Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00506/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00506-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 864
Nature of Suit: Social Security - SSID Title XVI
Cause of Action: 42:205 Denial Social Security Benefits

---

1

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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff Anthony Raul Guerrero (“Plaintiff”) seeks judicial review of a final decision of the 

Commissioner of Social Security (“Commissioner”) denying his application for supplemental security 

income (“SSI”) pursuant to Title XVI of the Social Security Act.1The matter is currently before the 

Court on the parties’ briefs, which were submitted, without oral argument, to Magistrate Judge 

Barbara A. McAuliffe.

2

 After a careful and complete review of the record, the court finds that 

 

1 Carolyn W. Colvin became the Acting Commissioner of Social Security on February 14, 2013. Pursuant to Rule 

25(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Carolyn W. Colvin should be substituted for Michael J. Astrue as the 

defendant in this suit.

2

The parties consented to the jurisdiction of the United States Magistrate Judge. (Docs. 8, 9). For that reason, the 

action was reassigned to the Honorable Barbara A. McAuliffe for all purposes. See 28 U.S.C. ' 636(c); Fed. R. Civ. P. 73; 

see also L.R. 301, 305.

ANTHONY RAUL GUERRERO,

 Plaintiff,

v.

CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting 

Commissioner of Social Security,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:14-cv-00506-BAM

ORDER REGARDING PLAINTIFF’S

SOCIAL SECURITY COMPLAINT

Case 1:14-cv-00506-BAM Document 15 Filed 06/10/15 Page 1 of 10
2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Plaintiff is not disabled within the meaning of the Act. Accordingly, the Court affirms the 

Commissioner’s determination to deny benefits. 

BACKGROUND

A. Procedural Posture

On December 10, 2009, Plaintiff filed an application for SSI benefits alleging disability 

beginning June 1, 2004. AR 260. Plaintiff’s claim was denied both initially on March 24, 2010, and 

upon reconsideration on December 10, 2010. AR 88, 95. Plaintiff requested and received a hearing 

before the Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”). AR 10. On September 19, 2012, the ALJ issued an 

order denying benefits. AR 13. The Appeals Council denied Plaintiff’s request for review of the ALJ’s

decision on December 20, 2013. AR 4. This appeal followed.

B. Hearing Testimony

On August 16, 2012, ALJ Major Williams, Jr., presided over a hearing by video teleconference 

from Oakland, California. AR 16. Plaintiff appeared and testified from Avenal State Prison where he 

was incarcerated at the time of the hearing. AR 54. Plaintiff was represented by attorney Jonathan O. 

Peña in Fresno, California. AR 16. Ronald Morrell, a vocational expert, also appeared and testified

from Fresno. AR 16.

Plaintiff was born on January 1, 1976 and was 36 years old at the time of the hearing. AR 54, 

56. Plaintiff completed the eighth grade, dropped out during the ninth, and never went back for a 

GED. AR 57. He was never in special education classes, nor did he acquire vocational training or 

college credits. AR 57. 

Plaintiff’s last jobs held were in 2004 with Dollar Tree, where Plaintiff worked “for about a 

week,” and Beef Packers where Plaintiff worked washing trucks for about two weeks. AR 57, 283.

Over the preceding fifteen years, Plaintiff testified that he has never worked longer than one month. 

AR 59.

When asked about his physical impairments, Plaintiff testified that he developed diabetes when 

he was fourteen years old and has been on insulin since that time. AR 72. He gets tired and weak from 

working because of his diabetes, and he does not think he can hold a full-time job. AR 61–62. Plaintiff 

would require two three-hour rest breaks in a typical work day because of fatigue. AR 68–69. Plaintiff 

Case 1:14-cv-00506-BAM Document 15 Filed 06/10/15 Page 2 of 10
3

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

also underwent surgery in one eye for cataracts that developed from his diabetes. AR 77. He

experiences nausea and vomiting three to four times a month. AR 78. Oftentimes, Plaintiff wakes up 

with swollen, stiff, and brittle hands in the morning. AR 62. It takes about an hour for the swelling to 

go down. AR 63. Plaintiff’s hands hurt when he turns a door knob. AR 64. He does not think he can 

lift more than a gallon of milk. AR 64. He also cannot lift above his shoulder on his left side. AR 68. 

Plaintiff does not have problems brushing his teeth or combing his hair. AR 65. 

