Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-02141/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-02141-5/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

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CARL M. SHORT, No. 2:14-CV-2141-CMK

Plaintiff, 

vs. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL

SECURITY,

Defendant.

 /

Plaintiff, who is proceeding with retained counsel, brings this action under 

42 U.S.C. § 405(g) for judicial review of a final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security. 

Pursuant to the written consent of all parties, this case is before the undersigned as the presiding

judge for all purposes, including entry of final judgment. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). Pending

before the court are plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment (Doc. 14) and defendant’s crossmotion for summary judgment (Doc. 15). 

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

1

Case 2:14-cv-02141-CMK Document 21 Filed 09/28/16 Page 1 of 15
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

I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Plaintiff applied for social security benefits on April 27, 2011. In the application,

plaintiff claims that disability began on June 1, 2004. Plaintiff’s claim was initially denied. 

Following denial of reconsideration, plaintiff requested an administrative hearing, which was

held on March 20, 2013, before Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) Peter F. Belli. In an April

22, 2013, decision, the ALJ concluded that plaintiff is not disabled based on the following

relevant findings:

1. The claimant has the following severe impairment(s): cervical spinal

stenosis, degenerative disc disease of the cervical spine, lumbago,

migraine headaches, bilateral shoulder and knee pain, adjustment disorder,

anxiety, and polysubstance dependence in remission;

2. The claimant does not have an impairment or combination of impairments

that meets or medically equals an impairment listed in the regulations;

3. The claimant has the following residual functional capacity: the claimant

can perform light work; the claimant can lift, carry, push, and/or pull 20

pounds occasionally and 10 pounds frequently; stand and walk for 6 hours

in an 8-hour workday with normal breaks; sit for 8 hours in an 8-hour

workday with normal breaks; never climb ladders, ropes, and scaffolds;

occasionally stoop, crouch, and kneel, but never crawl; can frequently

reach in all directions with the right upper extremity; can frequently twist,

flex, and extend the cervical spine or neck; no prolonged looking down,

but can look down for 10-15 minutes at a time and then needs to change

positions; and no working in constant extreme temperatures; the claimant

has no limitations in his ability to receive, understand, remember, and

carry out simple job instructions; can occasionally perform detailed job

instructions, but not complex job instructions; he is able to interact

appropriately with the general public, co-workers, and supervisors; the

claimant is able to make adjustments to simple work place changes and is

able to make simple work place judgments; and

4. Considering the claimant’s age, education, work experience, residual

functional capacity, and vocational expert testimony, there are jobs that

exist in significant numbers in the national economy that the claimant can

perform.

After the Appeals Council declined review on June 5, 2014, this appeal followed.

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

2

Case 2:14-cv-02141-CMK Document 21 Filed 09/28/16 Page 2 of 15
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

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

The court reviews the Commissioner’s final decision to determine whether it is: 

(1) based on proper legal standards; and (2) supported by substantial evidence in the record as a

whole. See Tackett v. Apfel, 180 F.3d 1094, 1097 (9th Cir. 1999). “Substantial evidence” is

more than a mere scintilla, but less than a preponderance. See Saelee v. Chater, 94 F.3d 520, 521

(9th Cir. 1996). It is “. . . such evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to

support a conclusion.” Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389, 402 (1971). The record as a whole,

including both the evidence that supports and detracts from the Commissioner’s conclusion, must

be considered and weighed. See Howard v. Heckler, 782 F.2d 1484, 1487 (9th Cir. 1986); Jones

v. Heckler, 760 F.2d 993, 995 (9th Cir. 1985). The court may not affirm the Commissioner’s

decision simply by isolating a specific quantum of supporting evidence. See Hammock v.

Bowen, 879 F.2d 498, 501 (9th Cir. 1989). If substantial evidence supports the administrative

findings, or if there is conflicting evidence supporting a particular finding, the finding of the

Commissioner is conclusive. See Sprague v. Bowen, 812 F.2d 1226, 1229-30 (9th Cir. 1987). 

Therefore, where the evidence is susceptible to more than one rational interpretation, one of

which supports the Commissioner’s decision, the decision must be affirmed, see Thomas v.

