Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-akd-3_15-cv-00051/USCOURTS-akd-3_15-cv-00051-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 864
Nature of Suit: Social Security - SSID Title XVI
Cause of Action: 42:1383 Review of HHS Decision

---

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ALASKA

MICHAEL STRONG, ) 

) 

 Plaintiff, ) 

) 

vs. ) 

) 

CAROLYN W. COLVIN, acting Commissioner )

of the Social Security Administration, ) 

) No. 3:15-cv-0051-HRH

 Defendant. ) 

__________________________________________) 

O R D E R

This is an action forjudicial review of the denial of disability benefits underTitle XVI

of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 1381-1383f. Plaintiff has timely filed his opening

brief,1to which defendant has responded.2 Although plaintiff requested oral argument,3

ratherthan granting plaintiff’s request,the court gave the parties leave to file supplemental

briefing on the credibility issue,4 which plaintiff raised for the first time in his reply brief.

1Docket No. 14. 

2Docket No. 15. 

3Docket No. 20. 

4Order from Chambers at 1, Docket No. 21. 

-1-

Case 3:15-cv-00051-HRH Document 24 Filed 04/19/16 Page 1 of 26
The parties have timely filed their supplemental briefs.5

Procedural Background

Plaintiff is Michael Strong. Defendant is Carolyn W. Colvin, acting Commissioner

of Social Security.

On April 18, 2012, plaintiff filed an application for disability benefits underTitle XVI

of the Social Security Act. Plaintiff alleged that he became disabled on March 1, 2012. 

Plaintiff alleged that he isdisabled because of back, knee, and shoulder pain, carpal tunnel,

and hyperactive disorder. Plaintiff’s applicationwasdeniedinitially and upon reconsideration. After a hearing on July 17, 2013, an administrative law judge (ALJ) denied plaintiff’s

claims. On June 29, 2015, the Appeals Council denied plaintiff’s request forreview, thereby

making the ALJ’s September 5, 2013 decision the final decision of the Commissioner. On

March 26, 2015, plaintiff commenced this action. 

General Background

Plaintiff was born on January 24, 1959. He was 54 years old at the time of the

hearing. Plaintiff has a GED and attended community college for two years. Plaintiff is

single and at the time of the hearing was living with a friend. Plaintiff’s past work includes

work as a store clerk, a case aide, a semi-truck driver, and a short-order cook. 

5Docket Nos. 22 & 23. 

-2-

Case 3:15-cv-00051-HRH Document 24 Filed 04/19/16 Page 2 of 26
ALJ’s Decision

The ALJ applied the five-step sequential analysis used to determine whether an

individual is disabled.6 

At step one, the ALJ found that plaintiff had “not engaged in substantial gainful

activity since April 18, 2012, the application date....”7

At step two, the ALJ found that plaintiff had “the following severe impairments: 

degenerative disc disease of the lumbar spine; osteoarthritis ofthe bilateral shoulders status

6The five steps are as follows: 

Step one: Is the claimant presently engaged in substantial

gainful activity? If so, the claimant is not disabled. If not,

proceed to step two.

Step two: Is the claimant’s alleged impairment sufficiently

severe to limit ... h[is] ability to work? If so, proceed to step

three. If not, the claimant is not disabled.

Step three: Does the claimant’s impairment, or combination of

impairments, meet or equal an impairment listed in 20 C.F.R.,

pt. 404, subpt. P, app. 1? If so, the claimant is disabled. If not,

proceed to step four.

Step four: Does the claimant possess the residual functional

capacity (“RFC”) to perform ... h[is] past relevant work? If so,

the claimant is not disabled. If not, proceed to step five.

Step five: Does the claimant’s RFC, when considered with the

claimant’s age, education, and work experience, allow ... h[im]

to adjust to other work that exists in significant numbers in the

national economy? If so, the claimant is not disabled. If not,

the claimant is disabled.

Stout v. Comm’r, Soc. Sec. Admin., 454 F.3d 1050, 1052 (9th Cir. 2006). 

7Admin. Rec. at 12. 

-3-

Case 3:15-cv-00051-HRH Document 24 Filed 04/19/16 Page 3 of 26
post bilateral torn rotator cuff repair surgery; status post carpal tunnel release surgery on

the right upper extremity; osteoarthritis of the bilateral knee; attention deficient disorder;

[and] bipolar disorder....”8

At step three, the ALJ found that plaintiff did “not have an impairment or

combination of impairments that meets or medically equals the severity of one of the listed

impairments....”9 The ALJ considered Listing 1.02 (major dysfunction of a joint due to any

cause); Listing 1.04 (disorders of the spine); and Listing 12.04 (affective disorders). The ALJ

considered whether plaintiff met the paragraph B criteria and concluded that he did not

because plaintiff had mild restrictions in activities ofdailyliving; moderate difficulties with

social functioning; moderate difficulties with regard to concentration, persistence, or pace;

and no episodes of decompensation, which had been of extended duration.10 The ALJ also

considered whether plaintiff met the paragraph C criteria and concluded that plaintiff did

not.11

“Between steps three and four, the ALJ must, as an intermediate step, assess the

claimant’s RFC.” Bray v. Comm’r Soc. Sec. Admin., 554 F.3d 1219, 1222-23 (9th Cir. 2009). 

