ may not reject this opinion without providing “specific and

legitimate reasons” supported by substantial evidence in the record

for doing so. Id. The ALJ must give consideration to the physicians’

examining and treatment relationships; what support, including

objective testing, relied upon; consistency of the opinions;

physicians’ specializations; and any other factors used to arriving

at the opinions. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d). If an ALJ fails to

consider each 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d) factor before giving no weight

to the opinions of a [plaintiff]’s treating specialist, then a

federal court may remand the case; the ALJ should conduct the

analysis on remand. Id.

IV

ALJ’S FINDINGS

The ALJ made the following pertinent findings: 

1. [Plaintiff] meets the insured status requirements of

the Social Security Act through December 31, 2007.

12cv1093 5

Case 3:12-cv-01093-WQH-WVG Document 24 Filed 11/29/12 Page 5 of 29
 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. [Plaintiff] has not engaged in substantial gainful

activity since October 1, 2007, the date [Plaintiff]

became disabled (20 CFR 404.1520(b), 404.1571 et seq.).

3. From October 1, 2007 through June 1, 2009, the period

during which [Plaintiff] was under a disability,

[Plaintiff] had the following severe impairment: degenerative disk disease of the lumbar spine, status post

lumbar surgery (20 CFR 404.1520).

 In ascertaining the nature and severity of [Plaintiff’s] medically determinable impairment, the undersigned elicited testimony from Malcolm Brahms, M.D., a

board certified orthopedic surgeon. Dr. Brahms testified

at both hearings as to his extensive review of the

record. According to the doctor, from the amended

alleged onset date of October 1, 2007 until June 1, 2009,

[Plaintiff] could not sustain full-time work and met

listing 1.04. As of June 2, 2009, [Plaintiff] could

perform light work as opined by the orthopedic consultative examiner in March 2011 (Exhibit 6F). He testified

that a repeat MRI in 2007 showed some signs of instability but there was no evidence of a herniated disc. At

the time of the first hearing, Dr. Brahms concluded that

a [sic] further studies would be needed to determine the

reason for [Plaintiff’s] ongoing pain. At the second

hearing, the doctor testified, following has [sic] review

of additional records including a CT scan in August 2009,

that his opinion had not changed. [Plaintiff] still met

12cv1093 6

Case 3:12-cv-01093-WQH-WVG Document 24 Filed 11/29/12 Page 6 of 29
 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

listing 1.04 until June 1, 2009 at which time he was able

to perform light work.

Regarding the Agreed Medical Examination by Dr.

Lane of March 28, 2011, the [sic] Dr. Brahms testified

that while [Plaintiff] had a positive straight leg

raising1 at 40 degrees, this was a one-time occurrence

that was not supported by other evidence, including the

consultative examination by orthopedic surgeon Thomas

Sabourin of March 14, 2011. Despite Dr. Lane’s finding,

Dr. Brahms pointed out that there was no evidence of

motor loss or instability and the wound had healed. 

Information in the record revealed that there was no

further evidence of pseudoarthrosis2.

1/

The straight leg raising test involves the subject lying face-up with

his/her legs straight. A physician will support the leg by holding it under the

knee and will lift it up until the subject reports feeling pain, feeling more

pain, or until the leg has been stretched as far as it will go. Any pain that is

experienced is typically the result of the nerve being compressed due to

stretching of the leg, depending on when or at what degree the pain is felt. A

positive straight leg test occurs when the leg is flexed between 30 and 70

degrees. The pain will shoot all the way down the leg and below the ankle,

indicating compression of the sciatic nerve, most likely caused by a herniated

disc. FAMILY PRACTICE NOTEBOOK,http://www.fpnotebook.com/ortho/exam/strghtlgrs.htm

2/

The spine is made up of individual vertebra linked together by a disc in

the front and two small joints in the back of the spine. The joints allow bending

and twisting of the spine. These joints frequently become worn out, or

“arthritic”, with aging or following injury and eventually become painful. 

Surgical fusion may be recommended to stabilize the arthritic segments of the

spine. Once a patient has decided to proceed with spinal fusion surgery then

obtaining a solid fusion becomes the next area of focus. Pseudoarthrosis, which

is derived from the Greek terms meaning "false joint," is a term used when surgery

does not result in solid bone fusion. SCOLIOSIS RESEARCH SOCIETY,

http://www.srs.org/patient_and_family/the_aging_spine/pseudarthrosis.htm

12cv1093 7

Case 3:12-cv-01093-WQH-WVG Document 24 Filed 11/29/12 Page 7 of 29
 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) finds Dr. Brahms’ testimony persuasive

and well supported by the medical evidence of record and

so finds.

[Plaintiff] testified that in October 2007 he

underwent fusion surgery at L3-L5 and a redo surgery on

December 2008 at the same location.

