Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-04403/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-04403-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 864
Nature of Suit: Social Security - SSID Title XVI
Cause of Action: 42:405 Review of HHS Decision (SSID)

---

U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DONALD D. RICHARDSON,

Plaintiff,

 v.

 JO ANNE B. BARNHART, Commissioner,

Defendant.

 /

No. C 05-04403 CRB

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Plaintiff Donald D. Richardson appeals from a denial of social security benefits. 

Plaintiff challenges the decision of the Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) on the ground that

the ALJ committed error in its determination of Plaintiff’s residual functional capacity

(“RFC”). Plaintiff first claims that the “ALJ failed to consider the impairments of gout,

diabetes, and hypertension, and that plaintiff is morbidly obese.” Second, Plaintiff alleges

that the ALJ committed error by finding the Plaintiff’s testimony not fully credible or

reliable. Now pending before the Court are cross motions for summary judgment. Having

reviewed the administrative record and the memoranda submitted by the parties, the Court

DENIES Plaintiff’s motion and GRANTS Defendant’s motion.

BACKGROUND

I. Procedural History

Plaintiff filed an application for Disability Insurance Benefits pursuant to Title II and 

Case 3:05-cv-04403-CRB Document 14 Filed 11/21/06 Page 1 of 16
U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

Part A of Title XVIII of the Social Security Act, as amended (“the Act”), on September 26,

2002. Tr. at 21, 66. Plaintiff claimed that his disability commenced on February 1, 1999. Id.

His application was denied on initial review and again on reconsideration. Tr. at 21, 35-36. 

After a proper request, Plaintiff’s claim was heard before an ALJ on July 27, 2004. Tr. at 21,

40, 254. By written decision dated January 18, 2005, the ALJ found that the Plaintiff was not

disabled within the meaning of the Act and therefore denied his claim. Tr. at 21-26. In

particular, the ALJ determined that Plaintiff has a severe impairment in that he “has

medically determinable ‘severe’ morbid obesity . . . and status post right ankle sprain and

pain.” Tr. at 22. The ALJ found, however, that “gout and headaches are not medically

determinable ‘severe’ impairments.” Tr. at 23. The ALJ also determined that Plaintiff’s

impairments “do not meet the criteria of any medical condition described in the Listing of

Impairments.” Id. In addition, the ALJ found that Plaintiff retains residual functional

capacity to perform “sedentary work.” Tr. at 24. Although the ALJ found Plaintiff could not

return to his past relevant work, he found that Plaintiff could perform two jobs that exist in

significant numbers in the regional and national economy. Tr. at 24-25. 

Plaintiff requested review of the ALJ decision by the Appeals Council. Tr. at 17. On

August 24, 2005, after considering additional evidence and setting aside its previous action

denying Plaintiff’s request, the Council again denied Plaintiff’s request for review, making

the ALJ’s decision final and binding. Tr. at 5. Plaintiff properly commenced the instant

action for judicial review of the Commissioner’s final decision on October 28, 2005 pursuant

to 42 U.S.C. §§ 405(g) and 1383(c)(3). 

II. Factual Background

A. Plaintiff’s Disability Claim

It is undisputed that Plaintiff’s “date last insured” is December 31, 1999 and that in

order to receive Title II benefits Plaintiff must establish disability on or before that date and

up to the date of the hearing. Tr. at 265. Plaintiff was 34 years old at the time of the hearing

and is a high school graduate who has relevant past work experience as a kitchen helper. Tr.

at 22. In his disability report Plaintiff alleged that the “illnesses, injuries or conditions that

Case 3:05-cv-04403-CRB Document 14 Filed 11/21/06 Page 2 of 16
U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3

limit his ability to work” are his “arthritis in right ankle.” Tr. at 79. In his request for

hearing application, Plaintiff indicated that he disagreed with the determination made on his

claim because his severe obesity puts stress on his ankle which causes pain and swelling and

because he is a diabetic and has high blood pressure. Tr. at 40. 

