Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-4_06-cv-00607/USCOURTS-azd-4_06-cv-00607-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 863
Nature of Suit: Social Security - DIWC/DIWW (405(g))
Cause of Action: 42:205 Denial Social Security Benefits

---

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 1

“Tr.” refers to the official transcript of the administrative record.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Bernadette Crump, )

) CIV 06-00607-TUC-FRZ (JM)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) REPORT AND

) RECOMMENDATION

Michael J. Astrue, Commissioner of Social )

Security, )

)

Defendant. )

_______________________________________)

Plaintiff Bernadette Crump (“Plaintiff”) brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §

405(g) and 1383 (c) (3) of the Social Security Act, seeking judicial review of the final

decision of the Commissioner of Social Security. This Social Security Appeal has been

referred to the United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to Local Rule – Civil 72.2(a)(10) of

the Rules of Practice of this Court. Based on the parties’ cross motions of summary

judgement and the record submitted to the Court, the Magistrate Judge recommends that the

District Court, after its independent review, deny Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment

[Doc. No. 8] and grant Defendant's Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment [Docs. No. 10-11].

I. Procedural Background 

On April 8, 2005, Plaintiff filed her application for disability insurance benefits under

Title II of the Social Security Act and for supplemental security income under Title XVI of

the Social Security Act, alleging a disability onset date of March 20, 2005. (Tr. 64-71).1

 Her

application was denied initially and upon reconsideration. (Tr. 25-36). Plaintiff then

Case 4:06-cv-00607-FRZ Document 17 Filed 07/07/08 Page 1 of 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 - 2 -

requested a hearing before an administrative law judge ("ALJ") which was held on May 9,

2006. (Tr. 196-207). In a decision dated June 21, 2006, the ALJ found that Plaintiff was not

disabled. (Tr. 11-17). Plaintiff requested review of the ALJ's decision which was denied

by the Appeals Council on October 10, 2006. (Tr. 3-6). Accordingly, the ALJ's decision

became the final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security. (Tr. 3-5). Plaintiff was

not represented by counsel until she filed a complaint in this Court on December 6, 2006,

seeking judicial review of the ALJ's decision pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) and 1383 (c) (3)

of the Social Security Act [Doc. No. 1]. 

II. Record on Appeal

A. Plaintiff's Testimony

Plaintiff testified that she was born on February 12, 1961, is 5'5'’ and weighs close to

187 pounds. (Tr. 200). Her last day of work as a nurse’s assistant was on March 20, 2005.

(Tr. 202). She had to leave work because her blood pressure was too high and she was

retaining too much fluid. (Id.). Her doctor put her on blood pressure medication which

brought her blood pressure down but she did not go back to work because she was retaining

fluid and had painful arthritis. (Id.). Her job required that she lift patients, some weighed 150

pounds and some 300 pounds. (Tr. 203). On the day of the hearing, Plaintiff testified that she

could lift 100 pounds but not on a daily basis. (Id.).

Plaintiff looked for easier work such as a cashier, bagger or at a day care but could not

secure a job because she did not have the experience. (Id.). When asked about her daily

activities, Plaintiff stated that she gets up at 5:00, takes a shower, eats, takes her medication

and does a little cleaning around the house. (Id.). Then she watches T.V. for about an hour

and listens to music for the rest of the day. (Tr. 204). Other than listen to music, Plaintiff

testified that she is always too tired to do much of anything. (Tr. 204-05). She does go

outside for fresh air but only at nighttime. (Tr. 204). She tries to stay out of the sun in the day

unless she has an appointment. (Id.). She does not own a car (Tr. 201) so when she needs

to get around she will take a bus or a cab or someone will pick her up. (Tr. 204). When

Case 4:06-cv-00607-FRZ Document 17 Filed 07/07/08 Page 2 of 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 - 3 -

asked what she does for exercise, Plaintiff testified that she just does leg lifts but will walk

two blocks to the store. (Id.).

B. Medical Evidence

1. The Plaintiff’s Treating Physician

In December of 2003, Plaintiff was hospitalized for two days at Northwest Hospital

due to a high blood pressure reading of 230. (Tr. 85). 