Barnhart, 278 F.3d 947, 954 (9th Cir. 2002), and may be set aside only if an improper legal

standard was applied in weighing the evidence, see Burkhart v. Bowen, 856 F.2d 1335, 1338 (9th

Cir. 1988). 

III. DISCUSSION

In his motion for summary judgment, plaintiff argues: (1) the ALJ failed to

provide sufficient reasons for rejecting plaintiff’s credibility; (2) the ALJ failed to properly

evaluate the medical opinions; and (3) the ALJ failed to consider whether plaintiff’s impairments

met or medically equaled Listing 11.03.

/ / /

3

Case 2:14-cv-02141-CMK Document 21 Filed 09/28/16 Page 3 of 15
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

A. Plaintiff’s Credibility

The Commissioner determines whether a disability applicant is credible, and the

court defers to the Commissioner’s discretion if the Commissioner used the proper process and

provided proper reasons. See Saelee v. Chater, 94 F.3d 520, 522 (9th Cir. 1996). An explicit

credibility finding must be supported by specific, cogent reasons. See Rashad v. Sullivan, 903

F.2d 1229, 1231 (9th Cir. 1990). General findings are insufficient. See Lester v. Chater, 81 F.3d

821, 834 (9th Cir. 1995). Rather, the Commissioner must identify what testimony is not credible

and what evidence undermines the testimony. See id. Moreover, unless there is affirmative

evidence in the record of malingering, the Commissioner’s reasons for rejecting testimony as not

credible must be “clear and convincing.” See id.; see also Carmickle v. Commissioner, 533 F.3d

1155, 1160 (9th Cir. 2008) (citing Lingenfelter v Astrue, 504 F.3d 1028, 1936 (9th Cir. 2007),

and Gregor v. Barnhart, 464 F.3d 968, 972 (9th Cir. 2006)). 

If there is objective medical evidence of an underlying impairment, the

Commissioner may not discredit a claimant’s testimony as to the severity of symptoms merely

because they are unsupported by objective medical evidence. See Bunnell v. Sullivan, 947 F.2d

341, 347-48 (9th Cir. 1991) (en banc). As the Ninth Circuit explained in Smolen v. Chater:

The claimant need not produce objective medical evidence of the

[symptom] itself, or the severity thereof. Nor must the claimant produce

objective medical evidence of the causal relationship between the

medically determinable impairment and the symptom. By requiring that

the medical impairment “could reasonably be expected to produce” pain or

another symptom, the Cotton test requires only that the causal relationship

be a reasonable inference, not a medically proven phenomenon. 

80 F.3d 1273, 1282 (9th Cir. 1996) (referring to the test established in

Cotton v. Bowen, 799 F.2d 1403 (9th Cir. 1986)). 

The Commissioner may, however, consider the nature of the symptoms alleged,

including aggravating factors, medication, treatment, and functional restrictions. See Bunnell,

947 F.2d at 345-47. In weighing credibility, the Commissioner may also consider: (1) the

claimant’s reputation for truthfulness, prior inconsistent statements, or other inconsistent

4

Case 2:14-cv-02141-CMK Document 21 Filed 09/28/16 Page 4 of 15
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

testimony; (2) unexplained or inadequately explained failure to seek treatment or to follow a

prescribed course of treatment; (3) the claimant’s daily activities; (4) work records; and (5)

physician and third-party testimony about the nature, severity, and effect of symptoms. See

Smolen, 80 F.3d at 1284 (citations omitted). It is also appropriate to consider whether the

claimant cooperated during physical examinations or provided conflicting statements concerning

drug and/or alcohol use. See Thomas v. Barnhart, 278 F.3d 947, 958-59 (9th Cir. 2002). If the

claimant testifies as to symptoms greater than would normally be produced by a given

impairment, the ALJ may disbelieve that testimony provided specific findings are made. See

Carmickle, 533 F.3d at 1161 (citing Swenson v. Sullivan, 876 F.2d 683, 687 (9th Cir. 1989)). 

Regarding reliance on a claimant’s daily activities to find testimony of disabling

pain not credible, the Social Security Act does not require that disability claimants be utterly

incapacitated. See Fair v. Bowen, 885 F.2d 597, 602 (9th Cir. 1989). The Ninth Circuit has

repeatedly held that the “. . . mere fact that a plaintiff has carried out certain daily activities . . .

does not . . .[necessarily] detract from her credibility as to her overall disability.” See Orn v.