B. Plaintiff’s Testimony

During the administrative hearing, Plaintiff testified that he is unable to work because

of the pain in his right ankle, headaches related to his high blood pressure, lower back

problems, and episodes of gout. Tr. at 267-77. He is 5’ 11” and estimated his weight to be at

least 350 or 360 pounds. Tr. at 265. His ankle constantly hurts and if he walks half-a-block

he has to sit down and rest for at least 15 minutes. Tr. at 268. He is not receiving any kind

of specific treatment for his ankle — no injections — and no surgery is planned. Tr. at 269. 

He has a brace that he cannot wear because he no longer has the proper attachments. Id.

Plaintiff has not spoken to his doctor about the brace problem and does not have any future

appointments because his medical coverage is expiring. Tr. at 269-70. 

 Plaintiff also testified that he has headaches “basically every day” for which he has to

lay down and rest for up to an hour or longer. Tr. at 270-71. He has informed his doctor

about the headaches and the doctor told him to watch what he eats and to exercise, things he

has not done because he does not want his ankle to flare up. Tr. at 271-72. He also informed

his doctor of his back problems and his episodes of gout. Tr. at 274-77. Plaintiff has

problems with his back a couple of times a month. Tr. at 274. These episodes require him to

sit down for at least one hour before he can get up and move around again. Tr. at 274. 

Again, his doctors have told him to exercise and watch what he eats. Id. Plaintiff gets the

episodes of gout “maybe twice a month” and they can sometimes last more than a week. Tr.

at 275-76. Plaintiff must either sit or lay down and elevate his foot above his heart. Tr. at

276. Plaintiff had medical coverage through his wife’s employment at Kaiser until July,

2004. Tr. at 270. 

On a typical day Plaintiff fixes breakfast for his daughters, does “a little cleaning

around the house,” — i.e. washing dishes, taking out the trash — and relaxes watching

Case 3:05-cv-04403-CRB Document 14 Filed 11/21/06 Page 3 of 16
U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

4

television or reading the paper. Tr. at 278-79. He has difficulty going up and down the stairs

in his apartment “to the point that [his ankle] sometimes swells up or gets sore and he has to

sit down” and rest for at least 20 minutes. Tr. at 278. 

The last job Plaintiff held was as a senior food service worker for approximately six

months at the University of California at Berkeley. Tr. at 262, 264. The job consisted of

both janitor and dishwasher duties. Tr. at 262-64. 

C. Disability Report and Pain Questionnaire

In the disability report dated September 11, 2002, Plaintiff indicated that he cannot be

on his feet for more than 30 minutes in each hour. Tr. at 79. On a pain questionnaire dated

February 3, 2003, Plaintiff reported that he has pain in his right foot and ankle that began on

February 4, 1999 and which occurs whenever he walks and stands for over 30 minutes. Tr. at

92. The pain lasts until he takes pain medication and/or rests for 30 to 45 minutes. Tr. at 92. 

As to his usual daily activities, Plaintiff indicated that he can “do all of those things only for

short periods of time” — referring to the examples listed in the question: “walking, shopping,

household chores, driving, socializing, etc.” Tr. at 93. Plaintiff further reported that he is

able to walk 2-3 blocks outside his home, and is capable of standing 30 minutes at a time. 

Tr. at 94. Plaintiff also indicated that he is able to do errands such as going to the Post

Office or grocery store without assistance and is able to do light housekeeping chores

(dusting, cooking, etc.) without assistance. Id. 

D. Medical Evidence

The medical record maintained by the UC Berkeley University Health Services

indicates that Plaintiff suffered an ankle sprain when he tripped while at work on February 4,

1999. Tr. at 136, 164. The examining doctor limited Plaintiff to standing or walking in 10

minute intervals per hour on the date of the accident. Tr. at 166. In March 1999, he was

limited to standing or walking in 5 minute intervals for two days, then released to gradually

increase up to 15 minutes per hour. Tr. at 151. By March 15, 1999, his examining doctor

indicated that Plaintiff could walk up to 45 minutes with an air cast and arch supports in his

Case 3:05-cv-04403-CRB Document 14 Filed 11/21/06 Page 4 of 16
U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

5

shoes. Tr. at 146. In August 1999, his examining doctor found Plaintiff could walk

independently for a period of 15 minutes per hour. Tr. at 137. 

