Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_19-cv-00007/USCOURTS-azd-2_19-cv-00007-0/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

Kathy Cooper,

Plaintiff,

v. 

Commissioner of Social Security 

Administration,

Defendant.

No. CV-19-00007-PHX-DLR

ORDER 

Plaintiff Kathy Cooper seeks judicial review of the Social Security Administration’s 

decision to deny her applications for disability and disability insurance benefits (“DIB”). 

(Doc. 11.) Plaintiff’s Title II application, alleging disability beginning December 23, 2011 

was denied initially on February 29, 2016 and upon reconsideration on July 7, 2016. 

Plaintiff requested an administrative hearing before an administrative law judge (“ALJ”), 

which took place on December 20, 2017. (A.R. at 37-72.) On April 30, 2018, the ALJ 

issued a decision finding Plaintiff—despite suffering from severe impairments including

degenerative disc disease, transient alteration awareness, traumatic brain injury, posttraumatic stress disorder, anxiety and depression—could perform jobs that exist in 

significant numbers in the national economy. (Id. at 11-26.) Plaintiff argues that, in 

denying her application, the ALJ committed reversible error by (1) failing to support his 

adverse credibility finding with specific, clear and convincing reasons and (2) failing to 

support Plaintiff’s physical residual functional capacity (“RFC”) with substantial evidence. 

Case 2:19-cv-00007-DLR Document 14 Filed 02/20/20 Page 1 of 4
- 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

The Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) and 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 ALJ’s determination will be upheld unless it contains 

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

625, 630 (9th Cir. 2007). Having reviewed the parties’ briefs and the administrative record, 

the Court affirms.

1. The ALJ provided the requisite specific, clear and convincing reasons for 

rejecting Plaintiff’s testimony concerning the severity of her symptoms. See Smolen v. 

Chater, 80 F.3d 1273, 1281 (9th Cir. 1996). Plaintiff testified that she is unable to work 

due to an increase in seizure activity, anxiety, neck pain, headaches, joint pain/difficulty 

ambulating, concentration and memory problems, and insomnia. The ALJ found that 

Plaintiff’s medically determinable impairments could reasonably be expected to cause the 

symptoms alleged by Plaintiff, but properly concluded that Plaintiff’s statements 

concerning the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of the symptoms are inconsistent 

with the medical evidence and other evidence in the record, including Plaintiff’s own 

reports. Burch v. Barnhart, 400 F.3d 676, 681 (9th Cir. 2005). The Court will summarize

the ALJ’s assessment1 of Plaintiff’s testimony as to each impairment, in turn. 

Beginning with Plaintiff’s allegations of increased seizure activity, the ALJ noted 

that records indicate Plaintiff reported her seizures ceased once she began taking antiepileptic medication, MRIs of Plaintiff’s brain were normal, epilepsy monitoring units did 

not demonstrate epileptic seizures, and Plaintiff denied recent episodes of convulsions or 

seizures and expressed satisfaction with the treatment regimen. Next, the ALJ explained 

that records revealing that Plaintiff reported only mild to moderate symptoms of anxiety 

and chose to forgo her medication for months at a time diminished the credibility of 

Plaintiff’s allegations concerning disabling anxiety. See Trevizo v. Berryhill, 871 F.3d 664, 

679 (9th Cir. 2017) (citations and internal quotations omitted) (“A claimant’s subjective 

system testimony may be undermined by a[] failure to . . . follow a prescribed course of 

1 The ALJ’s assessment spans throughout his step five analysis. (Doc. 10-3 at 17-

22.)

Case 2:19-cv-00007-DLR Document 14 Filed 02/20/20 Page 2 of 4
- 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

treatment.”). Turning to neck pain, the ALJ concluded that Plaintiff’s complaints of 

inability to maintain her head upright for longer than 1-2 hours and need to wear a neck 

brace are contradicted by examinations finding her neck supple and her range of motion 

normal with no carotid bruits. Next, the ALJ concluded that Plaintiff’s allegations of

severe long-lasting headaches two to three times per week is contradicted by her own

reports that her headaches were well-controlled and had improved so much that she only 

occasionally took Tylenol. See Thomas v. Barnhart, 278 F.3d 947, 958-59 (9th Cir. 2002) 

(explaining that inconsistencies in the claimant’s testimony may support an adverse 

credibility finding). Also, the ALJ found that reports finding a lack muscle atrophy or 

hypertrophy and normal coordination, gait and station, along with Plaintiff’s denial of joint 

weakness inconsistent with Plaintiff’s complaints of joint pain and difficulty ambulating,

and records indicating normal cognition and intact memory are inconsistent with Plaintiff’s 

testimony of debilitating concentration and memory issues. Finally, the ALJ pointed to 

reports by Plaintiff that she was sleeping well at night and in which she denied insomnia 

to undermine her allegations of insomnia-induced exhaustion. In sum, the ALJ provided 

clear and convincing reasons supported by substantial evidence that more than adequately 

justify his adverse credibility determination. Orn, 495 F.3d at 634. 

2. The ALJ supported Plaintiff’s physical RFC finding with substantial evidence. 

Plaintiff contends that the ALJ’s decision is “seriously flawed because he fails to reference 

any [medical opinion other than Dr. Palmer’s]2related to Ms. Cooper’s physical 

capacity[,]” and complains particularly about a lack of discussion or findings related to 

Plaintiff’s neck. (Doc. 11 at 13.) Plaintiff is incorrect. The ALJ discussed additional 

medical records—such as those compiled by the doctors at Barrow Neurological 

Associates—that address Plaintiff’s physical impairments, including her neck pain and 

degenerative disc disease, that support the ALJ’s conclusions, and that are consistent with 

Dr. Palmer’s findings. (Doc. 10-3 at 19-20.) Furthermore, the Court rejects Plaintiff’s 

2 Plaintiff fails to direct the Court to any relevant medical opinion that the ALJ 

neglected to consider and fails to discuss what impact, if any, consideration of that medical 

opinion would have had on the ALJ’s decision. 

Case 2:19-cv-00007-DLR Document 14 Filed 02/20/20 Page 3 of 4
- 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

argument that Dr. Palmer’s opinion, in and of itself, does not constitute substantial 

evidence supporting the ALJ’s physical RFC finding.3 Because the ALJ’s decision is free 

of harmful legal error and is reasonably supported by the evidence,

IT IS ORDERED that the final decision of the Social Security Administration is 

AFFIRMED. The Clerk shall enter judgment accordingly and terminate this case.

Dated this 20th day of February, 2020.

Douglas L. Rayes

United States District Judge

3 Plaintiff’s contention that Dr. Palmer’s opinion should not have been significant 

weight because Dr. Palmer did not examine Plaintiff’s cervical spine has no legal 

foundation; if Plaintiff were correct, ALJs could never properly give significant weight to 

the opinion of a non-examining physician. 

Case 2:19-cv-00007-DLR Document 14 Filed 02/20/20 Page 4 of 4