Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-00391/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-00391-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 864
Nature of Suit: Social Security - SSID Title XVI
Cause of Action: 42:402 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

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MARK ANTHONY BELIEW,

Plaintiff,

v.

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL 

SECURITY,

Defendant.

Case No. 1:19-cv-391-JDP

ORDER ON SOCIAL SECURITY APPEAL

Claimant has requested judicial review of the Social Security Administration’s (“SSA”) 

denial of his application for disability insurance benefits. On February 13, 2020, we heard 

argument from the parties.1 Having reviewed the record and considered arguments raised by the 

parties, we will affirm the decision of the administrative law judge (“ALJ”).

On appeal, we ask whether substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s factual findings and 

whether the ALJ applied the correct legal standards. See 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). We will uphold the 

ALJ’s decision if it is rational, even if there is another rational interpretation of the evidence; we

will not substitute our judgment for that of the Commissioner. See Revels v. Berryhill, 874 F.3d 

648, 654 (9th Cir. 2017).

The ALJ found claimant to have three severe impairments: bilateral knee replacements, 

major depressive disorder, and polysubstance dependence (in remission). AR 21. Claimant now 

focuses on the first two of these impairments, arguing that the ALJ erred (1) in failing to further 

 

1 Both parties are represented by counsel. 

Case 1:19-cv-00391-JDP Document 19 Filed 03/09/20 Page 1 of 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

2

develop the record regarding his post-surgery knee impairments and (2) in discounting the 

opinion of treating psychiatrist Eduardo Morales.

On the first issue, the ALJ found that, although claimant’s knee impairment limited his

residual functional capacity (“RFC”), it was not disabling. In reaching the conclusion, the ALJ 

considered the opinions of doctors who evaluated claimant before his knee surgery, see AR 26, 

but she did not have the benefit of a post-surgery opinion. Claimant now argues that the ALJ had 

a duty to further develop the record—presumably by obtaining a post-surgery opinion from a 

medical source.

An individual seeking disability insurance benefits bears the burden of proving that he is 

disabled. See 42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(5)(A) (“An individual shall not be considered to be under a 

disability unless he furnishes such medical and other evidence of the existence thereof as the 

Commissioner of Social Security may require.”); Meanel v. Apfel, 172 F.3d 1111, 1113 (9th Cir. 

1999), as amended (June 22, 1999) (“The claimant bears the burden of proving that she is 

disabled.”). The ALJ, however, is not a mere observer of the administrative process; the Social 

Security Act requires ALJs to be active participants, responsible for coordinating the nonadversarial evaluation process and for undertaking a certain amount of investigation. See 

Tonapetyan v. Halter, 242 F.3d 1144, 1150 (9th Cir. 2001) (“The ALJ in a social security case 

has an independent duty to fully and fairly develop the record and to assure that the claimant’s 

interests are considered.”). The Act requires ALJs to “make every reasonable effort to obtain” all 

medical evidence necessary to determine disability. 42 U.S.C. § 423(b)(5). In a case in which 

benefits are denied, the Act further requires the ALJ to “develop a complete medical history of at 

least the preceding twelve months.” Id. This responsibility is not limited to pursuing pre-existing 

information; in some cases, the ALJ “may need” to request the collection of additional 

information, for example by asking the claimant to undergo a consultative examination. 20 

C.F.R. §§ 404.1520b(b), (b)(2)(iii); see also id. § 404.1512(b) (defining SSA’s responsibility to 

develop medical history). 

But ALJs are not required in every case to obtain a medical opinion or otherwise to

Case 1:19-cv-00391-JDP Document 19 Filed 03/09/20 Page 2 of 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

3

“further develop the record.” Such a duty exists “only when there is ambiguous evidence or when 

the record is inadequate to allow for proper evaluation of the evidence” by the ALJ. Mayes v. 

Massanari, 276 F.3d 453, 459-60 (9th Cir. 2001); see 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520b(b) (addressing 

ALJ’s responsibilities when the “record is insufficient or inconsistent”—meaning when the record 

“does not contain all the information [SSA needs] to make [its] determination or decision,” or 

when the evidence “conflicts with other evidence, contains an internal conflict, is ambiguous, or 

when the medical evidence does not appear to be based on medically acceptable clinical or 

laboratory diagnostic techniques”). A record may be insufficient, for example, if it contains 

crucial medical information that is too technical to be understood or evaluated by an ALJ. See 

Molina v. Berryhill, No. 2:17-CV-01991 CKD, 2018 WL 6421287, at *4 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 6, 2018)

(faulting ALJ for failing to further develop the record where ALJ, without the benefit of a medical 

expert, based her conclusion on her “lay interpretation” of “x-rays, MRIs, and clinical findings”). 