8Admin. Rec. at 12. 

9Admin. Rec. at 12. 

10Admin. Rec. at 14. 

11Admin. Rec. at 15. 

-4-

Case 3:15-cv-00051-HRH Document 24 Filed 04/19/16 Page 4 of 26
The ALJ found that plaintiff had the residual functional capacity 

to perform light work as defined in 20 CFR 416.967(a) except

that claimant is furtherlimited to: frequent stooping, kneeling,

crouching, crawling, and climbing of ladders, ropes or scaffolds; frequent bilateral overhead reaching; unlimited reaching

in all other directions; avoiding concentrated exposure to

extreme cold, excessive vibration and hazardous machinery;

one-to-two step tasks that are simple, routine and repetitive;

and work that involves only occasional interaction with the

general public and coworkers.[12]

The ALJ found plaintiff’s pain and symptom statements less than credible because

as to his physical limitations, “the medical evidence of record does not fully support the

claimant’s allegations of entirely debilitating symptoms.”13 The ALJnotedinparticularthat

plaintiff’s “condition improved with surgical intervention[.]”14Similarly, as to the

limitations flowing from his mental impairments, the ALJ found that “themedical evidence

of record does not fully support the claimant’s allegations of entirely debilitating

symptoms.”15In particular,theALJnotedthat claimant’s “condition appreciably improved

once he obtained treatment” for his mental impairments.16

12Admin. Rec. at 15. 

13Admin. Rec. at 16. 

14Admin. Rec. at 17. 

15Admin. Rec. at 18. 

16Admin. Rec. at 18. 

-5-

Case 3:15-cv-00051-HRH Document 24 Filed 04/19/16 Page 5 of 26
The ALJ gave great weight17

to Dr. Hallenburg’s opinion18and to Dr. Bay’s opinion.19

17Admin. Rec. at 19. 

18On May 7, 2010, Kris Hallenburg, Ph.D., evaluated plaintiff. Dr. Hallenburg

opined that plaintiff 

would be able to manage his funds and perform simple,

repetitive tasks. It is unclear whether he would be able to do

detailed or complex tasks. His temper and impulsivity have

interfered with his keeping jobs. He was able to work best

when he was able to keep his own schedule and was selfemployed. He seems to perceive slights from others easily,

and that has interfered with getting along with coworkers and

bosses. He is able to keep a regular schedule, as evidenced by

his activities of daily living now. He has put a considerable

amount of effort into avoiding people and conflicts, and

keeping his temper.

Admin. Rec. at 403. 

19On July 24, 2012, Rebecca Bay, M.D., did a mental status exam which showed that

plaintiff was

[n]eat, clean, weather and age appropriate. Attitude: Initially

guarded, then cooperative, friendly. Speech: Regularrate and

rhythm and volume. Normal prosody. Neither poverty of

content nor excessive detail. Behavior: No psychomotor

agitation or retardation noted. No abnormal movements or

gait concerns. Mood is reported okay “rated as 7-8/10 with 10

being the best.” Affect is full unrestricted and congruent.

Thought Process: Linear, logical and goal directed. Thought

content: No obvious delusions. Does not endorse SI, HI or

violent preoccupation. Perception, denies both AH and VH. 

Does not appear to be responding to internal stimuli. Cognition appears to be average. He was aware that proverbs are

not concrete. Able to do serials 7s perfectly and apples and

(continued...)

-6-

Case 3:15-cv-00051-HRH Document 24 Filed 04/19/16 Page 6 of 26
The ALJ also gave great weight20

to Dr. Sanford’s opinion.21 The ALJ gave some weight22

to Dr. Taubenfeld’s opinion.23 The ALJ gave great weight24

to Dr. Perry’s opinion.25 And,

19

(...continued)

oranges are both fruits. Insight and judgment are fair to good.

Admin. Rec. at 434. 

20Admin. Rec. at 20. 

21On August 1, 2012, Dave Sanford, Ph.D., opined that plaintiff was moderately

limited in his ability to understand/remember/carry out detailed instructions; to work in

coordination with or in proximity to others without being distracted by them; to interact

appropriately with the general public; to accept instructions and respond appropriately to

criticism from supervisors; to get along with coworkers or peers without distracting them

or exhibiting behavioral extremes; and to maintain socially appropriate behavior and

adhere to basic standards of neatness and cleanliness. Admin. Rec. at 106-107. 

