Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-00106/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-00106-0/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

- 1 - 07cv106

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MARIA I. MARQUEZ,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 07cv106-IEG(NLS)

ORDER GRANTING COMMISSIONER’S

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

[DOC. NO. 15]; DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION FOR REVERSAL AND/OR

REMAND [DOC. NO. 13]

vs.

MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of

Social Security,

Defendant.

Plaintiff Maria I. Marquez, proceeding by and through counsel, filed this action for judicial

review of the Commissioner’s denial of her application for supplemental security income pursuant

to Title XVI of the Social Security Act. Plaintiff filed a motion for reversal and/or remand,

arguing the Administrative Law Judge “(ALJ”) erred in adopting the opinion of the medical expert

without providing him the full medical record. The Commissioner filed a cross-motion for

summary judgment, arguing the ALJ’s decision is supported by substantial evidence in the record

and is free of reversible legal error. These motions are appropriate for submission on the papers

and without oral argument pursuant to Local Rule 7.1(d)(1), and the March 10, 2008 hearing date

was previously vacated. For the reasons set forth herein, the Commissioner’s motion is

GRANTED, and Plaintiff’s motion is DENIED.

Procedural History

Plaintiff protectively filed an application for supplemental security income disability

Case 3:07-cv-00106-IEG-NLS Document 18 Filed 03/06/08 Page 1 of 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

1

The Commissioner previously denied Plaintiff’s application for benefits. [Tr. 24-33

(ALJ’s unfavorable decision dated July 19, 1997).] The ALJ found the prior finding of no

disability was res judicata as to the period prior to the February 25, 2004 new filing date. [Tr. 14.]

- 2 - 07cv106

benefits on February 25, 2004.1 [Tr. 72.] The Commissioner initially denied Plaintiff’s application,

and again on reconsideration. [Tr. 36-48.] The ALJ held a hearing on July 21, 2005. [Tr. 422-

445.] On October 28, 2005, the ALJ denied benefits in a written decision. [Tr. 14-22.] Plaintiff

filed a request for review of the hearing decision, which the Appeals Council denied on November

16, 2006. [Tr. 5-7.] Plaintiff thereafter timely filed a complaint for judicial review of the decision.

Background

Plaintiff was born March 11, 1952, and completed the ninth grade in Mexico. [Tr. 73, 91.] 

Plaintiff alleges she is unable to communicate in English. [Tr. 72, 98, 426-427.] Plaintiff alleges

disability due to heart disease, enlarged heart, artificial heart valves, tachycardia, atrial flutter,

hypertension, fatigue, memory problems, shortness of breath, post stroke, chronic lower back pain,

and left sided weakness. [Tr. 14, 36, 99.]

Plaintiff previously worked four months, from July to October of 1994, as a

receptionist/assistant in a landscaping business. The vocational expert classified Plaintiff’s prior

work, as performed, as unskilled sedentary work which did not require the ability to communicate

in English.[Tr. 86, 122, 441.] 

Plaintiff’s son, Jorge Marquez, testified at the hearing regarding his mother’s medical

condition. Mr. Marquez testified his mother’s condition had worsened in the four to five months

prior to the hearing. [Tr. 429]. Mr. Marquez testified his mother suffered from headaches, nausea

and dizziness, along with shortness of breath. [Tr. 429.] Mr. Marquez testified his mother’s

cardiologist told Plaintiff she had congestive heart failure. [Tr. 428.] 

A medical expert, Gerald Weingarten, testified at the hearing via telephone. Dr.

Weingarten testified he reviewed the medical records but there was no recent stress testing or

echocardiogram. [Tr. 430-431.] A June 10, 2004 echocardiogram showed normal findings. [Tr.

431.] Dr. Weingarten testified there was nothing in the record indicating ischemic heart disease or

to support the treating physician’s diagnosis of congestive heart failure. [Tr. 432.] Dr. Weingarten

testified the EKG was normal and there was insufficient medical evidence to support Plaintiff’s

Case 3:07-cv-00106-IEG-NLS Document 18 Filed 03/06/08 Page 2 of 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

- 3 - 07cv106

ongoing complaints of dizziness and fatigue. [Tr. 436.] 

Based upon the evidence of record, Dr. Weingarten opined the Plaintiff could lift 20

pounds occasionally, 10 pounds frequently, could stand or walk at least two hours in an eight hour

work day, and could sit six hours in an eight hour work day. [Tr. 433.] Prior to the hearing, Dr.

Weingarten did not review Plaintiff’s most recent treatment records or opinion letters from Dr.

Post and Dr. Szkopiec at the San Ysidro Health Center (Exhibits B11F and B12F). [Tr. 439.] By

letter dated July 25, 2005, Dr. Weingarten informed the ALJ he had reviewed the additional

materials and the new information did not change any of his original opinions. [Tr. 71.]

The vocational expert, Alan Cummings, testified that if Plaintiff was limited in the manner

found by Dr. Weingarten, Plaintiff could still perform her prior work. [Tr. 442.] If Plaintiff’s

limitations were as described by her treating doctors, however, Dr. Cummings testified there

would be no full-time work available. [Tr. 444.]

On October 28, 2005, the ALJ found the medical evidence established Plaintiff had “severe

hypertension, cardiomegaly, valvular heart disease, history of arrhythmia, history of reported

stroke, and dizziness.” [Tr. 21.] However, Plaintiff’s impairments did not medically equal one

listed in the regulations. The ALJ found Plaintiff’s allegations regarding the degree of her

impairments and limitations were not credible. [Id.] The ALJ found Plaintiff retained the capacity

to perform a range of sedentary work activities, and therefore could perform her past relevant

work. [Id.] Therefore, the ALJ found Plaintiff was not disabled.