The medical records from his treating physician, orthopaedic surgeon Dr. William R.

Cimino, M.D., dated March 15, 1999, indicate that Plaintiff “is an otherwise relatively

healthy gentleman” except for morbid obesity and right ankle sprain and pain. Tr. at 207. 

Dr. Cimino cleared Plaintiff for vocational rehabilitation on September 20, 1999 and released

him for sedentary work with occasional walking or standing for periods of 10 minutes per

hour on October 4, 1999. Tr. at 178, 180. On February 10, 2000, Dr. Cimino declared that

Plaintiff’s ankle injury was permanent and stationary, and limited Plaintiff to standing or

walking for periods of no more than 10-15 minutes at a time. Tr. at 175-76. Dr. Cimino

categorized Plaintiff’s work preclusions as “semi-sedentary work.” Tr. at 176. The February

10, 2000 report also indicates that Plaintiff stated that the pain in his ankle is 2-3 out of 10,

which Dr. Cimino rated as “slight pain.” Tr. at 175. As of that date Plaintiff was not taking

any medications, wore the brace, and was participating in an independent gym program. Tr.

at 176. By March 25, 2002, Plaintiff did not require any medications or therapy. Tr. at 172. 

Dr. Cimino indicated a need to see him only periodically for replacement of his brace. Id.

The March 25, 2002 report also indicates that Plaintiff stated that his ankle “is not

particularly painful” and that he was participating in a walking program that seemed to be

helping his ankles. Tr. at 171. 

The medical records provided by the Alameda County Medical Center state that

Plaintiff weighed 380 pounds as of August 18, 2004. Tr. at 229.

The medical records from Kaiser covering the period from November 16, 2003

through October 2, 2004 reflect only routine care and recommendations for bicycle exercise. 

Tr. at 230-35.

E. Physical Residual Functional Capacity Assessment by Dr. VanCompernolle

Dr. LolaLee VanCompernolle, M.D., assessed Plaintiff’s residual functional capacity

and her findings are dated March 10, 2003. Tr. at 215-22. Dr. VanCompernolle’s

assessment reports that Plaintiff’s exertional limitations include the ability to: occasionally

Case 3:05-cv-04403-CRB Document 14 Filed 11/21/06 Page 5 of 16
U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

6

lift or carry 10 pounds, frequently lift or carry less than 10 pounds, stand or walk for a total

of about 2 hours in an 8-hour workday and no more than 10-15 minutes at a time. Tr. at 215-

16. These limitations also include the inability to walk on uneven terrain or to do frequent

pedal work. Tr. at 216. Dr. VanCompernolle also found that there are no treating or

examining source conclusions about Plaintiff’s limitations or restrictions which are

significantly different from her findings. Tr. at 221. 

F. Vocational Expert Testimony

During the administrative hearing vocational expert Dennis Contreras testified that an

individual with the same age, education and work history as Plaintiff who is restricted to

sedentary activity and who can only stand and walk up to two hours per day but only in 10 to

15 minute intervals at a time would not be able to perform the past relevant work that

Plaintiff performed. Tr. at 24, 282-83. He further testified that there were two unskilled

positions that Plaintiff could perform with those limitations: (1) small product assembler and

(2) hand packager. Tr. at 283. He found 371 assembler positions in the local economy and

57,000 positions nationally. Id. Contreras also found 107 hand packager jobs in the local

economy and 10,000 jobs nationally. Id.