 In March 2008, Jean-Jacques Abitbol, M.D., the

Qualified Medical Examiner, issue [sic] an interim

report. The doctor noted that [Plaintiff] continued to

have back discomfort and right leg discomfort. He

reported no significant improvement in his leg pain,

which was worse with activity. On examination, the

doctor reported that [Plaintiff was] tender in his low

back and had pain with forward flexion and extension

(Exhibit 9F/4). An MRI of March 2008 showed mild L5-S1

spondylosis3 (Exhibit 9F/57). In June 2008, Dr. Abitbol

again saw [Plaintiff]. He continued to complain of back

pain with symptoms similar to those he experienced

preoperatively. He was tender on examination and had

pain primarily with extension (Exhibit 9F/13). In July

2008, Dr. Abitbol reported that [Plaintiff’s] CT scan

showed psuedoarthrosis postlaterally from L3-L5. The

3/

Spondylosis refers to a situation where there is degeneration of the spine. 

As with many other spine terms, spondylosis is more of a descriptive term than it

is a diagnosis. Degeneration of the spine is a natural phenomenon that occurs as

people age. In fact, it is more common for people over age 60 to have

degeneration of the spine than not. Spondylosis can literally be translated to

mean that one has both back pain and spine degeneration, regardless of what is

causing the pain or where the degeneration is occurring. When used to describe

MRI results, spondylosis is often referring to the visible degeneration of the

spine. Evidence of spondylosis on an MRI or a computed tomography scan (CT scan)

does not mean that the patient’s neck or back pain is being caused by the

degeneration. SPINE-HEALTH.COM,

http://www.spine-health.com/conditions/back-pain/spondylosis-what-it-actually-m

eans

12cv1093 8

Case 3:12-cv-01093-WQH-WVG Document 24 Filed 11/29/12 Page 8 of 29
 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

doctor said in light of these findings, he was a candidate for a revision lumbar fusion (Exhibit 9F/16, 59). 

Dr. Abitbol noted in noted [sic] that [Plaintiff] wished

to proceed with surgery (Exhibit 9F/22). His second

surgery was in December 2008 (Exhibit 9F/55-56). 

4. From October 1, 2007 through June 1, 2009, the period

during which [Plaintiff] was disabled, the severity of

[Plaintiff’s] degenerative disc disease of the lumbar

spine, status post lumber surgery met the criteria of

section(s) 1.04 of 20 CFR Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix

1 (20 CFR 404.1520(d) and 404.1525).

***

 In making this finding, the (ALJ) considered all

symptoms and the extent to which these symptoms can

reasonably be accepted as consistent with the objective

medical evidence and other evidence, based on the

requirements of 20 CFR 404.1529 and SSRs 96-4p and 96-7p. 

The undersigned has also considered opinion evidence in

accordance with the requirements of 20 CFR 404.1527 and

SSRs 96-2p, 96-5p, 96-6p and 06-3p. 

 In considering [Plaintiff’s] symptoms, the (ALJ)

must follow a two-step process in which it must first be

determined whether there is an underlying medically

determinable physical or mental impairment(s)–i.e., an

impairment(s) that can be shown by medically acceptable

clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques–that could

reasonably be expected to produce [Plaintiff’s] pain or

other symptoms.

12cv1093 9

Case 3:12-cv-01093-WQH-WVG Document 24 Filed 11/29/12 Page 9 of 29
 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

 Second, once an underlying physical or mental

impairment(s) that could reasonably be expected to

produce [Plaintiff’s] pain or other symptoms has been

shown, the (ALJ) must evaluate the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of [Plaintiff’s] symptoms to

determine the extent to which they limit [Plaintiff’s]

ability to do basic work activities. For this purpose,

whenever statements about the intensity, persistence, or

functionally limiting effects of pain or other symptoms

are not substantiated by objective medical evidence, the

(ALJ) must make a finding on the credibility of the

statements based on a consideration of the entire case

record.

 The (ALJ) finds that, from October 1, 2007 through

June 1, 2009, the severity of [Plaintiff’s] impairments

met listing 1.04 as Dr. Brahms testified.

After considering the evidence of record, the undersigned finds that [Plaintiff’s] medically determinable

impairments could reasonably be expected to produce the

alleged symptoms, and that [Plaintiff’s] statements

concerning the intensity, persistence[,] and limiting

effects of these symptoms are generally credible from

October 1, 2007 through June 1, 2009.

5. [Plaintiff] was under a disability, as defined by the

Social Security Act, from October 1, 2007 through June 1,

2009. 

6. [Plaintiff] has not developed any new impairment or

impairments since June 2, 2009, the date [Plaintiff’s]

12cv1093 10

Case 3:12-cv-01093-WQH-WVG Document 24 Filed 11/29/12 Page 10 of 29
 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 ended. Thus, [Plaintiff’s] current severe

impairment is the same as that present from October 1,

2007 through June 1, 2009. 

