Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-00808/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-00808-1/pdf.json

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

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 1 - 06cv0808

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

NINA MEDINA-MELLEY,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 06cv0808 JM(WMc)

ORDER DECLINING TO ADOPT

REPORT AND

RECOMMENDATION; GRANTING

SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN FAVOR

OF DEFENDANT; DENYING

PLAINTIFF’S CROSS MOTION FOR

SUMMARY JUDGMENT

vs.

JO ANNE B . BARNHART, Commissioner

of Social Security,

Defendant.

On July 16, 2007 Magistrate Judge McCurine entered a Report and

Recommendation Granting Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment, Denying

Defendant’s Cross Motion for Summary Judgment and Further Recommending the

Case be Remanded for Further Proceedings (“R & R”). The sole issue raised by the

parties on the cross motions for summary judgment is whether “the ALJ failed to

consider the impact of her obesity with her other multiple impairments on her ability

to work.” (R & R at p.7-8). Magistrate Judge McCurine concluded that the ALJ

considered Plaintiff’s obesity with respect to her cardiovascular condition but that the

R & R was silent with respect to the impact of Plaintiff’s obesity on her other medical

impairments (asthma/chronic obstructive lung disease, seizures, high blood pressure,

a heel injury and diabetes mellitus). The Magistrate Judge found that “the ALJ

committed error by failing to consider the effects of Plaintiff’s obesity on her other

Case 3:06-cv-00808-JM-WMC Document 20 Filed 09/27/07 Page 1 of 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

1

 The record reveals that Plaintiff’s weight has fluctuated over the years. Plaintiff is 5 feet 4

inches tall and in 1979 Plaintiff weighed 171 pounds, (A.R. 250), and in 1990 weighed 194 pounds.

(A.R. 420).

- 2 - 06cv0808

impairments” and recommended remanding the action for further proceedings.

The Commissioner objects to the R & R on the ground that the ALJ did in fact

consider Plaintiff’s obesity in connection with her other impairments and therefore

substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s decision denying benefits.1

 In Burch v.

Barnhart, 400 F.3d 676 (9th Cir. 2004), the claimant challenged whether the ALJ

adequately considered plaintiff’s obesity. Id. at 681. There, 

the district court properly noted:

There was no evidence before the ALJ, and none in the record, which

states that claimant’s obesity limits her functioning. Neither treatment

notes nor any diagnoses addressed claimant’s limitations due to obesity. The medical record is silent as to whether and how claimant’s obesity might have exacerbated her condition. Moreover, claimant did not present any testimony or other evidence at her hearing that her obesity impaired her ability to work.

Id. at 683. While the record revealed that claimant was obese, the Ninth Circuit held

that an “ALJ is not required to discuss the combined effects of a claimant’s impairments

or compare them to any listing in an equivalency determination, unless the claimant

presents evidence in an effort to establish equivalence.” Id. Even in the case where the

ALJ proceeds to Step five (as opposed to an equivalency determination at Step three),

the ALJ is obligated to “consider an individual’s maximum remaining ability to do

sustained work activities,” SSR 02-01p, and to “consider only limitations and

restrictions imposed by all of the individual’s impairments, even those that are not

severe (such as obesity).” SSR 96-8p.

Here, substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s determination that Plaintiff was not

disabled for purposes of either the Title II or Title XVI claim. In his decision, the ALJ

noted and considered that Plaintiff claimed disability based upon “seizures, high blood

pressure, obesity, left heel problems, a heart condition, and asthma.” (A.R. 14). In

reaching Plaintiff’s Residual Functional Capacity (“RFC”), the ALJ considered the

medical consultants, state agency physicians, and treating source progress records

Case 3:06-cv-00808-JM-WMC Document 20 Filed 09/27/07 Page 2 of 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 2

 The court notes that the ALJ also performed a detailed Five Step sequential analysis. (A.R.

14-23). 

