Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-01256/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-01256-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 864
Nature of Suit: Social Security - SSID Title XVI
Cause of Action: 42:0206 Surgeon General - Assignment of Officers

---

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

SAUNDRA RUBALCABA,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 14cv1256-AJB-MDD

REPORT AND

RECOMMENDATION ON

CROSS MOTIONS FOR

SUMMARY JUDGMENT

[ECF NOS. 15, 21]

v.

CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting

Commissioner of Social Security

Defendant.

Plaintiff Saundra Rubalcaba (“Plaintiff”) filed this action pursuant

to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) for judicial review of the decision of the

Commissioner of the Social Security Administration (“Commissioner”)

denying Plaintiff’s application for Supplement Security Income payments

under Title XVI of the Social Security Act. Plaintiff moves the Court for

summary judgment reversing the Commissioner and ordering an award

of benefits (ECF No. 15). Defendant also has moved for summary

judgment affirming the denial of benefits. (ECF No. 21).

- 1 - 14cv1256-AJB-MDD

Case 3:14-cv-01256-AJB-MDD Document 26 Filed 08/19/15 Page 1 of 16
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

Background

I. Factual Background

Plaintiff alleges that she became disabled on October 1, 2011, at the

age of 42. According to Plaintiff, she suffers from liver problems, asthma,

diabetes type 2, obesity, osteoarthritis of the bilateral knees, and lupus.

(A.R. at 22). 1

 

II. Procedural History

On June 20, 2012, Plaintiff filed for supplemental social security

income insurance payments under Title XVI of the Social Security Act,

alleging disability beginning October 1, 2011. (A.R. at 20). Her claim

was denied initially on August 16, 2012, and denied upon reconsideration

on November 7, 2012. (Id.). On January 7, 2013, Plaintiff requested a

hearing before an Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”). The hearing was

held on October 15, 2013, before ALJ Alan J. Markiewicz. (Id.). Plaintiff

appeared and was represented by counsel. (Id.). Plaintiff and Vocational

Expert Gloria Lasoff testified at the hearing. (Id.).

On November 27, 2013, the ALJ issued a written decision finding 

Plaintiff not disabled. (A.R. at 20-29). Plaintiff appealed and the

Appeals Council denied Plaintiff’s request to review the ALJ’s decision.

(A.R. at 1-6). Consequently, the ALJ’s decision became the final decision

of the Commissioner. 

On May 20, 2014, Plaintiff filed a Complaint with this Court

seeking judicial review of the Commissioner’s decision. (ECF No. 1). On

October 14, 2014, Defendant answered and lodged the administrative

record with the Court. (ECF Nos. 11, 12). On November 24, 2014,

Plaintiff moved for summary judgment. (ECF No. 15). On January 21,

1

 “A.R.” refers to the Administrative Record filed on October 14, 2014 and located

at ECF No. 11.

- 2 - 14cv1256-AJB-MDD

Case 3:14-cv-01256-AJB-MDD Document 26 Filed 08/19/15 Page 2 of 16
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

2015, the Commissioner cross-moved for summary judgment and

responded in opposition to Plaintiff’s motion. (ECF Nos. 21, 22). On

February 5, 2015, Plaintiff filed a Reply to Defendant’s cross-motion for

summary judgment. (ECF No. 24). 

Discussion

I. Legal Standard

The supplemental security income program provides benefits to

disabled persons without substantial resources and little income. 42

U.S.C. § 1383. To qualify, a claimant must establish an inability to

engage in “substantial gainful activity” because of a “medically

determinable physical or mental impairment” that “has lasted or can be

expected to last for a continuous period of not less than 12 months.” 42

U.S.C. § 1382(a)(3)(A). The disabling impairment must be so severe that,

considering age, education, and work experience, the claimant cannot

engage in any kind of substantial gainful work that exists in the national

economy. 42 U.S.C. § 1382(a)(3)(B).