Astrue, 495 F.3d 625, 639 (9th Cir. 2007) (quoting Vertigan v. Heller, 260 F.3d 1044, 1050 (9th

Cir. 2001)); see also Howard v. Heckler, 782 F.2d 1484, 1488 (9th Cir. 1986) (observing that a

claim of pain-induced disability is not necessarily gainsaid by a capacity to engage in periodic

restricted travel); Gallant v. Heckler, 753 F.2d 1450, 1453 (9th Cir. 1984) (concluding that the

claimant was entitled to benefits based on constant leg and back pain despite the claimant’s

ability to cook meals and wash dishes); Fair, 885 F.2d at 603 (observing that “many home

activities are not easily transferable to what may be the more grueling environment of the

workplace, where it might be impossible to periodically rest or take medication”). Daily

activities must be such that they show that the claimant is “. . .able to spend a substantial part of

his day engaged in pursuits involving the performance of physical functions that are transferable

to a work setting.” Fair, 885 F.2d at 603. The ALJ must make specific findings in this regard

before relying on daily activities to find a claimant’s pain testimony not credible. See Burch v.

5

Case 2:14-cv-02141-CMK Document 21 Filed 09/28/16 Page 5 of 15
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

Barnhart, 400 F.3d 676, 681 (9th Cir. 2005). 

The ALJ provided the following summary of plaintiff’s subjective complaints:

The claimant alleges that he has cervical spinal stenosis, degenerative disc

disease of the cervical spine, lumbago, migraine headaches, bilateral

shoulder pain, adjustment disorder, anxiety, and polysubstance abuse in

remission. Because of his impairments, the claimant is unable to work. 

The claimant testified he has pain in his neck, shoulders, and back and

arthritis in his knees. The claimant testified his neck pain radiates into his

arms and fingers with numbness and [difficulty] handling small objects. 

The claimant testified he has back pain that radiates in his legs and feet

and is not able to get restful sleep at night. The claimant testified he has

never gone longer than three days without having migraine headaches and

has headaches almost daily. The claimant testified that physically he can

stand for 10 minutes; sit for 35 minutes; lift about 20 pounds; walk about a

block; would need more breaks; and would miss 3-6 days a month. The

claimant [reported] daily pain and is reliant on his pain medications for

pain relief. The claimant has problems with lifting, squatting, bending,

standing, walking, sitting, stair climbing, memory, completing tasks,

concentration, hollowing instructions, and does not handle stress very well

(Exhibit B4E, B5E, B10E, B11E, Testimony, 03/20/2013).

After providing a lengthy discussion of the objective medical evidence, the ALJ stated as follows

with respect to plaintiff’s credibility:

Based on the review of the evidence above, the undersigned finds that the

claimant’s account of the severity of symptoms, as well as his allegations

regarding functional limitations, are not fully credible for the following

reasons:

In regards to claimant’s physical impairments described above, the

minimal and sporadic medical records are inconsistent with claimant’s

allegations. A review of the medical records and medical imageries do not

support claimant’s allegations of chronic neck, back, right shoulder, and

knee pain, and show that the claimant’s migraine headaches are under

control with medication compliance (Exhibit B12F, B13F, B18F-B20F).

A review of the 2011 Anderson Physical Therapy notes stated the

following: The 09/07/2011 notes stated the claimant’s shoulder stiffens up

two to three days after physical exercise and work but was not currently

working (Exhibit B12F/2, B13F/19). The 11/07/2011 notes stated the

claimant was not consistently icing his shoulder (Exhibit B12F/8, 8). The

11/16/2011 notes stated the claimant had no new complaints (Exhibit

B12F/7). The 11/18/2011 notes stated the claimant was in a lot more pain

today from unknown cause but was not doing icing (Exhibit B12F/8). The

12/02/2011 discharge note stated the claimant was being discharged from

physical therapy with home exercise program (Exhibit B12F/10, B13F/18). 