LEGAL STANDARD

This Court’s jurisdiction is limited to determining whether the Social Security

Administration’s denial of benefits is supported by substantial evidence in the administrative

record. 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). A district court may overturn a decision to deny benefits only if

it is not supported by substantial evidence or if the decision is based on legal error. See

Ukolov v. Barnhart, 420 F.3d 1002, 1004 (9th Cir. 2005); Andrews v. Shalala, 53 F.3d 1035,

1039 (9th Cir. 1995). The Ninth Circuit defines substantial evidence as “more than a mere

scintilla but less than a preponderance; it is such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind

might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.” Andrews, 53 F.3d at 1039. 

Determinations of credibility, resolution of conflicts in medical testimony and all other

ambiguities are to be resolved by the ALJ. Id. The decision of the ALJ will be upheld if the

evidence is “susceptible to more than one rational interpretation.” Id. at 1040. 

Case 3:05-cv-04403-CRB Document 14 Filed 11/21/06 Page 6 of 16
U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

7

To be eligible for benefits a claimant must prove a disability. See Ukolov, 420 F.3d at

1004. The claimant must demonstrate an inability to “engage in any substantial gainful

activity by reason of any medically determinable physical or mental impairment which can be

expected to result in death or which has lasted or can be expected to last for a continuous

period of not less than 12 months.” Burch v. Barnhart, 400 F.3d 676, 679 (9th Cir. 2005)

(citing 42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(1)(A)). 

In considering whether a claimant has demonstrated a disability and is entitled to

benefits, an ALJ conducts a five-step sequential inquiry. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920. At the first

step, the ALJ considers if the claimant is engaged in substantial gainful activity; if the

claimant is not engaged in substantial gainful activity, the second step asks if the claimant

has a severe impairment (i.e. an impairment that has a significant effect on the claimant’s

ability to function); if the claimant has a severe impairment, the third step asks if the claimant

has a condition which meets or equals the conditions outlined in the Listings of Impairments

in Appendix 1 of the regulations (the “Listings”); if the claimant does not have such a

condition, the fourth step asks if the claimant is capable of performing his past relevant work

given the claimant’s residual functional capacity; if the claimant is not capable of performing

his past relevant work, the fifth step asks if the claimant is capable of performing other work

which exists in substantial numbers in the national economy. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(b)-

404.1520(f)(1). 

DISCUSSION

I. The ALJ’s Decision

The ALJ determined that Plaintiff was not entitled to a period of disability or

Disability Insurance Benefits because he was not disabled within the meaning of the Act. Tr.

at 26. The ALJ made his decision at what he called “step six of the sequential evaluation

process.” Id. The ALJ specifically found that Plaintiff met the insured status requirements

for Title II benefits based on disability as of his alleged onset of disability, and continued to

meet them through December 31, 1999. Tr. at 22. At step one of the inquiry, the ALJ found

that claimant has not performed substantial gainful activity since his alleged onset date of

Case 3:05-cv-04403-CRB Document 14 Filed 11/21/06 Page 7 of 16
U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

8

February 1, 1999. Id. At step two the ALJ found that Plaintiff has severe impairments

including: morbid obesity at 5'11" and 380.2 pounds and status post right ankle sprain and

pain. Id. The ALJ also found that gout and headaches are not medically determinable severe

impairments within the meaning of the Act. Tr. at 23. Although Plaintiff has severe

impairments, at step three the ALJ found that the impairments, either alone or in

combination, were not equivalent to any section in the new Listings. Id. At step four, the

ALJ found that Plaintiff has residual functional capacity for sedentary work due primarily to

morbid obesity and that he can stand and walk for short periods of about 10 to 15 minutes at

a time due to obesity and residual right ankle pain. Tr. at 24. The ALJ also found that

Plaintiff could not perform his past relevant work but, at what the ALJ called step six, found

that Plaintiff is capable of performing other work which exists in significant numbers in the

regional and national economy. Id. 

II. Analysis

A. ALJ’s Consideration of Impairments

Plaintiff contends that the ALJ committed error at step five of the sequential inquiry. 

He argues that because the ALJ failed to consider the impairments of gout, diabetes,

hypertension and morbid obesity in determining Plaintiff’s residual functional capacity, the

finding that Plaintiff could perform sedentary work is in error. Defendant contends that

substantial evidence supported the ALJ’s analysis of the medical evidence and the ALJ’s

RFC determination.