- 3 - 06cv0808

which supported the RFC determination. (A.R. 19). The ALJ also specifically

addressed Dr. Noll’s cardiac evaluation wherein he noted that Plaintiff appeared

“‘relatively asymptomatic’ with only complaints of mild exertional dyspnea that she felt

was due to her marked obesity.” (A.R. 20). These portions of the record provide

evidentiary support to find that the ALJ actually considered Plaintiff’s obesity in light

of her other claimed medical conditions and that the ALJ specifically addressed the

impact of Plaintiff’s obesity on her cardiovascular condition. While the ALJ did not

specifically address Plaintiff’s obesity with respect to the other claimed medical

conditions (seizures, high blood pressure, left heel problems, diabetes, and asthma) such

specificity is not required unless the claimant presents some evidence to establish that

the combined effects impaired her function limitations due to obesity. Burch, 400 F.3d

at 683 (no error where the ALJ fails to discuss the combined effects of obesity on a

claimant’s impairments where the claimant fails to present some evidence of

impairment). Here, Plaintiff simply fails to direct the court’s attention to any evidence

in the record to support a finding that Plaintiff was disabled on account of her obesity

in combination with any other impairment.2

 Accordingly, the ALJ’s decision is

supported by substantial evidence and the court affirms the ALJ’s decision. 

Plaintiff primary relies upon Celaya v. Halter, 332 F.3d 1177 (9th Cir. 2003) for

the proposition that the ALJ has the duty to consider Plaintiff’s obesity on her other

noted impairments (other than the impact of obesity on Plaintiff’s cardiovascular system

which was specifically addressed by the ALJ). In Celaya, the claimant pursued her

claims against the Commissioner in propria persona, without the assistance of counsel.

The evidentiary record in that case indicated that the claimant was “extremely obese.”

Id. at 1179. However, neither the claimant nor the ALJ addressed her obesity in

combination with her other impairments. The Ninth Circuit reversed, noting that “the

exclusion of obesity from [the ALJ’s] analysis is error in that he was addressing an

Case 3:06-cv-00808-JM-WMC Document 20 Filed 09/27/07 Page 3 of 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

- 4 - 06cv0808

illiterate, unrepresented claimant who very likely never knew that she could assert

obesity as a partial basis for her disability.” Id. at 1183. The Ninth Circuit reasoned

that the ALJ has a heightened duty, in the case of unrepresented claimants, “to fully and

fairly develop the record to assure that the claimant’s interests are considered.” Id.

The court concludes that Celaya is neither persuasive nor as analogous as Burch.

In Celaya, unlike the present case, the claimant was not represented by counsel, her

obesity approached the listing requirements, and the ALJ did not consider or address

the claimant’s obesity in combination with any other impairment. Burch distinguished

Celaya on similar grounds:

First, [the issue of obesity] was raised implicitly in Celaya’s report of symptoms. Second, it was clear from the record that Celaya’s obesity was at least close to the listing criterion, and was a condition that could

exacerbate her reported illness. Third, in light of Celaya’s pro se status,

the ALJ’s observation of Celaya and the information on the record should

have alerted him to the need to develop the record in respect to her obesity.

400 F.3d at 682. Here, as in Burch, Plaintiff’s claims and interests were advocated by

experienced counsel, the ALJ specifically noted Plaintiff’s claims of obesity in

combination with other claimed impairments, the ALJ specifically considered evidence

of Plaintiff’s obesity in combination with Plaintiff’s cardiovascular ailments, and

Plaintiff did not present any evidence to the ALJ that her obesity, in combination with

any other alleged impairment, should be considered as a disabling factor.

In light of the substantial evidence supporting the ALJ’s decision and the absence

of legal error, the court declines to adopt the R & R and grants summary judgment in

favor of Defendant and against Plaintiff.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: September 27, 2007

 Hon. Jeffrey T. Miller

 United States District Judge

cc: All parties

Magistrate Judge McCurine

Case 3:06-cv-00808-JM-WMC Document 20 Filed 09/27/07 Page 4 of 4