Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00827/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00827-7/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 864
Nature of Suit: Social Security - SSID Title XVI
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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

HARLAND THOMAS WALTERS,

Plaintiff,

v.

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL 

SECURITY,

Defendant.

Case No. 1:14-cv-00827-SAB

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF‟S SOCIAL 

SECURITY APPEAL

(ECF Nos. 16, 22)

I.

INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff Harland Thomas Walters (“Plaintiff”) seeks judicial review of a final decision of 

the Commissioner of Social Security (“Commissioner” or “Defendant”) denying his application 

for disability benefits pursuant to the Social Security Act. The matter is currently before the 

Court on the parties‟ briefs, which were submitted, without oral argument, to Magistrate Judge 

Stanley A. Boone.1

Plaintiff suffers from arthritis, cervical degenerative disc disease, lumbar degenerative 

disc disease, seizure disorder; and somatoform disorder. For the reasons set forth below, 

Plaintiff's Social Security appeal shall be denied.

 

1 The parties have consented to the jurisdiction of the United States Magistrate Judge. (See ECF Nos. 10, 11.)

Case 1:14-cv-00827-SAB Document 23 Filed 11/04/15 Page 1 of 15
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

II.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Plaintiff protectively filed an application for a period of disability and disability insurance 

benefits and a Title XVI application for supplemental security income on November 2, 2010. 

(AR 169.) Plaintiff‟s applications were initially denied on March 18, 2011, and denied upon 

reconsideration on August 11, 2011. (AR 106-108, 109-112, 116-120.) Plaintiff requested and 

received a hearing before Administrative Law Judge Danny Pittman (“the ALJ”). Plaintiff 

appeared for a hearing on July 19, 2012. (AR 32-82.) On August 17, 2012, the ALJ found that 

Plaintiff was not disabled. (AR 8-25.) The Appeals Council denied Plaintiff‟s request for 

review on April 3, 2014. (AR 1-3.)

A. Relevant Hearing Testimony

Plaintiff appeared at the hearing with counsel and testified. (AR 37-58, 67-77.) Plaintiff 

was born on October 2, 1972. (AR 37.) He is divorced and has full custody of his eight year old 

son. (AR 37-38.) Plaintiff recently moved in with his mother to make sure that his son was 

cared for during the time that he had spells. (AR 38.) Plaintiff has a driver‟s license and drives 

once a week. (AR 39.) 

Plaintiff was in special education classes during high school because of dyslexia with 

severe encroachment into his short term memory. (AR 39.) Plaintiff has an associate degree in 

public relations. (AR 39.) He received accommodations in college, such as note takers, 

recording the class, and copies of the professor‟s notes. (AR 39-40.) Plaintiff can barely read 

and write. (AR 40.) Plaintiff settled a workmen‟s compensation claim for a lump sum and no 

vocational rehabilitation was offered. (AR 41.) 

Plaintiff is unable to work due to seizures, and because of his headaches, and his back,

knee, wrist, and elbow do not feel good. (AR 44.) Plaintiff has some fatigue and nausea. (AR 

44.) Plaintiff is off balance a lot of times. (AR 45.) Plaintiff goes to the doctor ten or more 

times per month. (AR 45.) Plaintiff has to lay down when he gets dizzy and not push himself 

because he can throw his blood pressure into stroke status even though he does not suffer from 

high blood pressure. (AR 46.) Early on some of the doctors told Plaintiff that he was having 

Case 1:14-cv-00827-SAB Document 23 Filed 11/04/15 Page 2 of 15
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

strokes and he takes medication to keep his blood pressure from spiking. (AR 46.) When 

Plaintiff has a seizure it would look to someone else as if he was having chills on the right side. 

(AR 74.) Plaintiff sometimes loses the ability to speak for thirty seconds to two minutes. (AR 

74.) Plaintiff sometimes smells gasoline or sees bright lights before having a seizure. (AR 74-

75.)

Plaintiff takes morphine, Oxycontin, Robaxin and another anti-inflammatory medication. 