6

Case 2:14-cv-02141-CMK Document 21 Filed 09/28/16 Page 6 of 15
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

A review of the 2011 and 2012 Shasta Community Health Center

treatment records stated the following: On 03/24/2011, the claimant

reported his migraines greatly improved on Amitriptyline [and he] had his

appetite back. The claimant reported neck and back pain, and the

musculoskeletal physical exam found cervical spine had tenderness and

muscle spasms and lumbar spine had muscle spasms but mild pain with

motion; no thoracic spine tenderness and normal mobility and curvature

(Exhibit B13F/12). On 06/24/2011, the claimant reported right shoulder

pain greater than left shoulder pain and bilateral knee pain; and migraines

but medicine was working pretty well. The claimant was on opioid pain

management and reported improved function and no medical side effect. 

The musculoskeletal physical exam showed mild left shoulder pain with

motion; moderate right shoulder pain with motion; right and left knee

crepitus; and x-rays of the shoulder and knees were ordered (Exhibit

B13F/10). On 08/24/2011, the claimant reported right shoulder pain with

shoulder bones grinding together. The claimant was on opioid pain

management and reported improved function and no medication side

effect. The claimant was able to lift arms 50 degrees with no pain; the xrays showed AC and glenohumeral articulations were within normal limits

bilaterally, no abnormal soft tissue calcifications, and no fracture; and

given a referral to physical therapy (Exhibit B13F/7). On 10/26/2011, the

claimant reported that his migraine headaches are under control with 75

mg of Amitriptyline. The claimant was on opioid pain management and

reported improved function and no medication side effect (Exhibit

B13F/3). On 12/14/2011, the claimant reported right shoulder pain that

was no better. The claimant was on opioid pain management and reported

improved function, no medication side effect, and that he was out of pain

medication. The musculoskeletal physical exam showed right shoulder

with pain that limited motion both passive and active and was given an

injection (Exhibit B13F/1). 

On 02/01/2012, the claimant reported that injections helped his right

shoulder pain for a week; his back pain was not quite as bad; has some

neck stiffness; pain was tolerable with Norco; and his migraines were

better with Amitriptyline but still got them when he forgets his night dose

of medications or forgets to wear his glasses. The claimant was on opioid

pain management and reported improved function and no medication side

effect (Exhibit B18F/31). On 03/28/2012, the claimant noted he had been

feeling pretty well over all but still got headaches but not as bad as he did

before starting Amitriptyline. The claimant was on opioid pain

management and reported improved function and no medication side

effect (Exhibit B18F/27). The 04/26/2012 the [sic] notes the claimant had

been on Topamax for his migraine headaches and reported headaches on

his left side. The physical examination was normal with normal range of

motion in all joints. The claimant migraine headaches caused suboccipital

tenderness on both sides and was started on Depakote with Kenalog

injection (Exhibit B18F/24, 26). On 04/30/2012, the claimant reported

right shoulder and neck pain, and some numbness and tingling in his upper

extremities but stated he was doing okay (Exhibit B18F/23). On

06/28/2012, the claimant reported back and right shoulder pain that he

takes Norco, Baclofen, and ibuprofen for pain; and continues to take

7

Case 2:14-cv-02141-CMK Document 21 Filed 09/28/16 Page 7 of 15
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

Depakote for his headaches. The claimant was on opioid pain

management and reported improved function and no medication side

effect. On 09/26/2012, the claimant reported chronic pain in his shoulder,

back, and neck with twitching and spasms; neuropathy in both hands with

frequent dropping; and taking Norco and marijuana for pain management. 

The claimant was on opioid pain management and reported improved

function and no medication side effect (Exhibit B18F/8). On 10/11/2012,

the claimant reported he has a history of headaches, which has been better

by 50% with Depakote and Kenalog injection. The physical examination

was normal with normal range of motion in all joints. The notes stated the

claimant’s headaches were better by 50%; he would be given another

Kenalog injection and Depakote (Exhibit B18F/6-7). On 12/13/2012, the

claimant reported severe migraine headaches and a lot of pain with his

shoulder after running out of Depakote. The claimant was restarted on

Depakote and advised not to run out of medication again (Exhibit

B18F/2).

During the examination with Dr. Kinnison, the claimant reported problems

with his low back and neck; headaches on a 24/7 basis; bilateral knee pain

with rest or walking; and difficulties with his hand swelling (Exhibit

B3F/1-2). Dr. Kinnison observed the claimant was friendly and

cooperative and no acute distress; ambulated normally; sat comfortably;

moved about the exam room without problems; went from sitting to

supine to sitting without difficulties; good coordination; negative Romberg

testing; normal gait; and not using an assistive device (Exhibit B3F/2-3). 