When asked about his current treatment, Plaintiff testified that he takes Ibuprofen, which 

reduces the pain in his hands from an eight to a three on a ten-point scale. AR 66–67. Plaintiff also

takes Ibuprofen every time his shoulders are in pain. AR 67. In prison, Plaintiff is given insulin and 

sugar tablets for his diabetes, but he has no special dietary restrictions and eats the same meal plan as 

the rest of the prisoners. AR 69–71. While Plaintiff testified that he does not do as much as other 

people because of his diabetes, he is not formally excused from work or other activities. AR 70–71.

Plaintiff is able to sit for long periods of time, but he would need to take a break after 

approximately twenty minutes if he was required to stand or walk. AR 73–75. Occasionally, he has 

trouble with concentration but is able to sit through and stay engaged in his three-hour substance abuse 

class. AR 75, 76.

Ronald Morrell, the vocational expert (“VE”), summarized Plaintiff’s work history. AR 80. VE 

Morrell characterized Plaintiff’s truck-washing job at Beef Packers as a Cleaner II, with an appropriate

Dictionary of Occupational Titles (“DOT”) code 929.687-014. AR 80. This job is classified as 

medium but was performed at the light exertion level with maximum lift and carry not exceeding ten 

pounds. AR 80. Plaintiff’s work as a cashier at Dollar Tree is classified as light and unskilled, but his 

stocking work is classified as medium and unskilled. AR 80.

In a first hypothetical question, the ALJ asked the VE whether a hypothetical individual with 

Plaintiff’s vocational profile would be capable of performing his past work if he were limited to light 

work, with difficulty gripping items, and occasionally lifting and carrying twenty pounds. AR 81–82. 

The VE determined that the individual would be capable of performing Plaintiff’s past work as 

Plaintiff performed it. AR 82. The VE testified that if an individual were further limited by 

Case 1:14-cv-00506-BAM Document 15 Filed 06/10/15 Page 3 of 10
4

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

unscheduled breaks or absences due to diabetes—as Plaintiff described—this would likely preclude 

past work as well as all other competitive employment. AR 83–84.

When asked a second hypothetical involving an individual with Plaintiff’s vocational profile 

with no postural limitations but restricted to sedentary work and only occasional gross and fine 

manipulation, the VE determined these limitations would preclude Plaintiff’s past work, and there 

would be no other work that the individual could perform in the national economy. AR 82.

C. Medical Record

A summary of Plaintiff’s medical records shows a history of hypoglycemia, insulin dependent 

diabetes mellitus, but Plaintiff is generally asymptomatic when he is compliant with his insulin 

schedule and doctors’ recommendations. AR 341, 345, 393, 397, 441. Plaintiff also complains of 

shoulder pain, with a diagnosis of chronic right rotator cuff tendonitis. AR 535. In August 2011, Xrays of the bilateral shoulders were normal and unremarkable. AR 575. Likewise, in July 2011,

complaints of hand pain were accompanied by X-rays otherwise normal with an unspecified arthritic 

change. AR 578. Plaintiff’s vision complaints are related to cataracts with uncorrected vision at 20/200 

and 20/40, and corrected vision at 20/20. AR 400.

The only physicians’ opinion evidence consists of state agency opinions from Drs. Damania 

and Spellman. In October 2010, State agency consultant Rustom F. Damania, M.D., examined

Plaintiff and diagnosed him with: (1) diabetes mellitus insulin dependent; (2) gross varicose veins in 

the left leg with no complications; (3) poor vision in both eyes with no improvement post-cataract 

surgery in the left eye, and pending cataract surgery in the right eye; and (4) diabetic peripheral 

neuropathy, subjectively. AR 452–457.

Dr. Damania determined that Plaintiff can lift and carry fifty pounds occasionally and twentyfive pounds frequently; can sit, stand, and walk without restriction; has no postural limitations; has no 

manipulative limitations; and has some visual impairment. AR 457. A second state agency medical 

consultant, G. Spellman, M.D., concurred with Dr. Damania that Plaintiff could perform the full range 

of medium work and found no established visual, postural, or manipulative limitations. AR 460–61.