(AR 47.) Plaintiff‟s medication controls 30 to 40 percent of his pain. (AR 47.) Plaintiff has 

received epidurals for back pain that relieve about 20 percent of his pain. (AR 49.) Plaintiff did 

not have physical therapy because they were afraid it might aggravate his condition. (AR 49.) 

Medication controls and lessens about 50 percent of his seizures. (AR 47-48.) 

Plaintiff is not currently seeing anyone for psychological issues and the doctors do not 

prescribe any psychiatric medication because it might heighten his seizure problem. (AR 51.) 

Plaintiff has daily pain that he rates as six out of ten. (AR 52.) Plaintiff‟s pain is in his back and 

then when it is not hurting, the pain moves to his head. (AR 52.) Plaintiff has aching, burning, 

tingling pain that occasionally sends spasms down his right leg and up his right arm. (AR 53.) 

When that happens they go numb and Plaintiff has twinges so he cannot feel or touch them. (AR 

53.) Plaintiff has pain in his legs a couple times a day and goes to the emergency room two to 

three times a week. (AR 73.) Plaintiff has tremors on occasion. (AR 76.) Most of the time, 

Plaintiff has some degree of tremors. (AR 76.) Plaintiff has seven or eight headaches a week 

that last from two to six hours. (AR 76.) The headaches occur at the spot where Plaintiff hit his 

head when his car rolled over in 2007. (AR 76.)

Plaintiff spends most of his day in bed unless he has to go somewhere. (AR 48.) 

Plaintiff was falling down too much so a doctor prescribed a cane. (AR 50.) Plaintiff does not 

use the cane at home; he only needs it when he is in wide open spaces. (AR 50.) Plaintiff has 

chronic vertigo and falls three to four times a week. (AR 72.) Plaintiff has seizures at least four 

times a week during the daytime. (AR 53.) Plaintiff has six seizures a week during the daytime 

and additional seizures at night that are more severe. (AR 75.) He has seizures predominately at 

night and in his sleep that are the strongest. (AR 53.) Plaintiff will wake up with a bruise and 

Case 1:14-cv-00827-SAB Document 23 Filed 11/04/15 Page 3 of 15
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

know that he had a seizure. (AR 75.) On a bad week, Plaintiff will have ten to twelve seizures. 

(AR 54.) After a seizure, Plaintiff is so tired that he goes to bed for two to three days. (AR 54.) 

Plaintiff can sit for ten to twenty minutes; stand for twenty to thirty minutes with or 

without his cane; and can walk for half a block. (AR 54-55.) Plaintiff does not lift anything 

heavier than a gallon of milk. (AR 55.) Plaintiff has difficulty using both his hands, but 

particularly the right. (AR 55.) Plaintiff cannot tie his shoes and can only use a pencil for a 

short period of time before his hands start to ache. (AR 55-56.) Plaintiff cannot use a computer 

keyboard for very long. (AR 56.) Plaintiff might lock up if he bends over to pick something up. 

(AR 56.) Plaintiff has a very hard time with concentration and memory. (AR 56.) He has 

limited short term memory. (AR 56.) Plaintiff uses reminders to make sure he takes his 

medications. (AR 57.) Plaintiff zones out and gets confused when following simple 

instructions. (AR 57.) Sometimes Plaintiff is able to microwave meals. (AR 57.) Plaintiff is 

indecisive and does not want to be around other people. (AR 57-58.) Plaintiff probably has 

mood swings and panic attacks. (AR 58.) 

On a typical school day, Plaintiff gets his son up and makes sure he gets ready for school. 

(AR 69.) He goes back to bed and when it is time for his son to go to school he gets up again. 

(AR 69.) Plaintiff goes outside and watches his son go across the street to the school. (AR 69.) 

That is all Plaintiff does unless he has a doctor appoint or some other reason to leave the house. 

(AR 69.) Plaintiff lies down until his son gets home from school. (AR 70.) Plaintiff spends 

sixty to seventy percent of his day in bed. (AR 72.) 

