Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-00661/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-00661-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 864
Nature of Suit: Social Security - SSID Title XVI
Cause of Action: 42:0405id Review of HHS Decision (SSID)

---

1 

17cv00661 JAH-BLM 

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 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

RICHARD ROBERT BRASSNER, 

Plaintiff,

v. 

NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Commissioner 

of Social Security, 

Defendant.

 Case No.: 17cv00661 JAH-BLM 

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION FOR SUMMARY 

JUDGMENT; DENYING 

DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR 

SUMMARY JUDGMENT; AND 

VACATING THE ALJ’S DECISION 

AND REMANDING FOR FURTHER 

PROCEEDINGS [Doc. Nos. 16, 17] 

INTRODUCTION 

 Plaintiff seeks review of the Social Security Commissioner’s final decision denying 

benefits. After a thorough review of the parties’ submissions and for the reasons set forth 

below, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and DENIES 

Defendant’s cross-motion for summary judgment, and REMANDS the matter for further 

proceedings. 

BACKGROUND

 Plaintiff was born on April 28, 1962, and is currently 57 years of age. AR1

 at 217, 

224. He alleges he has been unable to work since June 13, 2013, as a result of a disabling 

                                               

1

 AR refers to the administrative record. 

Case 3:17-cv-00661-JAH-BLM Document 21 Filed 03/18/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 8
2 

17cv00661 JAH-BLM 

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

condition. Id. He filed an application for disability insurance benefits and supplemental 

security income benefits on September 24, 2015. Id. The Commissioner of the Social 

Security Administration denied the claim on January 21, 2016, and denied the claim again 

upon reconsideration. Id. at 117, 118, 143, 144. Plaintiff requested a hearing, and appeared 

and testified at the hearing on September 19, 2016. Id. at 159, 73. The ALJ issued an 

unfavorable decision on October 20, 2016. Id. at 55. Plaintiff filed a request for review of 

the ALJ’s decision and the Appeals Council denied the request. Id. at 33, 1-7. 

 Plaintiff, appearing through counsel, filed the complaint seeking review of the 

Commissioner’s final decision denying benefits on March 31, 2017. See Doc. No. 1. 

Defendant filed an answer and the administrative record on August 14, 2017. See Doc. 

Nos. 13, 14. 

 Thereafter, Plaintiff filed the pending motion for summary judgment and Defendant 

filed an opposition and cross-motion for summary judgment. See Doc. Nos. 16, 17. 

DISCUSSION

I. Legal Standards

A. Qualifying for Disability Benefits

 To qualify for disability benefits under the Act, an applicant must show that: (1) he 

suffers from a medically determinable impairment that can be expected to result in death 

or that has lasted or can be expected to last for a continuous period of not less than twelve 

months; and (2) the impairment renders the applicant incapable of performing the work 

that he previously performed or any other substantially gainful employment that exists in 

the national economy. See 42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(1)(A), 2(A). An applicant must meet both 

requirements to be “disabled.” Id. 

 The Secretary of the Social Security Administration has established a five-step 

sequential evaluation process for determining whether a person is disabled. 20 C.F.R. §§ 

404.1520, 416.920. Step one determines whether the claimant is engaged in “substantial 

gainful activity.” If he is, disability benefits are denied. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(b), 

416.920(b). If he is not, the decision maker proceeds to step two, which determines 

Case 3:17-cv-00661-JAH-BLM Document 21 Filed 03/18/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 8
3 

17cv00661 JAH-BLM 

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

whether the claimant has a medically severe impairment or combination of impairments. 

If the claimant does not have a severe impairment or combination of impairments, the 

disability claim is denied. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(c), 416.920(c). If the impairment is 

severe, the evaluation proceeds to the third step, which determines whether the impairment 

is equivalent to one of a number of listed impairments that the Secretary acknowledges are 

so severe as to preclude substantial gainful activity. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(d); 20 C.F.R. 