///

///

Case 1:14-cv-00506-BAM Document 15 Filed 06/10/15 Page 4 of 10
5

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

D. The ALJ’s Decision

After considering the complete medical history consistent with 20 CFR 416.912(d), and after 

careful consideration of all of the evidence, the ALJ concluded that Plaintiff has not been under a 

disability within the meaning of the Social Security Act since December 10, 2009, the date the 

application was filed. AR 16. Applying the Social Security Administration’s five-step sequential 

evaluation process, the ALJ made the following findings:

1. Plaintiff has not engaged in substantial gainful activity since December 10, 2009, the 

application date (20 CFR 416.971 et seq.);

2. Plaintiff suffers from severe impairments—diabetes mellitus (insulin dependent), cataracts 

causing poor vision, bilateral shoulder tendonitis, and pain (20 CFR 416.920(c));

3. Plaintiff does not have an impairment or combination of impairments that meets or 

medically equals the severity of one of the listed impairments in 20 CFR 404, Subpart P, 

App. 1 (20 CFR 416.920(d), 416.925 and 416.926);

4. Plaintiff has the residual functional capacity (“RFC”) to perform the full range of light 

work as defined on a function-by-function basis in 20 CFR 416.967(b);

5. Plaintiff is capable of performing past relevant work as a cleaner—this work does not

require the performance of work related activities precluded by Plaintiff’s RFC (20 CFR 

416.965);

6. Plaintiff was born on January 1, 1976, and was 33 years old, which is defined as a younger 

individual age 18–49, on the date the application was filed (20 CFR 416.963);

7. Plaintiff has a limited education and is able to communicate in English (20 CFR 416.964). 

Transferability of job skills is not an issue because Plaintiff’s past relevant work is 

unskilled (20 CFR 416.968);

8. Plaintiff had not been under a disability, as defined in the Social Security Act, since 

December 10, 2009, the date the application was filed (20 CFR 416.920(f)).

Accordingly, the ALJ determined that Plaintiff retained the RFC to perform a full range of 

light work, including his past relevant work as a Cleaner II, as well as other jobs in the national 

Case 1:14-cv-00506-BAM Document 15 Filed 06/10/15 Page 5 of 10
6

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

economy. AR 18–20. The ALJ therefore concluded that Plaintiff was not disabled under the Social 

Security Act. AR 20.

SCOPE OF REVIEW

Congress has provided a limited scope of judicial review of the Commissioner’s decision to 

deny benefits under the Act. In reviewing findings of fact with respect to such determinations, this 

Court must determine whether the decision of the Commissioner is supported by substantial evidence.

42 U.S.C. § 405 (g). Substantial evidence means “more than a mere scintilla,” Richardson v. Perales, 

402 U.S. 389, 402 (1971), but less than a preponderance. Sorenson v. Weinberger, 514 F.2d 1112, 

1119, n.10 (9th Cir. 1975). It is “such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate 

to support a conclusion.” Richardson, 402 U.S. at 401. The record as a whole must be considered, 

weighing both the evidence that supports and the evidence that detracts from the Commissioner’s 

conclusion. Jones v. Heckler, 760 F.2d 993, 995 (9th Cir. 1985). This Court must uphold the decision 

if the ALJ applied the proper legal standards and made findings supported by substantial evidence. See 

Sanchez v. Sec’y of Health and Human Serv., 812 F.2d 509, 510 (9th Cir. 1987).

In order to qualify for benefits, a claimant must establish that he or she is unable to engage in 

substantial gainful activity due to a medically determinable physical or mental impairment which has 

lasted or can be expected to last for a continuous period of not less than twelve months. 42 U.S.C. § 

1382c (a)(3)(A). A claimant must show that he or she has a physical or mental impairment of such 

severity that he or she is not only unable to do his or her previous work, but cannot, considering his or 

her age, education, and work experience, engage in any other kind of substantial gainful work which 

exists in the national economy. Quang Van Han v. Bowen, 882 F.2d 1453, 1456 (9th Cir. 1989). The 

burden is on the claimant to establish disability. Terry v. Sullivan, 903 F.2d 1273, 1275 (9th Cir. 

1990).

DISCUSSION

In his sole issue, Plaintiff argues that the ALJ failed to provide clear and convincing reasons 

for discrediting his pain allegations and subjective symptom testimony. (Doc. 13 at 5–8). In response, 

the Commissioner argues that the ALJ properly assessed Plaintiff’s testimony and provided a thorough 

and accurate summary of the record of evidence. (Doc. 14 at 4–8). A review of the record reveals the 

Case 1:14-cv-00506-BAM Document 15 Filed 06/10/15 Page 6 of 10
7

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

ALJ provided clear and convincing reasons for finding Plaintiff’s subjective symptom testimony not 

credible. 

A two-step analysis applies at the administrative level when considering a claimant’s 

credibility. Smolen v. Chater, 80 F.3d 1273, 1281 (9th Cir. 1996). First, the claimant must produce 

objective medical evidence of an impairment that could reasonably be expected to produce some 

degree of the symptom or pain alleged. Id. at 1281-1282. If the claimant satisfies the first step and 

there is no evidence of malingering, the ALJ may reject the claimant’s testimony regarding the 

severity of his symptoms only if he makes specific findings that include clear and convincing reasons 

for doing so. Id. at 1281. The ALJ must “state which testimony is not credible and what evidence 

suggests the complaints are not credible.” Mersman v. Halter, 161 F. Supp. 2d 1078, 1086 (N.D. Cal.