The Commissioner makes this assessment through a process of up

to five-steps. First, the claimant must not be engaged in substantial,

gainful activity. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(b). Second, the claimant must have

a “severe” impairment. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(c). Third, the medical

evidence of the claimant’s impairment is compared to a list of

impairments that are presumed severe enough to preclude work. 20

C.F.R. § 416.920(d). If the claimant’s impairment meets or is equivalent

to the requirements for one of the listed impairments, benefits are

awarded. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(d). If the claimant’s impairment does not

meet or is not equivalent to the requirements of a listed impairment, the

analysis continues to a fourth and possibly fifth step and considers the

claimant’s residual functional capacity. At the fourth step, the claimant’s

- 3 - 14cv1256-AJB-MDD

Case 3:14-cv-01256-AJB-MDD Document 26 Filed 08/19/15 Page 3 of 16
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

relevant work history is considered along with the claimant’s residual

functional capacity. If the claimant can perform the claimant’s past

relevant work, benefits are denied. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(e). At the fifth

step, reached if the claimant is found not able to perform the claimant’s

past relevant work, the issue is whether claimant can perform any other

work that exists in the national economy, considering the claimant’s age,

education, work experience, and residual functional capacity. If claimant

cannot do other work that exists in the national economy, benefits are

awarded. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(f). 

 Section 1383(c)(3) of the Social Security Act, through Section 405(g)

of the Act, allows unsuccessful applicants to seek judicial review of a final

agency decision of the Commissioner. 42 U.S.C. §§ 1383(c)(3), 405(g). 

The scope of judicial review is limited, however, and the Commissioner’s

denial of benefits “will be disturbed only if it is not supported by

substantial evidence or is based on legal error.” Brawner v. Secretary of

Health and Human Services, 839 F.2d 432, 433 (9th Cir. 1988) (quoting

Green v. Heckler, 803 F.2d 528, 529 (9th Cir. 1986)).

Substantial evidence means “more than a mere scintilla” but less

than a preponderance. Sandqathe v. Chater, 108 F.3d 978, 980 (9th Cir.

1997). “[I]t is such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept

as adequate to support a conclusion.” Id. (quoting Andrews v. Shalala,

53 F.3d 1035, 1039 (9th Cir. 1995)). The court must consider the record

as a whole, weighing both the evidence that supports and detracts from

the Commissioner’s conclusions. Desrosiers v. Secretary of Health &

Human Services, 846 F.2d 573, 576 (9th Cir. 1988). If the evidence

supports more than one rational interpretation, the court must uphold

the ALJ’s decision. Allen v. Heckler, 749 F.2d 577, 579 (9th Cir. 1984). 

When the evidence is inconclusive, “questions of credibility and

- 4 - 14cv1256-AJB-MDD

Case 3:14-cv-01256-AJB-MDD Document 26 Filed 08/19/15 Page 4 of 16
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

resolution of conflicts in the testimony are functions solely of the

Secretary.” Sample v. Schweiker, 694 F.2d 639, 642 (9th Cir. 1982). 

The ALJ has a special duty in social security cases to fully and

fairly develop the record in order to make an informed decision on a

claimant’s entitlement to disability benefits. DeLorme v. Sullivan, 924

F.2d 841, 849 (9th Cir. 1991). Because disability hearings are not

adversarial in nature, the ALJ must “inform himself about the facts

relevant to his decision,” even if the claimant is represented by counsel. 

Id. (quoting Heckler v. Campbell, 461 U.S. 458, 471 n.1 (1983)).

Even if a 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. Benitez v. Califano, 573 F.2d 653, 655 (9th

Cir. 1978). Section 405(g) permits a court to enter a 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.

II. The ALJ’s Decision

In this case, the ALJ concluded that Plaintiff was not disabled as

defined under the Act at any time on or after the date that the

application was filed on June 20, 2012. (A.R. at 20). The ALJ found

Plaintiff did not have an impairment or combination of impairments that

meets or medically equals the severity of one of the listed impairments in

20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1 (20 C.F.R. 416.920(d), 416.925

and 416.926).2

 The ALJ also found that Plaintiff had the residual

2

“The Listing of Impairments describes, for each of the major body systems,

impairments which are considered severe enough to prevent a person from doing any

gainful activity.” Wilson v. Barnhart, 284 F.3d 1219, 1224 (11th Cir. 2002). “If the

claimant’s condition meets or equals the level of severity of a listed impairment, the

