Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_13-cv-01939/USCOURTS-azd-2_13-cv-01939-0/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 (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 

Wanda Kay Clark, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Carolyn W. Colvin, 

Defendant. 

No. CV-13-01939-PHX-BSB ()

ORDER 

 Wanda Kay Clark (Plaintiff) seeks judicial review of the final decision of the 

Commissioner of Social Security (the Commissioner) denying her application for 

disability and disability insurance benefits under the Social Security Act (the Act). The 

parties have consented to proceed before a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. § 636(b) and have filed briefs in accordance with Local Rule of Civil Procedure 

16.1. For the following reasons, the Court affirms the Commissioner’s disability 

determination. 

I. Procedural Background 

 On November 23, 2009, Plaintiff applied for disability and disability insurance 

benefits under Title II of the Act alleging disability beginning May 14, 2009. 42 U.S.C. 

§ 401-34. (Tr. 128-34, 144.)1

 After the Social Security Administration (SSA) denied 

Plaintiff’s initial application and her request for reconsideration, she requested a hearing 

before an administrative law judge (ALJ). (Tr. 59-62, 65-69.) After conducting a 

 

1

 Citations to “Tr.” are to the transcript of the administrative record. (Doc. 13.) 

Case 2:13-cv-01939-BSB Document 18 Filed 09/29/14 Page 1 of 21
- 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 

hearing, the ALJ issued a decision finding Plaintiff not disabled under the Act. (Tr. 14-

21.) This decision became the final decision of the Commissioner when the Social 

Security Administration Appeals Council denied Plaintiff’s request for review. (Tr. 2-7); 

see 20 C.F.R. § 404.981 (explaining the effect of a disposition by the Appeals Council.) 

Plaintiff now seeks judicial review of this decision pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). 

II. Medical Record 

 The record before the Court establishes the following history of diagnosis and 

treatment related to Plaintiff’s health. The record also includes opinions from State 

Agency Physicians, who examined Plaintiff or reviewed the records related to her health, 

but who did not provide treatment, and opinions from lay witnesses. 

A. Treatment Record 

 In May 2009, Plaintiff went to an urgent care clinic reporting that she had injured 

her back three weeks earlier while lifting boxes at work. (Tr. 220.) Plaintiff complained 

of pain in her back and right leg. (Id.) The physician assistant who treated Plaintiff 

observed that she was in no apparent distress and that she had muscle spasms in her back, 

but no skeletal tenderness or deformity. (Tr. 221.) He assessed sciatica, prescribed 

medication, advised Plaintiff to avoid heavy lifting, and instructed her to return for a 

follow-up appointment in one week. (Tr. 220-22, 226, 230.) 

 In June 2009, Plaintiff visited the same urgent care clinic. (Tr. 211.) At that time, 

she had completed a full week of work and complained that her symptoms were worse. 

(Id.) On June 8, 2009, an MRI of Plaintiff’s back showed “[p]ostoperative changes with 

laminectomy defects at L4-5 and L5-S1, . . . some scar formation along the left lateral 

surface of the thecal sac at L4-L5, [m]inimal bulging of the L1-L2 through L4-L5 discs 

without focal herniation, . . . some foraminal narrowing at L4-L5, [and] severe 

degeneration of the disc space at L5-S1.” (Tr. 208-09.) 

 On June 16, 2009, Plaintiff sought treatment from Ronney Ferguson, M.D. 

(Tr. 223.) He reviewed the June 2009 MRI and found that it showed “some slight 

amount of disc bulging,” but no nerve root effacement or compression. (Tr. 234.) 

Case 2:13-cv-01939-BSB Document 18 Filed 09/29/14 Page 2 of 21
- 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 

Dr. Ferguson diagnosed “lumbar strain with lumbar spondylosis and without 

myelopathy.” (Id.) He released Plaintiff from work for eight weeks and prescribed 

physical therapy. (Tr. 233-34, 237-39, 240-45, 300, 430-36.) 

 Between October and November 2009, Plaintiff received treatment from Belinda 

Uhall, M.D. (Tr. 260-67.) After her initial visit with Plaintiff, Dr. Uhall noted that 

Plaintiff was in “no distress.” (Tr. 264.) She assessed Plaintiff with chronic low back 

pain, insomnia, anxiety disorder, and cigarette abuse. (Tr. 267.) She advised Plaintiff to 

stop smoking. During a November 23, 2009 appointment, Dr. Uhall noted that 

medication had “significantly helped” Plaintiff to sleep and manage her pain during the 

day. (Tr. 261.) During a November 30, 2009 appointment, Dr. Uhall noted that Plaintiff 

had a cough, sinus pain, and a headache. (Tr. 260.) She assessed “acute bronchitis” and 

advised Plaintiff to stop smoking. (Id.) 

 On Dr. Uhall’s referral, in October 2009, Plaintiff saw Steven Helland, M.D., at 

the Spine Care Institute for her chronic low back pain. (Tr. 248.) She reported that 

medication provided mild, temporary relief from her pain, and that physical therapy 

aggravated her symptoms. (Tr. 248-49.) On examination, Plaintiff had a limited range of 

motion in her back and positive straight leg raising test. (Tr. 251.) She exhibited full 

(5/5) muscle strength and did not have any obvious sensory deficits. (Id.) Dr. Helland 

assessed lumbar/sacral degenerative disc disorder, lumbar radiculopathy and neuritis, and 

lumbar/sacral spondylosis. (Id.) Dr. Helland administered a series of injections to 

Plaintiff’s lumbar spine. (Tr. 248-52, 255-58, 304-10.) In late November 2009, Plaintiff 

reported that she was “somewhat pleased” with the results of the injections. (Tr. 261.) In 

December 2009, Dr. Helland noted “relatively modest therapeutic improvement.” 

(Tr. 305.) 