22Admin. Rec. at 20. 

23On November 17, 2011, Wayne Taubenfeld, Ph.D., did a learning disorder,

cognitive, and psychological assessment of plaintiff. Dr. Taubenfeld opined that an

employer would need to make the following accommodations for plaintiff: 

1. Provide a list of tasks to be completed or a “To Do” list daily[.] 

2. Allow client to use word processor with spell check and grammar check[.]

3. Allow client extended training period if necessary.

4. Provide client with extra time to complete tasks[.]

5. Client might require additional breaks initially.

Admin. Rec. at 420. 

24Admin. Rec. at 19. 

25On June 1, 2010, DeWayde C. Perry, M.D. examined plaintiff. Dr. Perry opined

that plaintiff was not limited in terms of walking, standing, sitting, carrying, and lifting and

that he had no postural, environmental, or manipulative limitations. Admin. Rec. at 408.

-7-

Case 3:15-cv-00051-HRH Document 24 Filed 04/19/16 Page 7 of 26
the ALJ gave great weight26

to Dr. Vestal’s opinion.27

The ALJ considered the third-party lay opinions28

but gave them little weight

because they “essentially mirrorthe claimant’s allegations in this case,” which the ALJ had

found to not be fully credible.29

At step four, the ALJ found that plaintiff “has no past relevant work....”30

At step five, the ALJ found that “there are jobs that exist in significant numbers in

the national economy that the claimant can perform[,]” including assembler, basket filler,

26Admin. Rec. at 20. 

27On August 1, 2012, Robert E. Vestal, M.D., opined that plaintiff could occasionally

lift/carry 20 pounds; frequently lift/carry 10 pounds; stand/walk for 6 hours in an 8-hour

day; sit for 6 hours in an 8-hour day; could frequently climb ladders/ropes/scaffolds; could

frequently stoop, kneel, crouch, and crawl; could occasionally reach overhead bilaterally;

and should avoid concentrated exposure to extreme cold, vibration, and hazards. Admin.

Rec. at 104-106. 

28On March 30, 2012, Thomas Lynch, a friend of plaintiff’s, completed a third-party

function report. Admin. Rec. at 236-243. On July 10, 2012, Christy Sumner, a friend of

plaintiff’s, completed a third-party function report. Admin. Rec. at 271-278. 

29Admin. Rec. at 20. 

30Admin. Rec. at 20. The ALJ considered plaintiff’s past work but did not find that

any of it was “relevant” work. “Relevant work” is work that has been done “within the last

15 years, lasted long enough for you to learn to do it, and was substantial gainful

activity....” SSR 82-62. Plaintiff suggests in a footnote that this may have been an error, but

to the extent that it was, it would be harmless error as the ALJ proceeded to step five of the

sequential analysis. See Tommasetti v. Astrue, 533 F.3d 1035, 1042 (9th Cir. 2008)

(“Although the ALJ’s step four determination constitutes error, it is harmless error in light

of the ALJ’s alternative finding at step five”). 

-8-

Case 3:15-cv-00051-HRH Document 24 Filed 04/19/16 Page 8 of 26
and cleaner.

31

 This finding was based on the testimony of the vocational expert.32

Thus, the ALJ concluded that plaintiff “has not been under a disability, as defined

in the Social Security Act, since April 18, 2012, the date the application was filed....”33

Standard of Review

Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), the court has the “powerto enter, upon the pleadings

and transcript of the record, a judgment affirming, modifying, orreversing the decision of

the Commissioner....” The court “properly affirms the Commissioner’s decision denying

benefits if it is supported by substantial evidence and based on the application of correct

legal standards.” Sandgathe v. Chater, 108 F.3d 978, 980 (9th Cir. 1997). “Substantial

evidence is ‘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.’” Id.

(quoting Andrews v. Shalala, 53 F.3d 1035, 1039 (9th Cir. 1995)). “‘To determine whether

substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s decision, [the court] review[s] the administrative

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

the ALJ’s conclusion.’” Id. (quoting Andrews, 53 F.3d at 1039). If the evidence is

susceptible to more than one reasonable interpretation, the court must uphold the

31Admin. Rec. at 21-22. 

32William Weiss testified as the vocational expert. Admin. Rec. at 65-71. 

33Admin. Rec. at 22. 

