Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_08-cv-00004/USCOURTS-casd-3_08-cv-00004-0/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 08CV0004 BTM (POR)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

NICHOLAS ALESSANDRELLI,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 08CV0004 BTM (POR)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION FOR SUMMARY

JUDGMENT AND GRANTING

DEFENDANT’S CROSS-MOTION

FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

vs.

MICHAEL J. ASTRUE,

Defendant.

Plaintiff Nicholas Alessandrelli alleges that he became disabled as of October 8, 2000

due to various physical pain symptoms, headaches, hearing loss, and depression. (Tr. 20-

21.) The Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) denied benefits under the Social Security Act

(“Act”) on December 15, 2003. (Tr. 19.) On January 28, 2004, while the appeal of this

decision to the Appeals Council was pending, Plaintiff filed a new application for Social

Security benefits before the Florida state agency. (Id.) Plaintiff’s new application received

a favorable state agency determination on May 15, 2004. (Id.) The Appeals Council

remanded to the ALJ to reconcile the disparate findings between ALJ’s earlier decision and

the state agency determination. (Id.) 

After taking into consideration the favorable state agency determination, the ALJ

issued a decision denying benefits on February 21, 2006. (Tr. 33.) The decision of the Social

Security Administration became final when the Appeals Council denied Plaintiff’s request for

review. (Tr. 7–9.) Plaintiff then commenced this action, seeking judicial review under 42

Case 3:08-cv-00004-BTM-POR Document 16 Filed 10/15/08 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

2 08CV0004 BTM (POR)

U.S.C. § 405(g).

Plaintiff has filed a motion for summary judgment and Defendant has filed a crossmotion for summary judgment. For the reasons discussed below, Plaintiff’s motion for

summary judgment is DENIED and Defendant’s cross-motion is GRANTED.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

Plaintiff was born on December 20, 1956. (Tr. 111.) He completed college and

graduate education and performed past work as a chiropractor. (Tr. 125.) Plaintiff Nicholas

Alessandrelli alleges disability due to pain in the knee, low back, neck, and left hip,

headaches, and depression. (Tr. 20–21.) 

The ALJ in this case first denied benefits on December 15, 2003. (Tr. 19.) After this

denial, Plaintiff filed a new application for benefits with the state agency in Florida. (Tr. 19.)

On April 24, 2004, as part of this application process, Dr. Ronald Kline, a medical consultant

to the state of Florida, completed a Physical Residual Functional Capacity Assessment. Dr.

Kline opined that Plaintiff could lift 10 pounds occasionally, less than 10 pounds frequently,

stand and/or walk less than 2 hours in an 8 hour workday, sit about 6 hours in an 8 hour

workday, and required an assistive device for walking. (Tr. 472–479.) The state agency’s

positive determination of Plaintiff’s application is not part of the record but Plaintiff argues that

it was largely based on Dr. Kline’s assessment of Plaintiff’s physical impairments. (Pl.’s Mot.

Summ. J. 9.)

Upon remand by the Appeals Council, the ALJ evaluated new evidence including

consultative examinations, updated the medical record, and also conducted a second

hearing. (Tr. 21-23.) William Robert Harvey, a vocational expert, testified at this second

hearing. The ALJ asked him what job opportunities were available for someone who could

do “sedentary work with a sit/stand option with a frequent limitation of crouching, kneeling,

prolonged standing, but capable of performing fairly complex tasks conducted primarily in a

seated position that does not require acute hearing and has only limited work stress. . . .”

(Tr. 562.) The vocational expert testified that based on these limitations, jobs such as order

Case 3:08-cv-00004-BTM-POR Document 16 Filed 10/15/08 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 08CV0004 BTM (POR)

clerk, surveillance systems monitor, and scale attendant are available. (Tr. 563.) 

After considering the State Agency’s determination and evaluating the facts de novo,

the ALJ concluded that Plaintiff is not disabled. (Tr. 23.) The ALJ found that Plaintiff had the

residual functional capacity to lift ten to twenty pounds occasionally, ten pounds frequently,

required a sit/stand option, and could stand or walk several hours. (Tr. 32.) The ALJ

concluded that Plaintiff could perform a significant range of sedentary work although not the

full range due to other limitations. (Tr. 32-33.) 

 The Court does not reiterate the Plaintiff’s entire medical and treatment history here

because Plaintiff does not challenge the ALJ’s evaluation of the medical record. Moreover,

both parties stipulate to the accuracy of the summary provided by the ALJ in his opinion.

 DISCUSSION

Plaintiff argues that the ALJ erred by (1) failing to discuss Dr. Kline’s assessment in

the decision and failing to explain the weight given to his assessment; and (2) failing to

include in the record a copy of the state agency determination granting benefits. For the

reasons set forth below, the Court rejects Plaintiff’s arguments and concludes that Plaintiff

has raised no ground upon which to reverse the decision of the ALJ or to remand this case.