 During 2009 and 2010, Plaintiff also received treatment at the Summit Healthcare 

Community Clinic (Summit). (Tr. 324-25, 342, 344-48, 362-63, 365-76.) During a July 

2010 appointment, Plaintiff complained of pain in her hands, knees, and shins. (Tr. 326-

27.) Plaintiff denied swelling or inflammation and examination showed that her joints 

Case 2:13-cv-01939-BSB Document 18 Filed 09/29/14 Page 3 of 21
- 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 

were not swollen or red. (Tr. 327.) Plaintiff exhibited full mobility in her joints and she 

refused to participate in range of motion testing, asserting that she was afraid of pain. 

(Id.) Plaintiff had various laboratory tests at Summit, including a blood test showing 

elevated levels of C reactive protein (a protein produced by the liver). (Tr. 350.) A July 

20, 2010 treatment note states that the test results were inconclusive. (Tr. 335.) 

 During a March 2011 appointment at Summit, Plaintiff reported a headache 

related to an upper respiratory infection and diarrhea. (Tr. 324.) Under a section labelled 

“Past, Family, and Social History,” the treatment provider who completed the treatment 

note indicated that Plaintiff smoked and wrote “COPD.” (Id.) However, COPD was not 

included among Plaintiff’s diagnoses. (Tr. 324-25; Tr. 345 (assessing acute bronchitis, 

not COPD).) 

 In December 2011, Plaintiff presented to Osaf Ahmed, M.D., “[t]o establish care.” 

(Tr. 416.) Plaintiff reported that, once or twice a week, she experienced diarrhea “all 

day.” (Id.) She also reported headaches and pain “all over.” (Id.) Plaintiff reported a 

past diagnosis of COPD, but did not complain of any respiratory issues. (Tr. 417.) 

Dr. Ahmed noted that he did not have significant past medical records related to 

Plaintiff’s health. (Tr. 416-17, 424.) Because his examination of Plaintiff showed 

evidence of synovitis (Tr. 417), and blood tests showed a rheumatoid factor of 1450 

(Tr. 422), Dr. Ahmed referred Plaintiff to the Mayo Clinic for “arthraigia/stiffness” and 

“elevated RF, R/O RA.” (Tr. 411-12.) 

B. Medical Opinion Evidence 

 1. Robert Barker, M.D. 

 On September 8, 2010, Plaintiff was examined by State Agency Physician Robert 

Barker, M.D., for her application for disability benefits. (Tr. 291.) Plaintiff complained 

of back pain from her tailbone to her neck, and some leg pain. (Id.) She denied fatigue, 

weakness, headaches, pulmonary difficulty, bowel, or incontinence issues. (Tr. 292.) 

 On examination, Plaintiff “sat comfortably, stood up symmetrically”, and was able 

to heel-walk, toe-walk, and squat and rise without assistance. (Id.) Her straight leg 

Case 2:13-cv-01939-BSB Document 18 Filed 09/29/14 Page 4 of 21
- 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 

raising was negative and an examination of her back did not show any muscle spasms. 

(Id.) Plaintiff had full muscle strength, normal reflexes, and intact sensation. (Id.) She 

demonstrated full range of motion in all of her joints except her back. (Id.) Dr. Barker 

observed Plaintiff bend over ninety degrees without evidence of discomfort when she 

took her shoes on and off. (Id.) However, when he asked Plaintiff to “forward flex,” she 

bent only about twenty degrees before complaining of pain. (Id.) Additionally, her 

lateral movement was “barely perceptible.” (Tr. 293.) Dr. Barker found that Waddell’s 

testing was positive in the following five categories: (1) Plaintiff reported superficial and 

non-anatomic tenderness; (2) Plaintiff reported pain with simulated axial rotation; 

(3) Plaintiff overreacted to testing; (4) Plaintiff reported regional weakness or sensory 

changes that deviated from accepted neuroanatomy; and (5) Plaintiff performed normally 

when distracted.2

 (Id.) Dr. Barker found that Plaintiff had a normal examination. (Id.) 

 Dr. Barker completed a “Medical Source Statement of Ability to do Work Related 

Activities (Physical),” on which he opined that Plaintiff could occasionally lift fifty 

pounds and frequently lift twenty-five pounds. (Tr. 294.) He found Plaintiff unlimited in 

her abilities to sit, stand, or walk. (Id.) He also found that Plaintiff had no postural or 

environmental limitations. (Tr. 295.) 

 2. Dr. Ahmed 

 In December 2011, Dr. Ahmed completed several forms regarding Plaintiff’s 

functional abilities, including headache and fatigue questionnaires and an assessment of 

her ability to perform work-related activities. (Tr. 407-10.) Dr. Ahmed opined that, in an 

eight-hour day, Plaintiff could sit for a total of four hours, stand or walk for a total of two 

hours, frequently lift ten pounds, occasionally lift twenty pounds, and never lift more than 

twenty pounds. (Tr. 409.) 

 He found that Plaintiff had eight to ten headaches per month that affected her 

concentration, attention, memory, and ability to work. (Tr. 407.) He also opined that 

 

2

 “Waddell’s signs” refers to clinical findings that indicate the presence of non- anatomic pain. Migliore v. Colvin, 2013 WL 3935879, at *3 n.1 (C.D. Cal. Jul. 29, 

2013). 

Case 2:13-cv-01939-BSB Document 18 Filed 09/29/14 Page 5 of 21
- 6 - 

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 

Plaintiff’s fatigue caused “marked” limitations in her abilities to understand and 

remember short, simple and detailed instructions. (Tr. 408.) He opined that fatigue 

caused “moderate” limitations in Plaintiff’s abilities to carry out short, simple 

instructions, interact appropriately with the public, co-workers, and supervisors, and to 

respond to work pressures. (Id.) He concluded that Plaintiff’s fatigue would cause her to 

be “off task” for five hours during an eight-hour day. (Id.) To support of these opinions, 

Dr. Ahmed noted “possible rheumatoid arthritis.” (Id.) 

C. Lay Witness Statements 

 In May 2010, Plaintiff’s friend, Thomas Thompson, completed a Function Report 

about Plaintiff’s activities for her application for disability benefits. (Tr. 166.) 