2001) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted) (“The lack of specific, clear, and convincing 

reasons why Plaintiff’s testimony is not credible renders it impossible for [the] Court to determine 

whether the ALJ’s conclusion is supported by substantial evidence”); Social Security Ruling (“SSR”) 

96-7p (ALJ’s decision “must be sufficiently specific to make clear to the individual and to any 

subsequent reviewers the weight the adjudicator gave to the individual's statements and reasons for 

that weight”).

An ALJ can consider many factors when assessing the claimant’s credibility. See Light v. Soc. 

Sec. Admin., 119 F.3d 789, 792 (9th Cir. 1997). The ALJ can consider the claimant’s reputation for 

truthfulness, prior inconsistent statements concerning symptoms, other testimony by the plaintiff that 

appears less than candid, unexplained or inadequately explained failure to seek treatment, failure to 

follow a prescribed course of treatment, plaintiff’s daily activities, the plaintiff’s work record, or the 

observations of treating and examining physicians. Smolen, 80 F.3d at 1284; Orn v. Astrue, 495 F.3d 

625, 638 (9th Cir. 2007).

Here, the ALJ found that Plaintiff had four severe impairments, i.e., diabetes mellitus (insulin 

dependent), cataracts causing poor vision, bilateral tendonitis in the shoulder, and pain. AR 17. The 

ALJ found Plaintiff’s testimony “not generally credible, at least to the extent he would have me 

believe his functional limitations are far more restrictive than that I have found,” because his 

Case 1:14-cv-00506-BAM Document 15 Filed 06/10/15 Page 7 of 10
8

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

allegations are not supported by any significant objective findings. AR 19. This finding satisfied step 

one of the credibility analysis. Smolen, 80 F.3d at 1281-1282.

The ALJ did not find evidence of malingering and thus he was required to provide clear and 

convincing reasons for rejecting Plaintiff’s testimony. Id. at 1283-1284; Lester v. Chater, 81 F.3d 821, 

834 (9th Cir. 1996) (as amended). When there is evidence of an underlying medical impairment, the 

ALJ may not discredit the claimant’s testimony regarding the severity of his symptoms solely because 

they are unsupported by medical evidence. Bunnell, 947 F.2d at 343; SSR 96-7. Moreover, it is not 

sufficient for the ALJ to make general findings; he must state which testimony is not credible and 

what evidence in the record leads to that conclusion. Dodrill v. Shalala, 12 F.3d 915, 918 (9th 

Cir.1993); Bunnell, 947 F.2d at 345–46.

Here, the ALJ conducted a thorough review of the record and made five credibility findings. 

First, the ALJ adequately summarized the record with respect to Plaintiff’s hand pain and concluded, 

“there is a significant lack of support for the [Plaintiff’s] allegation relating to his hand pain and the 

alleged debilitating effect it has on his ability to sustain work-related activities.” AR 18. Plaintiff cites 

Bunnell v. Sullivan, 947 F.2d 341, 343 (9th Cir. 1991), which states that the ALJ may not discredit the 

claimant’s testimony regarding the severity of his symptoms solely because they are unsupported by 

medical evidence. While Plaintiff correctly states that a lack of objective medical evidence supporting 

a Plaintiff’s subjective complaints cannot provide the only basis to reject a claimant’s credibility, it is 

one factor that an ALJ can consider in evaluating symptom testimony. See Light v. Soc. Sec. Admin., 

119 F.3d 789, 792 (9th Cir. 1997). The only objective medical evidence in the record supporting 

Plaintiff’s alleged disabling hand pain is Plaintiff’s June 2011 hand X-ray, which revealed “some joint 

narrowing, with no fracture, dislocation or other abnormality.” AR 18. The ALJ found “no mention of 

any functional limitation relating to his right hand.” AR 18. Further, as Plaintiff testified at the 

hearing, his hand pain is well controlled by Ibuprofen. AR 18. Therefore, the ALJ correctly concluded 

that, because of the “lack of any significant objective findings relating to the functional limitation 

associated with [Plaintiff’s] complaint of hand pain,” Plaintiff’s subjective symptom statements are 

not supported by the record. AR 18.