7. Beginning June 2, 2009, [Plaintiff] has not had an

impairment or combination of impairments that meets or

medically equals the severity of one of the impairments

listed in 20 CFR Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1 (20 CFR

404.1594(f)(2)). 

 The record does not report the existence of any

functional limitations and or diagnostic test results,

which would suggest that the impairments meet or equal

the criteria of any specific listing. In addition, no

treating or examining physician has reported findings,

which either meet or are equivalent in severity to the

criteria of any listed impairment, nor are such findings

indicated or suggested by the medical evidence of record.

***

8. Medical improvement occurred as of June 2, 2009, the

date [Plaintiff’s] disability ended (20 CFR

404.1594(b)(1)).

 Dr. Brahms testified that from June 2, 2009 on,

there was no evidence of motor loss or sensory or reflex

loss. On June 4, 2009, Dr. Abitbol noted that [Plaintiff] was status post his second surgery. He reported

that [Plaintiff] continued to do well and was markedly

improved compared to his preoperative status (Exhibit

9F/30). He stated that [Plaintiff] could return to

12cv1093 11

Case 3:12-cv-01093-WQH-WVG Document 24 Filed 11/29/12 Page 11 of 29
 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

modified duties with a 20-pound weight lifting restriction (Exhibit 9F/30). 

9. The medical improvement that has occurred is related

to the ability to work because [Plaintiff] no longer has

an impairment or combination of impairments that meets or

medically exceeds the severity of a listing (20 CFR

404.1594(c)(3)(i)). 

10. After careful consideration of the entire record, the

(ALJ) finds that, beginning June 2, 2009, [Plaintiff] has

had the residual functional capacity to lift and carry 20

pounds occasionally and 10 pounds frequently, stand

and/or walk for about 6 hours in an 8-hour workday and

sit for 6 hours in an 8-hour workday. [Plaintiff] could

also climb, stoop, kneel and crouch occasionally.

 [Plaintiff] testified he cannot work because he is

in pain. He said he was in worse pain now than before

his surgeries. He experiences the pain in his low back

and right leg. On a 0-10 scale, he testified that the

pain can get as high as 8, but was generally around 4-5. 

It got worse with activity and was better when he was

lying down, which he said he did about 40 percent of the

day. He said he could lift and carry 10-15 pounds. He

can sit for 30 minutes but then would need to go lie

down. He could stand and walk for about one hour. Due

to his pain and need to lie down, he could not sustain

full-time work. He takes Norco for pain and Soma for

muscle spasms in his back. He experiences these spasms

12cv1093 12

Case 3:12-cv-01093-WQH-WVG Document 24 Filed 11/29/12 Page 12 of 29
 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

a couple times a day. He also has sleep problems due to

pain. It also affects his concentration and focus. 

After considering the evidence of record, the (ALJ) finds

that [Plaintiff’s] medically determinable impairments

could reasonably be expected to produce the alleged

symptoms; however, [Plaintiff’s] statements concerning

the intensity, persistence and limiting effects of these

symptoms are not credible beginning June 2, 2009, to the

extent they are inconsistent with the residual functional

capacity assessment for the reasons explained below.

The weight of the objective evidence does not

support [Plaintiff’s] claims of disabling limitations to

the degree alleged.

The record does not support [Plaintiff’s] allegation that he must lie down 40 percent of the day. 

The record fails to document that [Plaintiff] has

been hospitalized for his impairment or indicate that

[Plaintiff] has received significant active care other

than for conservative routine maintenance since his

second surgery in December 2008. There have been no

significant increases or changes in prescribed medication

reflective of an uncontrolled condition. In July 2009,

he was not using much in the way of pain medications and

his leg pain had significantly improved (Exhibit 9F/34-

35).

***

None of [Plaintiff’s] treating physicians have

opined that he is totally and permanently disabled from

12cv1093 13

Case 3:12-cv-01093-WQH-WVG Document 24 Filed 11/29/12 Page 13 of 29
 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

any kind of work. Dr. Abitbol, who performed [Plaintiff’s] surgeries, has opined that [Plaintiff] could

perform light work (Exhibit 9F/30, 41, 53; 12F).

The objective medical evidence is fully consistent

with the above residual functional capacity and is

inconsistent with the allegations of disabling levels of

pain. The most recent CT scan of August 2009 indicates

that there is no evidence of psuedoarthrosis (Exhibit

9F//63; 11F). 

Physical examinations since June 2, 2009 were

generally unremarkable with few abnormal findings. Dr.