Thompson said that he spent two to three hours a day with Plaintiff. (Id.) He reported 

that Plaintiff provided food and water for her pets, watched television, read, prepared 

dinner (“most of the time”), performed light cleaning, did laundry (with her husband), 

watered the yard, drove, and shopped for groceries. (Tr. 167-70) He estimated that she 

could lift ten pounds and walk a quarter of a mile. (Tr. 171.) 

 In January 2012, Plaintiff’s granddaughter, Tasha Halsey, provided a written 

statement for Plaintiff’s application for disability benefits. (Tr. 195.) She reported that 

Plaintiff used to take her grandchildren on trips to Lake Powell and the Grand Canyon, 

but that Plaintiff now had trouble walking from her bed to the couch, and was unable to 

drive or go to the grocery store. (Tr. 195-96.) 

 In January 2012, Plaintiff’s grandson, Bruce Ducheseau, provided a statement for 

Plaintiff’s application for disability benefits. (Tr. 197.) He stated that Plaintiff used to go 

on long walks, hunt, ride an ATV, and go on family outings, but she could no longer 

engage in those activities. (Id.) He reported that Plaintiff had a hard time walking, 

opening things, and lifting things. (Id.) He stated that he helped Plaintiff get out of the 

car, get off of the couch, and climb stairs. (Id.) He further stated that Plaintiff could not 

do anything by herself and did not sleep well. (Id.) 

Case 2:13-cv-01939-BSB Document 18 Filed 09/29/14 Page 6 of 21
- 7 - 

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 

III. Administrative Hearing Testimony 

Plaintiff was in her sixties at the time of the administrative hearing. (Tr. 41.) Her 

past relevant work included customer service and restaurant owner. (Tr. 42.) Plaintiff 

testified that she had not worked since she injured her back at work in May 2009. (Tr. 

41-42.) Plaintiff reported back, hip, and neck pain, and numbness and tingling in her 

hands. (Tr. 45, 49-50.) She reported a diagnosis of irritable bowel syndrome, and 

asserted that she experienced symptoms two or three days a week. (Tr. 50.) Plaintiff 

testified that she woke up with a headache every other day. (Tr. 49.) Plaintiff said that 

she was prescribed oxygen for COPD. (Tr. 50-51.) She estimated that she could stand or 

walk for ten minutes at a time and sit for fifteen minutes at a time. (Tr. 47.) She reported 

difficulty lifting a gallon of milk or a frying pan. (Tr. 47-48.) Plaintiff also testified that 

she handled her own personal care without help, cooked, washed dishes, swept, did 

laundry, drove (for forty-five minutes at a time), and shopped for groceries (with help). 

(Tr. 43-44.) 

IV. The ALJ’s Decision 

 A claimant is considered disabled under the Social Security Act if she is unable 

“to engage in any substantial gainful activity by reason of any medically determinable 

physical or mental impairment which can be expected to result in death or which 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); see also 42 U.S.C. § 1382c(a)(3)(A) (nearly identical standard 

for supplemental security income disability insurance benefits). To determine whether a 

claimant is disabled, the ALJ uses a five-step sequential evaluation process. See

20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520, 416.920. 

A. Five-Step Evaluation Process 

 In the first two steps, a claimant seeking disability benefits must initially 

demonstrate (1) that she is not presently engaged in a substantial gainful activity, and 

(2) that her impairment or combination of impairments is severe. 20 C.F.R. 

§ 404.1520(a)(4)(i) and (ii). If a claimant meets steps one and two, she may be found 

Case 2:13-cv-01939-BSB Document 18 Filed 09/29/14 Page 7 of 21
- 8 - 

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 

disabled in two ways at steps three through five. At step three, she may prove that her 

impairment or combination of impairments meets or equals an impairment in the Listing 

of Impairments found in Appendix 1 to Subpart P of 20 C.F.R. pt. 404. 20 C.F.R. 

§ 404.1520(a)(4)(iii). If so, the claimant is presumptively disabled. If not, the ALJ 

determines the claimant’s residual functional capacity (RFC). 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(e). 

At step four, the ALJ determines whether a claimant’s RFC precludes her from 

performing her past work. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(iv). If the claimant establishes 

this prima facie case, the burden shifts to the government at step five to establish that the 

claimant can perform other jobs that exist in significant number in the national economy, 

considering the claimant’s RFC, age, work experience, and education. 20 

C.F.R. § 1520(a)(4)(v). If the government does not meet this burden, then the claimant is 

considered disabled within the meaning of the Act. 

B. The ALJ’s Application of the Five-Step Evaluation Process 

 Applying the five-step sequential evaluation process, the ALJ found that Plaintiff 

met the insured status requirements for disability insurance benefits on December 31, 

2010. (Tr. 16.) He also found that Plaintiff had not engaged in substantial gainful 

activity since the alleged disability onset date, May 14, 2009, through her date last 

insured, December 31, 2010. (Id.) At step two, the ALJ found that Plaintiff had the 

following severe impairment: “post laminectomy at L4-L5 and L5-S1 in 1987.” (Id.) At 

the third step, the ALJ found that the severity of that impairment did not meet or 

medically equal the criteria of an impairment listed in 20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpart P, 

Appendix 1. (Tr. 17.) The ALJ next concluded that Plaintiff retained the RFC to 

perform “medium work,” except that she was limited to sitting, standing, or walking for 

six hours out of an eight-hour work day. (Tr. 18.) At step four, the ALJ found that 

Plaintiff could perform her past work as a restaurant owner. (Tr. 20.) The ALJ 

alternatively found that, considering Plaintiff’s age, education, work experience, and 

RFC, there were other jobs that existed in significant number in the national economy 

that Plaintiff could perform. (Id.) The ALJ concluded that Plaintiff was not disabled 

Case 2:13-cv-01939-BSB Document 18 Filed 09/29/14 Page 8 of 21
- 9 - 

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 

within the meaning of the Act “at any time from May 14, 2009, the alleged onset date, 

through December 31, 2010, the date last insured (20 CFR § 404.1520(f)).” (Tr. 21.) 