The record here is neither ambiguous nor inadequate for evaluation of the evidence. In 

addition to pre-surgery information, the ALJ relied on two sets of post-surgery treatment notes 

from Dr. Mario Sablan—AR 371-401, 746-66—which indicated “definite improvement in the 

right knee and complete pain resolution in his left knee.” AR 25; see also AR 376 (stating, in 

regard to the left knee, that “patient feels that the knee function has returned to normal” and “that 

the discomfort has resolved completely”), 372 (stating, in regard to the right knee, that “[t]here 

has been a definite improvement since surgery when compared to the pre-op symptoms”). The 

notes are written in plain English, largely paraphrase claimant’s own statements, and are well 

within the ken of an SSA ALJ. Making sense of Dr. Sablan’s notes did not require the ALJ 

impermissibly to “play doctor.” Rohan v. Chater, 98 F.3d 966, 970 (7th Cir. 1996). Absent an 

ambiguous or insufficient record, the ALJ had no duty to inquire further.

2

Separately, claimant faults the ALJ for giving short shrift to the opinion of Dr. Morales. 

 

2 Claimant also addressed his knee impairments in his testimony, stating that he had a sharply 

limited ability to walk and stand following his surgeries. The ALJ, however, found this testimony 

to be inconsistent with the notes of Dr. Sablan and also with the opinion of Dr. Swanson, who 

examined claimant before his surgeries. See AR 25. The ALJ’s evaluation of claimant’s 

testimony is not at issue on appeal. 

Case 1:19-cv-00391-JDP Document 19 Filed 03/09/20 Page 3 of 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

4

Dr. Morales was a treating psychiatrist who opined that claimant was unable to work. AR 27. 

The ALJ gave his opinion “little weight because it [was] not supported by the objective medical 

evidence in the record.” AR 27. 

An ALJ may not reject the contradicted opinion of a treating doctor “without providing 

specific and legitimate reasons supported by substantial evidence in the record.” Lester v. Chater, 

81 F.3d 821, 830 (9th Cir. 1995). Here, the ALJ’s one-sentence statement of her reasons for

discounting Dr. Morales’s opinion leaves something to be desired. Crucially, however, the ALJ’s 

admittedly short and boilerplate-like justification is supported by a lengthy string citation that 

allows us to match up the cited “objective evidence” with the ALJ’s discussion thereof in earlier 

portions of her opinion. See AR 27, 25 (citing four exhibits and stating that claimant “has been 

described by his various healthcare providers as ‘calm’, ‘cooperative’, and ‘pleasant’”); id. (citing 

one exhibit and stating that claimant “demonstrated adequate attention, concentration and focus 

during his examination with Dr. Swanson”); id. (citing one exhibit and stating that claimant 

“reported getting along with people in positions of authority and adequately being able to handle 

stressful situations”). Thus, we need not wade through the lengthy administrative record and 

guess at the ALJ’s interpretation thereof; the ALJ’s logic is apparent on the face of her opinion.3 

It would have been preferable for the ALJ to have laid out every link in the chain, explaining 

precisely why she saw the cited evidence as conflicting with or undercutting Dr. Morales’s

opinion and relieving us of any need to make inferences. However, in this case, we find the 

ALJ’s explanation of her rejection of Dr. Morales to pass muster—that is, to be supported by 

specific and legitimate reasons. See Magallanes v. Bowen, 881 F.2d 747, 755 (9th Cir. 1989) 

(“As a reviewing court, we are not deprived of our faculties for drawing specific and legitimate 

inferences from the ALJ’s opinion.”). 

In sum, we find that the ALJ’s decision is supported by substantial evidence and that 

claimant has identified no reversible error in the ALJ’s analysis. For the reasons stated in this 

order, we deny claimant’s appeal from the administrative decision of the Commissioner of Social 

 

3 We do not suggest that a detailed citation will always or even usually permit a reviewing court 

to identify an ALJ’s specific and legitimate reasons. In this case, however, it does. 

Case 1:19-cv-00391-JDP Document 19 Filed 03/09/20 Page 4 of 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

5

Security and direct the clerk of court (1) to enter judgment in favor of defendant and against 

claimant Mark Anthony Beliew and (2) to close this case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 9, 2020 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

No. 200.

Case 1:19-cv-00391-JDP Document 19 Filed 03/09/20 Page 5 of 5