Plaintiff can do his own self-care such as bathing and dressing. (AR 70.) Plaintiff does 

the grocery shopping with his son. (AR 70.) Plaintiff occasionally will cook or load the 

dishwasher. (AR 71.) Plaintiff does not do any cleaning or yard work and does not participate 

with taking care of his son‟s dog. (AR 71-72.) 

Dr. Hayes reviewed Plaintiff‟s medical records and testified as an impartial medical 

expert at the hearing. (AR 58-.) Dr. Hayes testified that Plaintiff has strange spells that are not 

likely to be epileptic, but are likely pseudo-seizure or non-epileptic spells. (AR 61.) Dr. Hayes 

saw a reference to a motor vehicle accident and various pains throughout the body. (AR 61.) 

Case 1:14-cv-00827-SAB Document 23 Filed 11/04/15 Page 4 of 15
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

Plaintiff has an overwhelming medication list, and there are references that question Plaintiff‟s 

credibility. (AR 61-62.) Dr. Hayes testified that there is not much objective back up for 

Plaintiff‟s various pains, complaints, spinal condition, and seizures. (AR 62.) Plaintiff is 

currently taking 12 to 13 different medications that have a potential effect on the brain. (AR 62.)

Dr. Hayes was unable to identify any impairment. (AR 52.) Dr. Hayes opined that 

Plaintiff had degenerative changes in his spine that were age appropriate. (AR 62.) Plaintiff had 

no evidence of nerve root compression, neuro-anatomic distribution or spinal arachnoiditis or 

lumbar spinal stenosis. (AR 62.) Dr. Hayes found that Plaintiff may have some arthritis in his 

knees that would make prolonged walking all day difficult. (AR 63.) Dr. Hayes found no 

objective medical back up for the limitation that Plaintiff can only stand for fifteen to twenty 

minutes at a time. (AR 64.) Dr. Hayes opined that Plaintiff‟s seizures were a psychiatric 

condition. (AR 64.) Dr. Hayes did not find the Plaintiff required any other limitations. (AR 64.)

Dr. Hayes reviewed the results of the medical examination in which the examining 

physician noted “Diffuse weakness, give way type of weakness” which means that the effort may 

not be maximal. (AR 66.) Dr. Hayes did not think that the test results showed that the ulnar 

nerve would be weak or there was sensory loss in a way that you would expect given Plaintiff‟s 

complaints. (AR 66.) Plaintiff‟s MRI of the cervical spine shows age appropriate changes, and 

does not support nerve specific route compression. (AR 66-67.) Comparing the MRIs done over 

time reveals that there has been no change and that Plaintiff‟s condition is stable. (AR 67.) 

There was a change indicating that there may be some encroachment on the left S1 nerve root, 

but there are no strength findings, sensory findings, or reflex findings that would be appropriate 

to a malfunction of the SI nerve root. (AR 68.)

B. ALJ Findings

The ALJ made the following findings of fact and conclusions of law.

 Plaintiff meets the insured status requirements of the Social Security Act through 

December 31, 2014.

 Plaintiff has not engaged in substantial gainful activity since November 20, 2009.

 Plaintiff has the following severe impairments: cervical degenerative disc disease,

Case 1:14-cv-00827-SAB Document 23 Filed 11/04/15 Page 5 of 15
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

lumbar degenerative disc disease, seizure disorder, and somatoform disorder.

 Plaintiff does not have an impairment or combination of impairments that meets 

or medically equals the severity of one of the listed impairments.

 Plaintiff has the residual functional capacity to lift and/or carry 20 pounds 

occasionally and 10 pounds frequently; stand and/or walk for six hours and sit for 

six hours in an eight-hour workday with normal breaks; can frequently balance, 

kneel, crawl, and climb ramps and stairs; can occasionally stoop, crouch, and 

climb ladders, ropes, or scaffolds. Plaintiff is capable of performing simple, 

routine tasks with occasional contact with others in a non-public setting. Plaintiff 

must avoid hazards.

 Plaintiff is unable to perform any past relevant work.