C. Evidence submitted to the Appeals Council after the ALJ’s decision 

 After the ALJ’s February 2012 decision, Plaintiff requested review by the Appeals 

Council and submitted records from the Mayo Clinic, all of which were dated more than 

a year after Plaintiff’s December 2010 date last insured. (Tr. 5, 441-53.) The Mayo 

Clinic records show that, in February 2012, Plaintiff presented to rheumatologist 

Catherine Harmon, M.D., for examination. (Tr. 441.) Plaintiff reported that, “for the 

past year,” she had had diarrhea one to two times a week. (Id.) She also reported 

swelling and reduced strength in her hands, and pain in her hips, ankles, and feet. 

(Tr. 441-42.) Dr. Harmon observed that, in December 2011, Plaintiff had an elevated 

rheumatoid factor (“strongly positive at 1045 with normal being less than 14”), but a 

normal C-reactive protein test. (Tr. 443.) Dr. Harmon noted the presence of 

fibromyalgia tender points and stated that rheumatoid arthritis should be ruled out, but 

did not diagnose either impairment. (Tr. 444.) Dr. Harmon ordered imaging of 

Plaintiff’s hands that showed minimal to moderate osteoarthritis. (Tr. 448.) Plaintiff also 

submitted updated imaging of her neck and back. (Tr. 449, 451.) Nerve conduction 

studies of her right leg were normal, with no evidence of radiculopathy. (Tr. 453.) The 

Appeals Council found that this evidence did not provide a basis for changing the ALJ’s 

decision. (Tr. 2-3.) 

V. Standard of Review 

The district court has the “power to enter, upon the pleadings and transcript of 

record, a judgment affirming, modifying, or reversing the decision of the Commissioner, 

with or without remanding the cause for a rehearing.” 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). The district 

court reviews the Commissioner’s final decision under the substantial evidence standard 

and must affirm the Commissioner’s decision if it is supported by substantial evidence 

and it is free from legal error. Ryan v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 528 F.3d 1194, 1198 

(9th Cir. 2008); Smolen v. Chater, 80 F.3d 1273, 1279 (9th Cir. 1996). Even if the ALJ 

Case 2:13-cv-01939-BSB Document 18 Filed 09/29/14 Page 9 of 21
- 10 - 

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 

erred, however, “[a] decision of the ALJ will not be reversed for errors that are 

harmless.” Burch v. Barnhart, 400 F.3d 676, 679 (9th Cir. 2005). 

 Substantial evidence means more than a mere scintilla, but less than a 

preponderance; it is “such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as 

adequate to support a conclusion.” Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389, 401 (1971) 

(citations omitted); see also Webb v. Barnhart, 433 F.3d 683, 686 (9th Cir. 2005). In 

determining whether substantial evidence supports a decision, the court considers the 

record as a whole and “may not affirm simply by isolating a specific quantum of 

supporting evidence.” Orn v. Astrue, 495 F.3d 625, 630 (9th Cir. 2007) (internal 

quotation and citation omitted). 

 The ALJ is responsible for resolving conflicts in testimony, determining 

credibility, and resolving ambiguities. See Andrews v. Shalala, 53 F.3d 1035, 1039 (9th 

Cir. 1995). “When the evidence before the ALJ is subject to more than one rational 

interpretation, [the court] must defer to the ALJ’s conclusion.” Batson v. Comm’r of Soc.

Sec. Admin., 359 F.3d 1190, 1198 (9th Cir. 2004) (citing Andrews, 53 F.3d at 1041). 

VI. Plaintiff’s Claims

 Plaintiff asserts that the ALJ erred by (1) rejecting a treating provider’s opinion, 

(2) failing to conclude that Plaintiff’s rheumatoid arthritis, irritable bowel syndrome, and 

“need for supplemental oxygen” were severe impairments, (3) failing to account for 

Plaintiff’s pain, fatigue, and “fine or gross motor limitations” in her RFC assessment, 

(4) discrediting Plaintiff’s symptom testimony, and (5) failing to consider lay witness 

opinions. (Doc. 14 at 2.) In response, the Commissioner asserts that the ALJ’s decision 

is free of harmful error and supported by substantial evidence in the record. (Doc. 16.) 

A. The ALJ Properly Weighed Dr. Ahmed’s Opinion 

 In her first and third claims, Plaintiff argues that the ALJ erred by assigning no 

weight to Dr. Ahmed’s opinions regarding Plaintiff’s functional abilities and by failing to 

include in the RFC assessment the functional limitations that Dr. Ahmed identified. 

Case 2:13-cv-01939-BSB Document 18 Filed 09/29/14 Page 10 of 21
- 11 - 

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 

(Doc. 14 at 7, 10.) As discussed below, the Court rejects Plaintiff’s arguments and finds 

that the ALJ did not err. 

 In weighing medical source evidence, the Ninth Circuit distinguishes between 

three types of physicians: (1) treating physicians, who treat the claimant; (2) examining 

physicians, who examine but do not treat the claimant; and (3) non-examining physicians, 

who neither treat nor examine the claimant. Lester v. Chater, 81 F.3d 821, 830 (9th Cir. 

1995). Generally, more weight is given to a treating physician’s opinion. Id. The ALJ 

must provide clear and convincing reasons supported by substantial evidence for 

rejecting a treating or an examining physician’s uncontradicted opinion. Id.; Reddick v.

Chater, 157 F.3d 715, 725 (9th Cir. 1998). An ALJ may reject the controverted opinion 

of a treating or an examining physician by providing specific and legitimate reasons that 

are supported by substantial evidence in the record. Bayliss v. Barnhart, 427 F.3d 1211, 

1216 (9th Cir. 2005); Reddick, 157 F.3d at 725. The Court considers Plaintiff’s claims 

regarding the weight the ALJ assigned to the medical source opinions in light of these 

standards. 

 As previously noted, Dr. Ahmed opined that, in an eight-hour day, Plaintiff could 

sit for a total of four hours, stand or walk for a total of two hours, frequently lift ten 

pounds, occasionally lift twenty pounds, and never lift more than twenty pounds. 