- 5 - 14cv1256-AJB-MDD

Case 3:14-cv-01256-AJB-MDD Document 26 Filed 08/19/15 Page 5 of 16
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

functional capacity (“RFC”) to perform light work as defined in 20 C.F.R

416.967(b) “but is limited to lifting and/or carrying 20 pounds

occasionally and 10 pounds frequently; standing or walking 6 hours in an

8-hour workday; sitting 6 hours in an 8-hour workday; cannot climb

ladders, ropes or scaffolds; can occasionally climb ramps and stairs;

cannot balance; can occasionally stoop, kneel, crouch, and crawl; and

should avoid concentrated exposure to extreme cold, vibration, fumes,

odors, dusts, gases, poor ventilation and hazards.” (A.R. at 24). 

The ALJ found that Plaintiff’s “subjective complaints are less than

fully credible and the objective medical evidence does not support the

alleged severity of her symptoms.” (A.R. at 27). The ALJ stated that

despite the existence of her impairments, the RFC stated herein, “is the

most that [Plaintiff] can do.” (Id.). The ALJ specifically noted the

following medical history to be of particular relevance:

2011: In July, Plaintiff was seen for left groin pain. (A.R. at 297). 

Plaintiff was examined and showed a supple neck, clear lungs, soft

abdomen and normal mental functioning. It was noted Plaintiff had a

probable fatty liver, and mild compression deformity of her T11 (although

unlikely acute). (A.R. at 301). Plaintiff was discharged with a

prescription for Motrin and Percocet. (Id.). 

In September, Plaintiff was seen at urgent care for constant pain in

the left upper quadrant (LUQ) of her torso. Her overall general

appearance was cooperative and pleasant. Her neck was supple, her

lungs showed no wheeze/rales. (A.R. at 291). Plaintiff had no heart

murmurs and her CT scan was negative for diverticular disease. (Id.). On

Plaintiff’s second visit to urgent care, she was examined and found to be

claimant at this point is conclusively presumed to be disabled based on his or her []

condition.” Crayton v. Callahan, 120 F.3d 1217, 1219 (11th Cir. 1997).

- 6 - 14cv1256-AJB-MDD

Case 3:14-cv-01256-AJB-MDD Document 26 Filed 08/19/15 Page 6 of 16
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 mild distress similar to her previous visit with upper quadrant pain of

her torso. (A.R. at 295). She denied headaches, chest pain, or shortness

of breath. (Id.) Plaintiff’s CT scan showed a stable enlarged liver. (A.R.

at 305). She had no gallstones, unremarkable stomach, pancreas,

adrenal glands, bladder or pelvic organs. (A.R. at 306). 

 2012: In February, Plaintiff was referred for cardiovascular

evaluation due to chest pain. (A.R. at 313). Plaintiff was seen by Dr.

Mehran Massavian, D.O., who noted Plaintiff was morbidly obese but in

no acute distress. Her cardiovascular, pulmonary, GI and extremities

evaluations showed no serious abnormalities. (A.R. at 316). The result of

Plaintiff’s Myocardial Perfusion study showed no abnormal findings. 

(A.R. at 316-319). Dr. Massavian recommended Plaintiff undergo a 2-D

echocardiogram for further evaluation. (Id.). 

In May, Plaintiff was referred for abnormal liver function tests

despite a lack of symptoms. (A.R. at 323). Plaintiff stated she was doing

well but had weight concerns. Dr. Taddesa Desta, M.D., examined

Plaintiff and noted no abnormalities, including an appropriate mood and

affect. (A.R. at 324). Dr. Desta’s summary notes stated Plaintiff was

stable overall with no active hepatitis. Dr. Desta opined a further work

up was suggested for possible Autoimmune Hepatitis. (A.R. at 325). He

also recommended weight loss and exercise. (Id.). 

Plaintiff underwent additional tests in July regarding her abnormal

liver function. (A.R. at 393). After a liver biopsy, the findings were

overall stable and no active hepatitis. 

Plaintiff was seen in October, by Dr. Gordon Zink-Brody, M.D. for a

radiology consult. (A.R. at 375). Dr. Zink-Brody diagnosed advanced

osteoarthritis of both knees and small right knee effusion. Neither knee

had visible soft tissue swelling. (Id.). 