-9-

Case 3:15-cv-00051-HRH Document 24 Filed 04/19/16 Page 9 of 26
Commissioner’s decision. Id. But, the Commissioner’s decision cannot be affirmed

“‘simply by isolating a specific quantum of supporting evidence.’” Holohan v. Massanari,

246 F.3d 1195, 1201 (9th Cir. 2001) (quoting Tackett v. Apfel, 180 F.3d 1094, 1098 (9th Cir.

1999)).

Discussion

Plaintiff first argues that the ALJ erred because she failed to consider the combined

impact of his mental and physical limitations at all stages of the five-step sequential

analysis. The ALJ found that plaintiff’s severe impairments were lumbar disc disease, post

status bilateral shoulder surgery, post status carpal tunnel, ADHD, and bipolar disorder. 

Pursuant to 20 C.F.R. § 416.923, the ALJ must, if she “find[s] a medically severe combination of impairments,” consider “the combined impact of those impairments ... throughout

the disability determination process.” As explained in SSR 86-8, this means that the ALJ 

[w]hen assessing the severity of multiple impairments, ... must

evaluate the combined impact of those impairments on an

individual’s ability to function, rather than assess separately

the contribution of each impairment to the restriction of

function as if each impairment existed alone. When multiple

impairments, considered in combination, would have more

than a minimal effect on the ability to perform basic work

activities, adjudication must continue throughout the sequential evaluation process. 

Plaintiff argues that the ALJ failed to do this, however, because she evaluated the

paragraph B criteria of Listing 12.04 without reference to the combined effect of plaintiff’s

-10-

Case 3:15-cv-00051-HRH Document 24 Filed 04/19/16 Page 10 of 26
physical and mental impairments. Rather, plaintiff contends that the ALJ analyzed the

paragraph B criteria as if plaintiff had no physical impairments. 

In order to meet or equal Listing 12.04, the listing for affective disorders, a claimant

must satisfy the criteria of both paragraph A and paragraph B. Paragraph A requires 

[m]edically documented persistence, either continuous or

intermittent, of one of the following:

1. Depressive syndrome characterized by at least four of the

following:

a. Anhedonia or pervasive loss of interest in almost all activities; or

b. Appetite disturbance with change in weight; or

c. Sleep disturbance; or

d. Psychomotor agitation or retardation; or

e. Decreased energy; or

f. Feelings of guilt or worthlessness; or

g. Difficulty concentrating or thinking; or

h. Thoughts of suicide; or

i. Hallucinations, delusions, or paranoid thinking; or

2. Manic syndrome characterized by at least three of the

following:

a. Hyperactivity; or

-11-

Case 3:15-cv-00051-HRH Document 24 Filed 04/19/16 Page 11 of 26
b. Pressure of speech; or

c. Flight of ideas; or

d. Inflated self-esteem; or

e. Decreased need for sleep; or

f. Easy distractibility; or

g. Involvement in activities that have a high probability of

painful consequences which are not recognized; or

h. Hallucinations, delusions or paranoid thinking; or

3. Bipolar syndrome with a history of episodic periods manifested by the full symptomatic picture of both manic and

depressive syndromes (and currently characterized by either

or both syndromes).

20 C.F.R. Pt. 404, Subpt. P, App. 1 § 12.04. Paragraph B requires that the paragraph A

diagnostic findings must have resulted in at least two of the following: 

1. Marked restriction of activities of daily living; or

2. Marked difficulties in maintaining social functioning; or

3. Marked difficulties in maintaining concentration, persistence, or pace; or

4. Repeated episodes of decompensation, each of extended

duration[.]

Id.

The ALJ considered whetherplaintiff met the paragraph B criteria. As forrestriction

-12-

Case 3:15-cv-00051-HRH Document 24 Filed 04/19/16 Page 12 of 26
of activities of daily living, the ALJ found that plaintiff 

did not allege a wealth of limitations in the area of activities of

daily living, and of the issues that the claimant did allege,

most, if not all, of those alleged limitations stem from the

claimant’s physical, and not mental, impairments.... In

addition, the medical evidence and the claimant’s reported

abilities do not indicate that the claimant has more than a mild

restriction in the area of activities of daily living due to his

mental impairments.[34]

As for difficulties in maintaining social functioning, the ALJ found that plaintiff had “no

more than moderate difficulties in the area of social functioning due to his mental

impairments.”35 And, as for difficulties in maintaining concentration, persistence or pace,

the ALJ explained that “based on th[e] combined evidence, I find that the claimant has no

more than moderate difficulties in this functional area due to his mental impairments.”36

Plaintiff acknowledges that the Listing uses the phrase “resulting in” when tying

paragraph A findings to the paragraph B criteria. Plaintiff also acknowledges that the 

preface to the Listing provides that “[t]he functional limitations in paragraph[] B ... must

be the result of the mental disorder described in the diagnostic description, that is

manifested by the medical findings in paragraph A.” But, plaintiff argues that what this

means is that when the ALJ is considering whether a claimant’s condition is the equivalent

34Admin. Rec. at 14. 