Part 404 Appendix 1 to Subpart P. If the impairment meets or equals one of the listed 

impairments, the claimant is conclusively presumed to be disabled. If a condition “falls 

short of the [listing] criterion” a multiple factor analysis is appropriate. Celaya v. Halter, 

332 F.3d 1177, 1181 (9th Cir. 2003). Of such analysis, “the Secretary shall consider the 

combined effect of all the individual’s impairments without regard to whether any such 

impairment, if considered separately, would be of such severity.” Id. at 1182 (quoting 42 

U.S.C. § 423(d)(2)(B)). If the impairment is not one that is conclusively presumed to be 

disabling, the evaluation proceeds to the fourth step, which determines whether the 

impairment prevents the claimant from performing work he has performed in the past. If 

the claimant cannot perform his previous work, the fifth and final step of the process 

determines whether he is able to perform other work in the national economy considering 

his age, education, and work experience. The claimant is entitled to disability benefits only 

if he is not able to perform other work. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(g)(1), 416.920(g)(1). 

B. Judicial Review of an ALJ’s Decision

 Section 405(g) of the Act allows unsuccessful applicants to seek judicial review of 

a final agency decision of the Commissioner. 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). The scope of judicial 

review is limited. The Commissioner’s denial of benefits “will be disturbed only if it is not 

supported by substantial evidence or is based on legal error.” Brawner v. Secretary of 

Health and Human Servs., 839 F.2d 432, 433 (9th Cir. 1988) (citing Green v. Heckler, 803 

F.2d 528, 529 (9th Cir. 1986)). 

 Substantial evidence means “more than a mere scintilla” but less than a 

preponderance. Sandgathe v. Chater, 108 F.3d 978, 980 (9th Cir. 1997) (citation omitted). 

Case 3:17-cv-00661-JAH-BLM Document 21 Filed 03/18/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 8
4 

17cv00661 JAH-BLM 

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

“[I]t is such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a 

conclusion.” Id. (quoting Andrews v. Shalala, 53 F.3d 1035, 1039 (9th Cir. 1995)). The 

Court must consider the record as a whole, weighing both the evidence that supports and 

detracts from the Commissioner’s conclusions. Desrosiers v. Secretary of Health & 

Human Servs., 846 F.2d 573, 576 (9th Cir. 1988) (citing Jones v. Heckler, 760 F.2d 993, 

995 (9th Cir. 1985)). If the evidence supports more than one rational interpretation, the 

Court must uphold the ALJ’s decision. Allen v. Heckler, 749 F.2d 577, 579 (9th Cir. 1984) 

(citing Allen v. Secretary of Health and Human Servs., 726 F.2d 1470, 1473 (9th Cir. 

1984). When the evidence is inconclusive, “questions of credibility and resolution of 

conflicts in the testimony are functions solely of the Secretary.” Sample v. Schweiker, 694 

F.2d 639, 642 (9th Cir. 1982). 

 However, even if the reviewing court finds that substantial evidence supports the 

ALJ’s conclusions, the Court must set aside the decision if the ALJ failed to apply the 

proper legal standards in weighing the evidence and reaching a decision. See Benitez v. 

Califano, 573 F.2d 653, 655 (9th Cir. 1978). Section 405(g) permits a court to enter a 

judgment affirming, modifying, or reversing the Commissioner’s decision. 42 U.S.C. § 

405(g). The reviewing court may also remand the matter to the Social Security 

Administrator for further proceedings. Id. “If additional proceedings can remedy defects 

in the original administrative proceeding, a social security case should be remanded.” 

Marcia v. Sullivan, 900 F.2d 172, 176 (9th Cir. 1990) (quoting Lewin v. Schweiker, 654 

F.2d 631, 635 (9th Cir. 1981)). 

