Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-01108/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-01108-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 863
Nature of Suit: Social Security - DIWC/DIWW (405(g))
Cause of Action: 42:405 Review of HHS Decision (DIWC)

---

United States District Court

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ELAINE DUKES,

Plaintiff,

 v.

JO ANNE BARNHART,

Commissioner of Social Security,

 Defendant.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. 05-1108 SC

ORDER GRANTING 

DEFENDANT'S CROSSMOTION FOR SUMMARY

JUDGMENT 

I. INTRODUCTION

Elaine Dukes ("Plaintiff" or "Claimant") moves for summary

judgment on her action seeking review of the Social Security

Commissioner's final decision denying her claim for Social

Security disability benefits. Defendant Jo Anne Barnhart

("Defendant" or "Commissioner") has filed a cross-motion for

summary judgment. For the reasons explained below, this Court

hereby DENIES Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and GRANTS

Defendant's cross-motion for summary judgment. 

II. BACKGROUND

A. Claimant's Medical History 

Claimant, a female aged forty-four, injured her back in 1995. 

Administrative Record at 20 ("AR"). Various treatments enabled

Case 3:05-cv-01108-SC Document 22 Filed 01/24/06 Page 1 of 8
United States District Court

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

1

 Claimant has worked as a packager, a customer service clerk,

a proof machine operator, an in service specialist, a claims

processor, an administrative assistant, and a courier. AR at 23. 

2

her to return to work as an administrative assistant until October

30, 2001, when neck pain forced her to stop working.1 Id. 

Dr. Andrew Slucky, to whom Claimant had been referred by Dr.

Michael Park, one of Claimant's treating physicians, for neck and

radiating left arm pain, performed tests that revealed that

Claimant had an "active left C7 radiculopathy," and an "acute

onset left C6-C7 disc herniation." Id. In April 2002, Claimant

"underwent anterior cervical discectomy fusion at C6/C7." Id. 

Slucky's "postoperative diagnosis for the claimant was pain,

radicular, cervical and disc displacement, cervical [sic]." Id. 

Dr. Slucky "indicated that the claimant had responded well [sic]

she was not five months status post anterior cervical discectomy

and fusion, C6/C7; however, she still demonstrated focal left

shoulder pain." Id. An examination of Claimant's left shoulder

"showed partial intrasubstance tear at the distal supraspintus

tendon with a small subacromial effusion." Id. 

Another examining physician, Dr. Kirk Jensen, "diagnosed the

claimant with left shoulder supraspinatus tendon partial thickness

tearing, high grade and left shoulder impingement," for which he

recommended treatment by surgery. Id. at 21. Claimant "underwent

a left shoulder artroscopic acromioplasty ligament release and

left shoulder open rotator cuff repair" in March 2003. Id. Dr.

Jensen referred Claimant to a work hardening program for six

weeks. Id. at 22. 

Case 3:05-cv-01108-SC Document 22 Filed 01/24/06 Page 2 of 8
United States District Court

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

 B. Procedural History

Claimant, on January 29, 2002, filed an application for

disability insurance benefits under Title II of the Social

Security Act, alleging disability since October 31, 2001. 

Defendant's Memorandum in Support of Cross-Motion for Summary

Judgment at 2 "Def's Mem."). The Social Security Administration

("SSA") denied her application in the first instance and then

again on reconsideration. Id. The SSA, on March 9, 2004, at

Claimant's request, held a hearing before an Administrative Law

Judge ("ALJ"). Id. The ALJ found that Claimant was not disabled

and that she could "perform light work," including most of the

tasks required by her previous jobs. Id. The Appeals Council

declined to review the ALJ's decision, thus making the ALJ's

decision the final decision of the Commissioner for purposes of

judicial review. Id. Claimant appeals the Commissioner's

decision under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). 

III. LEGAL STANDARD

This Court may set aside the decision of the ALJ if it is

based on an incorrect application of the law or is not supported

by substantial evidence. See 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). "Substantial

evidence" is the relevant evidence which a reasonable person might

accept as adequate to support the ALJ's conclusion. Reddick v.

Chater, 157 F.3d 715, 720 (9th Cir. 1998). In order to be

"substantial," the evidence must amount to "more than a mere

scintilla," but need not rise to the level of a preponderance. 

Magallanes v. Bowen, 881 F.2d 747, 750 (9th Cir. 1989). Where the

evidence could reasonably support either affirming or reversing

Case 3:05-cv-01108-SC Document 22 Filed 01/24/06 Page 3 of 8
United States District Court

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

the ALJ's decision, this Court may not substitute its judgment for

the ALJ's decision. Reddick, 157 F.3d at 720-21. "The ALJ is

responsible for determining credibility and resolving conflicts in

medical testimony and ambiguities." Lewis v. Apfel, 236 F.3d 503,

509 (9th Cir. 2001).

IV. DISCUSSION

For purposes of the Social Security Act, a person is

disabled when he lacks the ability 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." 42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(1)(A). 

Claimant challenges the ALJ's decision that she is not

disabled for purpose of the Social Security Act on two grounds. 

First, Claimant contends that the ALJ ignored doctors' opinions

that Claimant was totally disabled for one year. Plaintiff's

Memorandum in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment at 6 ("Pl's

Mem."). Second, Claimant contends that the ALJ failed to consider

the impact of "all Ms. Duke's impairments in combination." Id. 

at 7. 

A. Whether the ALJ Ignored the Doctors' Opinions

The Court finds that the ALJ fully considered, rather than

ignored the doctors' opinions and medical reports. The ALJ stated

that "[n]one of the treating or examining physicians opined that

Claimant was unable to perform any work for a period lasting the

requisite 12-month duration." AR at 22. Furthermore, the ALJ

credited the testimony of the vocational expert, Dr. Gerald

Case 3:05-cv-01108-SC Document 22 Filed 01/24/06 Page 4 of 8
United States District Court

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

 The Court finds that the Administrative Record is bare of

any evidence to prove that Claimant was disabled from October 2002,

the date of Dr. Chokatos's report, and December 2003 when Dr.

