Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-00225/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-00225-0/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 

Dontay Austin, 

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

Michael J. Astrue, Commissioner of Social 

Security Administration, 

Defendant.

No. CV-12-00225-PHX-NVW

ORDER 

Plaintiff Dontay Austin seeks review under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) of the final 

decision of the Commissioner of Social Security (“the Commissioner”), which denied 

him supplemental security income under section 1614(a)(3)(A) of the Social Security 

Act. Because the decision of the Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) is supported by 

substantial evidence and is not based on legal error, the Commissioner’s decision will be 

affirmed. 

I. BACKGROUND 

Austin was born in April 1988. He has a high school education and is able to 

communicate in English. He attempted community college and attended one year of 

beauty school classes. He has been diagnosed with attention deficit hyperactivity 

disorder, mood disorder not otherwise specified, bipolar disorder, and obsessive 

compulsive disorder. He has had three different jobs, and the longest he worked at a job 

was three months. 

Case 2:12-cv-00225-NVW Document 20 Filed 12/06/12 Page 1 of 6
- 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 

Austin received supplemental security income benefits as a child because he was 

found disabled at the age of 11 for attention deficit hyperactivity disorder and 

oppositional defiant disorder. When he became 18 years old, his eligibility for these 

benefits was evaluated based on adult standards as required by law. On May 31, 2007, it 

was determined that he was no longer disabled as of May 1, 2007. Upon reconsideration 

after hearing, the determination was upheld. Austin filed a written request for hearing on 

March 11, 2009. On August 25, 2010, he appeared with his attorney and testified at a 

hearing before the ALJ. A vocational expert also testified. 

On September 15, 2010, the ALJ issued a decision that Austin was not disabled 

within the meaning of the Social Security Act. On October 12, 2010, Austin requested 

review of the hearing decision. On December 9, 2011, the Appeals Council denied 

Austin’s request for review of the hearing decision, making the ALJ’s decision the 

Commissioner’s final decision. On February 1, 2012, Austin sought review by this 

Court. 

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW 

The district court 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 court 

may set aside the Commissioner’s disability determination only if the determination is 

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

625, 630 (9th Cir. 2007). Substantial evidence is more than a scintilla, less than a 

preponderance, and relevant evidence that a reasonable person might accept as adequate 

to support a conclusion considering the record as a whole. Id. In determining whether 

substantial evidence supports a decision, the court must consider the record as a whole 

and may not affirm simply by isolating a “specific quantum of supporting evidence.” Id. 

As a general rule, “[w]here the evidence is susceptible to more than one rational 

Case 2:12-cv-00225-NVW Document 20 Filed 12/06/12 Page 2 of 6
- 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 

interpretation, one of which supports the ALJ’s decision, the ALJ’s conclusion must be 

upheld.” Thomas v. Barnhart, 278 F.3d 947, 954 (9th Cir. 2002) (citations omitted). 

III. ANALYSIS 

To determine whether a claimant is disabled for purposes of the Social Security 

Act, the ALJ follows a five-step process. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a). The claimant bears 

the burden of proof on the first four steps, but at step five, the burden shifts to the 

Commissioner. Tackett v. Apfel, 180 F.3d 1094, 1098 (9th Cir. 1999). 

The ALJ found that since May 1, 2007, Austin has had the following severe 

impairments: attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, mood disorder not otherwise 

specified, bipolar disorder, and obsessive compulsive disorder. The ALJ also found that 

Austin has had “the residual functional capacity to perform a full range of work at all 

exertional levels but with the following nonexertional limitations: he is limited to simple, 

unskilled work.” Considering Austin’s age, education, work experience, and residual 

functional capacity, the ALJ concluded there are jobs that exist in significant numbers in 

the national economy that Austin can perform. 

A. The ALJ Did Not Err in Weighing Medical Source Evidence. 

In weighing medical source opinions in Social Security cases, the Ninth Circuit 

distinguishes among three types of physicians: (1) treating physicians, who actually 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 should be given to the 

opinion of a treating physician than to the opinions of non-treating physicians. Id. 

Further, an examining physician’s opinion generally must be given greater weight than 

that of a non-examining physician. Id. 

Evidence from “acceptable medical sources,” e.g., licensed physicians and 

licensed or certified psychologists, is needed to establish an impairment. 20 C.F.R. 

Case 2:12-cv-00225-NVW Document 20 Filed 12/06/12 Page 3 of 6
- 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 

§ 416.913(a). Evidence from other sources, such as nurse practitioners, may be 

considered to determine the severity of the claimant’s impairment and how it affects the 

claimant’s ability to work. 20 C.F.R. § 416.913(d). Only “acceptable medical sources” 

can be considered treating sources, whose medical opinions may be entitled to controlling 

weight. Social Security Ruling 06-03p. Contrary to Austin’s assertion, the ALJ did not 

reject the opinions of two nurse practitioners, Deanette Devereaux and Sharon Lorraine 

Paul, at Southwest Behavioral Health Services. He merely gave them “limited weight” 

because they were not “acceptable medical sources” under the regulations. 

