Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-02112/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-02112-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 864
Nature of Suit: Social Security - SSID Title XVI
Cause of Action: 42:0423 Social Security Act (Disability Insurance Benefit Payments)

---

1

16-cv-02112-JM-MDD

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SALVADOR DEALBA SANCHEZ,

Plaintiff, 

v.

CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting 

Commissioner of Social Security,

Defendant. 

Case No.: 16-cv-02112-JM-MDD

REPORT AND 

RECOMMENDATION

Plaintiff Salvador D. Sanchez (“Plaintiff”) filed this action pursuant to 

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

the Social Security Administration (“Commissioner”) denying Plaintiff’s 

application for disability benefits under Title II of the Social Security Act and 

for supplemental security income under Title XVI. 

For the reasons expressed herein, the Court recommends that Plaintiff’s 

Complaint be dismissed. 

//

//

//

Case 3:16-cv-02112-JM-MDD Document 33 Filed 02/06/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 22
2

16-cv-02112-JM-MDD

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

I. BACKGROUND

Plaintiff alleges disability beginning on January 1, 2011. (A.R. 15).1 

Plaintiff’s date of birth is October 18, 1966; he was 44 years old on the alleged 

disability onset date, which categorizes him as a younger individual for these 

purposes. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1563, 416.963; (A.R. 24, 535).

A. Procedural History

On January 23, 2012, Plaintiff filed an application for disability and

disability insurance benefits. (A.R. 15). Plaintiff also filed an application for 

supplemental security income on February 17, 2012. (Id.). Plaintiff alleged 

disability beginning January 1, 2011, in both applications. Plaintiff’s

applications first were denied on June 8, 2012, and again upon 

reconsideration on February 6, 13. (Id.). On February 3, 2014, Plaintiff 

appeared and testified at a hearing in San Bernardino, California; and at a 

supplemental hearing on August 29, 2014, in San Diego, California. (Id.). 

On October 7, 2014, the ALJ issued a written decision finding Plaintiff 

not disabled. (A.R. 26). Plaintiff appealed, and on April 11, 2016, the 

Appeals Council declined to review the ALJ’s decision. (A.R. 1). 

Consequently, the ALJ’s decision became the final decision of the 

Commissioner. (Id.).

On August 20, 2016, Plaintiff filed a Complaint with this Court seeking 

judicial review of the Commissioner’s decision. (ECF No. 1). On March 23, 

2017, Defendant answered and lodged the administrative record with the 

Court. (ECF Nos. 11, 12). Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment was due 

May 26, 2017. The Court extended the deadline to June 30, 2017, granting a 

 

1 “A.R.” refers to the Administrative Record filed on March 23, 2017, and located at ECF 

No. 16.

Case 3:16-cv-02112-JM-MDD Document 33 Filed 02/06/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 22
3

16-cv-02112-JM-MDD

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

joint motion of the parties. (ECF Nos. 14, 17). No motion was filed and on 

July 3, 2017, counsel for Plaintiff filed a motion to withdraw as attorney of 

record. (ECF No. 18). The Court scheduled a telephonic status conference for 

July 7, 2017. (ECF No. 19). Counsel for Plaintiff and counsel for Defendant 

appeared. The Court continued the conference to July 13, 2017, to allow 

Plaintiff to participate. (ECF No. 21). On July 13, 2017, neither Plaintiff nor 

counsel for Plaintiff appeared. (ECF No. 24). The Court set a hearing for July 

26, 2017, requiring Plaintiff and his counsel personally to appear. (ECF No. 

25). 

Plaintiff and his counsel personally appeared on that date (counsel for 

Defendant was permitted to and did attend telephonically). The Court 

discussed with Plaintiff his options to obtain new counsel or to represent 

himself if his current counsel was permitted to withdraw. Plaintiff stated 

that he understood his options and no longer desired his current counsel of 

record to represent him. The Court advised Plaintiff that it would 

recommend to the district judge that his counsel be granted leave to 

withdraw and advised Plaintiff that his motion for summary judgment would 

be due on September 8, 2017. The report and recommendation to the district 

judge and new Scheduling Order were filed on August 7, 2017. (ECF Nos. 28, 

29).2 

Plaintiff failed to file a motion for summary judgment as required on 

September 8, 2017. On October 12, 2017, the Court issued an order to show 

cause why this case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute. (ECF 

No. 31). The hearing was held on October 25, 2017. Plaintiff appeared and 

 

2 On October 12, 2017, the district judge adopted the report and recommendation and 

Plaintiff’s counsel was terminated from the case. (ECF No. 30). 

Case 3:16-cv-02112-JM-MDD Document 33 Filed 02/06/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 22
4

16-cv-02112-JM-MDD

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

stated that he could not find new counsel but was not willing to withdraw his 

Complaint. (ECF No. 32). Accordingly, the Court advised Plaintiff that the 

Court would proceed with its report and recommendation by addressing the 

allegations presented in the Complaint. (Id.)