 Plaintiff was born on October 2, 1972 and is a younger individual age 18-49 on 

the alleged disability onset date.

 Plaintiff has at least a high school education and is able to communicate in 

English.

 Transferability of jobs skills is not material to the disability determination because 

Plaintiff is not disabled whether or not he has transferable job skills.

 Considering Plaintiff‟s age, education, work experience, and residual functional 

capacity, there are jobs that exist in significant numbers in the national economy 

that he can perform.

 Plaintiff has not been under a disability as defined by the Social Security Act from 

November 20, 2009 through the date of decision.

(AR 13-25.)

III.

LEGAL STANDARD

To qualify for disability insurance benefits under the Social Security Act, the claimant 

must show that he is unable “to engage in any substantial gainful activity by reason of any 

medically determinable physical or mental impairment which can be expected to result in death 

Case 1:14-cv-00827-SAB Document 23 Filed 11/04/15 Page 6 of 15
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

or which has lasted or can be expected to last for a continuous period of not less than 12 

months.” 42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(1)(A). The Social Security Regulations set out a five step 

sequential evaluation process to be used in determining if a claimant is disabled. 20 C.F.R. § 

404.1520; Batson v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration, 359 F.3d 1190, 1194 (9th 

Cir. 2004). The five steps in the sequential evaluation in assessing whether the claimant is 

disabled are:

Step one: Is the claimant presently engaged in substantial gainful activity? If so, 

the claimant is not disabled. If not, proceed to step two.

Step two: Is the claimant‟s alleged impairment sufficiently severe to limit his or 

her ability to work? If so, proceed to step three. If not, the claimant is not 

disabled.

Step three: Does the claimant‟s impairment, or combination of impairments, meet 

or equal an impairment listed in 20 C.F.R., pt. 404, subpt. P, app. 1? If so, the 

claimant is disabled. If not, proceed to step four.

Step four: Does the claimant possess the residual functional capacity (“RFC”) to 

perform his or her past relevant work? If so, the claimant is not disabled. If not, 

proceed to step five.

Step five: Does the claimant‟s RFC, when considered with the claimant‟s age, 

education, and work experience, allow him or her to adjust to other work that 

exists in significant numbers in the national economy? If so, the claimant is not 

disabled. If not, the claimant is disabled.

Stout v. Commissioner, Social Sec. Admin., 454 F.3d 1050, 1052 (9th Cir. 2006).

Congress has provided that an individual may obtain judicial review of any final decision 

of the Commissioner of Social Security regarding entitlement to benefits. 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). 

In reviewing findings of fact in respect to the denial of benefits, this court “reviews the 

Commissioner‟s final decision for substantial evidence, and the Commissioner‟s decision will be 

disturbed only if it is not supported by substantial evidence or is based on legal error.” Hill v. 

Astrue, 698 F.3d 1153, 1158 (9th Cir. 2012). “Substantial evidence” means more than a 

scintilla, but less than a preponderance. Smolen v. Chater, 80 F.3d 1273, 1279 (9th Cir. 1996) 

(internal quotations and citations omitted). “Substantial evidence is relevant evidence which, 

considering the record as a whole, a reasonable person might accept as adequate to support a 

conclusion.” Thomas v. Barnhart, 278 F.3d 947, 955 (9th Cir. 2002) (quoting Flaten v. Sec‟y of 

Health & Human Servs., 44 F.3d 1453, 1457 (9th Cir. 1995)). 

Case 1:14-cv-00827-SAB Document 23 Filed 11/04/15 Page 7 of 15
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

8

“[A] reviewing court must consider the entire record as a whole and may not affirm 

simply by isolating a specific quantum of supporting evidence.” Hill, 698 F.3d at 1159 (quoting 

Robbins v. Social Security Administration, 466 F.3d 880, 882 (9th Cir. 2006). However, it is not 

this Court‟s function to second guess the ALJ‟s conclusions and substitute the court‟s judgment 

for the ALJ‟s. See Burch v. Barnhart, 400 F.3d 676, 679 (9th Cir. 2005) (“Where evidence is 

susceptible to more than one rational interpretation, it is the ALJ‟s conclusion that must be 

upheld.”).