In August of 2004, Plaintiff was seen in the ER for pneumonia. (Tr. 182). She was

placed on antibiotics and treated intensively. (Id.). On August 30, 2004, Dr. Lund noted that

her lungs were now clear, her heart was regular and her blood pressure was controlled. (Id.).

He did prescribe some medication for vaginal symptoms possibly from the antibiotics. (Id.).

On October 7, 2004, Plaintiff was examined by Dr. Lund after complaining of sinus

drainage and a possible STD. (Tr. 184). Dr. Lund noted no vaginal discharge and no

inflamation or infection. (Id.). Plaintiff’s tonsils were enlarged but not infected, her lungs

were clear and her heart was satisfactory. (Id.). He did not prescribe any medication but did

state that Plaintiff had walked quite a ways before coming into the office and has mild

hypertension, so he would monitor her in the future for hypertension. (Id.).

On March 14, 2005, Plaintiff saw Dr. Lund, complaining of right ear pain and lung

congestion. (Tr. 178). Dr. Lund prescribed an antibiotic. (Id.).

On May 13, 2005 and again on May 26, 2005, Plaintiff saw Dr. Lund complaining of

right side chest pain and vaginal problems. (Tr. 176-177). She was given a different

prescription each time. (Id.).

August 15, 2005, when Plaintiff consulted with Dr. Lund, her blood pressure was

elevated and he added another medication to her present regime. (Tr. 174). Dr. Lund

recommended that Plaintiff follow-up with a blood pressure evaluation. (Id.). On September

15, 2005, Plaintiff was seen by Dr. Lund for a follow-up on her blood pressure and meds. (Tr.

171). After noting that her blood pressure was in much better control, he advised her to

continue taking the same blood pressure medications. (Id.).

Case 4:06-cv-00607-FRZ Document 17 Filed 07/07/08 Page 3 of 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 - 4 -

On October 11, 2005, Plaintiff had a pelvic exam by Dr. Lund. (Tr. 166). He noted

that all her laboratory studies were normal except for a blood sugar of 150 and a triglyceride

level of 215 which he attributed to Plaintiff having eaten a hamburger and fries before her

blood work. (Id.). Dr. Lund also noted left heel pain which he believed was a heel spur; he

recommended “watchful expectancy.” (Id.).

2. The Disability Determination Services’ Consulting Physician

On July 13, 2005, Plaintiff was examined by Dr. Soo Hoo. (Tr. 148). Plaintiff

explained to Dr. Soo Hoo that she had been working as a nursing assistant but had to

discontinue her job because of her hypertension and fluid retention, resulting in her inability

to stand for prolonged periods of time. (Tr. 149). Plaintiff explained that she loves to cook,

dance, engage in conversation with her family and listen to music, but because of her lower

extremity swelling, she could not cook or dance much. (Id.).

Dr. Soo Hoo documented Plaintiff’s complaints: swelling and stiffness of hands and

feet that was minimized by taking water pills; hypertension causing high blood pressure which

was adequately controlled with a treatment regimen; and a gynecological problem (tumors on

her uterus) for which she underwent a partial hysterectomy and suffered no further problems.

(Tr. 148-9). 

Upon examination, Dr. Soo Hoo made the following observations: Plaintiff is 65" tall

and weighs 200 pounds; her abdomen is obese but soft and nontender without masses or

organomegaly; her heart demonstrates a regular rate and rhythm; her pulse is 80 and regular;

her respiratory rate is 16 and unlabored; there is synovial thickening at the MCP joints of both

hands but has normal range of motion of all major and minor joints; and neither her hands or

feet are swollen. (Tr. 150). Plaintiff’s blood pressure was 160/110 and she was urged to

follow up with her treating physician. (Id.). 

