Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-3_14-cv-08135/USCOURTS-azd-3_14-cv-08135-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 864
Nature of Suit: Social Security - SSID Title XVI
Cause of Action: 42:405 Review of HHS Decision (SSID)

---

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 

WO 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

John Schoeneman, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Carolyn W. Colvin, Acting Commissioner 

of Social Security, 

Defendant. 

No. CV-14-08135-PCT-NVW 

ORDER 

Plaintiff John Schoeneman seeks review under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) of the final 

decision of the Commissioner of Social Security (“the Commissioner”), which decided 

that his disability under sections 216(i) and 223(d) of the Social Security Act ended as of 

March 1, 2010. Because the decision of the Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) is 

supported by substantial evidence and is not based on legal error, the Commissioner’s 

decision will be affirmed. 

I. BACKGROUND 

Plaintiff was born in September 1965 and completed the ninth grade. Plaintiff 

worked loading trucks and was injured on the job. On July 30, 1992, Plaintiff was found 

disabled as of January 1, 1992. On November 3, 1999, it was determined that Plaintiff’s 

disability continued due to a lumbar spine disorder. Plaintiff is diabetic and morbidly 

obese, and he continues to have lumbar spine degenerative disc disease. Plaintiff claims 

he is unable to work because of extreme back pain. 

Case 3:14-cv-08135-NVW Document 22 Filed 05/08/15 Page 1 of 12
- 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 obtained a commercial driver’s license and received truck driver training 

from 2005 through 2008. In 2006 and 2007, Plaintiff earned more than $50,000 annually. 

In 2008, Plaintiff earned $12,266. It does not appear that he continued to work after 

2008. A hearing was held regarding overpayment, Plaintiff was found at fault in causing 

the overpayment, and the issue was resolved. Plaintiff testified that he was receiving 

Social Security disability benefits at the time of the ALJ hearing on February 19, 2013. 

On April 14, 2010, it was determined that Plaintiff was no longer disabled as of 

March 1, 2010. A hearing by video teleconferencing scheduled for January 11, 2013, in 

Phoenix, Arizona, was rescheduled for February 20, 2013, in Phoenix because Plaintiff 

wanted to appear in person. On February 19, 2013, Plaintiff requested a video hearing 

because he did not have transportation to the hearing office in Phoenix. On February 20, 

2013, Plaintiff appeared in Prescott, Arizona, and testified by video teleconferencing at 

the hearing before the ALJ who was located in Phoenix. A vocational expert also 

testified. Plaintiff was informed of his right to representation, but chose to appear and 

testify without the assistance of an attorney or other representative. 

Because Plaintiff had indicated that he would attend the hearing in Phoenix in 

person, the digital copy of the administrative record prepared for him was not mailed to 

him in advance of the hearing. Also, at the time of the hearing, the last records in the 

case were from October 2010, and Plaintiff had not responded to January 2013 requests 

for any updated medical records. Plaintiff stated that he had received additional medical 

evaluations and an MRI in the past month and provided the ALJ with information and 

consent to obtain those records. Post-hearing medical evidence was obtained and a copy 

provided to Plaintiff with opportunity to file a responsive statement. 

On June 14, 2013, the ALJ issued a decision that Plaintiff’s disability ended as of 

March 1, 2010. The Appeals Council denied Plaintiff’s request for review of the hearing 

decision, making the ALJ’s decision the Commissioner’s final decision. On July 25, 

2014, Plaintiff sought review by this Court. 

Case 3:14-cv-08135-NVW Document 22 Filed 05/08/15 Page 2 of 12
- 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 

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW 

The district court reviews only those issues raised by the party challenging the 

ALJ’s decision. See Lewis v. Apfel, 236 F.3d 503, 517 n.13 (9th Cir. 2001). The court 

may set aside the Commissioner’s disability determination only if the determination is 

not supported by substantial evidence or is based on legal error. Orn v. Astrue, 495 F.3d 

625, 630 (9th Cir. 2007). Substantial evidence is more than a scintilla, less than a 

preponderance, and relevant evidence that a reasonable person might accept as adequate 

to support a conclusion considering the record as a whole. Id. As a general rule, 

“[w]here the evidence is susceptible to more than one rational interpretation, one of 

which supports the ALJ’s decision, the ALJ’s conclusion must be upheld.” Thomas v. 