Abitbol found him permanent and stationary4 in September

2009 (Exhibit 9F/41). In January 2011, his complaints

were of mostly mechanical back pain with some vague

symptoms into the right leg. The CT showed a sol[i]d

incorporation of the fusion mass and X-rays showed a

solid fusion with the hardware in good position (Exhibit

9F/50). 

The physical examination in March 2011, conducted

by consultative examiner, Thomas Sabourin, M.D.[,] a

board certified orthopedic surgeon, was unremarkable. 

The doctor noted that [Plaintiff] was in no acute

distress and was alert and oriented. He could sit and

stand with normal posture and there was no evidence of

any tilt or list. He could sit comfortably during the

4/

Permanent and stationary is a term used in Workers’ Compensation to

describe when a subject’s medical condition has reached maximum medical

improvement. In other words, the subject’s medical condition has stabilized and

is unlikely to change. US SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION,

https://secure.ssa.gov/poms.nsf/lnx/0452120001

12cv1093 14

Case 3:12-cv-01093-WQH-WVG Document 24 Filed 11/29/12 Page 14 of 29
 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

examination. His gait was normal and he used no

assistive device (Exhibit 6F/4). Examination of the

lumbar spine indicated slight pain at the extremes and

minimal tenderness in the midline and right buttock area. 

There was no spasm, swelling or heat (Exhibit 6F/4). 

Range of motion was within normal limits and straight leg

raising, both sitting and supine, were negative (Exhibit

6F/5). He was neurologically intact (Exhibit 6F/6). 

In connection with his worker’s [sic] compensation

claim, [Plaintiff] was also examined on March 28, 2011,

by John Lane, M.D., the Agreed Medical Examiner. In his

report, Dr. Lane noted that [Plaintiff’s] straight leg

raising test was positive on the right and left at 40

degrees (Exhibit 13F/12). Dr. Brahms, the medical expert

in this case, found Dr. Lane’s finding in this regard to

be a onetime event and inconsistent with Dr. Sabourin’s

examination. He concluded that decreased range of motion

did not equate to disability. It was not consistent with

the rest of the exam because there was no evidence of

motor loss or instability. Despite this finding, the

exam was otherwise unremarkable. Dr. Lane noted that

[Plaintiff’s] X-rays were consistent with a well-healed

fusion and he found no evidence of instability (Exhibit

13F/12). 

[Plaintiff’s] daily activities are consistent with

the above residual functional capacity assessment.

[Plaintiff testified he can attend to his personal needs

12cv1093 15

Case 3:12-cv-01093-WQH-WVG Document 24 Filed 11/29/12 Page 15 of 29
 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 take his medication. He drives and goes to the

grocery store.

[Plaintiff’s] allegations that he has problems

with concentration and memory due to pain is not supported by the record. He testified he is able to drive,

watch television, and read.

The record does not indicate that [Plaintiff]

suffers from debilitating side effects from his medications.

[Plaintiff’s] use of medications does not suggest

the presence of impairments that are more limiting than

found in this decision. [Plaintiff’s] analgesic medication history is inconsistent with his claimed severity of

pain. He has never been maintained on regular prescription of strong analgesics such as morphine, methadone,

Fentanyl, or Oxycontin.

Consequently, [Plaintiff’s] allegations are not

credible to establish more restrictive residual functional capacity than found above.

As for the opinion evidence, as noted above, Dr.

Abitbol, opined on several occasions that [Plaintiff]

could perform light work (Exhibits 9F/30, 53; 12F). 

Pursuant to 20 CFR § 404.1527, the undersigned assigns

considerable weight to these opinions, as they are wellsupported by the medical evidence including [Plaintiff’s]

medical history and clinical and objective signs and

findings as well as detailed treatment notes, which

12cv1093 16

Case 3:12-cv-01093-WQH-WVG Document 24 Filed 11/29/12 Page 16 of 29
 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

provides a reasonable basis for [Plaintiff’s] chronic

symptoms and resulting limitations.

Dr. Sabourin opined that [Plaintiff] could lift

and carry 20 pounds occasionally and 10 pounds frequently, stand and or walk for 6 hours in an 8-hour

workday and sit for 6 hours in an 8-hour workday. From

a positional standpoint, Dr. Sabourin opined [that

Plaintiff] could climb, stoop, kneel, and crouch only

occasionally (Exhibit6F). Pursuant to 20 CFR § 404.1527

and Social Security Ruling 96-2p, the (ALJ) assigns

significant weight to this opinion, as it is wellsupported by the medical evidence, including [Plaintiff’s] medical history and clinical and objective signs

and findings as well as detailed treatment notes, which

provides a reasonable basis for [Plaintiff’s] chronic

symptoms and resulting limitations. Moreover, the

opinion is not inconsistent with other substantial

evidence of record. In addition, the physician is an

examining source who is familiar with the Social Security

Rules and Regulations and legal standards set forth

therein and best able to provide a superior analysis of

[Plaintiff’s] impairments and resulting limitations. 