II. DISCUSSION

A. Legal Standard

To qualify for disability insurance benefits, a Plaintiff must establish an 

inability to engage in “substantial gainful activity” because of a “medically 

determinable physical or mental impairment” that “can be expected to result 

in death” or “has lasted or can be expected to last for a continuous period of 

not less than 12 months.” 42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(1)(A). The disabling 

impairment must be so severe that, considering age, education, and work 

experience, Plaintiff cannot engage in any kind of substantial gainful work 

that exists in the national economy. 42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(2)(A).

The Commissioner makes this assessment through a process of up to 

five steps. First, the Plaintiff must not be engaged in substantial, gainful 

activity. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(b). Second, Plaintiff must have a “severe” 

impairment. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(c). Third, the medical evidence of Plaintiff’s 

impairment is compared to a list of impairments that are presumed severe 

enough to preclude work. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(d). If Plaintiff’s impairment 

meets or is equivalent to the requirements for one of the listed impairments, 

benefits are awarded. (Id.). If Plaintiff’s impairment does not meet or is not 

equivalent to the requirements of a listed impairment, the analysis continues 

to a fourth and possibly fifth step and considers Plaintiff’s residual functional 

capacity. 

At the fourth step, Plaintiff’s relevant work history is considered with 

Plaintiff’s residual functional capacity. If Plaintiff can perform Plaintiff’s 

Case 3:16-cv-02112-JM-MDD Document 33 Filed 02/06/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 22
5

16-cv-02112-JM-MDD

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

past relevant work, benefits are denied. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(e). At the fifth 

step, if Plaintiff is found unable to perform Plaintiff’s past relevant work, the 

issue is whether Plaintiff can perform any other work that exists in the 

national economy, considering Plaintiff’s age, education, work experience, 

and residual functional capacity. If Plaintiff cannot do other work that exists 

in the national economy, benefits are awarded. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(f).

Sections 405(g) and 1383(c) (3) of the Social Security Act allow

unsuccessful applicants to seek judicial review of a final agency decision of 

the Commissioner. 42 U.S.C. §§ 405(g), 1383(c) (3). The scope of judicial 

review is limited and 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 & Human Services, 839 F.2d 432, 433 (9th 

Cir. 1988) (quoting Green v. Heckler, 803 F.2d 528, 529 (9th Cir. 1986)).

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

preponderance. Sandqathe v. Chater, 108 F.3d 978, 980 (9th Cir. 1997). “[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 Services, 846 F.2d 

573, 576 (9th Cir. 1988). 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). 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).

The ALJ has a special duty in social security cases to fully and fairly 

Case 3:16-cv-02112-JM-MDD Document 33 Filed 02/06/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 5 of 22
6

16-cv-02112-JM-MDD

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

develop the record in order to make an informed decision on a Plaintiff’s 

entitlement to disability benefits. DeLorme v. Sullivan, 924 F.2d 841, 849 

(9th Cir. 1991). Because disability hearings are not adversarial in nature, 

the ALJ must “inform himself [or herself] about the facts relevant to his 

decision,” even if Plaintiff is represented by counsel. (Id.). (quoting Heckler 

v. Campbell, 461 U.S. 458, 471 n.1 (1983)).

Even if a 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 his or 

her decision. 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 Administration for further 

proceedings. (Id.). 

B. The ALJ’s Decision

The ALJ noted Plaintiff was 44 years old on the alleged disability onset 

date, which categorizes him as a younger individual.

3 See 20 C.F.R. § 

404.1563, 416.963; (A.R. 24). 

The ALJ found Plaintiff had the following severe impairments: 

degenerative disc disease of the lumbar spine without evidence of 

radiculopathy or stenosis and asthma. (20 C.F.R. 404.1520 (c) and 16.920 

 

3 Plaintiff’s age on the date of the filing of this case was 49 years 10 months. While this 

case was pending, Plaintiff turned 50 years old moving him from the “younger individual”

category into the “closely approaching advanced age” category. Pursuant to Appendix 2 to 

Subpart P of Part 404 Medical Vocational Guidelines 20 C.F.R. Ch. III. Applying the 

record evidence and the ALJ’s findings in this case, the change in age category did not 

affect Plaintiff’s non-disability determination. See 20 CFR Ch. 111, Pt. 404, Subpart P. 

App. 2 (4-1-13 Edition). 

Case 3:16-cv-02112-JM-MDD Document 33 Filed 02/06/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 6 of 22
7

16-cv-02112-JM-MDD

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

(c)). (A.R. 17). The ALJ determined Plaintiff did not have an impairment or 

combination of impairments meeting or medically equivalent to the severity 

of one of the listed impairments in 20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1 

(20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(d), 404.1525, 404.1526, 416.920(d), 416.925 and 

416.926). (A.R. 19). Specifically, the ALJ found that “[n]o treating or 

examining physician has recorded findings equivalent in severity to the 

criteria of any listed impairment, nor does the evidence show medical 

findings that are the same or equivalent to those of any listed impairment of 

the Listing of impairments.” (Id.). The ALJ further determined Plaintiff’s 

“medically determinable mental impairment of anxiety and depressive

disorder does not cause more than minimal limitation in Plaintiff’s ability to 

perform basic mental work activities and is therefore nonsevere.” (A.R. 17). 