IV.

DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS

The sole issue that Plaintiff raises in this appeal is the ALJ‟s finding regarding Plaintiff‟s 

credibility. Plaintiff argues that the ALJ failed to articulate specific and legitimate, much less 

clear and convincing, reasons to reject Plaintiff‟s testimony. Defendant responds that the ALJ 

pointed out specific testimony that was not credible and reasons to support the finding. 

A. Legal Standard

Determining whether a claimant‟s testimony regarding subjective pain or symptoms is 

credible, requires the ALJ to engage in a two-step analysis. Molina v. Astrue, 674 F.3d 1104, 

1112 (9th Cir. 2012). The ALJ must first determine if “the claimant has presented objective 

medical evidence of an underlying impairment which could reasonably be expected to produce 

the pain or other symptoms alleged.” Lingenfelter v. Astrue, 504 F.3d 1028, 1036 (9th Cir. 

2007) (internal punctuation and citations omitted). This does not require the claimant to show 

that his impairment could be expected to cause the severity of the symptoms that are alleged, but 

only that it reasonably could have caused some degree of symptoms. Smolen, 80 F.3d at 1282. 

Second, if the first test is met and there is no evidence of malingering, the ALJ can only 

reject the claimant‟s testimony regarding the severity of his symptoms by offering “clear and 

convincing reasons” for the adverse credibility finding. Carmickle v. Commissioner of Social 

Security, 533 F.3d 1155, 1160 (9th Cir. 2008). The ALJ must specifically make findings that 

support this conclusion and the findings must be sufficiently specific to allow a reviewing court 

to conclude the ALJ rejected the claimant‟s testimony on permissible grounds and did not 

Case 1:14-cv-00827-SAB Document 23 Filed 11/04/15 Page 8 of 15
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

arbitrarily discredit the claimant‟s testimony. Moisa v. Barnhart, 367 F.3d 882, 885 (9th Cir. 

2004) (internal punctuation and citations omitted). 

Factors that may be considered in assessing a claimant‟s subjective pain and symptom 

testimony include the claimant‟s daily activities; the location, duration, intensity and frequency 

of the pain or symptoms; factors that cause or aggravate the symptoms; the type, dosage, 

effectiveness or side effects of any medication; other measures or treatment used for relief; 

functional restrictions; and other relevant factors. Lingenfelter, at 1040; Thomas, 278 F.3d at 

958. In assessing the claimant‟s credibility, the ALJ may also consider “(1) ordinary techniques 

of credibility evaluation, such as the claimant‟s reputation for lying, prior inconsistent statements 

concerning the symptoms, and other testimony by the claimant that appears less than candid; 

[and] (2) unexplained or inadequately explained failure to seek treatment or to follow a 

prescribed course of treatment. . . .” Tommasetti v. Astrue, 533 F.3d 1035, 1039 (9th Cir. 2008) 

(quoting Smolen, 80 F.3d at 1284). 

B. The ALJ Provided Clear and Convincing Reasons for the Credibility Finding

The ALJ cited evidence that Plaintiff might be exaggerating his degree of impairment. In 

the opinion, the ALJ noted that Dr. Platt reported on October 1, 2010 that Plaintiff displayed 

give-away weakness in his right arm which is a common pattern of feigned weakness. (AR 17, 

745.) Dr. Hayes testified that this indicates that the effort given may not be maximal. (AR 17, 

66.) On August 18, 2010, Dr. Portnoff found that Plaintiff‟s subjective complaints were not 

congruent with the objective medical findings. (AR 18, 731.) On December 27, 2010, Dr. 

Portnoff diagnosed, among other things, evidence of nonorganic disease, of symptom 

magnification, and malingering. (AR 18, 812.)

The ALJ noted that “[a]t times when the claimant noted he was having a „seizure,‟ the 

EEG showed that there was no substantiation of any such activity. The claimant said he was 

having a seizure in the presence of licensed physician‟s assistant David Baker. . . . He was 

oriented and alert, with intact memory, attention span and concentration at the time he presented 

with a claimed seizure.” (AR 19.) 