AME Dr. Lane opined that [Plaintiff] was precluded

from substantial work with regard to the lumbar spine, as

he has lost approximately 75 percent of his pre-injury

capacity for bending, stooping, lifting, pushing,

carrying and other activities of comparable physical

effort. In addition, he is precluded from prolonged

12cv1093 17

Case 3:12-cv-01093-WQH-WVG Document 24 Filed 11/29/12 Page 17 of 29
 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

sitting and standing, contemplating a loss of approximately 25 percent of his pre-injury capacity for sitting

or standing (Exhibit 13F/14). The (ALJ) has taken into

account the doctor’s finding that [Plaintiff] had a

disability for [Plaintiff’s] workers’ compensation claim. 

While this is given some weight, it is not dispositive of

the issue of whether [Plaintiff] is capable of working. 

Workers’ compensation benefits are calculated in a manner

completely different to Social Security disability

benefits. In these systems, body parts and mental

disorders are assigned a percentage rating as to the

degree of disability. The question of whether a person

is capable of doing “other work” is not addressed. The

(ALJ) has determined that although [Plaintiff’s] impairment is severe and would impact ability to do all work,

it does not render him completely unemployable. In any

event, in addition to his opinion, Dr. Lane also noted

that [Plaintiff’s] X-rays showed a well-healed fusion and

there was no evidence of any instability. He further

concluded that [Plaintiff] did not need any additional

care (Exhibit 13F/12, 14). 

11. [Plaintiff] is unable to perform past relevant work

(20 CFR 404.1565).

***

The vocational expert classified [Plaintiff’s]

past work as a piano mover (DOT No. 564.93-7622, SVP 3)

as very heavy from an exertional standpoint. The (ALJ)

asked the vocational expert whether [Plaintiff] was able

12cv1093 18

Case 3:12-cv-01093-WQH-WVG Document 24 Filed 11/29/12 Page 18 of 29
 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 perform the job requirements of his past relevant work

within the residual functional capacity. The vocational

expert testified that given the above residual functional

capacity, [Plaintiff] would not be able to perform the

requirements of his past work. Accordingly, [Plaintiff]

has not been able to perform past relevant work since

June 2, 2009.

12. Since June 2, 2009, [Plaintiff] has been a younger

individual age 18-49 (20 CFR 404.1563).

13. [Plaintiff] has a limited education and is able to

communicate in English (20 CFR 404.1564).

14. Beginning June 2, 2009, transferability of job skills

is not material to the determination of disability

because using the Medical Vocational Rules as a framework

supports a finding that [Plaintiff] is “not disabled,”

whether or not [Plaintiff] has transferrable job skills

(see SSR 82-41 and 20 CFR Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix

2).

15. Beginning June 2, 2009, considering [Plaintiff’s]

age, education, work experience, and residual functional

capacity, there have been jobs that exist in significant

numbers in the national economy that [Plaintiff] can

perform (20 CFR 404.1560(c) and 404.1566). 

Beginning June 2, 2009, if [Plaintiff] had the

residual functional capacity to perform the full range of

light work, a finding of “not disabled” would be directed

by Medical-Vocational Rule 202.18. However, [Plaintiff’s] ability to perform all or substantially all of

12cv1093 19

Case 3:12-cv-01093-WQH-WVG Document 24 Filed 11/29/12 Page 19 of 29
 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 requirements of this level of work has been impeded

by additional limitations. To determine the extent of

erosion of the unskilled light occupational base caused

by these limitations, the Administrative Law Judge asked

the vocational expert whether jobs exist in the national

economy for an individual with [Plaintiff’s] age,

education, work experience, and residual functional

capacity as of June 2, 2009. The vocational expert

testified that given all of these factors the individual

would be able to perform the requirements of representative occupations such as cleaner (DOT No. 323.867-014,

light, SVP 2, 6000 jobs in the San Diego region and

500,000 jobs nationally); assembler (DOT No. 731.687-034,

light, SVP 2, 1000 jobs in the San Diego region and

77,000 jobs nationally); and parking lot attendant (DOT

No. 915.473-101, light, SVP 2,700 jobs in the San Diego

region and 66,000 jobs nationally).

Pursuant to SSR 00-4p, the (ALJ) has determined

that the vocational expert’s testimony is consistent with

the information contained in the Dictionary of Occupational Titles.

Based of the testimony of the vocational expert,

the undersigned concludes that, beginning June 2, 2009,

[Plaintiff] has been capable of making a successful

adjustment to work that exists in significant numbers in

the national economy. A finding of “not disabled” is

therefore appropriate under the framework of the abovecited rule. 