At step two of the five-step sequential inquiry the ALJ must determine whether the

claimant has any severe impairments (i.e., an impairment that has a significant effect on the

claimant’s ability to function). 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(c). To establish that a claimant has a

severe impairment, the “impairment must result from anatomical, physiological, or

psychological abnormalities which can be shown by medically acceptable clinical and

laboratory diagnostic techniques.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1508. The impairment must also be

established “by medical evidence consisting of signs, symptoms, and laboratory findings, not

only by [the claimants] statement of symptoms.” Id. “Signs are anatomical, physiological, or

Case 3:05-cv-04403-CRB Document 14 Filed 11/21/06 Page 8 of 16
U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

9

psychological abnormalities which can be observed, apart from [the claimant’s] statements

(symptoms). Signs must be shown by medically acceptable clinical diagnostic techniques.” 

20 C.F.R. § 404.1528(b). “Laboratory findings are anatomical, physiological, or

psychological phenomena which can be shown by the use of medically acceptable laboratory

diagnostic techniques.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1528(c). The claimant has the burden of providing

the medical evidence showing the existence of an impairment and its severity. 20 C.F.R. 

§ 404.1512(c). 

1. The ALJ considered morbid obesity

The ALJ considered Plaintiff’s morbid obesity in his determination of the claim both

at step two and in determining Plaintiff’s RFC. At step two of the sequential inquiry the ALJ

found that Plaintiff’s morbid obesity is a medically determinable severe impairment. Tr. at

22. In the RFC determination the ALJ found that claimant has the capacity for sedentary

work “due primarily to morbid obesity.” Tr. at 25. He found that Plaintiff can “stand and

walk for short periods of about 10 to 15 minutes at a time due to obesity and residual right

ankle pain.” Id. The ALJ’s determination of Plaintiff’s capacity to function was based

primarily on his morbid obesity and the pain he experienced in his right ankle. 

2. The ALJ properly rejected the gout claim

Plaintiff’s allegations of gout as a limiting impairment were considered both at step

two and in the ALJ’s RFC determination. The ALJ found that gout is not a medically

determinable severe impairment. Tr. at 23. He also found that the record did not contain any 

testimony of any treatment for gout and no limitations from gout. Tr. at 22. The ALJ

explained that “regardless of how many symptoms an individual alleges, or how genuine the

individual’s complaints may appear to be, the existence of a medically determinable

impairment cannot be established in the absence of objective abnormalities, i.e., medical

signs and laboratory findings.” Tr. at 22. Although Plaintiff testified at the hearing that he

suffered from episodes of gout twice a month that can last more than a week at a time, there

is no evidence in the medical record that Plaintiff ever received treatment for gout or even

suffered from gout. Tr. at 275-77, 128-235. The ALJ considered the allegations of gout as a

Case 3:05-cv-04403-CRB Document 14 Filed 11/21/06 Page 9 of 16
U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

10

potential limiting impairment and made specific findings to the contrary that are supported by

substantial evidence in the record. 

3. The ALJ properly rejected the “headaches” impairment

The ALJ similarly found that headaches are not medically determinable severe

impairments. Tr. at 23. The ALJ found that there is no indication of care or treatment for

headaches. Tr. at 22. Plaintiff testified that his headaches are related to his hypertension. 

Tr. at 270. There is medical evidence in the record that Plaintiff has a history of

hypertension; however, there is no evidence that Plaintiff received treatment for headaches

caused by the hypertension. Tr. at 207, 128-235. “An individual’s statement as to pain or

other symptoms shall not alone be conclusive evidence of disability . . . ; there must be

medical signs and findings, . . . which show the existence of a medical impairment that

results from anatomical, physiological, or psychological abnormalities which could

reasonably be expected to produce the pain or other symptoms alleged and which . . . would

lead to a conclusion that the individual is under a disability.” 42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(5)(A). 