Barnhart, 278 F.3d 947, 954 (9th Cir. 2002) (citations omitted); accord Molina v. Astrue, 

674 F.3d 1104, 1111 (9th Cir. 2012) (“Even when the evidence is susceptible to more 

than one rational interpretation, we must uphold the ALJ’s findings if they are supported 

by inferences reasonably drawn from the record.”). 

Harmless error principles apply in the Social Security Act context. Molina v. 

Astrue, 674 F.3d 1104, 1115 (9th Cir. 2012). An error is harmless if there remains 

substantial evidence supporting the ALJ’s decision and the error does not affect the 

ultimate nondisability determination. Id. The claimant usually bears the burden of 

showing that an error is harmful. Id. at 1111. 

III. ADMINISTRATIVE FINDINGS 

If an individual is entitled to disability benefits, his continued entitlement to such 

benefits must be reviewed periodically. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1594(a). Disability benefits 

may be discontinued if there has been medical improvement related to the claimant’s 

ability to work and the claimant is currently able to engage in substantial gainful activity. 

Disability benefits also may be discontinued if there has been no medical improvement 

but other circumstances exist, such as the claimant is currently engaging in substantial 

gainful activity, does not cooperate in providing evidence or submitting to a medical 

examination, or fails to follow prescribed treatment expected to restore the claimant’s 

Case 3:14-cv-08135-NVW Document 22 Filed 05/08/15 Page 3 of 12
- 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 

ability to engage in substantial gainful activity. To determine whether a claimant 

continues to be disabled, the Commissioner uses an eight-step process. 20 C.F.R. 

§ 404.1594(f). 

The ALJ found the most recent favorable medical decision finding that Plaintiff 

continued to be disabled is the decision dated November 3, 1999. The ALJ found that on 

November 3, 1999, Plaintiff had the following medically determinable impairment: back 

disorder. As of November 3, 1999, the impairment was found to result in the inability to 

perform work activity at any exertion level on a regular and sustained basis. The ALJ 

found that through March 1, 2010, Plaintiff had engaged in substantial gainful activity. 

Because Plaintiff apparently did not continue to work after 2008, the ALJ continued the 

sequential evaluation to determine whether Plaintiff’s disability had ended. 

The ALJ found that Plaintiff continued to have the same lumbar spine impairment 

that he had on November 3, 1999. The ALJ also found that Plaintiff’s morbid obesity is 

severe and factored that into determining his ability to function. The ALJ determined 

that since March 1, 2010, Plaintiff did not have an impairment or combination of 

impairments that met or medically equaled the severity of an impairment listed in 20 

C.F.R. Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1. The ALJ found that as of March 1, 2010, the 

medical severity of Plaintiff’s back impairment had decreased, medical improvement had 

occurred, Plaintiff’s impairments (back disorder and obesity) were severe, Plaintiff had 

the residual functional capacity to perform the full range of sedentary work as defined in 

20 C.F.R. 404.1567(a), and Plaintiff was unable to perform past relevant work. The ALJ 

concluded that as of March 1, 2010, considering Plaintiff’s age, education, work 

experience, and residual functional capacity, Plaintiff was able to perform a significant 

number of jobs in the national economy. 

Case 3:14-cv-08135-NVW Document 22 Filed 05/08/15 Page 4 of 12
- 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 

IV. ANALYSIS 

A. Plaintiff Was Not Prejudiced by Not Viewing the Administrative 

Record Before the Hearing. 

Plaintiff contends his due process rights were violated because he did not have 

opportunity to view the administrative record before the ALJ hearing. Plaintiff 

postponed a hearing in which he would have participated by video teleconferencing from 

Prescott, Arizona, because he wanted to attend the hearing in person in Phoenix, Arizona. 