- 7 - 14cv1256-AJB-MDD

Case 3:14-cv-01256-AJB-MDD Document 26 Filed 08/19/15 Page 7 of 16
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 also considered the medical records from 2012 through

2013 from Plaintiff’s primary treating physician, Dr. Sharon Velasquez,

M.D. A summary of Dr. Velasquez’s medical notes considered by the ALJ

follow:

2012: In January 2012, Plaintiff’s asthma issues were addressed. 

(A.R. at 350). Plaintiff was counseled for smoking cessation and noted to

be grossly overweight (i.e. obese). Dr. Velasquez noted Plaintiff’s general

appearance as normal, including her neck, lungs, heart, and abdomen.

(Id.). In February of 2012, Plaintiff was newly diagnosed with diabetes

type II. Plaintiff was also diagnosed with obesity. Dr. Velasquez again

noted Plaintiff’s general appearance as normal. (A.R. at 348). In March

2012, Dr. Velasquez saw Plaintiff on two separate occasions and both

times noted Plaintiff’s diabetes was uncontrolled but presented with a

generally normal appearance. (A.R. at 343-346). In May of 2012,

Plaintiff saw Dr. Velasquez three times. Dr. Velasquez’s overall findings

found Plaintiff’s overall appearance normal. Plaintiff was advised

regarding nutrition, exercise and smoking cessation. (A.R. at 340-342). 

In June 2012, Dr. Velasquez noted Plaintiff’s diabetes type II was

uncontrolled. Plaintiff complained of abdominal pain and was referred

for tests. Plaintiff’s asthma was moderately controlled. Dr. Velasquez

noted that Plaintiff presented as obese and appeared to have a fatty

liver. (A.R. at 339). She also had intermittent lower left quadrant pain. 

Dr. Velasquez counseled Plaintiff on nutrition and exercise. (Id.). Dr.

Velasquez’s September and November appointment notes state Plaintiff’s

diabetes is uncontrolled and Plaintiff alleges moderate to severe knee

pain. (A.R. at 369, 398). 

2013: In February, Dr. Velasquez noted Plaintiff’s diabetes is still

uncontrolled. (A.R. at 397). She reported Plaintiff’s general appearance

- 8 - 14cv1256-AJB-MDD

Case 3:14-cv-01256-AJB-MDD Document 26 Filed 08/19/15 Page 8 of 16
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

as normal. (Id.). Plaintiff was advised on nutrition and exercise. In

September, Dr. Velasquez completed a Residual Functional Capacity

Questionnaire form received from Plaintiff’s counsel. (A.R. at 429-432). 

Dr. Velasquez cited to Plaintiff’s knee pain, elevated glucose levels and

emotional health problems. (Id.). Dr. Velasquez stated Plaintiff’s overall

prognosis was good but at that time her alleged physical impairments

were expected to last at least 12 months. (Id.). Dr. Velasquez opined

Plaintiff was limited to sitting not more than 2 hours at time, to standing

not more than five minutes; must walk every 90 minutes for five

minutes; and was limited to sitting not more than 6 hours with normal

breaks. (A.R. at 431). Dr. Velasquez also opined that Plaintiff has no

limitations with reaching, fingering, or handling, and would have 100

percent use of her hands, fingers and arms in an eight hour day. (A.R. at

432). Dr. Velasquez estimated that Plaintiff would miss at least two

days of work per month based upon her disabilities. (Id.). 

In forming his RFC, the ALJ also considered the opinion of a

Vocational Expert (VE), Gloria Lasoff, who testified at Plaintiff’s hearing. 

(A.R. at 67-71). 

III. Plaintiff’s Allegation of Error

Plaintiff contends the ALJ improperly rejected the opinion of Dr.

Velasquez, a treating physician. (ECF No. 15 at 4). Plaintiff argues her

treating physician’s opinions should be given controlling weight because

they are supported by substantial evidence and not inconsistent with

substantial evidence in the record. Id. (citing to Social Security Rule 96-

2p). Plaintiff claims “[t]he non-examining non-treating physician

opinions on which the ALJ gives great weight over the treating and

examining opinion does not provide any refuge for the ALJ’s deficient

analysis.” (ECF No. 24 at 4). 