II. The ALJ’s Decision

 In the present case, the ALJ found Plaintiff had not engaged in substantial gainful 

activity since June 13, 2013, and had severe impairments, including explosive disorder, 

anxiety disorder, and depressive disorder, that cause more than minimal limitations on 

Plaintiff’s ability to perform basic work activities. AR at 60. The ALJ also found 

Plaintiff’s heart complications and Bell’s palsy non-severe but considered all impairments, 

severe and non-severe, in determining his residual functional capacity. Id. at 61. The ALJ 

Case 3:17-cv-00661-JAH-BLM Document 21 Filed 03/18/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 8
5 

17cv00661 JAH-BLM 

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

determined Plaintiff does not have an impairment or combination of impairments that meet 

or are medically equal in severity to one of the listed impairments in 20 CFR Part 404 

Subpart P, Appendix 1. Id. In making this determination, the ALJ found Plaintiff has mild 

restrictions in daily living, marked difficulties in social functioning and no difficulties in 

concentration, persistence or pace. Id. at 62. Additionally, the ALJ found Plaintiff had no 

episodes of decompensation of extended duration. Id. The ALJ also found Plaintiff does 

not have medically documented evidence that shows he has a complete inability to function 

independently outside the area of his home. Id. 

 The ALJ found Plaintiff has the residual functional capacity to perform a full range 

of work at all exertional levels but with non-exertional limitations that include: no 

interaction with the public, no work on unprotected heights or dangerous machinery and 

he is limited to work in a non-public setting. Id. at 63. 

The ALJ also found the evidence did not support Plaintiff’s allegations concerning 

the intensity, persistence and limiting effects of his symptoms. Id. at 64. The ALJ gave 

significant weight to the opinion of Ryan Greytak, MD who provided a psychiatric 

consultative evaluation. Id. at 64-65. The ALJ gave little weight to the state agency 

consultants who opined Plaintiff’s mental impairments were non-severe, and explained that 

the records support a finding his mental impairments were severe, and gave little weight to 

the statement by Plaintiff’s roommate finding it was not fully consistent with the evidence. 

Id. at 65. 

 The ALJ determined Plaintiff was unable to perform any past relevant work but he 

could perform jobs that exist in significant numbers in the national economy. Id. at 66-67. 

Ultimately, the ALJ concluded Plaintiff had not been under a disability as defined by the 

Act from the date of his application. Id. at 68. 

III. Analysis

 Plaintiff argues the ALJ failed to articulate specific and legitimate reasons for 

rejecting his testimony. He contends the ALJ summarized the medical evidence, the third 

party statement and Plaintiff’s testimony but failed to provide sufficient rational as to why 

Case 3:17-cv-00661-JAH-BLM Document 21 Filed 03/18/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 5 of 8
6 

17cv00661 JAH-BLM 

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

the evidence was inconsistent. Additionally, Plaintiff contends the ALJ improperly relied 

on evidence of activities that do not contradict Plaintiff’s testimony or fail to meet a 

threshold of having application in a work setting, and failed to point to any specific activity 

of daily living that Plaintiff could do. Citing Schall v. Apfel, 134 F.3d 496, 502 (2nd Cir. 

1998), Plaintiff also argues a good work history is probative of credibility. He contends 

the ALJ’s analysis lacked any true consideration of his work history. 

 Plaintiff argues the ALJ failed to articulate legally sufficient reasons for rejecting 

his testimony, and, therefore, the Court should deem that testimony as true and make a 

finding of disability. 

 Defendant argues the ALJ articulated specific reasons supported by substantial 

evidence for finding Plaintiff’s allegations of disabling symptoms and functional 

limitations not credible. Defendant contends the ALJ noted that Plaintiff’s allegations of 

debilitating symptoms and limitations were not well supported by the medical evidence of 

record, and Plaintiff’s mental status examinations were generally normal and 

unremarkable. Defendant further contends the ALJ permissibly considered Plaintiff’s 

treatment history which demonstrated Plaintiff carried a diagnosis of anxiety/depression 

for at least 15 years, but his medical records revealed only intermittent treatment for mental 

health impairments. Defendant also maintains the ALJ reasonably considered Plaintiff’s 

daily activities in finding that they were inconsistent with the severity of the symptoms he 

alleged. Additionally, Defendant maintains the ALJ validly considered inconsistency 

between Plaintiff’s statements and the objective medical evidence, and Plaintiff does not 

challenge any of the ALJ’s findings with respect to this factor. 