(Tr. 409, 427.) He also found that she could occasionally stoop, squat, climb, or reach, 

and that she could never crawl. (Tr. 410, 428.) He further found that Plaintiff was 

limited to occasional grasping, pushing or pulling of controls, and fine manipulation. 

(Tr. 410, 428.) Dr. Ahmed also opined that Plaintiff’s fatigue and headaches caused 

moderate to marked limitations in her abilities to understand, remember and carry out 

simple or detailed instructions, interact appropriately with the public and co-workers, 

respond appropriately to work pressures, and maintain attention. (Tr. 407-08.) The ALJ 

gave Dr. Ahmed’s opinions “no weight” because the level of impairment that Dr. Ahmed 

Case 2:13-cv-01939-BSB Document 18 Filed 09/29/14 Page 11 of 21
- 12 - 

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 

found was not supported by the record.3 (Tr. 19.) The ALJ also noted that Plaintiff had 

received conservative treatment for her headaches. (Id.) 

 Plaintiff argues that the ALJ should have assigned controlling weight to 

Dr. Ahmed’s opinions. (Doc. 14 at 5-8, 10.) To support her argument, Plaintiff asserts 

that “Summit Healthcare and Dr. Ahmed was a longitudinal provider worthy of 

controlling evidentiary weight.” (Doc. 14 at 6.) However, as the Commissioner notes 

(Doc. 16 at 11), the record reflects that Dr. Ahmed did not treat Plaintiff until December 

2011 and he rendered his opinions regarding her functional limitations that same month. 

(Tr. 407, 416.) Thus, Dr. Ahmed’s opinions were based on a limited time frame and the 

record does not support Plaintiff’s assertion that Dr. Ahmed had a detailed, longitudinal 

picture of Plaintiff’s impairments. Cf. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2) (“[g]enerally, we give 

more weight to opinions from your treating sources, since these sources are likely to be 

the medical professionals most able to provide a detailed, longitudinal picture of your 

medical impairment(s)”); Holohan v. Massanari, 246 F.3d 1195, 1203 n.2 (9th Cir. 2001) 

(a treating physician’s opinion may be entitled to little if any weight if the treating 

physician has not seen the claimant long enough to have obtained a longitudinal picture 

of the claimant’s impairments). 

 Additionally, the ALJ did not err by rejecting Dr. Ahmed’s opinions as 

unsupported by the medical record because “the ALJ need not accept the opinion of any 

physician, including a treating physician, if that opinion is brief, conclusory, and 

inadequately supported by clinical findings.” Bray v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 554 

F.3d 1219, 1138 (9th Cir. 2009). As set forth below, substantial evidence supports the 

ALJ’s finding that Dr. Ahmed’s opinions were not supported by the medical record. (Tr. 

19.) 

 The record reflects that Plaintiff’s symptoms responded to treatment, and that her 

physical functioning was intact on examination. (Tr. 248-49, 292, 261, 254, 305.) 

 

3

 The ALJ mistakenly refers to Dr. Ahmed as Dr. Ahmen. (Tr. 19.) The medical 

record confirms that the doctor’s last name is Ahmed. (See Tr. 414.) 

Case 2:13-cv-01939-BSB Document 18 Filed 09/29/14 Page 12 of 21
- 13 - 

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 

Dr. Ahmed opined that Plaintiff had functional limitations due to chronic headaches 

(Tr. 407 (“8-10 headaches [per] month,” that last a “few hours”), however, the record 

does not support his opinion regarding the frequency or duration of Plaintiff’s headaches. 

Aside from a 2008 treatment note stating that Plaintiff had a headache related to “hay 

fever” (Tr. 332), and a 2011 treatment note stating that Plaintiff had a headache related to 

a respiratory infection (Tr. 324), treatment records from Summit do not reflect that 

Plaintiff complained of, or was treated for, headaches. (Tr. 326-34, 341-43, 377-89, 390-

403.) Similarly, although Dr. Uhall noted that Plaintiff had a sinus headache related to 

bronchitis on one occasion in 2009 (Tr. 260), her treatment notes do not indicate that 

Plaintiff had frequent headaches. (Tr. 260-67.) Dr. Ahmed also opined that Plaintiff’s 

“mental functioning” was limited due to “possible rheumatoid arthritis.” (Tr. 408, 429.) 

However, record evidence shows that Plaintiff denied inflammation symptoms, she did 

not have swelling or redness in her joints, and her joints were fully mobile. (Tr. 237.) 

 Therefore, the ALJ did not err by discounting Dr. Ahmed’s opinions as 

unsupported by the medical record. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(3), (4) (ALJ must 

consider support for opinion and consistency with the record as a whole); Batson v. 

Comm’r of the Soc. Sec. Admin., 359 F.3d 1190, 1195 (9th Cir. 2004) (ALJ may discount 

treating physician opinions that are conclusory, brief, and unsupported by the record as a 

whole, or by objective medical findings). 

 Petitioner also argues that the ALJ erred by failing to include the functional 

limitations that Dr. Ahmed identified in the RFC assessment. (Doc. 14 at 10.) Because 

the ALJ did not err in discounting Dr. Ahmed’s opinions regarding Plaintiff’s functional 

limitations, the ALJ did not err by omitting those limitations from the RFC assessment. 

See Osenbrock v. Apfel, 240 F.3d 1157, 1164-65 (9th Cir. 2001) (In formulating a 

claimant’s RFC, an ALJ is not required to include limitations that are not supported by 

substantial evidence). 

Case 2:13-cv-01939-BSB Document 18 Filed 09/29/14 Page 13 of 21
- 14 - 

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 

B. Severe Impairments 

 1. Standard for Step Two Determination 

 Plaintiff also argues that the ALJ erred at step two of the five-step evaluation 

process by failing to include rheumatoid arthritis, irritable bowel syndrome, and need for 

supplemental oxygen (COPD) in the list of Plaintiff’s severe impairments.4

 (Doc. 14 at 

8.) At step two, the ALJ determines whether the claimant has a “severe” impairment or 

combination of impairments that significantly limits her ability to do basic work 

activities. See Bowen v. Yuckert, 482 U.S. 137, 146 (1987); 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(c), 

416.920(c). “Basic work activities” refers to “the abilities and aptitudes necessary to do 

most jobs.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1521(b), 416.921(b). “An impairment or combination of 

impairments can 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.’” 