35Admin. Rec. at 14. 

36Admin. Rec. at 14. 

-13-

Case 3:15-cv-00051-HRH Document 24 Filed 04/19/16 Page 13 of 26
of the Listing, as opposed to meeting the Listing,37

the ALJ can consider the combined

effects of mental and physical impairments, and not just the claimant’s mental impairments.

Plaintiff’s argument is directly contrary to 20 C.F.R. Pt. 404, Subpt. P, App. 1, §

12.00(A), which provides that “[t]he functional limitations in paragraphs B and C must be

the result of the mental disorder described in the diagnostic description, that is manifested

by the medical findings in paragraph A.” In other words, the regulation states that the

ALJ’s consideration of the paragraph B criteria is limited to the consideration of a

claimant’s mental impairments. The regulation makes no distinction between whetherthe

ALJ is considering whether a listing is met or equaled, and the court cannot read such a

distinction into the regulation. Thus, it was not errorforthe ALJ to not consider plaintiff’s

physical impairments when she was determining whether plaintiff met the paragraph B

criteria. 

Plaintiff next argues that the ALJ erred in finding his pain and symptom statements

less than credible.

38

“An ALJ engages in a two-step analysis to determine whether a

claimant’s testimony regarding subjective pain or symptoms is credible.” Garrison v.

37To meet a Listing, a claimant must establish that he meets each characteristic of the

Listing. Tacket, 180 F.3d at 1099. To equal a Listing, a claimant must show symptoms,

signs, and laboratory findings that are “at least equal in severity and duration” to the

characteristics of the Listing. Id.

38The court declines to consider this argument waived. 

-14-

Case 3:15-cv-00051-HRH Document 24 Filed 04/19/16 Page 14 of 26
Colvin, 759 F.3d 995, 1014 (9th Cir. 2014). “‘First, the ALJ must determine whether the

claimant has presented objective medical evidence of an underlying impairment which

could reasonably be expected to produce the pain or other symptoms alleged.’“ Id.

(quoting Lingenfelter v. Astrue, 504 F.3d 1028, 1035-36 (9th Cir. 2007)). “In this analysis,

the claimant is not required to show ‘that h[is] impairment could reasonably be expected

to cause the severity of the symptom []he has alleged; []he need only show that it could

reasonably have caused some degree of the symptom.’” Id. (quoting Smolen v. Chater, 80

F.3d 1273, 1282 (9th Cir. 1996)). “Nor must a claimant produce ‘objective medical evidence

of the pain or fatigue itself, or the severity thereof.’” Id. (quoting Smolen, 80 F.3d at 1281). 

“If the claimant satisfies the first step of this analysis, and there is no evidence of

malingering, ‘the ALJ can reject the claimant's testimony about the severity of her

symptoms only by offering specific, clear and convincing reasons for doing so.’” Id. at

1014-15 (quoting Smolen, 80 F.3d at 1281). “This is not an easy requirement to meet: ‘The

clear and convincing standard is the most demanding required in Social Security cases.’” 

Id. at 1015 (quoting Moore v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 278 F.3d 920, 924 (9th Cir. 2002)). 

“Inevaluating the claimant’s testimony, the ALJ may use ‘ordinary techniques of credibility

evaluation.’” Molina v. Astrue, 674 F.3d 1104, 1112 (9th Cir. 2012) (quoting Turner v.

Comm’r of Social Sec., 613 F.3d 1217, 1224 n.3 (9th Cir. 2010)). “For instance, the ALJ may

consider inconsistencies either in the claimant’s testimony or between the testimony and

-15-

Case 3:15-cv-00051-HRH Document 24 Filed 04/19/16 Page 15 of 26
the claimant’s conduct, unexplained or inadequately explained failure to seek treatment

or to follow a prescribed course of treatment, and whether the claimant engages in daily

activities inconsistent with the alleged symptoms[.]” Id. (internal citations omitted). 

It was the court’s initial perception that the ALJ had given only one reason for

finding plaintiff’s pain and symptom statements less than credible, namely that plaintiff’s

statements were not supported by the objective medical evidence.39 And while this was a

clear and convincing reason, “a finding that the claimant lacks credibility cannot be

premised wholly on a lack of medical support for the severity of his pain” and symptoms. 

Light v. Social Sec. Admin., 119 F.3d 789, 792 (9th Cir. 1997). However, as defendant has

pointed out, the ALJ also found plaintiff’s pain and symptom statements less than credible

because they were not supported by the opinion evidence, plaintiff’s treatment was

conservative, and plaintiff reported medical improvement. 