The ALJ found Plaintiff had the residual functional capacity (“RFC”) to:

“lift/carry 20 pounds occasionally and 10 pounds frequently; 

occasionally stoop and kneel; unable to crawl; no work around 

unprotected heights; no exposure to vibrations; occasionally work 

around moving machinery; occasionally operate foot pedal; no 

climbing ladder or ropes; occasionally climb stairs and ramps; no 

balancing; stand or walk four hours out of an eight hour workday, 

no more than 30 minutes at a time; sit for six hours out of an eight 

hour workday, no more than 30 minutes at a time, and at the 

completion of sitting, can rise and continue to work at the

workstation while standing or can walk away and remain standing; 

and avoid concentrated exposure to fumes, extreme temperatures.”

(A.R. 23). 

Relying on the record evidence and on the testimony of vocational 

expert (VE) Gloria J. Lasoff, the ALJ found Plaintiff is unable to perform his

past relevant work as a banquet server. (A.R. 24). The ALJ noted however, 

that jobs exist in significant numbers in the national economy that Plaintiff

can perform. (A.R. 77). In making this determination, the ALJ considered 

Case 3:16-cv-02112-JM-MDD Document 33 Filed 02/06/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 7 of 22
8

16-cv-02112-JM-MDD

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

Plaintiff’s age, education, work experience, and RFC. (A.R. 25). Accordingly, 

the ALJ found Plaintiff was not disabled from January 1, 2011, to the date of 

the ALJ’s decision, October 7, 2014. (A.R. 15).

In determining that Plaintiff is not disabled, the ALJ noted the 

following to be of particular relevance:

1. Plaintiff’s Testimony

Plaintiff alleged he had trouble with nearly all physical abilities. (A.R. 

291-300). Plaintiff also alleges he lies down most of the day and the pain 

medication leaves him groggy, sleepy, and depressed. (A.R. 293). He 

indicated he could only walk 10 feet before needing to stop and rest. (A.R. 

298). Plaintiff acknowledged he was able to watch television and he took an

active part in church. (A.R. 293, 297). 

At the hearing, Plaintiff testified he was still in pain years and the pain 

has gotten worse. (A.R. 76). Plaintiff testified he tried to go back to work five 

or seven times as a banquet server but was unable to walk or lift anything. 

(A.R. 72). Plaintiff further testified he could only drive his car in emergency 

situations. (A.R. 58). For example, Plaintiff testified he drove “three or four 

months ago” to pick his son up from school when his son was sick. (Id.).

The ALJ found Plaintiff’s credibility highly suspect based on the 

discrepancy between his subjective complaints and the objective medical

evidence. (A.R. 20). In multiple instances it appeared Plaintiff exaggerated

his symptoms during his testimony and during his consultative exams. (A.R. 

20, 456). 

2. Plaintiff’s 2011-2014 Medical Records

During an exam at the Lomita Family Medical Group on January 18, 

2011, Plaintiff complained of lower back pain with pain radiating to both 

legs. (A.R. 342). In April of 2011, an MRI of the Plaintiff’s lumbar spine 

Case 3:16-cv-02112-JM-MDD Document 33 Filed 02/06/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 8 of 22
9

16-cv-02112-JM-MDD

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

showed an annular tear. (A.R. 22, 542). An examination also found that 

Plaintiff’s right leg was shorter than his left and he was prescribed a heel lift. 

(A.R. 22).

On May 24, 2012, Dr. Robert MacArthur, M.D., a Board certified 

orthopaedist conducted a complete consultative evaluation of Plaintiff and 

noted Plaintiff exaggerated his symptoms and was not a credible historian. 

(A.R. 21, 456, 457). During the physical examination, Dr. MacArthur noted

the Plaintiff was able to get on and off the examination table without 

assistance. (A.R. 21, 458). 

On June 25, 2012, the Plaintiff alleged his condition was not improving 

and he could not imagine working again, but he declined a pain shot. (A.R. 

21, 530-531). The examining physician also made a note that his nurse 

practitioner observed Plaintiff in the lobby prior to his appointment and that 

he appeared to be without pain. (A.R. 21). On November 5, 2012, it was 

noted during medical appointments that Plaintiff walked into the exam room 

without a limp or gait abnormality. (Id.). Plaintiff also appeared to be able to 

sit on the examination table with ease. (A.R. 21, 471-472). Similarly, 

Plaintiff utilized his cane only part way, but then left the cane to walk and

have his vitals taken. (A.R. 472). 