Plaintiff has failed to provide any medical signs or findings regarding his headaches. The

ALJ considered Plaintiff’s testimony regarding the headaches during his RFC determination,

but also ultimately found claimant was not “wholly credible.” Tr. at 25.

4. The ALJ properly found no limitations from hypertension and diabetes 

There is no indication in the medical record or in Plaintiff’s testimony that the

hypertension itself, apart from the headaches, causes any limitation or impairment on

Plaintiff’s ability to work. Plaintiff has not shown an inability to “engage in any substantial

gainful activity by reason of” the hypertension, the condition the Plaintiff now contends

should have been considered a medically determinable impairment. See Burch, 400 F.3d at

679. 

Plaintiff’s contention that the ALJ improperly failed to consider his diabetes similarly

fails. There is no evidence in the medical record or in Plaintiff’s testimony that his diabetes

created a limitation on his ability to engage in substantial gainful activity. See id. 

//

Case 3:05-cv-04403-CRB Document 14 Filed 11/21/06 Page 10 of 16
U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

11

5. Summary

The ALJ considered Plaintiff’s morbid obesity, and his claims of gout, and headaches

in making his determination. Diabetes and hypertension, apart from the headaches, were not

considered by the ALJ because there was no indication in the record, testimony or medical

evidence that Plaintiff received any treatment or was disabled by these impairments. The

ALJ did not commit legal error and his determinations as to Plaintiff’s medically

determinable severe impairments are substantially supported by the record. The ALJ applied

the appropriate legal standard as defined by the regulations of the Act and his decision is

supported by the relevant evidence in the record.

B. ALJ’s Consideration of Plaintiff’s Testimony

Plaintiff also argues that the residual functional capacity determination is in error

because the ALJ erroneously found Plaintiff’s testimony not fully credible or reliable. 

Defendant contends that the ALJ gave legally sufficient reasons supporting his credibility

finding and the finding should be upheld. 

A claimant will not be considered disabled based solely on subjective complaints of

pain or other symptoms. See Bunnell v. Sullivan, 947 F.2d 341, 344 (9th Cir. 1991); 42

U.S.C. § 423(d)(5)(A). “The claimant must produce objective medical evidence of an

underlying impairment which could reasonably be expected to produce the pain or other

symptoms alleged . . . .” Bunnell, 947 F.2d at 344 (citing 42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(5)(A)). “Once

the claimant produces objective medical evidence of an underlying impairment, an

adjudicator may not reject a claimant’s subjective complaints based solely on a lack of

objective medical evidence to fully corroborate the alleged severity.” Id. at 345. 

The ALJ must give specific, clear and convincing reasons to reject allegations of

subjectively disabling symptoms. See Thomas v. Barnhart, 278 F.3d 947, 960 (9th Cir.

2002)(citing Bunnell, 947 F.2d at 346). The ALJ may consider various factors in assessing

the credibility of the allegedly disabling subjective symptoms. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529; 

see also Bunnell, 947 F.2d at 346-47. Such factors include “the nature, location, onset,

duration, frequency, radiation of any pain;” “precipitating and aggravating factors;” “type,

Case 3:05-cv-04403-CRB Document 14 Filed 11/21/06 Page 11 of 16
U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

12

dosage, effectiveness, and adverse side-effects of any pain medication;” “treatment, other

than medication, for relief of pain;” “functional restrictions;” “the claimant’s daily

activities;” “unexplained, or inadequately explained, failure to seek treatment or follow a

prescribed course of treatment;” and “ordinary techniques of credibility evaluation” such as

inconsistencies in the testimony or relevant character evidence. Bunnell, 947 F.2d at 346-47. 

“The ALJ must specify what testimony is not credible and identify the evidence that

undermines the claimant’s complaints.” Burch, 400 F.3d at 680. In this case, the ALJ

articulated adequate reasons for finding that the claimant was not wholly credible regarding

his testimony of disabling excess symptoms. 