The examination of the claimant’s neck was supple without adenopathy,

thyromegaly, or masses; and had normal range of motion of the cervical

and lumbar spine, hips, knees, ankles, shoulders, elbows wrists, fingers,

and thumbs (Exhibit B3F/3-4). The claimant’s straight-leg was negative

bilaterally from the supine position and had intact sensation to touch and

pin (Exhibit B3F/4). Dr. Kinnison opined the claimant’s general findings

showed a normal exam (Exhibit B3F/4). 

In regards to the claimant’s mental impairments described above, the

records are inconsistent with the claimant’s allegations. The minimal and

sporadic mental health records are devoid of any mental health treatments

and individual or group therapy sessions with a psychiatrist or

psychologist related to the claimant’s allegations of depression and

anxiety. Further, the claimant’s psychiatric exams and mental status

exams showed normal findings without psychotropic medications (Exhibit

B12F, B13F, B18F-B20F). At the hearing, the claimant testified that he

has not had psychiatric treatments (Hearing Testimony, 03/20/2013). 

The 2011 and 2012 Shasta Community Health Center mental health

records stated that on 03/24/2011, 06/24/2011, 08/24/2011, 12/14/2011,

02/01/2012, 03/28/2012, 06/28/2012, and 09/26/2012 psychiatric exam

stated the claimant had normal affect and thought content and appropriate

speech (Exhibit B13F/1, 4, 7, 10, 12, B18F/8, 14, 27, 31). The 04/26/2012

and 10/11/2012 mental status stated the claimant was awake, alert,

oriented times three, and intact language and speech (Exhibit B18F/6, 24). 

On 12/13/2012, the claimant reported severe anxiety and panic attacks

8

Case 2:14-cv-02141-CMK Document 21 Filed 09/28/16 Page 8 of 15
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

after he ran out of Depakote. The psychiatric exam stated the claimant had

normal affect and thought content and appropriate speech. The claimant

was restarted on Depakote and advised not to run out of medication again

(Exhibit B18F/2). 

During the examination with Dr. Maguire, the claimant did not report any

history of any psychiatric disorder symptoms (Exhibit B4F/1). Dr.

Maguire noted the review of the records consisted of a primary medical

doctor note that did not list any mental disorder symptoms and a 2-page

summary consisting of medical issues, health issues, and his attorney’s

opinion (Exhibit B4F/1). Dr. Maguire noted the claimant had appropriate

grooming, hygiene, and dress; was polite, cooperative, and made

appropriate eye contact; had appropriate attitude and behavior, mood and

affect; normal stream of mental activity and speech; no impairment in

thought content; was oriented to time, date, month, year, city, person, and

place; adequate immediate, recent, and past memory, fund of knowledge,

concentration, abstract thinking, similarities and differences; and fair

insight and judgment (Exhibit B4F/2-3). Dr. Maguire found the claimant’s

concentration, persistence, and pace were within normal limits after the

claimant was able to follow a three-step command and spell money both

forward and backwards (Exhibit B4F/2-3). Dr. Maguire noted the

claimant was able to perform immediate digit span forward and backwards

despite his lack of education; recalled 2/3 objects after one minute; and his

long-term memory did not seem to be impaired (Exhibit B4F/3). Dr.

Maguire opined the claimant did not have a . . . mental disorder and his

prognosis was good (Exhibit B4F/3). 

The overall minimal and sporadic medical treatment record, mental status

examinations, and claimant’s testimony challenge a finding that the

claimant is completely credible and show his physical and mental

impairments are not as limiting and debilitating as he alleges. The various

medical imageries related to claimant’s head, cervical spine, lumbar spine,

shoulders, and knees; and the nerve conduction study and EMG; all

showed normal to mild findings. Further, there are no mental health

treatment records to support claimant’s allegations of depression and

anxiety. The claimant is still able to perform light exertional work with

the non-exertional limitations described above. 