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

 A mental or physical “impairment must result from anatomical, physiological, or 

psychological abnormalities that can be shown by medically acceptable clinical and 

laboratory diagnostic techniques,” and “established by medical evidence consisting of 

signs, symptoms, and laboratory findings, not only by [the claimant’s] statement of 

symptoms.”5

 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1508, 416.908. Thus, a symptom or combination of 

symptoms cannot establish a medically determinable physical or mental impairment 

“unless there are medical signs and laboratory findings demonstrating the existence of a 

 

4

 The record reflects that the ALJ did not specifically discuss Plaintiff’s rheumatoid arthritis, COPD (or need for oxygen), or irritable bowel syndrome. (Tr. 16- 17.) However, Plaintiff does not assert that the ALJ’s failure to do so was error. 

(Doc. 14.) Rather, she argues that the ALJ erred by failing to consider those impairments severe. (Doc. 14 at 9.) 

5

 Symptoms” are the claimant’s description of her physical or mental impairment. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1528(a). A claimant’s “statements alone are not enough to establish that there was a physical or mental impairment.” Id. “Signs” are “anatomical, physiological, or psychological abnormalities which can be observed, apart from the claimant’s statements (symptoms).” Id. at § 404.1528(b). “Signs must be shown by medically acceptable clinical diagnostic techniques.” Id. “Laboratory findings” are “anatomical, physiological, or psychological phenomena which can be shown by the use of medically acceptable laboratory diagnostic techniques.” Id. at § 404.1528(c). 

Case 2:13-cv-01939-BSB Document 18 Filed 09/29/14 Page 14 of 21
- 15 - 

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 

medically determinable physical or mental impairment.” SSR 96-4p, 1996 WL 374187, 

at *1. See also Ukolov v. Barnhart, 420 F.3d 1002, 1006 (9th Cir. 2005) (noting that “a 

medical opinion offered in support of an impairment must include ‘symptoms [and a] 

diagnosis.’”) (citing SSR 96-6p, 1996 WL 374180, at *1). 

2. The ALJ did not Err at Step Two 

 a. Rheumatoid Arthritis 

 Plaintiff asserts that she has suffered undiagnosed rheumatoid arthritis since at 

least July 7, 2010, and that the ALJ erred by not considering it a medically determinable 

impairment that was severe. (Doc. 14 at 9.) To support her argument, Plaintiff states that 

her C-reactive protein (CRP) was elevated in July 2010 indicating the “presence of an 

inflammatory process like rheumatoid arthritis” (Doc. 14 at 9 (citing Tr. 334, 350)), and 

that in December 2011, her rheumatoid arthritis lab factor was 1045 and normal is less 

than 14.0. (Doc. 14 at 9 (citing Tr. 422).) She also states that she had difficulty grasping 

and gripping. (Doc. 14 at 9.) 

 A July 20, 2010 treatment note states that Plaintiff’s lab results were inconclusive. 

(Tr. 335.) The evidence Plaintiff submitted to the Appeals Council after the ALJ’s 

decision showed that although Plaintiff had a positive rheumatoid factor in December 

2011, her C-reactive protein test was normal. (Tr. 443.) Dr. Harmon did not diagnose 

rheumatoid arthritis at that time, but rather noted that it should be “rule[d] out.” 

(Tr. 444.) The record does not contain a diagnosis of rheumatoid arthritis by an 

acceptable medical source, as required to establish a medically determinable impairment. 

(Tr. 408 (“possible” rheumatoid arthritis), 429 (same), 444 (“rule out” rheumatoid 

arthritis); see 20 C.F.R. § 404.1513(a) (“We need evidence from acceptable medical 

sources to establish whether you have a medically determinable impairment(s).”); 

Ukolov, 420 F.3d at 1006 (a medical opinion must include both symptoms and a 

diagnosis (citing SSR 96-6p, 1996 WL 374180, at *1)). Accordingly, the ALJ did not err 

by failing to consider Plaintiff’s undiagnosed rheumatoid arthritis a severe impairment. 

Case 2:13-cv-01939-BSB Document 18 Filed 09/29/14 Page 15 of 21
- 16 - 

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 

 b. Irritable Bowel Syndrome and COPD 

 To obtain disability benefits, “a claimant must demonstrate a disability that existed 

prior to the claimant’s last insured date.” Anderson v. Apfel, 2000 WL 913666, at *4 

(D. Or. Mar. 25, 2000). The claimant must prove that she was “either permanently 

disabled or subject to a condition which became so severe as to disable [the claimant] 

prior to the date upon which [the claimant’s] disability insured status expire[d].” Johnson 

v. Shalala, 60 F.3d 1428, 1432 (9th Cir. 1995). 

 Plaintiff argues that the ALJ should have included COPD and irritable bowel 

syndrome (IBS) among her severe impairments. (Doc. 14 at 8-10.) Plaintiff alleges 

disability beginning on May 14, 2009. (Tr. 14, 128.) Plaintiff did not include COPD or 

IBS among the “illnesses, injuries, or conditions,” that limited her ability to work on the 

Disability Reports that she completed in 2010. (Tr. 150 (identifying disabling conditions 

as “2 missing cartlidge (sic) between 14 & 15 and neck problems, numbing down arm 

and leg, [h]ypertension, cardiac disease, seizures, depression, anxiety”); Tr. 145 (noting 

no changes in disabling conditions).) 

 Additionally, the record in this case does not document treatment for COPD or 

IBS on or before Plaintiff’s December 2010 date last insured. (Tr. 19 (discussing medical 

record).) Plaintiff bases her argument on evidence from after the relevant period. 