12cv1093 20

Case 3:12-cv-01093-WQH-WVG Document 24 Filed 11/29/12 Page 20 of 29
 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

16. [Plaintiff’s] disability ended June 2, 2009 (20 CFR

404.1594(f)(8)).

***

Based on the application for a period of disability and disability insurance benefits filed on April 13,

2010, [Plaintiff] was disabled under sections 216(I) and

223(d) of the Social Security Act, from October 1, 2007

through June 1,2009.

The workers’ compensation offset provisions at 20

CFR 404.408 may be applicable. 

 V

 STANDARD OF REVIEW

A District Court may only disturb the Commissioner's final

decision "if it is based on legal error or if the fact findings are

not supported by substantial evidence." Sprague v. Bowen, 812 F.2d

1226, 1229 (9th Cir. 1987); see Villa v. Heckler, 797 F.2d 794, 796

(9th Cir. 1986). The Court cannot affirm the Commissioner's final

decision simply by isolating a certain amount of supporting

evidence. Rather, the Court must examine the administrative record

as a whole. Gonzalez v. Sullivan, 914 F.2d 1197, 1200 (9th Cir.

1990). Yet, the Commissioner's findings are not subject to reversal

because substantial evidence exists in the record to support a

different conclusion. See, e.g., Mullen v. Brown, 800 F.2d 535, 545

(6th Cir. 1986). "Substantial evidence, considering the entire

record, is relevant evidence which a reasonable person might accept

as adequate to support a conclusion." Matthews v. Shalala, 10 F.3d

678, 679 (9th Cir. 1993); see Thompson v. Schweiker, 665 F.2d 936,

939 (9th Cir. 1982). The Commissioner's decision must be set aside,

12cv1093 21

Case 3:12-cv-01093-WQH-WVG Document 24 Filed 11/29/12 Page 21 of 29
 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

even if supported by substantial evidence, if improper legal

standards were applied in reaching that decision. See, e.g.,

Benitez v. Califano, 573 F.2d 653, 655 (9th Cir. 1978).

VI

DISCUSSION

Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment raises two issues: 

Whether there was substantial evidence supporting the ALJ’s finding

that Plaintiff’s impairments did not meet or equal a listed

impairment after June 1, 2009, and, whether there was substantial

evidence supporting the ALJ’s decision to disregard Plaintiff’s

subjective pain and limitation testimony. 

A. THE ALJ’S FINDING THAT PLAINTIFF’S IMPAIRMENTS DID NOT

MEET OR EQUAL A LISTED IMPAIRMENT AFTER JUNE 1, 2009 IS

SUPPORTED BY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE

Plaintiff argues that the ALJ’S findings are not supported by

substantial evidence because he failed to show that he considered

Plaintiff’s obesity when evaluating equivalence under Social

Security Agency guidelines for back disorders (Listing 1.04A). 

Defendant contends that the ALJ properly found that Plaintiff was no

longer presumed disabled due to medical improvement and that it was

Plaintiff’s burden to prove disability.

“If medical improvement has occurred and the severity of the

prior impairment(s) no longer meets or equals the same listing

section used to make [the] most recent favorable decision,[...] that

the medical improvement was related to your ability to work.” 20

C.F.R. § 404.1594 (c)(3)(I). “An ALJ is not required to discuss the

combined effects of a claimant's impairments or compare them to any

listing in an equivalency determination, unless the claimant

presents evidence in an effort to establish equivalence.” Burch v.

12cv1093 22

Case 3:12-cv-01093-WQH-WVG Document 24 Filed 11/29/12 Page 22 of 29
 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

Barnhart, 400 F.3d 676, 683 (9th Cir. 2005). Plaintiff is responsible for providing the theory of how obesity affects his claim of

equivalence. See Lewis v. Apfel, 236 F.3d 503, 514 (9th Cir. 2001)

(ALJ's failure to consider equivalence was not reversible error

because the claimant did not offer any theory, plausible or

otherwise, as to how his impairments combined to equal a listing

impairment).

Plaintiff concedes that after June 1, 2009, his back

impairment did not meet all of the criteria to meet Listing 1.04A. 

After June 2, 2009, the record reflects that there was no evidence

of atrophy or positive straight leg raising on a consistent basis

after that date. (Plaintiff’s MSJ at 5). Since Plaintiff did not

meet any presumptive disability under the Listings, it was his

burden to prove that his impairment or combined impairments were

equal to a listing impairment. See Lewis at 514.

The ALJ properly found that, beginning June 2, 2009, the

records did not reflect any functional limitations, diagnostic tests

or treating or examining physicians’ reported findings suggesting

that Plaintiff’s impairment was equal or equivalent in severity to

a presumptively disabling impairment under the Listings (Tr. 20). 