On September 23, 2012, Plaintiff told his medical provider that he was

not interested in surgery to help fix his lower back pain. (A.R. 505). Despite

his complaints of back pain, Plaintiff again declined a pain shot. (A.R. 21, 

514).

In August 23, 2011, examining physician, Dr. Hardy, M.D., prepared a 

report following an examination of Plaintiff. Specifically, upon review of 

Plaintiff’s MRI, Dr. Hardy confirmed Plaintiff had mild degenerative disc 

disease with annular tear. (AR 367). Dr. Hardy further noted “[i]n the lower 

Case 3:16-cv-02112-JM-MDD Document 33 Filed 02/06/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 9 of 22
10

16-cv-02112-JM-MDD

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

extremities, [Plaintiff] has good strength and tone with no specific findings, 

although he has complained of some numbness and radicular type of pain.” 

(AR 368). In January 2013, Dr. Hardy, completed a Medical Source 

Statement-Physical form declaring his opinion that Plaintiff was completely 

disabled. (AR 487). This form is a checklist with little space to present 

medical findings supporting the assessment. Dr. Hardy’s statement that 

Plaintiff’s “known back disc phenomenon at L4-5 level with annular tear left 

leg weakness” was the only medical evidence cited by Dr. Hardy to support 

his opinion that Plaintiff was completely disabled. (Id.). The ALJ gave little 

weight to Dr. Hardy’s assessment that Plaintiff was unable to work or was 

limited to less than sedentary work. (A.R. 24, 364, 487-488). The ALJ opined 

that Dr. Hardy’s statements appeared to be an accommodation to Plaintiff 

and based only on Plaintiff’s subjective complaints of pain. (A.R. 24). The 

ALJ found the evidence of these statements had no probative value due to the 

lack of any objective medical evidence supporting such statements. (Id.). 

On May 29, 2014, during a complete consultative evaluation by Dr. 

Thomas Sabourin, M.D., board certified in orthopedic surgery, Plaintiff 

refused to move his neck or back and refused most other testing. (A.R. 22, 

538-541). Based on the examination, Dr. Sabourin diagnosed Plaintiff with 

an annular tear L4-5 by history, and generalized pain syndrome involving the 

entire back and lower extremities. (A.R. 22, 542). Dr. Sabourin found 

Plaintiff’s complaints were in significant disproportion to the determinable 

condition. (A.R. 22, 543). Dr. Sabourin opined Plaintiff had the following 

limitations: lift and/or carry 50 pounds occasionally and 25 pounds 

frequently; stand and walk six hours out of an eight-hour workday; 

frequently climb, stoop, kneel, and crouch; and no need for a walker to 

ambulate. (Id.). 

Case 3:16-cv-02112-JM-MDD Document 33 Filed 02/06/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 10 of 22
11

16-cv-02112-JM-MDD

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

In May of 2014, an impartial medical examiner, Dr. Robert MacArthur, 

M.D., a Board certified orthopedist, performed a subsequent complete 

consultative examination, which revealed Plaintiff provided poor effect and 

was uncooperative. (A.R. 22, 538-553). Dr. MacArthur found Plaintiff had no 

medically determinable impairment. (Id.). At the disability hearing on 

August 24, 2014, Dr. Arthur Lober, M.D., a Board certified orthopedist,

testified as a medical expert. (A.R. 22). Dr. Lober testified that he had 

reviewed all the medical exhibits of record and although Plaintiff’s lumber 

spinal condition is a severe impairment, it does not bar him from performing

substantial gainful activity. (AR 65, 66). 

3. State Agency Medical Consultants

The ALJ gave significant weight to the consultative examiner, Dr. 

Sabourin, and the opinions of the State agency medical consultants who 

found Plaintiff’s mental impairments non-severe. (A.R. 18, 489-498). The 

State agency medical consultants also opined Plaintiff is limited to medium 

work. (A.R. 23, 81-90). They found Plaintiff sits and stands with normal 

posture and was able to take off his clothes and put on his gown during his 

examination. (A.R. 540). Plaintiff refused to toe and heel walk or move his 

neck, however, stating it would hurt. (Id.). Plaintiff also refused to move his 

back, sit on the examination table, or lie down on the table, stating he could 

not do so. (A.R. 541). The examination revealed there was no deformity, 

scar, tenderness, spasm, swelling, or warmth in Plaintiff’s neck. (Id.). 

4. Dr. Gregory Nicholson, Consultative Examiner 

The ALJ gave great weight to consultative examiner Gregory Nicholson, 

M.D., a Board certified psychiatrist, who found Plaintiff’s mental 

impairments non-severe. (A.R. 18, 489-498). The ALJ found Dr. Nicholson’s 

opinions consistent with the objective medical evidence. (A.R. 18, 03-116/117-

Case 3:16-cv-02112-JM-MDD Document 33 Filed 02/06/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 11 of 22
12

16-cv-02112-JM-MDD

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

130). Plaintiff reported he had no difficulty with dressing, bathing, or 

hygiene and he was able to handle financial matters and go out alone. (A.R.