(Doc. 14 at 9-10 (citing Tr. 321, 324, 325, 362-63, 416, 441)), and does not argue that 

IBS or COPD existed before the expiration of her insured status. See Flaten v. Sec’y of 

Health & Human Servs, 44 F.3d 1453, 1461 (9th Cir. 1995) (noting that “in a 

retrospective diagnosis case, a ‘[c]laimant is not entitled to disability benefits unless he 

can demonstrate that his disability existed prior to the expiration of his insured status.’”); 

Morgan v. Sullivan, 945 F.2d 1079, 1080 (9th Cir. 1991) (finding that the claimant must 

demonstrate disability prior to his last insured date); Vincent v. Heckler, 739 F.2d 1393, 

1394 (9th Cir. 1984) (finding that “only disabilities existing before that time [expiration 

of insured status] can trigger insurance benefits”). The evidence upon which Plaintiff 

relies shows that she was prescribed oxygen in relation to bronchitis after her date last 

Case 2:13-cv-01939-BSB Document 18 Filed 09/29/14 Page 16 of 21
- 17 - 

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 

insured. (Tr. 325, 345.) It also reflects that Plaintiff did not report bowel problems to 

medical providers until after her date last insured. (Tr. 324, 441.) 

 Accordingly, Plaintiff has not met her burden of showing that IBS and COPD (or 

the use of oxygen) were present on or before her December 2010 date last insured. See 

Gomez v. Chater, 74 F.3d 967, 970 (9th Cir. 1996) (stating that the burden of proof to 

establish a disability rests upon the claimant). Accordingly, the ALJ did not err in failing 

to consider COPD or IBS severe impairments. 

C. The ALJ did not Err in Discounting Plaintiff’s Subjective Complaints 

 1. The Two-Step Credibility Analysis 

 Plaintiff asserts that the ALJ erred in finding her symptom testimony less than 

credible. (Doc. 14 at 11.) An ALJ engages in a two-step analysis to determine whether a 

claimant’s subjective symptom testimony is credible. Garrison v. Colvin, 2014 WL 

3397218, at *16 n.18 (D. Ariz. Jul. 14, 2014) (citing Lingenfelter v. Astrue, 504 F.3d 

1028, 1035-36 (9th Cir. 2007)). 

 “First, the ALJ must determine whether the claimant has presented objective 

medical evidence of an underlying impairment ‘which could reasonably be expected to 

produce the pain or other symptoms alleged.’” Lingenfelter, 504 F.3d at 1036 (quoting 

Bunnell v. Sullivan, 947 F.2d 341, 344 (9th Cir. 1991) (en banc)). The claimant is not 

required to show objective medical evidence of the pain itself or of a causal relationship 

between the impairment and the symptom. Smolen, 80 F.3d at 1282. Instead, the 

claimant must only show that an objectively verifiable impairment “could reasonably be 

expected@ to produce his pain.” Lingenfelter, 504 F.3d at 1036 (quoting Smolen, 80 F.3d 

at 1282); see also Carmickle v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 533 F.3d at 1160B61 (9th Cir. 2008) 

(“requiring that the medical impairment ‘could reasonably be expected to produce’ pain 

or another symptom . . . requires only that the causal relationship be a reasonable 

inference, not a medically proven phenomenon”). 

 Second, if a claimant shows that she suffers from an underlying medical 

impairment that could reasonably be expected to produce his pain or other symptoms, the 

Case 2:13-cv-01939-BSB Document 18 Filed 09/29/14 Page 17 of 21
- 18 - 

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 

ALJ must “evaluate the intensity and persistence of [the] symptoms” to determine how 

the symptoms, including pain, limit the claimant’s ability to work. See 20 

C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(1). In making this evaluation, the ALJ may consider the objective 

medical evidence, the claimant’s daily activities, the location, duration, frequency, and 

intensity of the claimant’s pain or other symptoms, precipitating and aggravating factors, 

medication taken, and treatments for relief of pain or other symptoms. See 20 

C.F.R. § 404.1529(c); Bunnell, 947 F.2d at 346. 

 At this second evaluative step, the ALJ may reject a claimant’s testimony 

regarding the severity of her symptoms only if the ALJ “makes a finding of malingering 

based on affirmative evidence,” Lingenfelter, 504 F.3d at 1036 (quoting Robbins v. Soc. 

Sec. Admin., 466 F.3d 880, 883 (9th Cir. 2006)), or if the ALJ offers “clear and 

convincing reasons” for finding the claimant not credible. Carmickle, 533 F.3d at 1160 

(quoting Lingenfelter, 504 F.3d at 1036). “‘The clear and convincing standard is the 

most demanding required in Social Security Cases.’” Garrison, 2014 WL 3397218, at 

*15-18 (quoting Moore v. Soc. Sec. Admin., 278 F.3d 920, 924 (9th Cir. 2002)). 

 2. The ALJ’s Assessment of Plaintiff’s Symptom Testimony 

 The ALJ found that Plaintiff’s “statements concerning the intensity, persistence, 

and limiting effects of [her] symptoms” were not entirely credible. (Tr. 18.) After 

discussing the medical record, the ALJ concluded that the degree of limitation Plaintiff 

alleged “was not supported by the objective medical evidence of record.” (Tr. 20.) 

 As Plaintiff correctly argues (Doc. 14 at 11), the absence of fully corroborative 

medical evidence cannot constitute the sole basis for an ALJ’s adverse credibility 

determination. See Cotton v. Bowen, 799 F.2d 1403, 1407 (9th Cir. 1986) (it is legal 

error for “an ALJ to discredit excess pain testimony solely on the ground that it is not 

fully corroborated by objective medical findings”), superseded by statute on other 

grounds as stated in Bunnell v. Sullivan, 912 F.2d 1149 (9th Cir. 1990); see also Burch v. 

Barnhart, 400 F.3d 676, 681 (9th Cir. 2005) (the “lack of medical evidence” can be “a 

factor” in rejecting credibility, but cannot “form the sole basis”). 