On August 24, 2009, Ms. Paul wrote a “Verification of Psychiatric Treatment,” 

stating that Austin was being seen for treatment of “schizoaffective, bipolar type,” and he 

would be seen on a monthly basis for medication prescription and management services 

until his symptoms subsided. She also wrote that Austin’s symptoms were currently 

severe and interfered with his ability to sustain employment. Ms. Paul’s treatment notes 

for August 24, 2009, state that Austin reported panic attacks, depression, and mood 

swings. Ms. Paul observed that his alertness was normal, memory and concentration 

intact, and attention distractible. 

On October 19, 2009, Ms. Devereaux noted that Austin was seen for medication 

evaluation, his concentration was good, and he seemed “intact in terms of a level of 

consciousness.” He reportedly denied “that any auditory hallucinations are problematic” 

and “that the voices are very very faint and nonthreatening in nature.” 

On March 24, 2010, Ms. Devereaux noted that Austin reported that medication 

was helping although he had not been taking it consistently, and he heard voices 

mumbling. In a separate document titled “Verification of Psychiatric Treatment,” Ms. 

Devereaux wrote that Austin was being seen for treatment of schizoaffective disorder, he 

would be seen on a bi-monthly basis, and his symptoms were currently moderate-tosevere and interfered with his ability to obtain and sustain employment. 

Case 2:12-cv-00225-NVW Document 20 Filed 12/06/12 Page 4 of 6
- 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 

Whether a claimant is able to work is an issue reserved to the Commissioner. 20 

C.F.R. § 416.927(d). Even if a treating physician had expressed the opinion that Austin’s 

impairments interfered with his ability to sustain employment, a treating source’s opinion 

on issues reserved to the Commissioner is never entitled to controlling weight or given 

special significance. Social Security Ruling 96-5p. Moreover, except for their opinions 

on issues reserved to the Commissioner, the evidence from Ms. Paul and Ms. Devereaux 

is consistent with the ALJ’s decision. 

Therefore, the ALJ did not err in giving the opinions of the two nurse practitioners 

limited weight even though Austin did not produce evidence from an “acceptable medical 

source.” 

B. The ALJ Did Not Misinterpret Evidence to the Detriment of the 

Claimant. 

Austin contends that the ALJ misinterpreted the evidence supplied by the state 

agency because he said: 

Social Security Ruling 96-6p states that findings of fact made 

by State agency medical consultants and other program 

physicians regarding the nature and severity of an 

individual’s impairment(s) must be treated as expert opinion 

evidence of nonexamining sources to be considered and 

weighed along with the medical evidence from other sources. 

In accordance with the aforementioned Ruling, the 

Administrative Law Judge gives weight to these opinions to 

the extent they are consistent with the medical evidence and 

findings herein. As a whole, the medical opinions of 

consulting physicians and medical consultants are highly 

probative as these same opinions are supported by the great 

weight of the evidence of record. There is nothing in these 

assessments or in the overall record to suggest that the 

claimant cannot perform a wide range of unskilled work. 

On May 14, 2007, and December 1, 2008, State agency consultants completed a form 

titled “Psychiatric Review Technique” by checking the box for “insufficient evidence” 

Case 2:12-cv-00225-NVW Document 20 Filed 12/06/12 Page 5 of 6
- 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 

and were not able to provide opinions. Therefore, finding the medical opinions of 

consulting physicians and medical consultants “highly probative as these same opinions 

are supported by the great weight of the evidence of record” is not literally accurate. It 

would have been more accurate to state that the consultants’ inability to form opinions 

because of the absence of medical records is highly probative. Nevertheless, the ALJ’s 

decision was supported by substantial evidence from 2009 and 2010, and it was not his 

responsibility to consider medical evidence that did not exist because Austin had not 

sought treatment during 2007 and 2008. 

In general, a claimant must prove that he is disabled and must furnish medical and 

other evidence that the Commissioner can use to reach conclusions about a claimant’s 

medical impairment. 20 C.F.R. § 416.912(a). It is the claimant’s responsibility to 

provide evidence showing he has an impairment, how severe it is, and how it affects his 

functioning. 20 C.F.R. § 416.912(c). It is the Commissioner’s responsibility to develop a 

claimant’s complete medical history by making reasonable efforts to obtain medical 

reports from a claimant’s medical sources when the claimant gives permission to request 

the reports. 20 C.F.R. § 416.912(d). The Commissioner may ask a claimant to attend a 

consultative examination, but is not required to obtain a consultative examination. See 20 

C.F.R. § 416.912(e). 

Therefore, the ALJ did not err by misinterpreting evidence to Austin’s detriment. 

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the final decision of the Commissioner of 

Social Security is affirmed. The Clerk shall enter judgment accordingly and shall 

terminate this case. 

Dated this 6th day of December, 2012. 

Case 2:12-cv-00225-NVW Document 20 Filed 12/06/12 Page 6 of 6