Plaintiff informed Mr. Baker that he was having a seizure when he presented for an 

Case 1:14-cv-00827-SAB Document 23 Filed 11/04/15 Page 9 of 15
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

10

appointment on February 14, 2011. (AR 940.) Plaintiff was found to have a normal gait; muscle 

strength in his left and right extremities was normal; and muscle strength and tone was normal. 

(AR 940.) Plaintiff was oriented to person, place and time with a normal mood and affect. (AR 

940.) Plaintiff‟s immediate, recent, and remote memory were intact. (AR 940.) Plaintiff had 

normal recall and was able to do serial 7s, spell world backwards, and was able to repeat and 

name three objects. (AR 940.) Plaintiff‟s speech was normal with no aphasia. (AR 940.) 

Plaintiff had normal quality, quantity and rate of speech and his reading and writing quality was 

unimpaired. (AR 940.) Plaintiff was aware of current events, past history and had normal 

vocabulary.2 (AR 940.) 

The opinion also points to Dr. Hayes testimony as an impartial medical expert at the 

hearing. (AR 22.) Dr. Hayes testified that Plaintiff had strange spells that are not likely to be 

epileptic and are likely pseudo-seizures, and there are references that question credibility. (AR 

22, 61-62.) Dr. Hayes also testified that Plaintiff‟s complaints of pain were not consistent with 

the objective medical evidence. (AR 66.) 

Dr. Mehdi also found that based on the medical record Plaintiff did not have a 

neurological issue. (AR 981.) Dr. Mehdi diagnosed Plaintiff with pseudo seizures and 

recommended that he be referred to a psychiatrist and taken off all seizure medication. (AR 

981.) There are also several indications in the record that Plaintiff exhibited drug seeking 

behavior. (AR 396, 479, 667.) On January 4, 2012, the record notes “concerned about many 

illnesses - ?hypochondria?” (AR 1019.)

Although the ALJ‟s opinion suggests malingering, the ALJ did not make a finding that 

Plaintiff was malingering and, therefore, was required to provide specific, clear and convincing 

reasons to reject Plaintiff‟s testimony about the severity of his symptoms. Brown-Hunter v. 

Colvin, 798 F.3d 749, 755 (9th Cir.). This requires the ALJ to identify the testimony that is not 

credible and the evidence that undermines the testimony. Brown-Hunter, 798 F.3d at 755 

 

2

Similarly, the record shows other visits at which Plaintiff presented alleging he was having tremors or shakes and 

the record notes generally normal examination. (AR 433, 550, 666, 671, 680.) On June 19, 2011, Plaintiff stated he 

was having a seizure during his medical appointment, but the record shows only some mild convulsion of his right 

hand. (AR 964.) Plaintiff did not lose consciousness and his reflexes were intact. (AR 964.) The record notes that 

he was alert and oriented with no distress. (AR 964.) 

Case 1:14-cv-00827-SAB Document 23 Filed 11/04/15 Page 10 of 15
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

(quoting Reddick v. Chater, 157 F.3d 715, 722 (9th Cir. 1998). 

The Court disagrees with Plaintiff that the ALJ simply set forth boilerplate language that 

courts have rejected as insufficient to allow for meaningful review of the credibility finding. 

While the ALJ did include some boilerplate language, the opinion went into detail about the 

specific testimony that the ALJ found to be not credible and stated the evidence that undermined 

the testimony.

1. Use of Cane

Specifically, the ALJ noted that Plaintiff claimed to need a cane when he walks any 

distance, but does not use one in his home and his doctors have often recorded a normal gate. 

(AR 23.) While there are times where the record notes an antalgic gait, there is no mention of an 

assistive device. (AR 23.) Even Dr. Arain did not opine that Plaintiff needed an assistive device 

for ambulation. (AR 23.) 