According to plaintiff, the ALJ merely used boilerplate language and general

statements to analyze plaintiff’s credibility. Plaintiff argues:

ALJ Belli’s error here is his refusal to address all of the evidence,

explain the reasoning behind the decision to credit some evidence over the

contrary evidence, and provide an honest rendition of the evidence he

evaluate[s], such that we could understand the ALJ’s logical bridge

between the evidence and the conclusion. By failing to even acknowledge

the evidence, the ALJ deprived this Court of any means to assess the

validity of his reasoning process. 

/ / /

9

Case 2:14-cv-02141-CMK Document 21 Filed 09/28/16 Page 9 of 15
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

The court does not agree. In fact, as can be seen by the ALJ’s detailed analysis

cited above, the ALJ went far beyond mere boilerplate in discussing the credibility of plaintiff’s

subjective statements. The ALJ provided specific reasons for rejecting plaintiff’s statements as

not entirely credible. In particular, the ALJ noted minimal and sporadic treatment records, as

well as the unremarkable objective findings where there were any. 

B. Evaluation of Medical Opinions

The weight given to medical opinions depends in part on whether they are

proffered by treating, examining, or non-examining professionals. See Lester v. Chater, 81 F.3d

821, 830-31 (9th Cir. 1995). Ordinarily, more weight is given to the opinion of a treating

professional, who has a greater opportunity to know and observe the patient as an individual,

than the opinion of a non-treating professional. See id.; Smolen v. Chater, 80 F.3d 1273, 1285

(9th Cir. 1996); Winans v. Bowen, 853 F.2d 643, 647 (9th Cir. 1987). The least weight is given

to the opinion of a non-examining professional. See Pitzer v. Sullivan, 908 F.2d 502, 506 & n.4

(9th Cir. 1990).

In addition to considering its source, to evaluate whether the Commissioner

properly rejected a medical opinion the court considers whether: (1) contradictory opinions are

in the record; and (2) clinical findings support the opinions. The Commissioner may reject an 

uncontradicted opinion of a treating or examining medical professional only for “clear and

convincing” reasons supported by substantial evidence in the record. See Lester, 81 F.3d at 831. 

While a treating professional’s opinion generally is accorded superior weight, if it is contradicted

by an examining professional’s opinion which is supported by different independent clinical

findings, the Commissioner may resolve the conflict. See Andrews v. Shalala, 53 F.3d 1035,

1041 (9th Cir. 1995). A contradicted opinion of a treating or examining professional may be

rejected only for “specific and legitimate” reasons supported by substantial evidence. See Lester,

81 F.3d at 830. This test is met if the Commissioner sets out a detailed and thorough summary of

the facts and conflicting clinical evidence, states her interpretation of the evidence, and makes a

10

Case 2:14-cv-02141-CMK Document 21 Filed 09/28/16 Page 10 of 15
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

finding. See Magallanes v. Bowen, 881 F.2d 747, 751-55 (9th Cir. 1989). Absent specific and

legitimate reasons, the Commissioner must defer to the opinion of a treating or examining

professional. See Lester, 81 F.3d at 830-31. The opinion of a non-examining professional,

without other evidence, is insufficient to reject the opinion of a treating or examining

professional. See id. at 831. In any event, the Commissioner need not give weight to any

conclusory opinion supported by minimal clinical findings. See Meanel v. Apfel, 172 F.3d 1111,

1113 (9th Cir. 1999) (rejecting treating physician’s conclusory, minimally supported opinion);

see also Magallanes, 881 F.2d at 751. 

Though not entirely clear, it appears that plaintiff is challenging the ALJ’s

analysis of the opinions of non-examining psychiatrist Dr. Ying regarding plaintiff’s migraine

headaches. Plaintiff also argues that the ALJ “ignored all of Mr. Short’s treating physicians’

opinions.” 

1. Dr. Ying

As to Dr. Ying, the ALJ stated:

The State agency non-examining psychiatrist, K. Ying, M.D., diagnosed

the claimant with adjustment disorder and history of methamphetamine

dependence (Exhibit B8F/5, 10). Dr. Ying opined the claimant had mild

limitations in activities of daily living and maintaining social functioning;

moderate limitations in maintaining concentration, persistence, or pace;

and no episodes of decompensation (Exhibit B8F/12). Dr. Ying opined

the claimant had moderate limitations in his ability to understand,

remember, and carry out detailed instructions; maintain attention and

concentration for extended periods; perform activities within a schedule;

maintain regular attendance and be punctual within customary tolerances;

complete a normal workday and workweek without interruptions from

psychologically based symptoms; perform at a consistent pace without an

unreasonable number and length of rest periods; respond appropriate to

changes in the work setting; and set realistic goals or make plans

independently of others (Exhibit B7F). Dr. Ying opined the claimant’s

migraines were under good control and able to sustain concentration; and

able to adapt to changes and make simple decisions (Exhibit B8F/14). The

State agency non-examining psychologist, C. Janssen, Ph.D., affirmed Dr.