There was no evidence before the ALJ, and none in the record, which

states that Plaintiff’s obesity limited his functioning. Neither

treatment notes nor any diagnoses addressed Plaintiff's limitations

due to obesity. The medical record is silent as to whether and how

Plaintiff's obesity might have exacerbated his condition. 

Moreover, Petitioner did not present any testimony or other

evidence at the hearing that his obesity impaired his ability to

work. Plaintiff testified that there were no other problems that

12cv1093 23

Case 3:12-cv-01093-WQH-WVG Document 24 Filed 11/29/12 Page 23 of 29
 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 affect his ability to work besides his leg and back pain (Tr.

77). The only indications of Plaintiff’s obesity in the record are

medical records noting Plaintiff's height, weight, and Body Mass

Index, along with one comment by Dr. Sabourin stating that Plaintiff

was a, "well-nourished somewhat obese male in no acute distress"

(Tr. 305). Neither Plaintiff nor his counsel, during the hearing or

in supporting documents, ever mentioned Plaintiff's obesity nor

offered any theories as to what effect it may have had on his

disability. 

Since the record did not show how obesity exacerbated

Plaintiff's other impairments, the ALJ was not required to address

Plaintiff’s obesity in his findings. See Burch, 400 F.3d at 683.

2005). Specifically, Plaintiff did not offer any theories on how

his obesity might have affected the severity of his back impairment

under the criteria of Listing 1.04A, or equivalency under any

listing. See Lewis, 236 F.3d at 514. 

B. THE ALJ’S REJECTION OF PLAINTIFF’S SUBJECTIVE SYMPTOM

TESTIMONY FOR THE PERIOD AFTER JUNE 2, 2009 WAS SUPPORTED BY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE.

Plaintiff argues that the ALJ’s credibility analysis for the

period after June 2, 2009 lacks the support of substantial evidence

because the ALJ impermissibly rejected Plaintiff’s subjective

symptom testimony. Defendant contends that the ALJ provided several

valid and sufficient reasons for not accepting Plaintiff’s subjective statements about the intensity, persistence, and limiting

effects of his symptoms. (Tr. 21-23).

An ALJ cannot be required to believe every allegation of

disability, or else disability benefits would be available for the

taking, which would be contrary to the Act. Fair v. Bowen, 885 F.2d

12cv1093 24

Case 3:12-cv-01093-WQH-WVG Document 24 Filed 11/29/12 Page 24 of 29
 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

597, 603 (9th Cir. 1989). Congress expressly prohibits granting

disability benefits based on subjective complaints. 42 U.S.C. §

423(d)(5)(A) (“An individual’s subjective statement as to pain or

other symptoms shall not alone be conclusive evidence of disability.”); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(a) (“an ALJ will consider claimant’s

statements about pain or other symptoms but they will not alone

establish [disability]”). As such, the ALJ properly discounts

credibility if he makes specific credibility findings that are

properly supported by the record and sufficiently specific to ensure

a reviewing court that he did not “arbitrarily discredit” the

testimony. Bunnell v. Sullivan, 947 F.2d 341, 345-46 (9th Cir.

1991); Social Security Ruling 96-7p, 1996 WL 374186 (finding must be

sufficiently specific to make clear to the claimant and to any

reviewing court the weight the ALJ gave to the individuals’

statements and the reasons for that weight”).

The ALJ may consider a variety of credibility factors,

including “ordinary techniques of credibility evaluation;” the

claimant’s daily activities; nature, location, onset, duration,

frequency, radiation, and intensity of pain or other symptoms;

precipitating and aggravating factors; type, dosage, effectiveness,

and adverse side-effects of any medication; treatment, other than

medication; functional restrictions; unexplained, or inadequately

explained, failure to seek or follow treatment. Bunnell, 947 F.2d

at 346-47.

Here, the ALJ enumerated several specific credibility

factors. He found that, “[t]he weight of the objective evidence

does not support [Petitioner’s] claims of disability limitations to

the degree alleged” (Tr. 21). The ALJ’s analysis presented a

12cv1093 25

Case 3:12-cv-01093-WQH-WVG Document 24 Filed 11/29/12 Page 25 of 29
 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

variety of reasons why he determined that further limitation beyond

the residual functional capacity for a reduced range of light work

was not warranted (Tr. 23.) 

For example, the ALJ noted Plaintiff’s activities of daily

living. See Thomas v. Barnhart, 278 F.3d 947, 958-59 (ALJ properly

considers inconsistencies between claimant’s testimony and daily

activities). Plaintiff testified that he can attend to his personal

needs, take his medication, drive, go to the grocery store, prepare

food for himself, pet his dog, take walks in his yard, read books

and newspapers, and watch TV (Tr. 22; 80-82). Plaintiff also

testified that he left his house on a daily basis to visit his

girlfriend (Tr. 80-81). 