The day before the rescheduled hearing he notified the ALJ that he would not be 

attending the hearing in Phoenix, which was too late to deliver the digital copy of the 

record to Plaintiff in Prescott before the hearing. During the hearing, the ALJ named the 

source of each exhibit included in the record and asked Plaintiff whether he had any 

objection. Post-hearing medical evidence was obtained and proffered to Plaintiff. The 

ALJ gave Plaintiff opportunity to review all of the evidence of record and make a 

responsive statement before the ALJ issued her decision. 

Contrary to Plaintiff’s assertion, the ALJ stated on the record that “the disc for 

your hearing is here in this office” and did not say that “she was unable to prepare a CD 

of the administrative record prior to the hearing.” It can be inferred that the disc was 

mailed to Plaintiff shortly after the February 20, 2013 hearing. On October 25, 2013, a 

representative for Plaintiff was appointed, and he requested a copy of the tapes of the 

hearings and all exhibits. The representative requested review by the Appeals Council 

and submitted additional documents on Plaintiff’s behalf. He remained Plaintiff’s 

representative until April 17, 2014, and did not object to any of the evidence in the 

administrative record. Plaintiff does not assert, and the record does not show, any 

prejudice caused by not viewing the administrative record before the ALJ hearing. 

B. The ALJ Did Not Err in Evaluating Plaintiff’s Credibility. 

In evaluating the credibility of a claimant’s testimony regarding subjective pain or 

other symptoms, the ALJ is required to engage in a two-step analysis: (1) determine 

whether the claimant presented objective medical evidence of an impairment that could 

Case 3:14-cv-08135-NVW Document 22 Filed 05/08/15 Page 5 of 12
- 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 

reasonably be expected to produce some degree of the pain or other symptoms alleged; 

and, if so with no evidence of malingering, (2) reject the claimant’s testimony about the 

severity of the symptoms only by giving specific, clear, and convincing reasons for the 

rejection. Vasquez v. Astrue, 572 F.3d 586, 591 (9th Cir. 2009). In making a credibility 

determination, an ALJ “may not reject a claimant’s subjective complaints based solely on 

a lack of objective medical evidence to fully corroborate the claimant’s allegations.” 

Bray v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 554 F.3d 1219, 1227 (9th Cir. 2009) (internal 

quotation marks and citation omitted). But “an ALJ may weigh inconsistencies between 

the claimant’s testimony and his or her conduct, daily activities, and work record, among 

other factors.” Id. The ALJ must make findings “sufficiently specific to permit the court 

to conclude that the ALJ did not arbitrarily discredit claimant’s testimony.” Thomas v. 

Barnhart, 278 F.3d 947, 958 (9th Cir. 2002); accord Tommasetti v. Astrue, 533 F.3d 

1035, 1039 (9th Cir. 2008). 

Plaintiff testified that he has back pain, cannot feel his legs, uses a wheelchair 

whenever he is out of bed, and needs supplemental oxygen 14 to 16 hours a day. He 

testified that he cannot take narcotic pain medication because it makes him sick, but he 

takes non-narcotic pain medication daily and has been given approximately 30 short 

courses (about four days each) of steroid medication when the pain becomes almost 

unbearable. Plaintiff also testified that his diabetes is uncontrolled and he takes insulin 

injections.1

 He said he is able to walk without a wheelchair about a block or half a block 

before his leg goes numb or he gets sharp pains down his leg. He also said that he needs 

his wife to help him with showering, dressing, combing his hair, and putting on shoes. 

Plaintiff testified that it is dangerous for him to drive because he cannot feel his left leg, 

 1

 Plaintiff also said several times that his diabetes causes his fibromyalgia, and 

perhaps he meant diabetic neuropathy. However, the record does not include any 

evidence of either fibromyalgia or diabetic neuropathy. Further, the record does not 

include any evidence that diabetes caused Plaintiff any functional limitation, and 

treatment notes indicate Plaintiff refused diabetic or nutritional counseling related to 

diabetes management. 

Case 3:14-cv-08135-NVW Document 22 Filed 05/08/15 Page 6 of 12
- 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 

but he does drive occasionally if he feels good. When asked whether he would be able to 

do a job where he sat in his wheelchair, Plaintiff responded he would not because of back 

pain. 

