Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-3_19-cv-08018/USCOURTS-azd-3_19-cv-08018-0/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

Wilford Lee McCray,

Plaintiff,

v. 

Commissioner of Social Security 

Administration,

Defendant.

No. CV-19-08018-PCT-ESW

ORDER 

Pending before the Court is Wilford Lee McCray’s (“Plaintiff”) appeal of the Social 

Security Administration’s (“Social Security”) denial of his application for disability 

insurance benefits. Under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), the Court has the power to enter, based upon 

the pleadings and transcript of the record, a judgment affirming, modifying, or reversing 

the decision of the Commissioner of Social Security, with or without remanding the case 

for a rehearing. Both parties have consented to the exercise of U.S. Magistrate Judge 

jurisdiction. (Doc. 9). After reviewing the parties’ briefing (Docs. 14, 19, 20), the Court

finds that the Administrative Law Judge’s (“ALJ”) decision is supported by substantial 

evidence and is free of harmful legal error. The decision is therefore affirmed.

I. LEGAL STANDARD

In determining whether to reverse an ALJ’s decision, the district court reviews only 

those issues raised by the party challenging the decision. See Lewis v. Apfel, 236 F.3d 503, 

517 n.13 (9th Cir. 2001). The Court may set aside the Commissioner’s determination only 

if it is not supported by substantial evidence or is based on legal error. Orn v. Astrue, 495 

Case 3:19-cv-08018-ESW Document 21 Filed 01/30/20 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

F.3d 625, 630 (9th Cir. 2007). Substantial evidence is more than a scintilla, but less than 

a preponderance; it is relevant evidence that a reasonable person might accept as adequate 

to support a conclusion considering the record as a whole. Id. To determine 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.

Generally, “[w]here the evidence is susceptible to more than one rational 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).

In Chavez v. Bowen, 844 F.2d 691 (9th Cir. 1988), the Ninth Circuit held that 

principles of res judicata apply to administrative decisions. If Social Security determines 

that a claimant is not disabled, a presumption of continuing non-disability applies to the 

claimant’s subsequent claims. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.957(c)(1), 416.1457(c)(1). The claimant 

can rebut the presumption by showing “changed circumstances” indicating greater 

disability. Chavez, 844 F.2d at 693. Changed circumstances may include the existence of 

a new impairment not previously considered or an increase in the severity of an 

impairment. Lester v. Chater, 81 F.3d 821, 827 (9th Cir. 1995). If the claimant rebuts the 

presumption, the ALJ can consider whether the claimant is disabled by following the fivestep process described in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a). 

II. BACKGROUND

Plaintiff, who was born in 1962, has past relevant work as a well-driller. (A.R. 59, 

210). This case involves Plaintiff’s second application for disability benefits. Social 

Security granted Plaintiff’s prior application for disability insurance benefits effective 

March 19, 2006. (A.R. 70). In an October 2, 2013 decision (the “First Decision”), an ALJ

determined that Plaintiff’s disability ended on March 1, 2012. (A.R. 77). After the Appeals 

Council denied review, Plaintiff filed an appeal with the U.S. District Court for the District 

of Arizona. The Court affirmed the First Decision. (Case No. 3:15-cv-08014-DJH (D. 

Ariz. Sept. 28, 2016, Doc. 20)).

On April 24, 2015, Plaintiff filed a second application for disability insurance 

Case 3:19-cv-08018-ESW Document 21 Filed 01/30/20 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

benefits, which alleged disability beginning on November 20, 2013 through Plaintiff’s last 

insured date of March 31, 2014. (A.R. 210-13). Social Security denied the application on 

November 24, 2015. (A.R. 148-151). On March 29, 2016, upon Plaintiff’s request for 

reconsideration, Social Security affirmed the denial of Plaintiff’s application. (A.R. 155-

60). Plaintiff then requested a hearing before an ALJ. (A.R. 161-62). The ALJ held a 

hearing on October 17, 2017, during which Plaintiff was represented by an attorney. (A.R. 