The ALJ properly explained that the records did not include

any evidence suggesting that Plaintiff’s impairment was equal or

equivalent in severity to a presumptively disabling impairment under

the Listings, after June 2, 2009 (Tr. 20). Along with medical

records, the ALJ relied on the testimony of board-certified

orthopedic surgeon Malcolm A. Brahms, M.D., a medical expert who

reviewed the record, and who testified that: (1) from October 1,

2007 to June 1, 2009, Plaintiff could not sustain fulltime work and

met the criteria of listing 1.04, and (2) as of June 2, 2009, he

could perform light work (Tr. 19, 53-56). See Morgan v. Comm'r of

the SSA, 169 F.3d 595, 600 (9th Cir. 1999) (“Opinions of a

nonexamining, testifying medical advisor may serve as substantial

evidence when... supported by other evidence in the record and are

consistent with it”). Furthermore, the ALJ relied on the testimony

of examining physician, Thomas Sabourin, M.D., another boardcertified orthopedic surgeon, who noted that during a March 2011

12cv1093 26

Case 3:12-cv-01093-WQH-WVG Document 24 Filed 11/29/12 Page 26 of 29
 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

examination, Plaintiff was “in no acute distress,” “was alert and

oriented,” and “could sit and stand conformably during the examination” (Tr. 22; 305).

Additionally, the ALJ observed that Plaintiff’s back

treatment had been conservative, and that the medication he took

effectively controlled his pain (Tr. 21). See Warre v. Comm’r, 439

F.3d 1001, 1006 (9th Cir. 2005) (“impairments that can be controlled

effectively with medication are not disabling for the purpose of

determining eligibility for SSI benefits”). Also, the ALJ noted

that in July 2009, Plaintiff was not using much pain medication at

all, and that his leg pain had significantly improved (Tr. 21; 352-

53). Plaintiff’s back pain had also improved (Tr. 352). Plaintiff

does not point to any error with the ALJ’s findings regarding the

objective medical evidence, which is a necessary baseline factor in

the ALJ’s credibility analysis. See 20 C.F.R § 404.1529(a) (in

evaluating symptoms the ALJ will consider “medical history, the

medical signs and laboratory findings”); Bunnell, 947 F.2d at 344

(in evaluating credibility, the ALJ should first consider objective

medical evidence and then consider other facts). The ALJ properly

discussed the lack of objective evidence to support Plaintiff’s

allegations (Tr. 21-23).

Regarding Plaintiff’s back pain, the ALJ summarized Plaintiff’s history of back pain and impairment (Tr. 21-23). This

evidence reveals that Plaintiff’s pain was well controlled with

medication; he was able to walk, drive, and take care of his daily

activities. This level of activity was inconsistent with Plaintiff’s

testimony at the hearing where he described having to lie down 40

percent of the day (Tr. 21). The ALJ reasonably determined that

12cv1093 27

Case 3:12-cv-01093-WQH-WVG Document 24 Filed 11/29/12 Page 27 of 29
 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's allegations of disabling limitations were unsupported

and not fully credible. See Burch, 400 F.3d at 681 ("[a]lthough a

lack of medical evidence cannot form the sole basis for discounting

pain testimony, it is a factor that the ALJ can consider in [the]

credibility analysis").

The ALJ provided numerous reasons to support his conclusion

that Plaintiff’s back and leg pain limited him to a residual

functioning capacity for a reduced range of light work, but further

limitation was not warranted (Tr. 18-25). Substantial evidence

further supported the ALJ’s finding that, beginning on June 2, 2009,

Plaintiff was capable of making a successful adjustment to work that

exists in significant numbers in the national economy (TR. 24). 

Accordingly, the Court RECOMMENDS that Plaintiff’s Motion for

Summary Judgment be DENIED and Defendant’s Motions for Summary

Judgment be GRANTED.

VII

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION

After a review of the record in this matter, the undersigned

Magistrate Judge RECOMMENDS that the Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary

Judgment be DENIED and Defendant’s Cross Motion for Summary Judgment

be GRANTED.

This Report and Recommendation of the undersigned Magistrate

Judge is submitted to the United States District Judge assigned to

this case, pursuant to the provision of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).3.

IT IS ORDERED that no later than December 31, 2012, any party

to this action may file written objections with the Court and serve

a copy on all parties. The document should be captioned “Objections

to Report and Recommendation.”

12cv1093 28

Case 3:12-cv-01093-WQH-WVG Document 24 Filed 11/29/12 Page 28 of 29
 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

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that any reply to the objections shall

be filed with the court and served on all parties no later than 

January 14, 2013. 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. Martinez v. Ylst,

951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

DATED: November 29, 2012 

 Hon. William V. Gallo

 U.S. Magistrate Judge

12cv1093 29

Case 3:12-cv-01093-WQH-WVG Document 24 Filed 11/29/12 Page 29 of 29