As for the opinion evidence, the ALJ noted, in connection with plaintiff’s claims

about his shoulder pain, that Dr. Perry opined that plaintiff had no manipulative

limitations and no limitations as to lifting or carrying objects.40 The ALJ also noted, in

connection with plaintiff’s claims of low back and knee pain, that Dr. Perry opined that

39Order from Chambers at 1, Docket No. 21. 

40Admin. Rec. at 408. 

-16-

Case 3:15-cv-00051-HRH Document 24 Filed 04/19/16 Page 16 of 26
plaintiff had no limitations as to standing/walking and lifting/carrying objects.41 And, the

ALJ noted that Dr. Hallenburg opined that despite plaintiff’s mental impairments, plaintiff

was capable of performing simple and repetitive tasks.42 The lack of supporting opinion

evidence was a clear and convincing reason to find plaintiff’s pain and symptom

statements less than credible. See Batson v. Comm’r of the Social Sec. Admin., 359 F.3d

1190, 1196-97 (9th Cir. 2004) (considering the lack of opinions supporting Batson’s claimed

limitations when assessing credibility).

As for conservative treatment, the ALJ noted that plaintiff “testified that he only

took Ibuprofen ‘once in a while’ to treat his shoulder pain....”43 And, the ALJ noted that

based on a January 2012 MRI of plaintiff’s back which showed “only ‘mild’ degenerative

changes,” Dr. Garner,plaintiff’s primary care physician, “recommended only conservative

treatment modalities that included core strengthening exercises.”44“[E]vidence of

‘conservative treatment’ is sufficient to discount a claimant’s testimony regarding severity

of an impairment.” Parra v. Astrue, 481 F.3d 742, 751 (9th Cir. 2007) (quoting Johnson v.

Shalala, 60 F.3d 1428, 1434 (9th Cir. 1995)). The fact that plaintiff received conservative

41Admin. Rec. at 17. 

42Admin. Rec. at 18. 

43Admin. Rec. at 17. 

44Admin. Rec. at 17. 

-17-

Case 3:15-cv-00051-HRH Document 24 Filed 04/19/16 Page 17 of 26
treatment was a clear and convincing reason to find his pain statements less than credible. 

And as for plaintiff’s self-reports, the ALJ noted that plaintiff’s own reports showed

that his symptoms flowing from his mental impairments improved with medication and

treatment,45 which contradicted his “allegations of entirely debilitating mental health

symptoms.”46 An ALJ may discount credibility on the basis of medical improvement.

Morgan v. Comm’r of Social Sec. Admin., 169 F.3d 595, 599 (9th Cir. 1999). And,

“contradictions between claimant’s testimony and the relevant medical evidence” can be

a clear and convincing reason for the ALJ to reject a plaintiff’s subjective symptom

testimony. Johnson, 60 F.3d at 1434. Thus, plaintiff’s self-reports of medical improvement

were a clear and convincing reason to find plaintiff’s symptom statements less than

credible.

Although the ALJ primarily relied on the lack of objective medical evidence

supporting plaintiff’s statements, she gave three other clear and convincing reasons for

finding plaintiff’s pain and symptom statements less than credible. Thus, the ALJ did not

err in finding plaintiff’s pain and symptom statements less than credible. 

Finally, plaintiff argues that the ALJ erred because the hypothetical the ALJ gave the

vocational expert did not adequately set out his impairments as to reaching, crawling,

45Admin. Rec. at 432, 455, 467, 556, 574, 586 & 641. 

46Admin. Rec. at 18. 

-18-

Case 3:15-cv-00051-HRH Document 24 Filed 04/19/16 Page 18 of 26
stooping, memory, and getting along with others. “The hypothetical an ALJ poses to a

vocational expert, which derives from the RFC, ‘must set out all the limitations and

restrictions of the particular claimant.’” Valentine v. Comm’r Social Sec. Admin., 574 F.3d

685, 690 (9th Cir. 2009) (quoting Embrey v. Bowen, 849 F.2d 418, 422 (9th Cir. 1988)). “[A]n

RFC that fails to take into account a claimant’s limitations is defective.” Id. “It is, however,

proper for an ALJ to limit a hypothetical to those impairments that are supported by

substantial evidence in the record.” Osenbrock v. Apfel, 240 F.3d 1157, 1165 (9th Cir. 2001). 

stooping, crawling, and reaching

Plaintiff first contends that the ALJ erred in finding that he could frequently stoop,

crawl, and reach. Plaintiff argues that the medical evidence of record suggests that he is

much more limited in these areas. Plaintiff points out that during the past seven years he

has had surgery on both shoulders and carpal tunnel surgery and that he testified that he

is limited in terms of flexibility and suffers significant pain.47 Plaintiff also points out that

his most recent physical examination by Dr. Hess noted pain and crepitus when he raised

and extended both arms.48 Plaintiff also argues that the ALJ’s finding that he could

frequently stoop, crawl, and reach was at odds with his testimony about the effect his

limitations, particularly the medications that he takes, impose on his daily activities.