Jensen determined that Claimant was "totally temporarily disabled

until she has finished her work hardening" for purposes of

California's Workers' Compensation program. AR at 334. 

5

Belchick, who "testified that the claimant was able to perform all

of the past relevant work except for packing, which required

"medium" exertional [effort]." AR at 23. By crediting Dr.

Belchick's testimony, the ALJ found that "there has been no

continuous 12-month period since October 31, 2001, during which

the claimant was unable to perform at least some of her past

relevant work." AR at 23. 

Having reviewed the papers in this case, the Court will not

disturb the ALJ's decision because it is supported by substantial

evidence that Claimant was not continuously disabled for one year

or more. For example, on October 24, 2002, less than a year after

Claimant stopped working, Dr. John Chokatos, a physician who

assessed Claimant's residual functional capacity and reviewed the

other evaluations in Claimant's file, determined that Claimant was

able to sit or stand for 6 hours of an 8 hour workday and

frequently lift or carry items weighing 10 pounds. AR at 204-205. 

 Dr. Chokatos also determined that at that time, Claimant

had no postural or manipulative limitations. AR at 206-207. 

Despite Claimant's assertions, the Court finds that the

Administrative Record provides no convincing evidence to

demonstrate that Claimant was disabled within the meaning of the

Social Security Act.2 AR at 334.

Case 3:05-cv-01108-SC Document 22 Filed 01/24/06 Page 5 of 8
United States District Court

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

In summary, the Court must defer to the ALJ's findings of

fact, provided that they are supported by substantial evidence. 

See 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) and Reddick, 157 F.3d at 720. The ALJ is

responsible for resolving conflicts in medical testimony and

ambiguities. See Lewis, 236 F.3d at 509. The Court finds that

the ALJ's decision was supported by information contained in the

Administrative Record, such as physicians' reports on Claimant's

medical condition. The Court finds no reason to disturb the ALJ's

decision, based as it is on substantial evidence. 

B. Whether the ALJ Considered the Fact of Claimant's 

Impairments in Combination

Claimant contends that the ALJ "completely ignored the impact

of Ms. Bowen's [sic] knee and low back symptom impairments...which

could potentially interfere with the walking and carrying required

to perform light work." Pl's Mem. at 7-8. 

First, the Court finds that Claimant has produced no

convincing evidence to support this contention. In fact,

Claimant's conditional language - "could potentially interfere" -

suggests that Claimant is unsure whether these impairments will

prevent her from working and may indicate that these impairments

are not currently disabling. Second, the ALJ determined,

crediting the reports of treating and examining physicians and the

testimony of the vocational expert, that Claimant is not disabled,

a determination supported by substantial evidence:

While the medical evidence of record documents the claimant's

impairments, it does not support the extent of the pain and

physical limitations that would preclude all work. No

objective clinical findings support the claimant's

allegations regarding the degree of her limitations.

Case 3:05-cv-01108-SC Document 22 Filed 01/24/06 Page 6 of 8
United States District Court

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

AR at 22. The ALJ's statement is supported by Dr. Chokatos, who

stated that Claimant was able to sit or stand for 6 hours of an 

8 hour workday and frequently lift or carry items weighing 10

pounds. AR at 204-205. As this evidence indicates, if Claimant

was judged able to perform such tasks, it means that her

impairments in combination or alone did not prevent her from

performing such tasks. Also, the reports indicate that physicians

took note of all of Claimant's abilities and limitations. For

example, the form language on Dr. Chokatos's report requires that

physicians "base [their] conclusions on all evidence in file

(clinical and laboratory findings; symptoms, observations, lay

evidence, reports of daily activities; etc.)." AR at 204. In his

exam, Dr. Chokatos examined Claimant's exertional, postural,

manipulative, visual, communicative, and environmental

limitations. AR at 205-209. Any limitations would have been part

of such a thorough exam and Claimant would have had the

opportunity to tell Dr. Chokatos about her daily activities and

limitations, information Dr. Chokatos would have to take into

account. 

Also, significantly, the ALJ determined that Claimant was:

not fully credible insofar as she alleges that she was

precluded from all work by her medically determinable

impairments...Even though the claimant alleges disabling

pain, the record reveals that the claimant failed to followup on recommendations made by the treating doctor, which

suggests that the symptoms may not have been as serious as

has been alleged in connection with this application and

appeal. 

Case 3:05-cv-01108-SC Document 22 Filed 01/24/06 Page 7 of 8
United States District Court

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 The ALJ also noted that Claimant has demonstrated a "lack of

motivation at the work hardening sessions" and is able to "perform

extensive daily activities which includes washes [sic] dishes,

folds [sic] clothes...drives [sic] car...and walks [sic] three

times a week." AR at 23. 

8

AR at 22.3 The ALJ is entrusted with this sort of credibility

determination and, consequently, his determination is expressly

outside the province of District Courts sitting in review of the

Social Security Commissioner's final decision. See Lewis, 236

F.3d at 509. 

Because the ALJ's determination was based on substantial

evidence, the Court will not disturb the ALJ's decision.

V. CONCLUSION

The Court finds that because the ALJ's decision was supported

by substantial evidence, the Court finds no reason to disturb the

final decision of the Social Security Administration.

Accordingly, Claimant's motion for summary judgment is DENIED

and Defendant's cross-motion for summary judgment is GRANTED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Date: January 24, 2006

____________________________

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Case 3:05-cv-01108-SC Document 22 Filed 01/24/06 Page 8 of 8