18, 490-492). Plaintiff also stated he was able to handle bills and cash 

appropriately. (A.R. 18, 492). Plaintiff’s chief complaint was anxiety. (A.R. 

18, 490). 

Based on the examination, Dr. Nicholson diagnosed Plaintiff with 

anxiety disorder and depressive disorder. (A.R. 18, 338-339). Dr. Nicholson 

opined Plaintiff had mild mental restrictions, at best. (A.R. 18, 339). 

5. Dr. Robert MacArthur, Consultative Examiner

The ALJ gave some weight to consultative examiner Dr. Robert 

MacArthur, M.D., a board certified orthopedist, who opined that Plaintiff had 

no limitations. (A.R. 23, 455-460). Dr. MacArthur also opined that Plaintiff 

did not appear to be in acute or chronic distress. (A.R.458). Dr. MacArthur 

noted there was a gross amplification of all symptoms with minimal effort 

and minimum cooperation. (Id.). For example, Dr. MacArthur noted that 

Plaintiff stated he could not walk without a front-wheel walker but there is 

no evidence of atrophy of either lower extremity or any significant medically 

determinable impairment. (Id.). Dr. MacArthur determined there was no 

evidence of swelling, effusion, erythema, warmth, or deformity of the hips, 

knees, and ankles. (A.R. 459). Lastly, Dr. MacArthur found all Plaintiff’s 

joint ranges of motion were within normal limits. (Id.). 

C. Issues on Appeal

This matter has been submitted on the pleadings and the transcript of 

record. Because neither party filed a motion for summary judgment, the 

Court has conducted an independent review of the record. 

Plaintiff raised three general assertions of error by the ALJ in his 

Complaint: 1) The record does not present any substantial medical or 

Case 3:16-cv-02112-JM-MDD Document 33 Filed 02/06/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 12 of 22
13

16-cv-02112-JM-MDD

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

vocation evidence to “support the legal conclusion that plaintiff is not 

disabled....” (ECF No. 1 at 2); 2) The record does not present any substantial 

evidence that Plaintiff can perform “any substantial gainful activity.” (Id. at 

3); 3) The record only supports that Plaintiff “is disabled and has been 

continuously disabled . . . at all times relevant to [P]laintiff’s application.” (Id.

at 3).

As noted herein, an ALJ follows a five-step process of evaluating a claim 

for disability benefits. This Court has conducted a step-by-step review of the 

ALJ’s decision.

Step One-Whether the Plaintiff was currently engaged in 

substantial gainful activity.

The ALJ found that Plaintiff did not engage in substantial gainful 

activity since January 1, 2011, which is Plaintiff’s alleged onset date and the 

date. (A.R. 17, 35-37). Plaintiff’s application date was February 17, 2012. 

Step Two-Whether Plaintiff has a severe medically 

determinable impairment or combination of impairments. 

As noted by the ALJ, Plaintiff has the severe impairment of asthma4. 

The ALJ also found that Plaintiff had the severe impairments of degenerative 

disc disease of the lumbar spine without evidence of radioculpathy or 

stenosis. (A.R. 17). The ALJ found Plaintiff’s degenerative disc disease 

severe, in part, because it limited his ability to carry more than 20 pounds 

occasionally and 10 pounds frequently and use a cane to stand/walk for a 

 

4 Plaintiff did claim a severe asthma impairment. The ALJ did not dispute that Plaintiff 

had the severe impairment of asthma. (A.R.17). Although the ALJ made minimal 

reference to Plaintiff’s asthma, he did account for it in Plaintiff’s RFC. Specifically, the 

ALJ stated Plaintiff “is precluded from concentrated exposure to fumes, or extreme cold or 

heat; no more air pollutants than found in an air conditioned environment.” (AR at19). 

Case 3:16-cv-02112-JM-MDD Document 33 Filed 02/06/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 13 of 22
14

16-cv-02112-JM-MDD

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

portion of a full workday. (A.R. 19). For example, a physical exam at the 

Lomita Family Medical Group in February 2011 showed tenderness in the 

spine. (A.R. 21). An MRI from April 2011 showed mild degenerative disc 

disease with a central annular tear at L4-5 (Id.). An MRI from July 2012 

showed mild degenerative changes predominantly at L4-5 (Id.). Dr. 

Sabourin, M.D., a consultative examiner, diagnosed Plaintiff with an annular 

tear at L4-5 and generalized pain syndrome of the entire back and lower 

extremities “etiology undetermined.” (A.R. at 22). 

These records were sufficient at step two for the ALJ to determine that 

Plaintiff’s claimed physical impairment was severe. 