Dr. Soo Hoo noticed no problem with gait; Plaintiff was able to rise from a seated

position without difficulty, she ambulated to the exam area and was able to climb on and off

the examination scale without difficulty. (Tr. 150). Having noticed that Plaintiff had walked

Case 4:06-cv-00607-FRZ Document 17 Filed 07/07/08 Page 4 of 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 - 5 -

over an hour from her residence to her appointment at the clinic facility in 110 degree heat,

Dr. Soo Hoo arranged for Plaintiff to be driven home. (Tr. 151). 

Dr. Soo Hoo made the following Functional Recommendations:

Excluding consideration for age, gender, and body habitus, it is

reasonable to conclude that individuals with comparable medical findings are

generally capable of the following work-related activities:

Lift/carry 20 pounds occasionally and 10 pounds frequently. Stand/

walk at least six hours per an eight-hour workday. Sit at least six hours per an

eight-hour workday. Exertional restrictions are based on the consideration for

client’s hypertension. Climb stairs and ramps occasionally and never ladders,

ropes and scaffolding. No restrictions are noted for stooping, crouching,

kneeling and crawling. No restrictions are noted for reaching, handling and

feeling because of the findings noted on her finder. The client can occasionally

finger. No restrictions are observed for hearing, seeing and speaking.

(Tr. 151).

Dr. Soo Hoo electronically signed his report on July 18, 2005 at 9:22 p.m. adding:

I am certifying, under penalty of perjury, that I have been authorized or

contracted by the Disability Determination Services to examine the claimant

named in the attached, and produced a consultative examination report for that

claimant. The report is accurate. By checking on the “Agree” button below,

I am certifying that I personally conducted, or personally participated in

conducting the consultative examination and have electronically signed the

report contained within.

(Tr. 153).

The first residual functional capacity assessment (“RFC”) was conducted on July 20,

2005. (Tr. 156-163). It makes no mention of Plaintiff’s obesity. (Id.). 

The Second RFC was conducted on November 15, 2005 and notes “obesity” as one of

Plaintiff’s primary diagnosis. (Tr.188). Handwritten notations on the RFC state:

Clt is obese with a BMI of about 33. She has mild hand OA & HTN uterine

fibroids are durationally non-severe. A CE indicated capabilities as outline

above. Since the CE’s MSS is consistent with the bulk of the evidence, it is

appropriate to adopt it. In my medical opinion, the evidence supports

capabilities as outlined above. Thanks.

(Tr. 189-190).

 C. ALJ's Findings and Decision

On June 21, 2006, the ALJ made the following findings: 

Case 4:06-cv-00607-FRZ Document 17 Filed 07/07/08 Page 5 of 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 - 6 -

1. The claimant meets the insured status requirements of the

Social Security Act through December 31, 2009.

2. The claimant has not engaged in substantial gainful activity at

any time relevant to this decision (20 CFR 404.1520(b),

404.1571 et seq., 416.920(b) and 416.971 et seq.).

3. The claimant has the following severe impairments: obesity

and hypertension (20 CFR § 404.1521(c) and 416.9209(c))

...

4. The claimant does not have an impairment or combination of

impairments that meets or medically equals one of the listed

impairments in 20 CFR, Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1 (20

CFR 404.1520(d), 404.1525, 404.1526, 416.920(d), 416.925 and

416.926). 

...

5. After careful consideration of the entire record, the

undersigned finds that the claimant has the residual functional

capacity to lift and carry 20 pounds occasionally and 10 pounds

frequently. She is able to sit, stand, and/or walk for about six

hours in an 8-hour day. She has no other exertional or nonexertional limitations.

... 

6. The claimant is unable to perform any past relevant work (20

CFR 404.1565 and 416.965).

... 

7. The claimant was born on February 12, 1961 and was 44

years old on the alleged disability onset date, which is defined as

a younger individual 18-44 (20 CFR 404.1563 and 416.963). 

8. The claimant has at least a high school education and is able

to communicate in English (20 CFR 404.1564 and 416.964). 

9. Transferability of job skills is not material to the

determination of disability due to the claimant’s age (20 CFR

404.1568 and 416.968).