- 9 - 14cv1256-AJB-MDD

Case 3:14-cv-01256-AJB-MDD Document 26 Filed 08/19/15 Page 9 of 16
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’s position is that substantial evidence in the record

supported the ALJ’s RFC finding. Defendant cites 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) to

support his contention that “[t]he Commissioner’s decision must be

affirmed on review if it was supported and based on proper legal

standards.” (ECF No. 21 at 12). According to Defendant, the ALJ

“provided specific and legitimate reasons for giving little weight to the

extreme limitations asserted by Plaintiff’s treating physician, Dr.

Velasquez, finding her opinion was inconsistent with the evidence in the

record and not well supported.” (Id. at 13). Defendant contends that the

ALJ properly evaluated Dr. Velasquez’s opinion and provided sufficient

justification for discounting the opinion. (ECF No. 21 at 19). Defendant

states that the ALJ properly recognized that the objective evidence on

record did not support Dr. Velasquez’s opinions. (Id.). 

The Ninth Circuit distinguishes among the opinions of three types

of physicians: (1) those who treat the claimant (“treating physicians”); (2)

those who examine but do not treat the claimant (“examining

physicians”); and (3) those who neither examine nor treat the claimant

(“nonexamining physicians”). Lester v. Chater, 81 F3d 821, 830 (9th Cir.

1996). As a general rule, more weight is given to the opinion of a treating

source than to that of a nontreating physician. Id. (citing Winans v.

Bowen, 853 F2d 643, 647 (9th Cir. 1987)). Likewise, the opinion of an

examining physician is typically entitled to greater weight than that of a

nonexamining physician. Pitzer v. Sullivan, 908 F.2d 502, 506 (9th Cir.

1990). 

The Ninth Circuit examined the weight to be given a treating

source opinion in Orn v. Astrue, 495 F.3d 625 (9th Cir. 2007) The Ninth

Circuit held: 

If a treating physician’s opinion is not given ‘controlling

weight’ because it is not ‘well-supported’ or because it is

- 10 - 14cv1256-AJB-MDD

Case 3:14-cv-01256-AJB-MDD Document 26 Filed 08/19/15 Page 10 of 16
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

inconsistent with other substantial evidence in the record, the Administration considers specific factors in determining the

weight it will be given. Those factors include the ‘length of the

treatment relationship and the frequency of examination’ by the treating physician; and the ‘nature and extent of the

treatment relationship’ between the patient and the treating physician. Generally, the opinions of examining physicians

are afforded more weight than those of non-examining

physicians, and the opinions of examining non-treating

physicians are afforded less weight than those of treating

physicians.

Id. at 631 (internal citations omitted). 

Where a non-treating, non-examining physician’s opinion

contradicts the treating physician’s opinion, the ALJ may only reject the

treating physician’s opinion “if the ALJ gives specific, legitimate reasons

for doing so that are based on substantial evidence in the record.”

Jamerson v. Chater, 112 F.3d. 1064, 1066 (9th Cir. 1997) (quoting

Andrew v. Shalala, 53 F3d 1035, 1041 (9th Cir. 1995)). “The ALJ may

meet this burden by setting out a detailed and thorough summary of the

facts and conflicting clinical evidence, stating his interpretation thereof,

and making findings.” Morgan v. Apfel, 169 F.3d 595, 600-601 (9th Cir.

1999) (citing Magallanes, supra, 881 F.2d at 750)). Reports of

consultative physicians requested by the Commissioner may serve as

substantial evidence. Andrews, supra, 53 F.3d at 1041. 