Ying’s opinion above (Exhibit B15F). 

/ / /

/ / / 

11

Case 2:14-cv-02141-CMK Document 21 Filed 09/28/16 Page 11 of 15
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

The ALJ gave great weight to Dr. Ying’s opinions, noting that it is consistent with the opinions

of examining consultative psychologist Dr. McGuire. According to plaintiff, the ALJ’s statement

that Dr. Ying opined that plaintiff’s migraines were under “good control” misrepresents the

doctor’s actual statement: “If his migraines are under good control, he should be able to sustain

[concentration, persistence, pace] for 40hr work wks.” 

A review of the record reflects that plaintiff is correct that the ALJ misstated Dr.

Ying’s opinion regarding migraines. Specifically, contrary to the ALJ’s summary of the doctor’s

opinion, Dr. Ying did not opine that plaintiff’s migraines were under good control. As plaintiff

notes, Dr. Ying’s statement was conditional – if his migraines were under control with

medication, plaintiff would be able to maintain concentration, persistence, and pace for a normal

workweek. However, Dr. Ying also stated parenthetically: “[S]everity of migraines to be

determined by other specialty.” 

No other doctor who examined plaintiff opined that plaintiff’s migraine headaches

were so severe as to interfere with the mental demands of sustained work. Specifically, plaintiff

reported no problems associated with headaches to agency examining physician Dr. McGuire,

who opined that plaintiff has the ability to perform simple and repetitive tasks, accept

instructions from supervisors and interact with co-workers, and perform work activities on a

consistent basis. Moreover, plaintiff’s treatment notes consistently reflect that his migraines

were better with medication (Amitriptyline). Though Dr. Ying did not himself specifically state

that plaintiff’s migraines were under control with medication, the record reveals that they were. 

Therefore, the condition precedent for Dr. Ying’s opinion – that plaintiff’s migraines were under

control – is satisfied and the remainder of the doctor’s opinion – that plaintiff would be able to

maintain concentration, persistence, and pace – is valid. Viewing the record as a whole, the court

finds no error in the ALJ’s reliance on Dr. Ying’s assessment. 

/ / /

/ / /

12

Case 2:14-cv-02141-CMK Document 21 Filed 09/28/16 Page 12 of 15
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

2. Treating Physicians

Plaintiff argues that the “ALJ gave no explanation at all, let alone a valid one, for

rejecting all of Mr. Short’s treating physician’s opinions.” Plaintiff, however, points to no

treating source opinions regarding the effects of plaintiff’s migraines on his ability to work. 

Instead, plaintiff notes numerous portions of the treating source records where plaintiff is noted

to complain of migraines and medication is prescribed. It is undisputed that plaintiff suffers from

migraines. However, plaintiff has not met his burden of providing medical opinion evidence as

to the effects of his migraines. The only medical opinions of record in this regard – the agency

examining and non-examining sources – agree that, despite migraines, plaintiff retains the

functional capacity to perform work activities. 

C. Listing 11.03

The Social Security Regulations “Listing of Impairments” is comprised of

impairments to fifteen categories of body systems that are severe enough to preclude a person

from performing gainful activity. Young v. Sullivan, 911 F.2d 180, 183-84 (9th Cir. 1990); 20

C.F.R. § 404.1520(d). Conditions described in the listings are considered so severe that they are

irrebuttably presumed disabling. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(d). In meeting or equaling a listing, all

the requirements of that listing must be met. Key v. Heckler, 754 F.2d 1545, 1550 (9th Cir.

1985).