In considering Plaintiff’s testimony regarding disabling pain, the ALJ considered his

doctors’ medical opinions. Medical opinions of the claimant’ s treating source and other

medical opinions can also be considered in evaluating the intensity and persistence of the

claimant’s symptoms, such as pain, and determining the extent to which they limit his

capacity to work. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(1). The ALJ explained that despite his

complaints, Plaintiff’s treating physician released him to sedentary activity with standing and

walking for 10 minutes per hour since October 1999. Tr. at 24. Plaintiff testified that he can

walk for about half a block and then he has to sit down and rest, that he has painful gout

attacks to his right foot, and that he spends most of his time at home resting and caring for

his symptoms. Tr. at 24-25. The ALJ noted that despite this testimony, the medical records

show that Plaintiff has been cleared by all of his doctors — treating and examining — to

sedentary or semi-sedentary work with limits on walking and standing for 10-15 minutes. Tr.

at 23. The ALJ also noted that as of March 25, 2002, the claimant no longer needed therapy

or medications. Tr. at 23. 

The ALJ also considered the lack of objective medical evidence in discounting

Plaintiff’s testimony regarding other disabling symptoms: “there is no significant treatment

for headaches or gout.” Tr. at 24. “He is described by his treating doctor as being healthy

except for his obesity and right ankle pain.” Id. The ALJ also noted that the treating records

from Kaiser reflect only routine care with no treatment for gout. Tr. at 23. 

Case 3:05-cv-04403-CRB Document 14 Filed 11/21/06 Page 12 of 16
U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

13

Further, the ALJ also discredited Plaintiff’s testimony regarding disabling symptoms,

including pain, for lack of consistent treatment: Plaintiff “has not received any significant

care [for his right ankle] since he was released to vocational rehabilitation in September

1999.” Tr. at 24. Again, there is no indication of treatment for headaches or gout. Tr. at 24. 

Plaintiff argues that the ALJ committed error by not accepting Plaintiff’s reason — lack of

funds — for not obtaining medical treatment for his ailments. There is no suggestion in the

record, however, that Plaintiff gave this explanation to the ALJ. Additionally, Plaintiff

testified that he had medical coverage through his wife’s employment until the month of the

administrative hearing, July 2004. Tr. at 270. 

In considering Plaintiff’s testimony about his disabling symptoms the ALJ also

considered observations he made of the Plaintiff during the hearing. The ALJ stated that

“despite his weight he had no significant difficulty sitting, walking or testifying that could be

observed by a lay person.” Where the ALJ made specific findings supported by substantial

evidence justifying the credibility determination “[t]he inclusion of the ALJ’s personal

observations does not render the decision improper.” Morgan v. Comm’r of the Soc. Sec.

Admin., 169 F.3d 595, 600 (9th Cir. 1999). The ALJ made clear that he was not basing his

entire decision or credibility assessment on his appearance at the hearing alone, but that it

was simply one factor which he considered along with all the other evidence of the record. 

Tr. at 24.

Plaintiff contends that the ALJ failed to consider the nature of Plaintiff’s daily

activities with enough specificity to determine that the activities were inconsistent with his

claimed limitations. Consideration of a claimant’s daily activities, however, is but one of the

possible factors an ALJ can use to discredit the claimant’s allegations. See Bunnell, 947

F.2d at 346. There is no indication in the ALJ’s decision that Plaintiff’s credibility was

undermined because Plaintiff’s activities were inconsistent with his limitations. The ALJ’s

credibility assessment focused on the inconsistencies in the medical record between

Plaintiff’s allegations that his pain and other symptoms were disabling and (1) opinions by

Case 3:05-cv-04403-CRB Document 14 Filed 11/21/06 Page 13 of 16
U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

14

his treating and examining physicians; (2) lack of consistent treatment; (3) lack of objective

medical evidence as to gout and headaches; and (4) Plaintiff’s appearance at the hearing. 

Plaintiff also argues that because the ALJ found that Plaintiff’s pain testimony was

not fully credible, by deduction the “ALJ did not clearly rate that the Plaintiff’s testimony

regarding the other limitations as not fully credible.” Plaintiff misstates the ALJ’s finding. 