10. Considering the claimant’s age, education, work experience,

and residual functional capacity, there are jobs that exist in

significant numbers in the national economy that the claimant can

perform (20 CFR 404.1560(c), 404.1566, 416.960(c) and

416.966). 

...

11. The claimant has not been under a “disability” as defined in

the Social Security Act from March 20, 2005 through the date of

this decision (20 CFR 404.1520(g) and 416.920(g)). 

(Tr. 13-17). 

Case 4:06-cv-00607-FRZ Document 17 Filed 07/07/08 Page 6 of 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 - 7 -

III. Standard of Review

A court reviews the Commissioner’s final decision to determine whether the factual

findings are supported by substantial evidence and whether the proper legal standards were

applied in weighing the evidence and making the decision. Flake v. Gardner, 399 F.2d 532,

540 (9th Cir. 1968). “Substantial evidence” means such relevant evidence as a reasonable

mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. Burch v. Barnhart, 400 F.3d 676, 679

(9th Cir. 2005). Where evidence is susceptible to more than one rational interpretation, a court

must uphold the ALJ’s conclusion. Id.

The standard of review in social security appeals is the same whether the case involves

a denial of disability insurance benefits or a denial of supplemental security income. 42

U.S.C. §§ 405(g) and 1383 (c)(3). The definition of disability is also the same: whether the

claimant became unable to engage in substantial gainful activity by reason of any medically

determinable physical or mental impairment that can expect to result in death or which has

lasted or can be expected to last for a continuous period of at least twelve months. 20 C. F.R.

§§ 404.1505 and 416.905.

IV. Discussion

A. Evaluation Process

The Social Security Regulations establish a five-step sequential evaluation process to

be followed by the ALJ in a disability case. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520. At step one of the

process, the ALJ must determine whether the claimant is currently engaged in substantial

gainful activity; if so, a finding of non-disability is made and the claim is denied. 20 C.F.R.

§ 404.1520(b). 

When the claimant is not currently engaged in substantial gainful activity, the ALJ, in

step two, must determine whether the claimant has a severe impairment or combination of

impairments significantly limiting her from performing basic work activities; if not, a finding

of non-disability is made and the claim is denied. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(c). A severe

impairment or combination of impairments exists when there is more than a minimal effect

Case 4:06-cv-00607-FRZ Document 17 Filed 07/07/08 Page 7 of 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

2

“Light work” involves lifting no more than 20 pounds at a time with frequent lifting or

carrying of objects up to 10 pounds, 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1567(b), 416.967(b). It normally requires

standing or walking about six out of eight hours, or about two-thirds of a work-day and includes

sedentary work, SSR 83-10.

- 8 -

on an individual's ability to do basic work activities. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1521(a); Smolen v.

Chater, 80 F.3d 1273, 1290 (9th Cir. 1996). Basic work activities are "the abilities and

aptitudes necessary to do most jobs," including physical functions such as walking, standing,

sitting, lifting, pushing, pulling, reaching, carrying or handling, as well as the capacity for

seeing, hearing and speaking, understanding, remembering and carrying out simple

instructions, use of judgment, responding appropriately to supervision, co-workers and usual

work situations, and dealing with changes in a routine work setting. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1521(b).

At the third step, the ALJ must compare the claimant's impairment to those in the

Listing of Impairments, 20 C.F.R. § 404, Subpart P, App. 1; if the impairment meets or equals

an impairment in the Listing, disability is conclusively presumed and benefits awarded. 20

C.F.R. § 404.1520(d). 

When the claimant's impairment does not meet or equal an impairment in the Listing,

in the fourth step, the ALJ must determine whether the claimant has sufficient RFC despite

the impairment or various limitations to perform her past work; if so, a finding of nondisability is made and the claim is denied. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(e). 

When the claimant shows an inability to perform past relevant work, a prima facie case

of disability is established and, in step five, "the burden shifts to the Commissioner to show

that the claimant can perform some other work that exists in 'significant numbers' in the

national economy, taking into consideration the claimant's residual functional capacity, age,

education, and work experience." 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(f). 