According to plaintiff:

Mr. Short’s migraines met or equal Listing 11.03. ECF 15 at 26.1

This Listing requires “nonconvulsive epilepsy (petit mal, psychomotor, or

focal), documented by detailed description of a typical seizure pattern,

including all associated phenomena.” 20 C.F.R. § Pt. 404, Subpt. P, App.

1. The seizures must occur “more frequently than once weekly in spite of

at least 3 months of prescribed treatment,” and they must be accompanied

by “alteration of awareness or loss of consciousness and transient postictal

1 Plaintiff’s citation in his brief to this docket entry is puzzling. Electronic case

filing entry 15 is defendant’s brief in opposition, which was filed after plaintiff’s brief. It is

curious that plaintiff cites to a docket entry which did not exist as of the time plaintiff filed his

brief. Further, defendant’s brief makes no reference to Listing 11.03 at page 26. 

13

Case 2:14-cv-02141-CMK Document 21 Filed 09/28/16 Page 13 of 15
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

manifestations of unconventional behavior or significant interference with

activity during the day.” Id.

Plaintiff argues that his migraine headaches meet or medically equal this listing because he

experienced chronic migraine headaches almost daily which caused him to miss work three to six

times a month. Plaintiff also argues that he meets or medically equals Listing 11.03 because “he

has gone only 3 consecutive days in a row over the last two years without having a migraine

headache” and that his headaches “last anywhere from a half hour to three days duration.” 

Plaintiff adds that Listing 11.03 applies because he “used a wide array of prescription medication

to try to resolve his headaches.” Next, plaintiff argues that Listing 11.03 applies in this case

because his headaches “are excruciating with nausea, vomiting, sensitivity to light and noise.” 

Finally, plaintiff argues that Listing 11.03 applies because his migraines interfere with his

activities of daily living.

Plaintiff’s equivalency argument – which the court notes was never raised before

the agency – is based entirely on the following example contained in the Social Security

Administration’s Program Operations Manual System (“POMS”):

A claimant has chronic migraine headaches for which she sees her treating

doctor on a regular basis. Her symptoms include, aura, alteration of

awareness, and intense headache with throbbing and severe pain. She has

nausea and photophobia and must lie down in a dark and quiet room for

relief. Her headaches last anywhere from 4 to 72 hours and occur at least

2 times or more weekly. Due to all of her symptoms, she has difficulty

performing her [activities of daily living]. The claimant takes medication

as her doctor prescribes. The findings of the claimant’s impairment are

very similar to those of 11.03, Epilepsy, nonconvulsive. Therefore, 11.03

is the most closely analogous listed impairment. Her findings are at least

of equal medical significance as those of the most closely analogous listed

impairment. Therefore, the claimant’s impairment medically equals listing

11.03. 

Plaintiff argues that he submitted evidence “likely satisfying the criteria of Listing 11.03” based

on the POMS example and concludes that the ALJ’s failure to discuss Listing 11.03 at all

requires remand. 

/ / /

14

Case 2:14-cv-02141-CMK Document 21 Filed 09/28/16 Page 14 of 15
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

The court does not agree. Assuming, as plaintiff argues, that the above POMS

example controls, plaintiff has not presented evidence that he satisfies all of the criteria listed in

the example. Specifically, the POMS example cited by plaintiff requires symptoms which

include aura and alteration of awareness. Plaintiff has presented no evidence in this regard. 

Likewise, the POMS example indicates that the claimant takes medication as prescribed. In

contrast, the evidence in this case indicates that plaintiff often failed to take prescribed

medication. Finally, turning to the actual listings, Listing 11.03 requires a detailed description of

a typical seizure pattern, including all associated phenomena, with alteration of awareness or loss

of consciousness. See 20 C.F.R., Pt. 404, Subpt. P, App. 1, Listing 11.03. Again, plaintiff has

not identified any medical evidence describing in detail a typical seizure pattern, or of alteration

of awareness or loss of consciousness. 

IV. CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, the court concludes that the Commissioner’s final

decision is based on substantial evidence and proper legal analysis. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY

ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment (Doc. 14) is denied;

2. Defendant’s cross-motion for summary judgment (Doc. 15) is granted; and

3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to enter judgment and close this file.

DATED: September 28, 2016

______________________________________

CRAIG M. KELLISON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

15

Case 2:14-cv-02141-CMK Document 21 Filed 09/28/16 Page 15 of 15