On July 21, 2011, the record notes that Plaintiff ambulates well and has a stable gait 

despite presenting at the visit complaining of dizziness. (AR 963.) Review of the medical 

record shows that there are some references to Plaintiff presenting with a cane, but the Court 

finds no doctor who found that Plaintiff was required to use an assistive device and other than a 

few references to an antalgic gait, the record generally notes that Plaintiff‟s gait is normal.

2. Dizzy Spells

The ALJ found that Plaintiff claims dizzy spells or seizures, but continues to maintain a 

driver‟s license and drives despite claiming to have disabling dizzy spells. (AR 23.) Plaintiff 

testified at the hearing that he drives once a week. (AR 39.) On June 12, 2012, Plaintiff‟s doctor 

signed off on an application for a disabled person‟s placard. (AR 1059.) There is substantial 

evidence in the record that Plaintiff maintains a driver‟s license and continues to drive which is 

inconsistent with his claims that he has at four to six disabling seizures during the day each

week. 

3. Crowds

The ALJ noted that Plaintiff states that he cannot be in crowds or go where there are any 

number of people, but he planned a trip to Disneyland. (AR 23.) At his June 22, 2011 medical 

Case 1:14-cv-00827-SAB Document 23 Filed 11/04/15 Page 11 of 15
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

visit, Plaintiff requested a note so that he could get a pass at Disneyland to allow him to not have 

to stand in line for long periods of time. (AR 962.) This is substantial evidence to discredit 

Plaintiff‟s claim that he is not able to tolerate being in crowds. 

4. Seizures

The ALJ also relied on objective electro physical tests which do not confirm Plaintiff‟s

claims of seizures. (AR 23.) The ALJ noted that Plaintiff has claimed to have seizure while in 

the presence of medical personnel that did not affect his consciousness, alertness, attention span, 

or physical examinations, and the objective findings are not congruent with Plaintiff‟s subjective 

complaints. (AR 23.) Plaintiff argues that the lack of objective evidence is always legally 

insufficient to request a claimant‟s testimony. 

The determination that a claimant‟s complaints are inconsistent with clinical evaluations 

can satisfy the requirement of stating a clear and convincing reason for discrediting the 

claimant‟s testimony. Regennitter v. Commissioner of Social Sec. Admin., 166 F.3d 1294, 1297 

9th Cir. 1999). The ALJ properly considered this evidence in weighing Plaintiff‟s credibility. 

“While subjective pain testimony cannot be rejected on the sole ground that it is not fully 

corroborated by objective medical evidence, the medical evidence is still a relevant factor in 

determining the severity of the claimant's pain and its disabling effects.” Rollins v. Massanari, 

261 F.3d 853, 857 (9th Cir. 2001) (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(2)).

Review of the medical record shows that Plaintiff had a digital ambulatory EEC 

recording from the period of August 13, 2008 through August 18, 2008. The test showed normal 

readings throughout the time period despite Plaintiff‟s log which recorded multiple “spells” 

which included an inability to move or speak, foggy mind, tingling in the body, jerking to both 

sides, dropping things, and drooling. (AR 280-81.) 

Plaintiff was also referred to a neurologist, Dr. Mehdi, who found that this is not a 

neurological issue. (AR 981.) On April 18, 2012, Dr. Mehdi recommended that Plaintiff be 

referred for “robust” psychological input plus medication and therapy. (AR 981.) Dr. Mehdi 

also recommended that Plaintiff be taken off all seizure medications under psychiatric 

supervision. (AR 981.) 

Case 1:14-cv-00827-SAB Document 23 Filed 11/04/15 Page 12 of 15
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

At the July 19, 2012 hearing, Dr. Hayes testified that there is not much objective support 

for Plaintiff‟s complaints of pain, spinal condition, and seizures. (AR 62.) Dr. Hayes opined 

that Plaintiff‟s seizures are a psychiatric condition. (AR 64.) 

The ALJ also found that Plaintiff‟s medical records do not support the claimed frequency 

of seizures. (AR 23.) While Plaintiff was claiming to have several seizures a day, his medical 

records for the same time period show two to three seizures in a several week period. (AR 23.)