First, the ALJ found that Plaintiff’s medically determinable impairments could 

reasonably be expected to cause the alleged symptoms. Second, the ALJ found 

Plaintiff’s statements regarding the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of the 

symptoms not credible to the extent they are inconsistent with the ALJ’s residual 

functional capacity assessment for the following reasons: (1) Plaintiff’s work at 

substantial gainful activity levels in 2006 and 2007 is inconsistent with continuing 

disability; (2) Plaintiff failed to report his work and earnings; (3) Plaintiff testified he was 

paid more than $50,000/year for learning to drive a truck; (4) Plaintiff’s driving over a 

five-state area is inconsistent with inability to sit for prolonged periods; (5) Plaintiff 

testified he failed to appear for consultative examinations and the disability hearing 

officer’s hearing in April 2011 because he was recovering from thyroid cancer surgery 

performed in October 2010; (6) Plaintiff claimed to be on prescribed oxygen 14 to 16 

hours a day, but admitted he does not have a portable oxygen tank; (7) there is no 

documentation of a prescription or need to be on supplemental oxygen (his reports of 

using oxygen at night with a CPAP for sleep apnea); (8) medical records do not show any 

prescription for steroids2

 or record of pain medications making Plaintiff sick; and (9) 

Plaintiff testified he can walk only a block or half a block, but reported walking a mile 

twice a day in April 2012 and walking about a mile a day in March 2012. 

Thus, substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s credibility determination and 

supports finding that the ALJ provided specific, clear, and convincing reasons for 

discrediting Plaintiff’s subjective symptom testimony. 

 2

 The record shows Plaintiff had a steroid injection in his right elbow, not that he 

was prescribed on multiple occasions four-day courses of oral steroids to manage his 

back pain. On December 26, 2012, however, Plaintiff was prescribed prednisone, a 

corticosteroid, for his right elbow tendonitis. 

Case 3:14-cv-08135-NVW Document 22 Filed 05/08/15 Page 7 of 12
- 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 

C. The ALJ Did Not Err in Determining Plaintiff’s Residual Functional 

Capacity or in Discrediting the Nurse Practitioner’s Opinion. 

Plaintiff contends the ALJ abused her discretion in finding Plaintiff capable of 

sedentary work with no medical evidence in support of this assertion and the ALJ 

erroneously dismissed a medical source statement by treating Nurse Practitioner Heidi 

Read. 

A residual functional capacity finding involves a detailed assessment of how a 

claimant’s medical impairments affect his ability to work. In determining a claimant’s 

residual functional capacity, the ALJ “must consider all relevant evidence in the record, 

including, inter alia, medical records, lay evidence, and ‘the effects of all symptoms, 

including pain, that are reasonably attributed to a medically determinable impairment.’” 

Robbins v. SSA, 466 F.3d 880, 883 (9th Cir. 2006). The ALJ must consider the combined 

effect of multiple conditions, including those that are not severe. See 20 C.F.R. 

§ 404.1545(a)(2). The Commissioner is responsible for determining whether a claimant 

meets the statutory definition of disability and does not give significance to a statement 

by a medical source that the claimant is “disabled” or “unable to work.” 20 C.F.R. 

§ 416.927(d). 

Under 20 C.F.R. § 404.1513(a), only licensed physicians, licensed or certified 

psychologists, licensed optometrists, licensed podiatrists, and qualified speech-language 

pathologists are considered “acceptable medical sources.” Molina v. Astrue, 674 F.3d 

1104, 1111 (9th Cir. 2012). “Other sources” are not entitled to the same deference as 

“acceptable medical sources.” Id. The ALJ may discount testimony from “other 

sources” if the ALJ gives reasons germane to the witness for doing so. Id. Under 20 

C.F.R. 404.1513(d), “other sources” include nurse practitioners and physicians’ assistants 

as well as non-medical sources, such as family members. Only “acceptable medical 

sources” can provide medical opinions, and only “acceptable medical sources” can be 

considered treating sources. SSR 06-03p, 2006 WL 2329939. Information from “other 

sources” cannot establish the existence of a medically determinable impairment, but it 

Case 3:14-cv-08135-NVW Document 22 Filed 05/08/15 Page 8 of 12
- 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 

may be used to show the severity of the individual’s impairment and how the impairment 

affects the individual’s ability to function. Id. 