Case 2:13-cv-01939-BSB Document 18 Filed 09/29/14 Page 18 of 21
- 19 - 

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 

 Here, however, the ALJ also gave several other clear and convincing reasons to 

support her credibility determination. She found that Plaintiff’s pain was successfully 

treated with medication (Tr.19 (citing Admin. Hrg. Ex. 5F at 3)), Plaintiff refused to 

participate in range of motion testing (Tr. 19 (citing Hrg. Ex. 15F at 7)), and Plaintiff had 

a positive Waddell’s test for superficial tenderness, non-anatomic tenderness, and axial 

loading, stimulator rotation, overreaction, regional disturbance, and distraction. (Tr. 19 

(citing Admin. Hrg. Ex. 10F).) 

 These are legally sufficient reasons to support the ALJ’s adverse credibility 

determination that are supported by substantial evidence in the record.6

 See 20 

C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(3)(iv), 416.929(c)(3)(iv); Warre v. Comm’r, of Soc. Sec. Admin., 

439 F.3d 1001, 1006 (9th Cir. 2006) (stating that “[i]mpairments that can be controlled 

effectively with medication are not disabling for purposes of determining eligibility for 

SSI benefits.”); Tonapetyan v. Halter, 242 F.3d 1144, 1148 (9th Cir. 2001) (stating that a 

claimant’s lack of cooperation during consultative examinations supported an adverse 

credibility finding); Osenbrock v. Apfel, 240 F.3d 1157, 1166 (9th Cir. 2001) (finding that 

positive Waddell’s signs on examination supported the ALJ’s finding that the claimant 

was not credible). Accordingly, the ALJ did not err by finding Plaintiff’s symptom 

testimony not fully credible. 

D. Lay Opinion Testimony 

 Finally, Plaintiff argues that the ALJ erred by not discussing the lay opinions of 

her grandchildren. (Doc. 14 at 12.) Plaintiff’s granddaughter wrote a letter “to whom it 

may concern” stating that Plaintiff used to be very physically active, but cannot grocery 

shop, “run around town” or drive to Showlow alone because she gets tired and 

experiences pain after “a few hours.” (Tr. 195.) She also stated that Plaintiff had pain 

 

6

 The ALJ’s discussion of Plaintiff’s credibility spanned several pages of her decision. (Tr. 20.) Although the ALJ generally concluded that the record did not support Plaintiff’s subjective complaints, before reaching that conclusion, she identified specific grounds for discrediting Plaintiff’s credibility. (Tr. 19.) Her failure to reiterate those 

grounds in her final conclusion does not constitute harmful error. 

Case 2:13-cv-01939-BSB Document 18 Filed 09/29/14 Page 19 of 21
- 20 - 

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 

daily. (Id.) In a similar letter, Plaintiff’s grandson stated that she had pain on a daily 

basis and had difficulty picking things up, opening things, walking, and sleeping. 

(Tr. 197.) 

 The ALJ did not address these opinions in her decision. However, she discussed a 

similar lay witness statement from Plaintiff’s friend, Thomas Thompson. (Tr. 19-20.) 

On a Function Report, Thompson stated that Plaintiff provided food and water for her 

pets, watched television, read, and prepared dinner (“most of the time”). (Tr. 167-68.) 

He also stated that she performed light cleaning, did laundry (with her husband), watered 

the yard, drove, and shopped for groceries. (Id. at 168-69.) He estimated that she could 

lift ten pounds and walk one-fourth of a mile. (Tr. 171.) 

 The ALJ discounted Thompson’s opinion because it was inconsistent with the 

opinions and observations of the medical doctors in the record. (Tr. 20.) Although the 

Ninth Circuit has held that a mere lack of supporting evidence is not a germane reason for 

discounting a lay witness’s testimony, see Smolen, 80 F.3d at 1289, it has also repeatedly 

held that inconsistency or contradiction with the medical evidence is a germane reason. 

See Vincent v. Heckler, 739 F.2d 1393, 1395 (9th Cir. 1984) (“The ALJ properly 

discounted lay testimony that conflicted with the available medical evidence.”); see also 

Bayliss v. Barnhart, 427 F.3d 1211, 1218 (9th Cir. 2005) (“inconsistency with medical 

evidence” is a germane reason); Barton v. Astrue, 500 Fed. App’x 607, 609 (9th Cir. 

2012) (“The ALJ’s finding that the lay opinion testimony conflicted with the medical 

evidence was a ‘germane reason’ for rejecting this testimony.” (alteration omitted)); 

Rivera v. Colvin, 2013 WL 6002445, at *2-*4 (D. Or. Nov. 12, 2013) (discussing the 

Smolen and Vincent lines of cases). Accordingly, the ALJ provided a legally sufficient 

reason for discounting Thompson’s lay opinion. 

 Even if the ALJ erred by failing to specifically discuss the lay witness statements 

from Plaintiff’s grandchildren, any error is harmless because the ALJ gave legally 

sufficient reasons for rejecting Thompson’s and Plaintiff’s similar statements regarding 

Plaintiff’s symptoms and functional limitations and these reasons apply equally to the 

Case 2:13-cv-01939-BSB Document 18 Filed 09/29/14 Page 20 of 21
- 21 - 

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 

statements from Plaintiff’s grandchildren. See Molina v. Astrue, 674 F.3d 1104, 1122 

(9th Cir. 2012) (stating that the ALJ’s failure to explicitly discuss reasons for discounting 

lay witness testimony was harmless when the ALJ gave valid reasons for discounting 

similar testimony by the claimant). 

VII. Conclusion 

As set forth above, the ALJ’s opinion is supported by substantial evidence in the 

record and is free of harmful legal error. 

Accordingly, 

IT IS ORDERED that the Commissioner’s disability determination in this case 

is AFFIRMED. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment in favor of the 

Commissioner and against Plaintiff and to terminate this action. 

 Dated this 26th day of September, 2014. 

Case 2:13-cv-01939-BSB Document 18 Filed 09/29/14 Page 21 of 21