Plaintiff contends that the ALJ violated Social Security Ruling 96-6P by failing to

discuss Dr. Kline’s assessment in his decision. Social Security Ruling 96-6P states that

Administrative Law Judges may not ignore the opinions of medical consultants and must

explain the weight given to these opinions in their decisions. Here, although the ALJ stated

that he examined consultative examinations obtained as part of the State Agency

determination, he did not explicitly discuss Dr. Kline’s assessment or explain what weight he

was giving to the doctor’s opinion. As even Plaintiff himself notes, however, Dr. Kline’s

assessment of Plaintiff’s residual functional capacity is similar to the ALJ’s ultimate

conclusion. The ALJ’s conclusion differs from Dr. Kline’s assessment only in concluding that

(1) Plaintiff could lift 10 to 20 pounds occasionally instead of just 10 pounds occasionally; and

(2) Plaintiff could stand or walk for several hours as opposed to just two hours. 

Case 3:08-cv-00004-BTM-POR Document 16 Filed 10/15/08 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 08CV0004 BTM (POR)

Even to the extent that the ALJ’s conclusions differed from Dr. Kline’s assessment,

it was Dr. Kline’s more restrictive assessment that was the basis of the ALJ’s hypothetical

to the vocational expert. As set forth above, the ALJ based his hypothetical on a person

performing sedentary work who would be primarily seated with a sit/stand option. Work is

generally defined as sedentary when it “involves lifting no more than 10 pounds at a time and

occasionally lifting or carrying articles like docket files, ledgers and small tools . . . Jobs are

sedentary if walking and standing are required occasionally and other sedentary criteria are

met.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1567 (2008). The ALJ’s inclusion of limitations to sedentary and

primarily seated work encompasses Dr. Kline’s more restrictive assessment. Moreover, the

three occupations proposed by the vocational expert in response to the ALJ’s hypothetical

closely match the physical demands Dr. Kline indicated that Plaintiff could meet in a work

setting. The Dictionary of Occupational Titles (“DOT”) gives all three positions a “sedentary”

physical demands strength rating. See 1 U.S. Department of Labor, Dictionary of

Occupational Titles, 180, 281, 396 (4th Ed. 1991). The DOT further defines work earning a

“sedentary” strength rating as “[e]xerting up to 10 pounds of force occasionally (Occasionally:

activity or condition exists up to 1/3 of the time) and/or a negligible amount of force frequently

(Frequently: activity or condition exists from 1/3 to 2/3 of the time) to lift, carry, push, pull,

or otherwise move objects, including the human body . . . involves sitting most of the time,

but may involve walking or standing for brief periods of time.” 2 id, at 1012–1013. Dr. Kline

similarly found that Plaintiff could lift 10 pounds occasionally, less than 10 pounds frequently,

and should walk or stand less than 2 hours per day. (Tr. 472-479.) Therefore, even if the

ALJ did not specifically discuss Dr. Kline’s assessment or explain the weight given to this

assessment, it appears that the ultimate outcome would have been the same, as there were

jobs available that were consistent with Dr. Kline’s opinion as to the Plaintiff’s residual

functional capacity.

Plaintiff himself does not dispute that he would still be found not disabled had the ALJ

expressly considered Dr. Kline’s opinion. Nor does he argue that the ALJ’s determination

of Plaintiff’s functional capacity, which was based on a thorough analysis of many physicians’

Case 3:08-cv-00004-BTM-POR Document 16 Filed 10/15/08 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

1 Plaintiff also speculates that exhibits from Plaintiff’s state agency application

“appear” to be missing and that these exhibits could have contained a medical opinion

explaining the basis for his disability determination and onset date. For the same reasons,

the Court declines to reverse or remand based on the possible existence of these alleged

missing records.

5 08CV0004 BTM (POR)

opinions, is not supported by substantial evidence. Because consideration of Dr. Kline’s

expert opinion would not have changed the determination, the Court finds that a remand is

not necessary in this case. See Booz v. Secretary of Health and Human Services, 734 F.2d

1378, 1380 (9th Cir.1983) (applying harmless error standard in a Social Security case).

Plaintiff further contends that the ALJ failed in his duty to fully and fairly develop the

record of the administrative proceedings by omitting the state agency determination that

found Plaintiff disabled. The Court acknowledges that “in Social Security cases the ALJ has

a special duty to fully and fairly develop the record and to assure that the claimant's interests

are considered.” Brown v. Heckler, 713 F.2d 441, 443 (9th Cir.1983). Here, Plaintiff argues

that the missing state agency determination is problematic because while the ALJ assumed

that psychological factors were a major part of state agency’s finding of disability, it appears

that Plaintiff may have been found disabled due to physical impairments. The ALJ, however,

examined and analyzed both the psychological and physical impairment aspects of Plaintiff’s

case and found that Plaintiff was not disabled on either ground. Again, Plaintiff does not

argue that the ALJ’s conclusion regarding either Plaintiff’s psychological or physical

impairments was not supported by substantial evidence. The Court therefore does not find

that Plaintiff was prejudiced in any way by the fact that the actual determination itself was

missing from the record, especially when, as Plaintiff admits, all the medical records and

examinations conducted as part of this determination were included in the record.1

Case 3:08-cv-00004-BTM-POR Document 16 Filed 10/15/08 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 08CV0004 BTM (POR)

For the reasons set forth above, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion for summary

judgment [Doc. No. 9 ] and GRANTS Defendant’s cross-motion for summary judgment [Doc.

No. 12]. The Clerk shall enter judgment for the defendant affirming the decision of the

Commissioner of Social Security.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: October 14, 2008

Honorable Barry Ted Moskowitz

United States District Judge

Case 3:08-cv-00004-BTM-POR Document 16 Filed 10/15/08 Page 6 of 6