Conversely, the ALJ found that Plaintiff’s alleged mental impairment 

was not severe. (AR at 13-15). “An impairment or combination of 

impairments may be found ‘not severe only if the evidence establishes a 

slight abnormality that has no more than a minimal effect on an individual’s 

ability to work.’” Webb v. Barnhart, 433 F.3d 683, 686 (9th Cir. 2005) citing

Smolen v. Chater, 80 F.3d 1273, 1290 (9th Cir. 1996). The ALJ must 

demonstrate that there was substantial evidence to determine that the 

medical evidence of record clearly established that Plaintiff did not have a 

severe impairment. Webb v. Barnhart, 433 F.3d at 687. 

Here, the ALJ found that Plaintiff’s medically determinable nonextertional impairment was not severe and did not cause more than minimal 

limitation in Plaintiff’s ability to perform basic mental work activities. (A.R. 

17). Specifically, the ALJ cited to the findings of Dr. Gregory Nicholson, 

M.D., a board certified psychiatrist, who conducted a consultative exam in 

January 2013. At that time, Plaintiff’s main complaint was anxiety. (A.R. 

490). Overall, Dr. Nicholson opined that “from a psychiatric standpoint, the 

claimant’s condition is expected to improve in the next twelve months with 

Case 3:16-cv-02112-JM-MDD Document 33 Filed 02/06/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 14 of 22
15

16-cv-02112-JM-MDD

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

active treatment.” Dr. Nicholson’s functional analysis was as follows:

1. The claimant is able to understand, remember, and carry 

out simple one or two-step job instructions.

2. The claimant is able to do detailed and complex 

instructions.

3. The claimant’s ability to relate and interact with coworkers 

and the public is mildly limited.

4. The claimant’s ability to maintain concentration and 

attention, persistence and pace is mildly limited.

5. The claimant’s ability to accept instructions from 

supervisors is not limited.

6. The claimant’s ability to maintain regular attendance in 

the work place and perform work activities on a consistent basis is 

not limited.

7. The claimant’s ability to perform work activities without 

special or additional supervision is mildly limited.

(AR 494). 

In addition to Dr. Nicholson’s report, the ALJ must follow a special 

process at each level of administrative review when evaluating the severity of 

mental impairments. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520a(a). “In determining 

whether a claimant with a mental impairment meets a listed impairment, 

the Commissioner considers: (1) whether specified diagnostic criteria 

(“paragraph A” criteria) are met; and (2) whether specified functional 

restrictions are present (“paragraph B” criteria). 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520a.” 

Lester v. Chater, 81 F.3d 821, 828 (9th Cir. 1995). In some cases, a listing for 

a specific mental impairment may have a third set of criteria – paragraph Cwhich are alternative impairment related functional limitations. See 20 

C.F.R. 1520(a); 20 C.F.R. Pt. 404, Supt. P App 1 § 12.00 et seq. (2013). 

In this case, the ALJ determined that Plaintiff did not exhibit any 

combination of at least two of the paragraph B criteria, to wit: 1) marked 

restriction of activities of daily living; 2) marked difficulties in maintaining 

social functioning; 3) marked difficulties in maintaining concentration, 

Case 3:16-cv-02112-JM-MDD Document 33 Filed 02/06/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 15 of 22
16

16-cv-02112-JM-MDD

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

persistence or pace; or 4) repeated episodes of decompensation, each of 

extended duration. (A.R. 14). Nor did the ALJ find paragraph C criteria 

applicable to Plaintiff’s alleged mental disability, i.e., there is no evidence 

that there is more than a minimal limitation in his ability to do basic work 

activities. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520a(d)(1). (Id.) 

A review of the record also shows Plaintiff never asserted that he 

stopped working because of his alleged mental problems. Based on the 

foregoing, the ALJ satisfied his obligation of citing to substantial evidence in 

the record to support his determination that Plaintiff’s alleged mental 

impairment was non-severe.

Step Three-Whether Plaintiff’s impairment meets or medically 

equals the criteria of an impairment listed in 20 CFR Part 404, 

Subpart P, Appendix 1 (20 CFR 404.1520(d), 404.1525, 404.1526, 

416920(d), 416.925, and 416.926. 

The ALJ found that Plaintiff’s degenerative disc disease did not meet or 

equal an impairment or combination of impairments listed in the regulations. 

As noted by the ALJ, specific evidence in the record contradicted Plaintiff’s 

alleged intensity and functionally limiting effects of pain and other 

symptoms. (A.R. 19). 

For example, Dr. Robert McArthur, M.D., a board certified orthopedist, 

conducted a complete consultative evaluation of Plaintiff. Dr. McArthur 

noted, “Plaintiff’s chief complaint was low back pain radiating to bilateral low 

extremeties with numbness of the feet nondermatomal.” (A.R. 21). Dr. 