38-66). In his February 22, 2018 decision (the “Second Decision”), the ALJ found that 

Plaintiff did not rebut the presumption of non-disability by showing new and material 

evidence. (A.R. 16). The ALJ made the alternative finding that even if Plaintiff did rebut 

the presumption, Plaintiff is capable of performing certain jobs existing in significant

numbers in the national economy. (A.R. 30). The Appeals Council denied Plaintiff’s 

request for review. (A.R. 1-6). On January 21, 2019, Plaintiff filed a Complaint (Doc. 1) 

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) requesting judicial review and reversal of the decision.

III. DISCUSSION

On November 20, 2013, Plaintiff’s treating physician Timothy Bonatus, M.D. 

completed a “Medical Assessment of Ability To Do Work Related Activities” (the

“Medical Assessment”). (A.R. 589-91). Plaintiff asserts that the Medical Assessment 

shows a worsening of Plaintiff’s conditions that is sufficient to rebut the Chavez 

presumption. (Doc. 14 at 15). In the Second Decision, the ALJ did not find that Dr. 

Bonatus’s opinion demonstrates changed circumstances. (A.R. 15). Although the ALJ did 

not clearly state his rationale for making this determination, his reasons are apparent from 

the hearing testimony and other portions of his opinion. See Magallanes v. Bowen, 881 

F.2d 747, 755 (9th Cir. 1989) (finding that a reviewing court may draw reasonable 

inferences from an ALJ’s discussion of the facts and evidence).

To reiterate, Chavez instructs that a claimant must prove “changed circumstances 

indicating greater disability.” 844 F.2d at 693 (internal quotations omitted) (emphasis 

added). “Based on the word ‘indicating,’ it is clear that there must be a causal relationship 

between the changed circumstances and the greater disability.” Bose v. Astrue, No. CV 

Case 3:19-cv-08018-ESW Document 21 Filed 01/30/20 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

09-02257-PHX-MHM, 2011 WL 1211601, at *9 (D. Ariz. Mar. 31, 2011). Therefore, a

claimant must show both changed circumstances and greater disability, as well as a causal 

relationship between the two. Id. (“[W]hile the Plaintiff is correct that he must demonstrate 

both changed circumstances and greater disability, Chavez dictates that he must do so in a 

manner that shows a causal relationship between the two.”).

Here, the record indicates that Dr. Bonatus’ Medical Assessment is based on 

medical evidence that was reviewed in conjunction with the First Decision. The ALJ who 

issued the First Decision in October 2013 reviewed medical records from March 2006 

through September 2013. (A.R. 32-34). As the ALJ noted at the administrative hearing, 

Plaintiff did not submit any additional treatment records from September 2013 through the

November 2013 date of Dr. Bonatus’ Medical Assessment. (A.R. 42-45). Plaintiff testified 

at the hearing that when he saw Dr. Bonatus on November 20, 2013, Dr. Bonatus merely 

reviewed Plaintiff’s prior X-rays. (A.R. 42). Dr. Bonatus did not previously complete a 

medical assessment of Plaintiff’s limitations, and the November 20, 2013 Medical

Assessment does not state that Dr. Bonatus determined that Plaintiff’s conditions worsened 

since October 2013. The Court does not find that the ALJ erred in determining that Plaintiff

failed to demonstrate any “changed circumstance” that indicates greater disability. See id.

(“Plaintiff cannot attempt to resurrect medical facts that have already been decided simply 

by having his doctor refer to those facts at a later time.”) (citing Chavez, 844 F.2d at 693). 

Plaintiff has failed to rebut the presumption of continuing non-disability. The Second 

Decision will be affirmed. 

IV. CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing,

IT IS ORDERED affirming the decision of the Commissioner of Social Security. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED directing the Clerk of Court to enter judgment 

accordingly and terminate this matter.

Dated this 30th day of January, 2020.

Case 3:19-cv-08018-ESW Document 21 Filed 01/30/20 Page 4 of 4