Here, the ALJ presented specific, legitimate reasons for not fully

crediting Dr. Velasquez’s opinion as a treating physician. In his analysis

the ALJ cited to Dr. Velasquez’s responses on the fill-in-the-blank

Physical Residual Functional Capacity Questionnaire she completed on

September 23, 2013. (A.R. at 26). The ALJ noted that Dr. Velasquez’s

prior conclusions were not consistent with her later responses to the

questionnaire. Specifically, the ALJ found that “[t]he extreme

limitations asserted by Dr. Velasquez are not consistent with the

[Plaintiff’s] conservative treatment record.” (A.R. at 26). “While [Plaintiff]

- 11 - 14cv1256-AJB-MDD

Case 3:14-cv-01256-AJB-MDD Document 26 Filed 08/19/15 Page 11 of 16
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

has a number of medical problems, the record shows that each of these

conditions is under fair to good control.” (A.R. at 26). “These conditions

are being managed with treatment...there is no evidence of complications

from her asthma...she is not currently under active treatment for

hepatitis C.... [and the] record reveals that overall [Plaintiff] is stable.” 

(A.R. at 26). The ALJ also noted that “physical examinations of

[Plaintiff’s] knees showed palpable crepitus, no effusion, full range of

motion, and no swelling.” (Id.) The ALJ supported these findings by

citing to the numerous health records including those from the San

Ysidro Health Center where Plaintiff was treated, including treatment by

Dr. Velasquez (A.R. at 338-365, 368-375, and 396-398). 

Second, the ALJ noted that Dr. Velasquez’s medical treatment

records contain “relatively meager findings” resulting from her

examinations of Plaintiff. (Id.). For example, Dr. Velasquez’s treatment

notes regularly describe Plaintiff’s overall/general appearance as normal

despite Plaintiff’s obesity, uncontrolled glucose levels, asthma complaints

and allegations of knee pain. (A.R. at 398, 350, 348, 346, 342, 339). 

Indeed, Plaintiff’s treatment for her weight and uncontrolled diabetes,

other than medication, was limited to regular referrals for health and

nutrition education. (A.R. at 340). Plaintiff’s asthma was controlled with

medication and regular advisements for smoking cessation. (A.R. at 339,

341, 351). The ALJ also noted that Plaintiff’s own testimony revealed

she has not received treatment for hepatitis C, she had not yet seen a

rheumatologist and she did not have a heart problem. (A.R. at 46, 67 ). 

In addition, Plaintiff testified that she was not taking any antidepression medication. (A.R. at 44-54). Based on this record, the ALJ

found that Dr. Velasquez’s completed questionnaire is not consistent with

her own treatment records. 

- 12 - 14cv1256-AJB-MDD

Case 3:14-cv-01256-AJB-MDD Document 26 Filed 08/19/15 Page 12 of 16
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

 Acknowledging the preference of treating physicians opinions over

other medical source opinions, the ALJ stated, “it is possible in a

particular case, depending on all the facts of that case, to give greater

weight to the opinion o f a non-examining source.” (A.R. at 27 citing 20

C.F.R. 404.1527 and 416.927). With this general preference in mind, the

ALJ set forth specific and legitimate reasons based on substantial

evidence in the record for giving less weight to Dr. Velasquez’s opinions

than to the opinions of medical consultants, Dr. G. Spellman, M.D. and

Dr. V. Michelotti, M.D. “The opinions of non-treating or non- examining

physicians may [] serve as substantial evidence when the opinions are

consistent with independent clinical findings, or other evidence in the

record.” Thomas v. Barnhart, 278 F3d. 947, 957 (9th Cir. 2002). 

“Additional factors relevant to evaluating any medical opinion, not

limited to the opinion of the treating physician, include . . . the degree of

understanding a physician has of the Administration’s ‘disability

programs and their evidentiary requirements’ and the degree of his or

her familiarity with other information in the case record.” Orn v. Astrue,

495 F.3d at 631. 

Here, the ALJ found that the RFC of light work corroborated by

Drs. Spellman and Michelotti “is supported by the evidence as a whole.”

(A.R. at 27). The ALJ opined that these opinions appear the most

consistent with the entire record. (Id.). Specifically, the ALJ stated: 

These physicians are highly trained and experts in social security disability evaluations in evaluating disability claims

and had the benefit of reviewing the longitudinal treatment record from multiple providers as well as the objective testing

and the claimant’s written subjective complaints prior to

formulating their opinions. (Id.). The ALJ cited to Dr. Spellman’s report that found Plaintiff had

normal movement in all joints, no joint swelling; no significant

neuropathic/vision complaints. Dr. Spellman also found Plaintiff’s

- 13 - 14cv1256-AJB-MDD

Case 3:14-cv-01256-AJB-MDD Document 26 Filed 08/19/15 Page 13 of 16
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

asthma was controlled, her hepatitis was stable, stomach problems and

fatty liver stable, and despite her bad circulation her gait was normal.