During a June 30, 2009 visit Plaintiff stated that he had a seizure on that day, but his last 

seizure was two to three weeks prior to the visit. (AR 550.) On May 16, 2011, Plaintiff told Dr. 

Baker that he had two breakthrough seizures since his February 14, 2011 visit. (AR 938.) On 

June 11, 2011 Plaintiff reported that his last seizure was May 30, 2011. (AR 965.) On 

December 21, 2011, Plaintiff reported that his last seizure was more than two weeks ago. (AR 

1020.) 

At the July 19, 2012 hearing, Plaintiff testified that he was having four to six seizures a 

week during the day and more at night. (AR 53, 75.) He also testified that on a bad week he will 

have ten to twelve seizures. (AR 54.) In this instance, Plaintiff goes to the doctor four or more 

times per month so there is significant evidence of his medical condition. Plaintiff complained 

of having a seizure on December 21, 2011 with another mild seizure two weeks prior. (AR 

1020.) However, from December 21, 2011 to July 26, 2012, Plaintiff saw his physicians twenty 

times and there is no mention in the medical record of his having another seizure other than 

Plaintiff‟s statement to Dr. Mehdi that he continues to have episodes. (AR 981.) 

There is substantial evidence in the record to support the ALJ‟s finding that Plaintiff‟s 

testimony regarding his seizure activity is not credible.

5. Manipulation of Testing

The ALJ also considered that Dr. Platt found that Plaintiff displayed give-away weakness 

and Dr. Portnoff noted there were non-physiologic findings indicating that Plaintiff has not given

his best efforts during medical examinations. (AR 23; 745, 812; 731.) The ALJ properly 

considered the physicians findings that Plaintiff did not give his best efforts during medical 

testing in making the credibility determination. Thomas, 278 F.3d at 959.

Case 1:14-cv-00827-SAB Document 23 Filed 11/04/15 Page 13 of 15
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

6. Daily Activities

Plaintiff argues that the ALJ stated that his activities can somehow be construed as 

comparable to a forty hour work week. However, the ALJ found that Plaintiff participates in a 

wide range of daily activities indicating that he has greater abilities than he admits. (AR 23.) 

There are two ways for an ALJ to “use daily activities to form the basis of an adverse credibility 

determination: if the claimant's activity contradicts his testimony or if the claimant's activity 

meets the threshold for transferable work skills.” Phillips v. Colvin, 61 F. Supp. 3d 925, 944 

(N.D. Cal. 2014). 

Plaintiff reported that he feeds, water and cleans his dog with the help of his mother. 

(AR 230.) He prepares simple meals. (AR 231.) He does some household chores that he did not 

specify. (AR 231.) Plaintiff testified at the hearing that he gets his son off to school each day. 

(AR 69.) He goes grocery shopping with his son. (AR 70.) Here, the ALJ considered that 

Plaintiff‟s reported activities contradicted his testimony regarding his limitations. Even if the 

ALJ‟s conclusion in this area was erroneous, that would not negate the validity of the ultimate 

credibility determination which is supported by other substantial evidence in the record. 

Carmickle, 533 F.3d at 1162. 

C. Conclusion

The Court finds that the ALJ provided clear and convincing reasons to find that 

Plaintiff‟s testimony is not credible which are supported by substantial evidence in the record. 

For that reason, Plaintiff‟s appeal shall be denied.

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

Case 1:14-cv-00827-SAB Document 23 Filed 11/04/15 Page 14 of 15
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

15

V.

ORDER

Based on the foregoing, the Court finds that the ALJ did not err in finding that Plaintiff‟s 

testimony was not credible. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff‟s appeal from the 

decision of the Commissioner of Social Security is DENIED. It is FURTHER ORDERED that 

judgment be entered in favor of Defendant Commissioner of Social Security and against 

Plaintiff Harland Thomas Walters. The Clerk of the Court is directed to CLOSE this action.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 3, 2015 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-00827-SAB Document 23 Filed 11/04/15 Page 15 of 15