Case 1:14-cv-00506-BAM Document 15 Filed 06/10/15 Page 8 of 10
9

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Second, the ALJ found that the “unremarkable results of the physical examination performed 

by Dr. Damania belie Plaintiff’s allegations.” AR 19. Plaintiff failed to produce any treating physician 

evidence for the ALJ to consider, and as a result the ALJ could only rely on the opinions of the two 

State agency doctors—internist consultant Dr. Rustom Damania, M.D., and medical examiner G. 

Spellman, M.D. AR 19. Dr. Damania found that Plaintiff could perform the full range of medium 

work—lifting fifty pounds occasionally and twenty-five pounds frequently—with some visual 

impairment but with no manipulative or postural limitations. AR 457. Dr. G. Spellman agreed with Dr. 

Damania that Plaintiff is capable of performing the full range of medium work. AR 459–63. The ALJ 

viewed the evidence in the light most favorable to Plaintiff, giving Plaintiff the benefit of the doubt 

with respect to his testimony of pain and limitations, and concluded that Plaintiff is capable of the full 

range of light work. AR 19. The ALJ thus correctly determined that substantial evidence supports the 

finding that the physical examination performed by Dr. Damania outweighs Plaintiff’s allegations. 

Third, the ALJ found that Plaintiff’s “pain is reduced significantly by taking only Ibuprofen for 

pain relief, with good results.” AR 19. Indeed, Plaintiff testified that his pain is reduced from eight to 

three on a ten-point scale with over-the-counter medication. AR 66–67. While Plaintiff cites three 

cases from other circuits—precluding statements referring to individuals “doing well” or being 

“stable” from serving as evidence of their ability to work—this court is not persuaded as these cases

refer strictly to mental disorders. Mitigation of pain can appropriately serve as a contributing factor in 

the ALJ’s credibility determination. See Warre v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 439 F.3d 1001, 1006 

(9th Cir. 2006) (finding impairments that are effectively controlled with medication not disabling). 

Substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s determination that Plaintiff’s pain is reduced significantly by 

taking Ibuprofen, and that finding may properly serve to discredit Plaintiff’s subjective testimony. 

Next, the ALJ found that Plaintiff exercises and goes outside while in prison. AR 19. Plaintiff 

also receives no special accomodations while in prison. AR 70–71. While it is true that “limited 

walking for exercise” does not detract from Plaintiff’s testimony as to overall disability, Plaintiff 

exercises generally and did not testify to being limited to any specific regimen. AR 19. The ALJ may 

properly discount Plaintiff’s credibility based on daily activities. Orn v. Astrue, 495 F.3d at 638. The 

ALJ was referencing Plaintiff’s activities in prison generally, including his ability to sit through a 

Case 1:14-cv-00506-BAM Document 15 Filed 06/10/15 Page 9 of 10
10

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

three-hour afternoon class. AR 18, 75. Thus, the ALJ’s finding that Plaintiff’s participation in standard 

exercise and outside activities undermines Plaintiff’s credibility is a clear and convincing reason for 

discrediting Plaintiff’s subjective allegations of disabling pain. 

Finally, the ALJ considered the fact that Plaintiff takes his insulin regularly to control his 

diabetes. AR 19. As the Commissioner correctly notes, the record reflects Plaintiff’s debilitating 

weakness and fatigue only when he is not compliant with his medication. AR 397, 406, 413–414, 416–

417, 437, 440, 453, 545, 552. Plaintiff, while in prison, is on a consistent regimen of insulin for his 

diabetes, thus he is less likely to experience the level of symptoms that have persisted in the past. This 

finding is also supported by substantial evidence. See Warre, 439 F.3d at 1006 (finding impairments 

effectively controlled by medication not disabling for purposes of SSI benefits).

In sum, the ALJ’s reasons for discounting Plaintiff’s subjective symptom complaints were 

sufficiently clear and convincing to allow this Court to conclude that the ALJ discounted Plaintiff’s 

testimony on permissible grounds and did not arbitrarily discredit Plaintiff’s testimony regarding pain.

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, the Court finds that the ALJ’s decision is supported by substantial 

evidence in the record as a whole and is based on proper legal standards. Accordingly, this Court 

DENIES Plaintiff’s appeal from the administrative decision of the Commissioner of Social Security. 

The Clerk of this Court is DIRECTED to enter judgment in favor of Defendant Carolyn W. Colvin, 

Acting Commissioner of Social Security and against Plaintiff, Anthony Raul Guerrero.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 10, 2015 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-00506-BAM Document 15 Filed 06/10/15 Page 10 of 10