In weighing the opinions of “acceptable medical sources,” the Ninth Circuit 

distinguishes among three types of physicians: (1) treating physicians, who actually treat 

the claimant; (2) examining physicians, who examine but do not treat the claimant; and 

(3) non-examining physicians, who neither treat nor examine the claimant. Lester v. 

Chater, 81 F.3d 821, 830-32 (9th Cir. 1995). Generally, greater weight is given to the 

opinions of treating physicians than those of examining physicians, and greater weight is 

given to the opinions of examining physicians than those of non-examining physicians. 

Id. “The opinions of non-treating or non-examining physicians may also serve as 

substantial evidence when the opinions are consistent with independent clinical findings 

or other evidence in the record.” Thomas v. Barnhart, 278 F.3d 947, 957 (9th Cir. 2002). 

The ALJ may discount a physician’s opinion that is based only the claimant’s subjective 

complaints without objective evidence. Batson v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 359 F.3d 

1190, 1195 (9th Cir. 2004). 

The ALJ found there were no treating physician statements in the record regarding 

Plaintiff’s ability to function in a work setting as of March 1, 2010. Because Plaintiff 

repeatedly failed to appear for scheduled consultative examinations, there were no 

opinions by state agency examining physicians regarding Plaintiff’s ability to function in 

a work setting as of March 1, 2010. The ALJ considered the statement of Family Nurse 

Practitioner Heidi Read as testimony from an “other source.” 

On February 18, 2013, Ms. Read wrote a letter stating that Plaintiff had been 

under her care since October 3, 2012, and she was treating him for ankylosing spondylitis 

(arthritis of the spine), obesity, congestive heart failure, and uncontrolled diabetes. Ms. 

Read’s treatment notes for October 3, 2012, show that Plaintiff denied having back pain, 

and the results of examination of his back were “unremarkable, no tenderness.” 

Prescriptions were written to refill all of his medications, none of which were for pain. 

On November 8, 2012, Ms. Read treated Plaintiff for a sinus infection. Again, Plaintiff 

Case 3:14-cv-08135-NVW Document 22 Filed 05/08/15 Page 9 of 12
- 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 

denied having back pain, and the results of examination of his back were “unremarkable, 

no tenderness.” On December 26, 2012, Ms. Read treated Plaintiff for another sinus 

infection and right elbow pain. She prescribed Naproxen and prednisone for the elbow 

pain and noted she would order an X-ray and refer Plaintiff to pain management for 

steroid injections for his right elbow. Plaintiff denied having back pain, and the results of 

examination of his back were “unremarkable, no tenderness.” On January 25, 2013, the 

results of physical examination were limited range of motion of the right elbow with no 

swelling or discoloration but “pain upon lifting anything over 2 lbs.” Ms. Read also 

noted “L1-S1 point tenderness.” She noted the X-ray was negative, but she would order 

an MRI because Plaintiff “can still not move his arm or lift anything” and “is having 

sharp stabbing pain” in his right elbow. For the first time, Ms. Read indicated a diagnosis 

of ankylosing spondylitis and noted: 

Pt has ankylosing spondylitis and was dx in 1999 by Dr. Cunningham, this 

certified him for disability. He is now being denied disability due to lack of 

documentation. Will do a spinal MRI to check pts current condition and 

consider a referral to a rheumatologist. Pt is refusing to take narcotics and 

will stay on anti-inflammatories only. 