McArthur also noted that Plaintiff exaggerated his condition and was not a 

credible historian. He noted Plaintiff “was unable to walk without a walker 

when he had no evidence of atrophy or either lower extremity or any 

significant medically determinable impairment.” Dr. McArthur found normal 

Case 3:16-cv-02112-JM-MDD Document 33 Filed 02/06/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 16 of 22
17

16-cv-02112-JM-MDD

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

muscle strength in all major muscle groups of the upper and lower 

extremities with intact sensation and generally normal cervical and 

thoracolumbar spine. (Id.). Dr. McArthur’s final conclusion was that 

Plaintiff had no medically determinable impairment and had no limitations. 

(Id.) 

There is other substantial evidence in the record that Plaintiff is not 

disabled. Specifically, physical examination in 2011 demonstrated mild 

degenerative disc disease L4-5 with no central spinal stenosis or evidence of 

nerve impingement. A central annular tear L4-L5 was noted. (A.R. 370). 

An MRI in 2012 showed mild degenerative changes predominantly at L4-L5. 

(A.R. 21). Additionally, the record from a physical examination in November 

2012, noted Plaintiff “sat on the examination table with ease” and “walked 

into the examination room without a limp or gait abnormality.” (A.R. 472). 

The progress notes also reported that Plaintiff walked into the room with a 

cane but “left it a ways off to sit down for having his vitals taken.” (Id.). 

In 2014, Plaintiff underwent a second complete consultative evaluation 

by Dr. Thomas Sabourin, M.D., board certified in orthopedic surgery. (A.R.

538). Plaintiff’s chief complaint was “pain in the lower back radiating to the 

upper back and both legs.” (A.R. 539). Plaintiff used a walker at the 

examination and claimed to have used it for 3-4 years. Dr. Sabourin made 

the following report:

The claimant sits and stands with normal posture. There is 

no evidence of any tilt or list, and the claimant sits comfortably 

during the examination. He [was] able to take off his clothes and 

put on his gown, but leaned over against his walker on his chair 

with his elbow on the desk next to it with his head down. He would 

move about very minimally. When he stood, he stood using his 

walker leaning heavily with his arms against his walker almost as 

doing a pushup and pushing with his feet at angle of about 20 

Case 3:16-cv-02112-JM-MDD Document 33 Filed 02/06/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 17 of 22
18

16-cv-02112-JM-MDD

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

degrees angulating forward not bending the spine. He refused to 

toe and heel walk. He refused to move is his neck stating it would 

hurt. He refused to move his back stating it would hurt. His back 

has no gross deformity. . . . He would not sit on the exam table or 

lie down on the exam table stating he could not do so. 

(A.R. 540-541).

Dr. Sabourin noted that Plaintiff’s range of motion of his elbows, wrists, 

hands and fingers, hips, knees, ankles and feet is grossly normal and 

painless. (A.R. 541-542). Dr. Sabourin stated “based on the objective 

examination, I could find no reason why he needed a walker to ambulate.” 

(A.R. 543). Dr. Sabourin opined that Plaintiff’s complaints were in 

significant disproportion to the determinable condition. “His lack of 

cooperation in the examination appear to be voluntary and not due to painful 

situation.” (Id.). 

Dr. Arthur Lorber, M.D., a board certified orthopedist, testified at 

Plaintiff’s administrative hearing as the medical expert. (A.R. 53-79). Dr. 

Lorber testified he had reviewed the “all the medical exhibits of record” and 

that Plaintiff’s impairments “neither singly nor in combination met or 

equaled a medical listing.” (A.R. 23). Dr. Lorber further testified he would 

assign Plaintiff the following residual functional capacity:

[L]ift/carry 20 pounds occasionally and 10 pounds frequently; 

he may occasionally stoop, crouch, kneel; he should not craw; should 

now (sic) work at unprotected heights; he should avoid exposure to 

concentrated vibrations; he may occasionally work around moving 

machinery; he may occasionally operate foot pedals with either 

foot; he should not climb ladders, scaffolds, or ropes, but he may at 

least occasionally [inaudible] ramps – in fact, maybe even a little 

more than occasionally. . . . He should not balance; he may stand 

and/or walk for a total of four hours per day, not more than 30 

minutes at a time. He may sit for a total of six hours per day, not 

more than 30 minutes at a time. At the completion of sitting for a 

Case 3:16-cv-02112-JM-MDD Document 33 Filed 02/06/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 18 of 22
19

16-cv-02112-JM-MDD

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

period of thirty minutes, the claimant may arise and continue to 

work at the workstation in a standing position, or, alternatively, he 

may walk away from the work station and continue to work at a 

standing or walking position elsewhere. The claimant does not 

require any other exertional, environmental, positional, or 

manipulative restrictions, except for he must avoid exposure to 

concentrated fumes, extreme cold, and extreme heat because the 

claimant has a diagnosis of asthma and is treated for his asthma 

with inhalers and with prednisone. . . . as far as I can tell. 

(A.R. 65-67).