B. Analysis

Here, the ALJ resolved Plaintiff’s claim at step five and found that Plaintiff “had the

residual functional capacity to perform the full range of light work.” (Tr. 17).2

Case 4:06-cv-00607-FRZ Document 17 Filed 07/07/08 Page 8 of 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 - 9 -

Plaintiff raises three objections to the ALJ's findings and disability determination: 1)

that the ALJ erred by failing to consider her obesity in the entire sequential evaluation

process; 2) that the ALJ erred by failing to develop the record; and 3) that the ALJ’s

evaluation of Plaintiff’s credibility fell short of the substantial evidence standard. Each of

these arguments is evaluated below. 

1. Consideration of Obesity

Plaintiff argues that despite the ALJ’s finding that Plaintiff’s obesity was a severe

impairment, the ALJ committed legal error by failing to explicitly consider functional

limitations caused or made worse by Plaintiff’s obesity. In support, Plaintiff states that other

than referring to Plaintiff’s treating physician’s diagnosis of obesity, the word “obesity” rarely

appears again in the ALJ’s decision. 

The Social Security Rules specifically address the role of obesity in disability

assessments. Social Security Ruling (“SSR”) 02-1p (2002) provides that obesity can be a

severe impairment if, when considered alone or combined with other impairments, it causes

more than a slight limitation on an individual's ability to perform basic work. Id. at 4. In

assessing the severity of obesity, the Commissioner has ruled that an "individualized

assessment of the impact of obesity on an individual's functioning" is necessary. Id.

At step two of the analysis, the ALJ in this case made the requisite findings. He found

that Plaintiff had the severe impairments of obesity and hypertension and that the

“impairments cause significant limitation in the claimant’s ability to perform basic work

activities.” (Tr. 13).

SSR 02-1p also provides that, if obesity is found to be a medically determinable

impairment, "any functional limitations resulting from the obesity" must be considered in the

RFC assessment. Id. at 7. 

At step five of the analysis, the ALJ found that Plaintiff had the RFC “to lift and carry

20 pounds occasionally and 10 pounds frequently. She is able to sit, stand, and/or walk for

about six hours in an 8-hour day. She has no other exertional or non-exertional limitations.”

Case 4:06-cv-00607-FRZ Document 17 Filed 07/07/08 Page 9 of 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

3

Exhibit 2F is the Physician’s Teledictation and is found at Tr. 148. Exhibit 1F/7 is a Case

Development Sheet and is found at Tr. 146.

- 10 -

(Tr. 14). After setting out this finding in bold print, the ALJ provided two-plus pages of

single-spaced details to support this finding. Twice, the ALJ refers to Plaintiff’s obesity:

“Exam findings noted in the records from the treating physician include obesity and

hypertension” (Tr. 14); and “[s]he also has mild arthritis in the hands with some synovial

thickening of the joints and is obese with a body mass index of a least 31(Exhibits 2F &

1F/7).” (Tr. 16).3

 

More often (seven times), the ALJ refers to Plaintiff’s hypertension but that is because

Plaintiff herself attributed her inability to work to her symptoms of hypertension (fluid

retention and dizziness), arthritis and gynecological problems. There is simply no evidence

in the record of any functional limitations as a result of Plaintiff’s obesity that the ALJ failed

to consider.

Plaintiff also argues that the ALJ committed error by relying on a consulting

examiner’s report that failed to consider obesity. In support, Plaintiff refers to Dr. Soo Hoo’s

report wherein he states that his opinions were made without consideration of “body habitus”

or body build, in other words, Plaintiff’s obesity.

What Dr. Soo Hoo did in his report is simply track the language of SSR 96-8P which

states: “[t]he RFC assessment considers only functional limitations and restrictions that result

from an individuals medically determinable impairment or combination of impairments,

including the impact of any related symptoms. Age and body habitus are not factors in

assessing RFC.” SSR 96-8P, 1996 WL 374184, Introduction, paragraph 1 (S.S.A.) (emphasis

added). 