47Admin. Rec. at 46-50. 

48Admin. Rec. at 653-654. 

-19-

Case 3:15-cv-00051-HRH Document 24 Filed 04/19/16 Page 19 of 26
The ALJ’s finding that plaintiff could frequently stoop, crawl, and reach was

supported by substantial evidence. The ALJ expressly considered Dr. Hess’ evaluation,

noting that 

in June 2013, Phillip Hess, M.D., examined the claimant and

noted that the while the claimant did display some crepitus

with abduction and full extension of the bilateral shoulders,the

claimant nevertheless had normal range of motion and no

signs of impingement. Furthermore, Dr. Hess noted that the

claimant displayed no evidence ofnumbness, tingling, burning

or weakness in the bilateral upper extremities.[49]

Dr. Hess’s examination, along with Dr. Perry’s and Dr. Vestal’s opinions, constitute

substantial evidence supporting the ALJ’s finding as to plaintiff’s ability to stoop, crawl,

and reach. As for the effect his medication had on his ability to function, plaintiff testified

that his medications gave him a dry mouth and disturbed his sleep patterns.

50 But this

testimony does not suggest that the side effects plaintiff was experiencing were significantly interfering with his ability to carry out his daily activities. And as for plaintiff’s

statements about his significant pain, the ALJ properly found those statements less than

credible.

memory

The ALJ found that plaintiff was limited to simple, routine, and repetitive work that

49Admin. Rec. at 17 (internal citations omitted). 

50Admin. Rec. at 45-46. 

-20-

Case 3:15-cv-00051-HRH Document 24 Filed 04/19/16 Page 20 of 26
involved only one-to-two step tasks. Plaintiff argues that this finding did not adequately

capture his limitations due to memory. Plaintiff argues that his 2010 consultative

examination with Dr. Hallenburg showed that he had more problems with short-term

memory than the ALJ’s hypothetical included. At that examination, plaintiff was only able

to remember one word out of four after five minutes, although he succeeded at serial 7s

and remembered his home address.51 Plaintiff also points out that at his 2011 psychological

exam by Dr. Taubenfeld, he scored “extremely ... poor ... on tests of memory” and that Dr.

Taubenfeld noted that persons such as plaintiff would “need to be supervised closely and

persistently with frequent reminders about limits, expectations, and job requirements.”52

Plaintiff also points out that he reported that he missed medical appointments because he

forgot to call in

53

and that he needed multiple reminders in order to take care of personal

needs and grooming.54 

The ALJ’s finding that plaintiff was limited to simple, routine, and repetitive work

that involved only one-to-two step tasks was supported by substantial evidence. The ALJ

expressly considered Dr. Hallenburg’s examination, stating that 

51Admin. Rec. at 401-402.

52Admin. Rec. at 523. 

53Admin. Rec. at 39. 

54Admin. Rec. at 295. 

-21-

Case 3:15-cv-00051-HRH Document 24 Filed 04/19/16 Page 21 of 26
[w]hile I recognize that on examination the claimant was only

able to recall one out of four words after a five-minute delay,

the claimant was nevertheless able to spell the word “house”

both forwards and backwards, and he was also able to recall

his home address from two years prior.[

55

]

The ALJ also noted that “based upon her psychological examination and the objective

medical findings ascertained therefrom, Dr. Hallenburg opined that, despite his mental

impairments, the claimant was able to perform simple, repetitive tasks.56 Thus, although

Dr. Hallenburg noted that some memory problems showed up in her mental status exam

of plaintiff, she still opined that plaintiff retained the ability to perform simple and

repetitive tasks. As such, Dr. Hallenburg’s examination and opinion provide substantial

evidence in support of the ALJ’s RFC. As for Dr. Taubenfeld’s examination and opinion,

plaintiff is correct that Dr. Taubenfeld found that plaintiff had memory issues, but as the

ALJ noted, plaintiff’s “ability to concentrate, organize, remember and attend to tasks

substantially improved with medication and treatment, all of which occurred after Dr.

Taubenfeld rendered his opinions.”57 As for plaintiff’s subjective testimony about his

memory problems, as discussed above, the ALJ properly found that plaintiff’s testimony

was not entirely credible. 

55Admin. Rec. at 18. 

56Admin. Rec. at 403. 

57Admin. Rec. at 20. 