Legal Standard

To qualify for disability benefits under the Act, an applicant must show that: (1) he or she

suffers from a medically determinable impairment that can be expected to result in death or has

lasted, or can be expected to last, for a continuous period of twelve months or more; and (2) the

impairment renders the applicant incapable of performing the work that the applicant previously

performed and incapable of performing any other substantially gainful employment that exists in

the national economy. 42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(2)(A). An applicant must meet both requirements to be

“disabled.” Id.

The Social Security Regulations employ a five-step process to determine whether an

Case 3:07-cv-00106-IEG-NLS Document 18 Filed 03/06/08 Page 3 of 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

- 4 - 07cv106

applicant is physically disabled under the Act. If an applicant is found to be “disabled” or “not

disabled” at any step, there is no need to proceed to subsequent steps. Tackett v. Apfel, 180 F.3d

1094, 1098 (9th Cir. 1999) (citing Federal Old-Age, Survivors and Disability Insurance (1950-

1999), 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520 (1999)). Although the ALJ must assist the applicant in developing

the record, the applicant bears the burden of proof as to the first four steps. Id. If the fifth step is

reached, the burden shifts to the Commissioner to rebut the finding of disability. Id. The five

steps are as follows:

(1) Is the claimant presently working in any substantially gainful activity?

(2) Is the claimant’s impairment severe?

(3) Does the impairment meet or equal one of a list of specific

impairments?

(4) Is the claimant able to do any work that she has done in the past?

(5) Is the claimant able to do any other work that exists in significant

numbers in the national economy?

20 C.F.R.§ 416.920; see also Celaya v. Halter, 332 F.3d 1177, 1180 (9th Cir. 2003) (describing the

five step sequential evaluation process).

Section 405(g) of the Act allows unsuccessful applicants to seek judicial review of a final

decision of the Commissioner. 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). This Court has jurisdiction to review the

Commissioner’s benefits decision and “shall have the power to enter, upon the pleadings and

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

Commissioner, with or without remanding the case for a hearing.” 42 U.S.C. § 405 (g). 

The Commissioner’s denial of disability benefits will only be disturbed if the ALJ’s

findings are based on legal error or are not supported by substantial evidence. Mayes v.

Massanari, 276 F.3d 453, 458-59 (9th Cir. 2001). “Substantial evidence” is “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.” Sandgathe v. Chater, 108 F.3d 978, 980 (9th Cir.

1997). In determining whether there exists substantial evidence to support the ALJ’s finding, the

court must weigh both the evidence that supports and the evidence that detracts from the ALJ’s

conclusion as that evidence exists in the record. Id. “Where the evidence can rationally be

Case 3:07-cv-00106-IEG-NLS Document 18 Filed 03/06/08 Page 4 of 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

- 5 - 07cv106

interpreted in more than one way, the court must uphold the Commissioner’s decision.” Mayes,

276 F.3d at 459 (citing Aukland v. Massanari, 257 F.3d 1033, 1034-35 (9th Cir. 2001)). 

Discussion

In support of her motion for reversal and/or remand, Plaintiff argues the ALJ erred in

adopting the opinion of the testifying medical expert, Dr. Weingarten, when the expert was never

provided with the updated medical evidence from Plaintiff’s treating physicians at the San Ysidro

Medical Center. Plaintiff argues the ALJ failed in his duty to develop the record by failing to

obtain an updated opinion from Dr. Weingarten following his review of the treating physician’s

records. Plaintiff argues the ALJ’s failure to provide Dr. Weingarten with the additional records,

and obtain an updated opinion, deprived her of a full and fair hearing based on the entire medical

record. 

Plaintiff’s argument is without merit because the record reflects Dr. Weingarten received

and reviewed the additional records subsequent to the hearing. By letter dated July 25, 2005, Dr.

Weingarten informed the ALJ he had reviewed the records from the San Ysidro Health Center and

the new information “does not change any of my original opinions.” [Tr. 71.] In addition, the ALJ

reviewed all of the medical records, including the records from the San Ysidro Medical Center,

and explained in great detail why those records did not support the treating doctor’s diagnosis of

congestive heart failure. [Tr. 18-19.] The ALJ explained why he rejected the disability opinions

of the treating physicians, and how the opinions were contrary to the medical evidence in the

record. [Id.] 

Plaintiff, in her motion for reversal and/or remand, does not point to any legal error in the

ALJ’s decision. The treating doctors’ opinions regarding the ultimate issue of disability were not

entitled to controlling weight because they were not supported by objective evidence in the record. 

Nyman v. Heckler, 779 F.2d 528, 531 (9th Cir. 1985). The ALJ was entitled to weigh the medical

evidence of record and resolve inconsistencies. Parra v. Astrue, 481 F.3d 742, 750 (9th Cir. 2007).

The ALJ’s decision is supported by substantial evidence in the record and Plaintiff, in her motion

for reversal and/or remand, does not argue to the contrary.

 Plaintiff’s sole argument in support of reversal and/or remand is that the ALJ failed to

Case 3:07-cv-00106-IEG-NLS Document 18 Filed 03/06/08 Page 5 of 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

- 6 - 07cv106

develop the record because he failed to obtain an updated opinion from Dr. Weingarten after he

reviewed Plaintiff’s current treatment records. This argument lacks merit because Dr. Weingarten

did review those records and indicated they did not change his opinions. Plaintiff has pointed to no

other error which warrants reversal or remand.

Conclusion

For the reasons set forth herein, Plaintiff’s motion for reversal and/or remand is DENIED

and the Commissioner’s cross-motion for summary judgment is GRANTED, terminating this case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: March 6, 2008

IRMA E. GONZALEZ, Chief Judge

United States District Court

Case 3:07-cv-00106-IEG-NLS Document 18 Filed 03/06/08 Page 6 of 6