Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-00030/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-00030-4/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 (DIWC)

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RANDALL ELLIOTT BAKER,

Plaintiff,

v.

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL 

SECURITY,

Defendant.

Case No. 1:19-cv-00030 EPG

FINAL JUDGMENT AND ORDER

REGARDING PLAINTIFF’S SOCIAL 

SECURITY COMPLAINT

This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s complaint for judicial review of an 

unfavorable decision by the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration regarding his

application for Disability Insurance Benefits and Supplemental Security Income. The parties have 

consented to entry of final judgment by the United States Magistrate Judge under the provisions 

of 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) with any appeal to the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. (ECF Nos. 9, 

11).

At a hearing on March 20, 2020, the Court heard from the parties and, having reviewed 

the record, administrative transcript, the briefs of the parties, and the applicable law, finds as 

follows:

Case 1:19-cv-00030-EPG Document 27 Filed 03/23/20 Page 1 of 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

2

Plaintiff’s Brief in Support of Remand (ECF No. 16) argues, “The ALJ’s determination 

that Plaintiff can perform medium exertion work is not supported by substantial evidence; the 

error is not harmless, as a limitation to light exertion work would result in a finding of 

‘disabled.’” (ECF No. 16, at p. 10). Plaintiff further explains “[c]ritical to this case is whether 

substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s finding with respect to Plaintiff’s abilities to lift and/or 

carry 50 pounds occasionally (up to one-third of the workday) and 25 pound frequently (up to 

two-thirds of the workday) consistent with the ALJ’s RFC for medium work.” (ECF No. 16, at p. 

10). Plaintiff concedes that the two State Agency medical consultants supported the 

Administrative Law Judge’s (“ALJ”) conclusions, but Plaintiff argues that these cannot be 

substantial evidence because they only reviewed records through July 2015, and not subsequent 

records through the hearing on August 2017. 

District courts have a limited scope of judicial review for disability claims after a decision 

by the Commissioner to deny benefits under the Social Security Act. When reviewing findings of 

fact, such as whether a claimant was disabled, the Court must determine whether the 

Commissioner’s decision is supported by substantial evidence or is based on legal error. 42

U.S.C. § 405(g). The ALJ’s determination that a claimant is not disabled must be upheld by the 

Court if the proper legal standards were applied and the findings are supported 

by substantial evidence. See Sanchez v. Sec’y of Health & Human Serv., 812 F.2d 509, 510 (9th

Cir. 1987). Substantial evidence is “more than a mere scintilla. It means such relevant evidence 

as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.” Richardson v. Perales,

402 U.S. 389, 401 (1971) (quoting Consol. Edison Co. v. NLRB, 305 U.S. 197 (1938)).

Here, Plaintiff does not claim the ALJ’s decision was based on legal error. Thus, the 

Court looks to whether the ALJ’s decision was based on substantial evidence. 

Plaintiff alleged disability beginning January 21, 2014. As Plaintiff concedes, State 

agency medical consultant C. Bullard, M.D. opined that the claimant could lift and carry 50 

pounds occasionally and 25 pounds frequently on May 20, 2015. (A.R. 84) Moreover, State 

agency medical consultant L. Kiger M.D. gave a similar opinion on September 10, 2015. (A.R. 

121). There were no contradictory medical opinions. Thus, these opinions constitute substantial 

Case 1:19-cv-00030-EPG Document 27 Filed 03/23/20 Page 2 of 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

3

evidence supporting the ALJ’s conclusions as of September 2015. 

The ALJ also reviewed and summarized the relevant medical records after this time. For 

example, the ALJ’s opinion states “On June 19, 2017, an MRI of the claimant’s cervical spine 

showed mild-to-moderate bilateral neural foraminal stenosis at C3-4 and C4-5 and mild left 

neural foraminal stenosis at C5-6 (Exhibit 18F, p. 2). On June 23, 2017, treating physician Daniel 

Watrous, M.D. diagnosed the claimant with cervical spinal stenosis. He noted that the claimant 

would be beginning physical therapy on August 3, 2017.” (Exhibit 17F, p. 1). The records are 

consistent with this summary. The MRI report includes many normal findings, such as 

“Adequate alignment cervical vertebral bodies. Minimal old compression superior endplate C7,” 

as well as mild to moderate findings, such as “C3-C4 mild to moderate bilateral neural foraminal 

stenosis.” (A.R. 817). It is also worth noting that Plaintiff had complained of “Neck pain 8 

years,” which indicates that the MRI was reflecting a long-held condition, rather than a recent 

change. The physician report following this MRI includes the instruction to “lay down with 

moist heat for 5 minutes many times a day, rest the painful area frequently, and switch activities 

frequently.” It also states “[w]ill consider PT, pending authorization,” and “[t]he patient was 

counseled for compliance of medications and exercise, activities of daily living, and the need to 

return sooner than scheduled if any problems develop.” (A.R. 816). While the reference to heat 

and rest are notable, there is no discussion of any weight lifting limitation, or any aggressive 

treatment such as surgery.

Additionally, the ALJ’s reason that “[g]iven the claimant’s allegations of totally disabling 

symptoms, one might expect to see some indication in the treatment records of restrictions placed 

on the claimant by the treating doctor. Yet a review of the record in this case revealed no 

restrictions recommended by the treating doctor.” (A.R. 25). This reason applies to the entire 

period at issue. There is no opinion from any medical source that Plaintiff is limited in his lifting 

abilities to a greater extent than provided in the RFC. 

Counsel for the Commissioner has also pointed to many records indicating “normal 

strength,” including a February 8, 2016 record noting “STRENGTH: within normal limits 

bilaterally,” (A.R. 711), and a October 31, 2016 record noting “Normal gait, muscle strength and 

Case 1:19-cv-00030-EPG Document 27 Filed 03/23/20 Page 3 of 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

4

tone,” (A.R. 697). Although these specific records are not discussed in the ALJ’s opinion, they 

refute Plaintiff’s contention that a material change in lifting ability occurred after July 2015.

After review of the record, the Court finds that the ALJ’s findings are supported by 

substantial evidence.

Thus, the Court finds that the decision of the Commissioner of Social Security is 

supported by substantial evidence, and the same is hereby affirmed.

The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 23, 2020 /s/

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:19-cv-00030-EPG Document 27 Filed 03/23/20 Page 4 of 4