The ALJ found that the claimant was not “wholly credible insofar as he alleges excess

symptoms which would disable him. Such excess symptoms are unsupported by the record

as a whole.” Tr. at 25. The ALJ’s credibility finding encompassed all of Plaintiff’s

testimony regarding disabling symptoms, including the pain in his right ankle and the pain

from his headaches and gout. 

Plaintiff further argues that the “ALJ failed to clearly and specifically identify any

pain that goes beyond that certain level associated with his impairments” and based on this

failure the case should be remanded. Plaintiff’s analysis of the law, however, is flawed. The

ALJ is required to make specific findings for rejecting a claimant’s allegations of

subjectively disabling symptoms, including pain. See Thomas, 278 F.3d at 960. The ALJ

must also specify what testimony is not credible and identify the evidence that undermines

that testimony. Burch, 400 F.3d 680. The ALJ, however, is not required to indicate which

pain goes beyond a certain level associated with his impairments. Here, the ALJ found that

Plaintiff established an underlying impairment “which could reasonably be expected to

produce the pain or other symptoms alleged.” 42 U.S.C. § 43(d)(5)(A). The severity of that

pain or other symptoms, however, does not require medical findings because of the

recognized inability of medical science to objectively verify the extent of pain experienced

by an individual. Bunnell, 947 F.2d at 343-45. Once the claimant produces objective

medical evidence of an underlying impairment, as Plaintiff did in this case, the adjudicator

must then evaluate the severity of the pain to determine if it is disabling to the Plaintiff. In

order to make that evaluation, the adjudicator must make determinations as to whether the

claimant’s allegations of severity are credible or not and must make specific findings to

support this conclusion. Id. at 345. The adjudicator, however, is not required to find what

Case 3:05-cv-04403-CRB Document 14 Filed 11/21/06 Page 14 of 16
U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

G:\CRBALL\2005\4403\Order.wpd 15

level of pain is normal or generally associated with a certain type of impairment; the

adjudicator must simply determine whether the claimant’s allegations of disabling pain are

credible. 

Plaintiff’s final argument is that the ALJ committed error by failing to consider the

entire record; specifically the statements contained in the Plaintiff’s medical reports

submitted after his initial submission. These medical records were submitted May 11, 2005,

four months after the ALJ’s decision. The medical records were reviewed by the Appeals

Council in August 2005. Tr. at 5. The Appeals Council, however, found no reason to review

the ALJ’s decision even with the newly submitted evidence. Id. Although the newly

submitted medical records do indicate that Plaintiff received a prescription for gout and

contains a medical opinion that indicates that his “medical conditions make it difficult for

him to do any meaningful work,” these records are for the period of February 2005 to May

2005. Plaintiff has the burden of establishing a disability on or before his DLI of December

31, 1999. Tr. at 265; see also Morgan v. Sullivan, 945 F.2d 1079, 1080 (9th Cir. 1991) (“In

order to receive disability benefits Morgan must demonstrate he was disabled prior to his last

insured date”). At the time of Plaintiff’s DLI and up to the time of the hearing there was no

evidence of any treatment for gout and no medical opinion that suggested that Plaintiff was

completely unable to work. This new evidence does not apply to the relevant time period. 

 The ALJ gave legally sufficient reasons for rejecting Plaintiff’s allegations of

subjectively disabling symptoms when determining his RFC, therefore the ALJ’s findings

must be given deference. 

CONCLUSION

The ALJ based his decision on substantial evidence in the record and there is no error

of law. Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and

GRANTS Defendant’s motion for summary judgment.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: Nov. 21, 2006

 

CHARLES R. BREYER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:05-cv-04403-CRB Document 14 Filed 11/21/06 Page 15 of 16
U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

G:\CRBALL\2005\4403\Order.wpd 16

Case 3:05-cv-04403-CRB Document 14 Filed 11/21/06 Page 16 of 16