On February 18, 2013, Ms. Read’s notes state that Plaintiff’s wife “is here today to go 

over her husband’s long term disability,” she “needs to get a letter to his social security 

about his disabilities,” and she “states that she had brought a disc of his MRI on his 

Thoracic and Lumbar.” The notes indicate that Ms. Read saw only Plaintiff’s wife and 

she did not see Plaintiff on February 18, 2013. Ms. Read’s February 18, 2013 letter 

states: 

He is not being treated with heavy opiate pain medication due to him 

fearing “loss of control,” but considering his diagnosis anti-inflammatory 

medications are best and he has been taking Naproxen effectively. Patient 

is suffering from intermittent severe weakness and paralysis-like symptoms 

in his legs from time to time which is made worse by his obese condition 

and Spondylitis. He is often short of breath when walking and can only 

walk short distances, but often times he is using an electric wheelchair if he 

goes shopping and is unable to drive consistently. Patient did participate in 

Case 3:14-cv-08135-NVW Document 22 Filed 05/08/15 Page 10 of 12
- 11 - 

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 

physical therapy in the past but found it not helpful to his condition. He is 

unable to tie his shoes, go up and down the stairs, and lift over 20 lbs. He 

is able to care for himself as far as activities of daily living with the 

exception of driving. MRIs were done recently that confirmed patient’s 

spondylitis, bulging discs and severe stenosis at L5-S1. Surgery would be 

appropriate for this patient if he is ready to consider this as an alternative, 

we are currently discussing this as an option. Most recently patient was 

referred to a rheumatologist for continued treatment for his spondylitis, and 

a cardiologist for his heart failure. 

It is my professional opinion that this patient qualifies for disability 

given his numerous limitations and continued state of debilitation. 

On February 28, 2013, Plaintiff saw Ms. Read for right elbow pain and to learn the 

results of the MRI of his elbow. Ms. Read advised Plaintiff to use an immobilizer sling 

and noted she would refer him to an orthopedic specialist. Ms. Read’s treatment notes do 

not mention ankylosing spondylitis or back pain. 

The ALJ did not “dismiss” Ms. Read’s statement, but did give reasons germane to 

the statement and the witness for not adopting Ms. Read’s disability conclusion and 

functional limitations. The reasons include: (1) whether Plaintiff qualifies for disability 

is an issue reserved to the Commissioner; (2) nurse practitioners are not acceptable 

medical sources for purposes of establishing the existence of a medically determinable 

impairment; (3) the length of the treatment relationship was only four months; and (4) 

although a nurse practitioner may opine regarding functional limitations, Ms. Read’s 

functional assessment appears to be based primarily on Plaintiff’s subjective complaints, 

was requested by Plaintiff’s wife two days before the ALJ hearing, and was not supported 

by Ms. Read’s treatment notes or the greater objective record. Moreover, Ms. Read’s 

functional limitations do not exclude sedentary work as defined in 20 C.F.R. 404.1567(a). 

Substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s determination that Plaintiff has the 

residual functional capacity to perform the full range of sedentary work as defined in 20 

C.F.R. 404.1567(a). Although the record does not support any functional limitation 

caused by Plaintiff’s back impairment, the ALJ expressly considered Plaintiff’s severe 

Case 3:14-cv-08135-NVW Document 22 Filed 05/08/15 Page 11 of 12
- 12 - 

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 

morbid obesity in combination with a lumbar spine disorder and did not err by limiting 

Plaintiff to sedentary work. 

D. Determination of Overpayment Is Not Before the Court. 

Plaintiff contends that the determination of overpayment was improper because he 

is educationally limited and probably did not receive access to the administrative record 

prior to the overpayment hearing. No records regarding the overpayment determination 

have been submitted in this case. Regardless of how the overpayment issue was resolved, 

it was not raised on appeal and is not before the Court now. Moreover, during the 

hearing regarding Plaintiff’s continued disability, he said he earned more than $50,000 

annually in 2006 and 2007 and that he and his family were continuing to receive 

disability benefits as of February 20, 2013. 

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the final decision of the Commissioner of 

Social Security is affirmed. The Clerk shall enter judgment accordingly and shall 

terminate this case. 

Dated this 7th day of May, 2015. 

Neil V. Wake

United States District Judge

Case 3:14-cv-08135-NVW Document 22 Filed 05/08/15 Page 12 of 12