Dr. Lorber further testified that Plaintiff does not meet or equal listing 

1.04A or C “regarding his lumbar spinal condition” nor does his condition 

meet or equal listing 3.03. (A.R. 65, 66). Ultimately, Dr. Lorber opined that 

Plaintiff “does have a severe impairment as defined by the Social Security 

Administration; however that impairment does not rise to a listing level. . .” 

(A.R. 65). Based on this record, the ALJ was required to proceed to the fourth 

step in the evaluation process.

Step Four-Whether the Plaintiff has the residual functional 

capacity to perform the requirements of his past relevant work (20 

CFR 404.1520(f) and 416.920(f)). 

At step four, the ALJ found Plaintiff not disabled and had the following 

Residual Functional Capacity:

[C]laimant can lift or carry 20 pounds occasionally and 10 pounds 

frequently; stand/walk for two hours out of an eight hour workday 

for 30 minutes at a time using a cane; sit for six hours out of an 

eight hour workday for 30 minutes at a time, and after 30 minutes 

can stand and work while standing or walking; occasionally stoop, 

crouch, and kneel; occasionally work around machinery; 

occasionally operate foot pedals; and occasionally climb stairs and 

ramps. The claimant is precluded from concentrated exposure to 

fumes, or extreme cold or heat; no more air pollutants than found 

in an air conditioned environment; crawling; balancing; 

unprotected heights, climbing ropes and ladders; and exposure to 

Case 3:16-cv-02112-JM-MDD Document 33 Filed 02/06/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 19 of 22
20

16-cv-02112-JM-MDD

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

concentrated vibration. The claimant would miss work once a 

month. 

(A.R. 19).

The ALJ found that Plaintiff’s past relevant work as a banquet server, 

is light exertional work as defined in the Dictionary of Occupational Titles, 

DICOT 311.477-026 (January 1, 2016). Because the ALJ, with assistance 

from the vocational expert, determined that Plaintiff could not perform his 

past relevant work, the ALJ was required to proceed to step five of the 

sequential analysis.

Step Five-Whether the Plaintiff is able to perform any other 

work considering is residual functional capacity.

At step five, the ALJ must determine whether Plaintiff can perform any 

other vocation in the national economy. During the administrative hearing, 

the ALJ took testimony from the VE regarding what other work was 

available to Plaintiff considering the claimant’s age, education, work 

experience, and residual functional capacity.5 The VE testified that Plaintiff 

is capable of making a successful adjustment to other work that exists in 

significant numbers in the national economy. (A.R. 25). The VE noted 

Plaintiff would be able to perform the requirements of Sealer, DOT 559.687-

014, which is sedentary, unskilled with 400,000 such positions in the national 

economy or Lens sorter, DOT 713.687-026 with 200,000 such positions in the 

national economy. (A.R. 25). 

Based on this evidence of record, the Court finds the ALJ satisfactorily 

applied the five-step sequential evaluation to this case and properly 

 

5 “Although the claimant generally continues to have the burden of proving disability at 

this step, a limited burden of going forward with the evidence shifts to the Social Security 

Administration.” (A.R. 17).

Case 3:16-cv-02112-JM-MDD Document 33 Filed 02/06/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 20 of 22
21

16-cv-02112-JM-MDD

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

concluded at step five that Plaintiff can make a successful transition to other 

jobs available in the national economy. 

As the factfinder the ALJ’s decision must be affirmed if supported by 

“such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to 

support a conclusion.” Valentine v. Commissioner Social Sec. Admin, 574 

F.3d 685, 690 (9th Cir. 2009). “If evidence is susceptible of more than one 

rational interpretation, the decision of the ALJ must be upheld.” Orteza v. 

Shalala, 50 F.3d 748,749 (9th Cir. 1995). The ALJ’s findings of fact and 

conclusions of law reflect his consideration of the total medical evidence of 

record. 

The Court’s review revealed no ambiguity or error indicating that the 

record was not sufficiently developed. Accordingly, the Court finds the ALJ’s 

findings of fact and conclusions of law, are supported by substantial evidence 

and free of legal error.

III. CONCLUSION

The Court RECOMMENDS that the final decision denying Plaintiff’s 

application for social security benefits be AFFIRMED and Plaintiff’s 

Complaint be DISMISSED. This Report and Recommendation of the 

undersigned Magistrate Judge is submitted to the United States District 

Judge assigned to this case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 

636(b)(1).

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that any written objection to this report 

must be filed with the court and served on all parties no later than February 

20, 2018. The document should be captioned “Objections to Report and 

Recommendations.”

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that any reply to the objections shall be 

filed with the Court and served on all parties no later than February 27, 

Case 3:16-cv-02112-JM-MDD Document 33 Filed 02/06/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 21 of 22
22

16-cv-02112-JM-MDD

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

2018. The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the 

specified time may waive the right to raise those objections on appeal of the 

Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

Dated: February 6, 2018

Case 3:16-cv-02112-JM-MDD Document 33 Filed 02/06/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 22 of 22