Having included this language in the RFC is not to say that either the ALJ or Dr. Soo

Hoo ignored Plaintiff’s obesity. Plaintiff misunderstands the Agency’s purpose in removing

obesity as a listed impairment. In 1999, the S.S.A. deleted Obesity from the listing of

Case 4:06-cv-00607-FRZ Document 17 Filed 07/07/08 Page 10 of 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 - 11 -

impairments because its criteria was not an appropriate indicator of listing-level severity and

did not represent a degree of functional limitation that would prevent an individual from

engaging in any gainful activity. SSR 2-1P, 2000 WL 628049 (S.S.A.). In other words, the

Agency wanted to ensure that weight alone was not assumed to impair functionality. But after

an ALJ identifies obesity as a medically determinable impairment, as in the present case, then

any functionality limitations resulting from the obesity must be considered in the RFC

assessment. SSR 2-1P, 2000 WL 628049, Policy Interpretation, paragraph 9 (S.S.A.). 

As is evident from the ALJ’s Findings and Dr. Soo Hoo’s report, Plaintiff’s obesity

was noted and was considered at all steps of the evaluation process. In fact, the second RFC

is replete with references to Plaintiff’s obesity. But nowhere in the record was there anything

to suggest that Plaintiff’s obesity affected her functionality or exacerbated her hypertension.

Her hypertension was adequately controlled by medication. Her obesity did not affect her gait

or her mobility. The ALJ was generous in his finding that because of her obesity and

hypertension, Plaintiff could not perform her past work as a nurse’s assistant but could

perform other work in the economy.

Plaintiff also complains that Dr. Soo Hoo’s report was not properly authenticated

because Dr. Soo Hoo signed the report electronically. The Court finds no merit in this

argument. Dr. Soo Hoo was simply following the directives found in the Social Security

Act’s Program Operations Manual System, whose goals are to facilitate a paperless disability

process. POMS DI 22510.015. And the Secretary was simply following the directives of

Congress by adopting standards which enable health information to be exchanged

electronically . 42 U.S.C.A. § 1320d-2. Both are consistent with the goals of improving the

operation of the health care system and reducing administrative costs. Id. 

2. The ALJ’s Obligation to Develop the Record

Plaintiff alleges error because the ALJ conducted only a 16 minute hearing and spent

less than five pages of the hearing transcript exploring Plaintiff’s condition. Plaintiff correctly

argues that an ALJ must be especially diligent in exploring all of the relevant facts when he

Case 4:06-cv-00607-FRZ Document 17 Filed 07/07/08 Page 11 of 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 - 12 -

is dealing with an unrepresented claimant. Tonapetyan v. Halter, 242 F.3d 1144, 1150 (9th

Cir. 2001). But according to the Plaintiff, the only way the ALJ in this case could have

discharged this heightened duty was to seek out additional information bearing on the impact

of Plaintiff’s limitations on her residual functional capacity. That is not what case law

requires. Only when presented with ambiguous evidence or when the ALJ’s own finding that

the record is inadequate to allow for proper evaluation of the evidence, is this heightened duty

to “conduct an appropriate inquiry” triggered. Id. An “appropriate inquiry” might involve

subpoenaing and questioning the claimant’s physicians, continuing the hearing, or keeping

the record open after the hearing to allow supplementation of the record. Id. Here, the ALJ

was not confused by ambiguous evidence. Nor did he believe that the record was insufficient

to allow him to render a decision. And unlike the ALJ in Tonapetyan, where the medical

expert used phrases such as “difficult to say” and “somewhat depressed,” the ALJ here did

not rely on medical testimony that was equivocal. Id.

3. Credibility Determination

Plaintiff argues that the ALJ misinterpreted much of the Plaintiff’s testimony such that

his evaluation of her credibility was in error. For example, Plaintiff’s ability to perform some

minimal level of daily activity is no proof that she could function in a competitive work

environment; Plaintiff’s ability to walk to the consultative examination is not evidence that

she is not disabled; and the absence of weight loss and muscle atrophy does not mean Plaintiff

is not suffering chronic pain. 