-22-

Case 3:15-cv-00051-HRH Document 24 Filed 04/19/16 Page 22 of 26
Plaintiff also argues that the ALJ should have given more attention to his job as a

“detox technical trainer.” Plaintiff worked the graveyard shift as the intake person and his

job was to enter data and complete reports. Plaintiff worked at the detox center for two

months.58 He contends that he lost this job because he failed to get his work done. Because

this was at a time when he was receiving mental health treatment, plaintiff argues that this

shows that he was not able to do simple, routine, and repetitive tasks.

The ALJ did not err in failing to give this job more attention as there is no evidence

that plaintiff actually lost this job because he failed to get his work done. Although plaintiff

testified that he was fired from this job, he did not testify that it was because he was not

getting his work done. Rather, plaintiff testified that he was told that “I wasn’t a good fit. 

That there had been some issues with following protocols and not following directions.”59

anger

The ALJ found that plaintiff was limited to work that involved only occasional

interaction with the general public and coworkers.60 Plaintiff argues that the ALJ should

have found him more limited in his ability to get along with others and that the ALJ failed

to adequately consider that his anger issues make it difficult for him in the workplace. 

58Admin. Rec. at 64. 

59Admin. Rec. at 64. 

60Admin. Rec. at 15. 

-23-

Case 3:15-cv-00051-HRH Document 24 Filed 04/19/16 Page 23 of 26
Plaintiff contends that this is most clearly set out in Dr. Hallenburg’s exam. Plaintiff told

Dr. Hallenburg that “a week ago ... he became agitated at a woman in the Alcoholics

Anonymous office telling him what to do, and he had done her job before and he did not

think [that] was appropriate. He cite[d] a number of jobs he has lost because of having

impulsive anger.”61 Plaintiff also points out that Dr. Hallenburg noted that “[i]t is unclear

where the symptoms of temper fall, but it could be attributed partly to impulsivity and

possibly to some type of mood disorder that includes depression as well. He has had

lifelong learning problems that have interfered withjobs and relationships.”62 Plaintiff also

contends that his counseling records suggest that his interpersonal problems with anger

continued into 2013.63

The primary evidence of plaintiff’s anger causing an inability to get along with

others is plaintiff’s subjective statements, statements which the ALJ properly found not

entirely credible. As for plaintiff’s reliance on his counseling records, the “interpersonal

problems” to which plaintiff refers were with his partner and not with coworkers or the

general public. Moreover, plaintiff reported to his counselorthat he was making progress

61Admin. Rec. at 398. 

62Admin. Rec. at 403. 

63Admin. Rec. at 600, 601 & 605. 

-24-

Case 3:15-cv-00051-HRH Document 24 Filed 04/19/16 Page 24 of 26
in terms of managing his anger and irritability.64 The ALJ adequately took plaintiff’s anger

issues into account in her RFC. 

failure to inquire

Plaintiff makes a general argument that the ALJ failed to adequately inquire about

his memory problems and angerissues. Plaintiff suggests that the ALJ failed to adequately

develop the record to determine why he had such a systematic problem in getting and

holding jobs during the past few years. Plaintiff contends that the ALJ should have asked

questions about why he had lost so many jobs over the years, particularly since he was

unrepresented at the hearing. Plaintiff insists that the ALJ simply did nothing to determine

what was keeping him from working. 

“The ALJ in a social security case has an independent ‘duty to fully and fairly

develop the record andto assure that the claimant’s interests are considered.’” Tonapetyan

v. Halter, 242 F.3d 1144, 1150 (9th Cir. 2001) (quoting Smolen, 80 F.3d at 1288). 

“Ambiguous evidence, or the ALJ’s own finding that the record is inadequate to allow for

proper evaluation of the evidence, triggers the ALJ’s duty to ‘conduct an appropriate

inquiry.’” Id. (quoting Smolen, 80 F.3d at 1288). 

The ALJ did not fail to develop the record here. There was not any ambiguous

evidence nor did the ALJ make a finding that the evidence of record inadequate. Plaintiff

64Admin. Rec. at 606. 

-25-

Case 3:15-cv-00051-HRH Document 24 Filed 04/19/16 Page 25 of 26
simply believes that the ALJ should have asked him more questions at the hearing about

why he could not keep a job, but the ALJ had no such obligation because there was

sufficient evidence in the record as to why plaintiff had lost his various jobs.65

Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, the decision of the Commissioner is affirmed. The clerk of

court shall enter judgment dismissing plaintiff’s complaint with prejudice. 

DATED at Anchorage, Alaska, this 19th day of April, 2016. 

/s/ H. Russel Holland 

United States District Judge

65Admin. Rec. at 60-61, 64, 292, 398 & 416. 

-26-

Case 3:15-cv-00051-HRH Document 24 Filed 04/19/16 Page 26 of 26