(A.R. at 366-67). Dr. Spellman recommended that Plaintiff’s RFC should

take into consideration her obesity, cardiac issues and moderately

controlled asthma. (Id.). The ALJ also cited to Dr. Michelotti’s opinion,

who performed a consultive assessment and found Plaintiff not disabled

and assigned a light RFC. (A.R. at 84-92). Specifically, Dr. Michelotti

found Plaintiff’s limitations are due to diabetes/morbid obesity and that

her moderately advanced osteoarthritis (OA) in her knees is “most likely

exacerbated by her weight.” (A.R. at 87). Dr. Michelotti also noted her

OA is being treated with tyelnol and motrin and diabetes is “poorly

controlled.” (Id.). According to Dr. Michelotti “[t]hese conditions can be

reasonably better medically controlled.” (Id.). Dr. Michelotti concurred

that a light RFC is appropriate. (Id.). 

In her Reply, Plaintiff contends that, contrary to the ALJ’s

assertions, the opinions of the nonexamining medical consultants are in

accordance “with the diagnosis of Dr. Velasquez’s clinical findings as to

what severe limitations [Plaintiff] suffers from.” (ECF No. 24 at 7). 

However, as the ALJ explained, Dr. Spellman and Dr. Michelotti had the

“benefit of reviewing the longitudinal treatment record from multiple

providers as well as the objective testing and the claimant’s written

subjective complaints prior to formulating their opinions,” and “their

opinions appear to be the most consistent with the totality of the

evidence.” (A.R. at 27). As noted herein, the ALJ specifically identified

the inconsistencies in Dr Velasquez’s treatments notes compared to her

opinion presented in the RFC questionnaire. As explained by the ALJ, it

was due to these inconsistencies that the opinions of Dr. Spellman and

Dr. Michelotti were given greater weight. (A.R. at 26-27, 429-432). 

- 14 - 14cv1256-AJB-MDD

Case 3:14-cv-01256-AJB-MDD Document 26 Filed 08/19/15 Page 14 of 16
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 well settled that “the ALJ is the final arbiter with respect to

resolving ambiguities in the medical evidence.” Tommasetti, 533 F.3d at

1041-42. The ALJ’s findings of fact and conclusions of law reflect his

consideration of the total medical evidence of record. The treatment

records cited by the ALJ of Plaintiff’s numerous physical examinations

and tests show her overall condition normal, unremarkable, stable,

including an appropriate mood and affect. (A.R. at 297, 305, 314, 316-

319, 324-325, 375, 393). The Court’s review revealed no ambiguity or

error indicating that the record was not sufficiently developed. 

Accordingly, the Court finds the ALJ’s findings of fact and conclusions of

law, including Plaintiff’s residual functional capacity, is supported by

substantial evidence and free of legal error and recommends Plaintiff’s

claim on this issue be DENIED and Defendant’s motion for summary

judgment be GRANTED.

IV. Conclusion

As the Court finds that the ALJ did not commit reversible error, the

Court RECOMMENDS that Plaintiff’s Motion be DENIED and that

Defendant’s Motion 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 provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that any written objection to this

REPORT must be filed with the Court and served on all parties no later

than September 2, 2015. The document should be captioned

“Objections to Report and Recommendations.” 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that any reply to the objections

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

September 9, 2015. The parties are advised that failure to file

- 15 - 14cv1256-AJB-MDD

Case 3:14-cv-01256-AJB-MDD Document 26 Filed 08/19/15 Page 15 of 16
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

objections within the specific 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: August 19, 2015

 

 Hon. Mitchell D. Dembin

 U.S. Magistrate Judge

- 16 - 14cv1256-AJB-MDD

Case 3:14-cv-01256-AJB-MDD Document 26 Filed 08/19/15 Page 16 of 16