"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's

credibility findings must be supported by specific, cogent reasons. See Rashad v. Sullivan,

903 F.2d 1229, 1231 (9th Cir. 1990). When the credibility of pain testimony is at issue, and

there is medical evidence of an underlying impairment, the ALJ may not discredit a claimant's

testimony as to the severity of symptoms merely because they are unsupported by objective

medical evidence. See Bunnell v. Sullivan, 947 F.2d 341, 347-48 (9th Cir. 1991). Rather, the

Case 4:06-cv-00607-FRZ Document 17 Filed 07/07/08 Page 12 of 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 - 13 -

ALJ must identify what testimony is not credible and what evidence undermines the

claimant's complaints. Lester v. Chater, 81 F.3d 821, 834 (9th Cir. 1995). The ALJ’s findings

must be supported by clear and convincing reasons why a claimant’s testimony of excess pain

is not credible and must be supported by substantial evidence in the record as a whole. 

Johnson v. Shalala, 60 F3d. 1428, 1433 (9th Cir. 1995).

Here, the ALJ found that Plaintiff’s statements concerning the intensity, duration and

limiting effects of her symptoms were “not entirely credible” (Tr. 14) and “not fully credible”

(Tr. 15). These credibility findings, however, were not just general unsupported findings.

The ALJ provided specific and cogent reasons for discrediting Plaintiff’s pain testimony. He

noted: sporadic treatment with her primary care physician for hypertension without

complications; the lack of complaints to her primary care doctor of hand pain; exam findings

such as blood pressure readings that while not optimal, were generally in the normal to high

normal range; no evidence of peripheral edema and no swelling in her hands or feet; Plaintiff

received minimal conservative treatment consisting primarily of pharmacological and

palliative remedies; and her hypertension was more than adequately controlled with

medication. (Tr. 14-16). 

In reviewing the medical evidence as a whole, the ALJ determined that the clinical and

laboratory findings were disproportionate to the severity of pain reported by the Plaintiff.

(Id.). The fact that Plaintiff was able to perform limited activities of daily living such as

driving, shopping and personal grooming (Id.) provided additional legitimate support to the

ALJ’s credibility finding. Bunnell, 947 F.2d at 346. Plaintiff takes issue with the ALJ’s

inclusion in his findings that Plaintiff traveled to her examination appointment by walking for

one hour and 15 minutes. When read in the proper context, it is clear that the ALJ referred

to this fact as a way of supporting his finding that Plaintiff could perform daily living

activities in spite of her pain. (Tr. 15). These illustrations are exactly what case law requires.

Tonapetyan, 242 F.3d at 1148.

Case 4:06-cv-00607-FRZ Document 17 Filed 07/07/08 Page 13 of 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 - 14 -

This Court finds that the ALJ’s findings are both supported by substantial evidence and

free of legal error. 

V. RECOMMENDATION FOR DISPOSITION BY THE DISTRICT JUDGE

Based on the foregoing and pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Rule 1.17(d)(2),

Rules of Practice of the United States District Court, District of Arizona, the Magistrate Judge

recommends that the District Court, after an independent review of the record, DENY

Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. No. 9] and GRANT Defendant's CrossMotion for Summary Judgment [Docs. No. 10-11].

This Recommendation is not an order that is immediately appealable to the Ninth

Circuit Court of Appeals. Any notice of appeal pursuant to Rule 4(a)(1), Federal Rules of

Appellate Procedure, should not be filed until entry of the District Court's judgment. 

However, the parties shall have ten (10) days from the date of service of a copy of this

recommendation within which to file specific written objections with the District Court. See

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Rules 72(b), 6(a) and 6(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Thereafter, the parties have ten (10) days within which to file a response to the objections. If

any objections are filed, this action should be designated case number: CV 06-00607-TUCFRZ. Failure to timely file objections to any factual or legal determination of the Magistrate

Judge may be considered a waiver of a party's right to de novo consideration of the issues.

See United States v. Reyna-Tapia 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc).

DATED this 7th day of July, 2008.

Case 4:06-cv-00607-FRZ Document 17 Filed 07/07/08 Page 14 of 14