 Defendant agrees a claimant’s work history is a factor the ALJ may consider in 

credibility finding but argues Plaintiff mischaracterizes the law by citing to a non-binding 

Second Circuit case to argue that a good work history is probative of credibility. Defendant 

contends a prior work record is merely one of the various factors the ALJ may consider in 

credibility determination, but it is not a determinative factor. 

Case 3:17-cv-00661-JAH-BLM Document 21 Filed 03/18/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 6 of 8
7 

17cv00661 JAH-BLM 

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

 The ALJ’s credibility finding must be properly supported by the record and 

sufficiently specific to assure a reviewing court that the ALJ did not “arbitrarily discredit” 

a claimant’s subjective testimony. Thomas v. Barnhart, 278 F.3d 947, 958 (9th Cir. 2002) 

(citing Bunnell v. Sullivan, 947 F.2d 341, 345-46 (9th Cir. 1991)). An ALJ may consider 

a claimant’s “reputation for truthfulness, inconsistencies either in his testimony or between 

his testimony and his conduct, his daily activities, his work record, and testimony from 

physicians and third parties concerning the nature, severity, and effect of the symptoms of 

which he complains. Light v. Soc. Sec. Admin., 119 F.3d 789, 792 (9th Cir. 1997). “While 

an ALJ may find testimony not credible in part or in whole, he or she may not disregard it 

solely because it is not substantiated affirmatively by objective medical evidence.” 

Robbins v. Soc. Sec. Admin., 466 F.3d 880, 883 (9th Cir. 2006). Unless an ALJ makes a 

finding of malingering based on confirming evidence, the ALJ may only find an applicant 

not credible by making specific findings as to credibility and stating clear and convincing 

reasons for each. Id. at 883. 

 In the written decision, the ALJ finds Plaintiff’s impairments could reasonably be 

expected to cause the alleged symptoms, but also finds Plaintiff’s statements concerning 

the intensity, persistence and limiting effects of the symptoms not entirely consistent with 

the medical evidence and other evidence of record “for the reasons explained in [the] 

decision.” AR at 64. The ALJ then discusses the opinion of Dr. Greytak, the state agency 

consultant physician opinions, information provided by Plaintiff’s roommate and 

Plaintiff’s testimony. Thereafter, the ALJ explains Plaintiff fails to show “a consistent 

restriction on his activities of daily living which corresponds to the alleged severity of his 

impairments.” AR at 66. The ALJ also explains the medical evidence demonstrates 

Plaintiff is able to do a number of daily living activities and had “several jobs in the past 

where he earned at substantial gainful activity levels.” Id. 

 The ALJ fails to identify the specific testimony found not credible and further fails 

to point to the specific evidence which undermines the testimony. See Reddick v. Chater, 

157 F.3d 715, 722 (9th Cir. 1998) (citations omitted). Defendant’s argument suggests the 

Case 3:17-cv-00661-JAH-BLM Document 21 Filed 03/18/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 7 of 8
8 

17cv00661 JAH-BLM 

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

Court may infer the reasons for the credibility finding from the ALJ’s discussion of the 

opinion testimony and other evidence discussed in the decision. However, the Court is not 

permitted to speculate as to reasons for the ALJ’s findings. See Treichler v. Commissioner 

of Social Sec. Admin., 775 F.3d 1090, 1103 (9th Cir. 2014). As presented, the Court is 

unable to conduct a meaningful review of the credibility finding. 

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

 For the reasons set forth above, the Court finds the ALJ’s denial of benefits was not 

free of legal error. While Plaintiff requests the Court reverse the ALJ’s decision and award 

benefits, the Court finds remand is appropriate. See Brown-Hunter v. Colvin, 806 F.3d 

487, 495 (9thCir. 2015). 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 

1. Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment is GRANTED; 

2. Defendant’s cross-motion for summary judgment is DENIED; 

3. The matter is REMANDED for further proceedings. 

DATED: March 14, 2019 

 

 ____________________________________ 

 JOHN A. HOUSTON 

 United States District Judge 

Case 3:17-cv-00661-JAH-BLM Document 21 Filed 03/18/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 8 of 8