Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-4_14-cv-02289/USCOURTS-azd-4_14-cv-02289-0/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 

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Cornell Lasalle Aydlett,

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Carolyn W Colvin, 

Defendant.

No. CV-14-02289-TUC-EJM

ORDER 

Plaintiff Cornell Lasalle Aydlett (“Aydlett”) brought this action pursuant to 42 

U.S.C. § 405(g) seeking judicial review of a final decision by the Commissioner of Social 

Security (“Commissioner”). Aydlett raises four issues on appeal: 1) whether the 

Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) failed to consider substantial evidence regarding 

Aydlett’s lack of medical treatment; 2) whether the ALJ improperly rejected the nonexamining state-agency medical consultant’s residual functional capacity (“RFC”) 

opinion; 3) whether the ALJ improperly rejected the treating physician’s RFC opinion; 

and 4) whether the ALJ failed to consider substantial evidence on record. (Doc. 17 at 8).1

 

1

 Plaintiff’s Opening Brief also states that he “moves to amend his [disability onset date] to June 15, 2010 as he was denied unemployment benefits on the basis of his 

inability to work as of June 13, 2010.” (Doc. 17 at 3). However, Plaintiff makes no 

specific arguments on this point and thus the Court will not address it here. See infra note 

7. 

Plaintiff’s Opening Brief further states that he “has sought further treatment since the date of the ALJ’s decision, not on record. As his impairments are degenerative in 

nature, Plaintiff humbly prays for remand for a physician’s review of his past and current 

treating records and radiological exams for a determination as to the start of his 

disability.” Id. at 6. 

Case 4:14-cv-02289-EJM Document 23 Filed 07/26/16 Page 1 of 26
- 2 - 

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 

Before the Court are Aydlett’s Opening Brief and Defendant’s Response. (Docs. 

17 & 21). Aydlett did not file a Reply. The United States Magistrate Judge has received 

the written consent of both parties and presides over this case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 

636(c) and Rule 73, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Court finds no error and thus 

the Commissioner’s decision will be affirmed. 

I. Procedural History 

Aydlett filed an application for Supplemental Security Income (“SSI”) and 

Disability Insurance Benefits (“DIB”) on March 8, 2010. (Administrative Record (“AR”) 

260–66). Aydlett alleged disability beginning January 15, 2009 (AR 260) based on knee 

problems, shoulder pain, back pain, and bone pain. (AR 319). Aydlett’s application was 

denied upon initial review (AR 80, 143) and on reconsideration (AR 104, 153). A hearing 

was held on September 15, 2011 (AR 53), after which ALJ Lauren R. Mathon found, at 

Step Four, that Aydlett was not disabled because he was able to perform his past relevant 

work as a maintenance person/property manager, a liquidator, a pizza delivery driver, a 

 

Pursuant to LRCiv 16.1(a)(4): 

If any requested remand is for the purpose of taking 

additional evidence, such evidence must be described in the 

opening brief, and Plaintiff’s argument must show that the 

additional evidence is material and that there is good cause 

for the failure to incorporate such evidence into the record in 

a prior proceeding. 

Further, “[u]nder 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) (Supp.2001), in determining whether to remand a 

case in light of new evidence, the court examines both whether the new evidence is 

material to a disability determination and whether a claimant has shown good cause for 

having failed to present the new evidence to the ALJ earlier.” Mayes v. Massanari, 276 

F.3d 453, 461–62 (9th Cir. 2001). To be material under section 405(g), new evidence must bear “directly and substantially on the matter in dispute.” Ward v. Schweiker, 686 

F.2d 762, 764 (9th Cir. 1982). Further, the claimant must “demonstrate that there is a 

‘reasonable probability’ that the new evidence would have changed the outcome of the 

administrative hearing.” Mayes, 276 F.3d at 462. Finally, the claimant must demonstrate good cause for failing to produce the evidence earlier by “demonstrate[ing] that the new 

evidence was unavailable earlier.” Id. at 643. 

Here, Aydlett does not elaborate on what specifically the new evidence is, nor does he explain how the evidence is material or why it was not presented in a prior 

proceeding. In light of Plaintiff’s failure to comply with Rule 16.1(a)(4) or otherwise make any meaningful argument on this point, the Court declines to remand this matter for consideration of the alleged new evidence. 

Case 4:14-cv-02289-EJM Document 23 Filed 07/26/16 Page 2 of 26
- 3 - 

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 

mail room stock person, and an assembler (AR 133). 

On June 28, 2012 the Appeals Council granted Aydlett’s request to review the 

ALJ’s decision. (AR 139–41). The Appeals Council vacated the ALJ’s decision and 

remanded the case back to the ALJ because the ALJ’s “decision did not acknowledge or 

identify the specific weight assigned to the Physical Residual Functional Capacity 

Assessments provided by the State agency physicians, Drs. Dickstein and Kalen,” and 

because the decision did not provide adequate rationale in support of the finding that 

Aydlett could perform his past relevant work. (AR 139). The Appeals Council directed 

the ALJ to: update the record and obtain additional evidence concerning Aydlett’s 

degenerative disc disease, and, if warranted, obtain a consultative orthopedic exam and 

medical source statements; give further consideration to Aydlett’s maximum RFC and 

provide rationale with specific references to evidence of record and explain the weight 

given to medical source opinions; give further consideration to whether Aydlett is 

capable of performing any past relevant work and obtain evidence from a vocational 

expert (“VE”). (AR 140). 

A second hearing was held on October 10, 2012 (AR 31), after which ALJ Lauren 

Mathon again found, at Step Four, that Aydlett was not disabled because he was capable 

of performing his past relevant work as a pizza delivery person and as a hand packer (AR 

25). On June 18, 2014 the Appeals Council denied Aydlett’s request to review the ALJ’s 

decision. (AR 1). 

II. Factual History 

Aydlett was born on August 18, 1969, making him 39 at the alleged onset date of 

his disability. (AR 80). Aydlett has a high school education and completed one year of 

college. (AR 320). He has worked a number of different jobs, including 

assembler/delivery driver, maintenance man, maintenance/potter, roofing, and stocker. 

(AR 321). 

A. Treating Physicians 

A letter from Dr. John J. Wild, Jr. dated May 4, 2009 states that Aydlett has been 

Case 4:14-cv-02289-EJM Document 23 Filed 07/26/16 Page 3 of 26
- 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 

under Dr. Wild’s care since 1993. (AR 576). The letter was submitted as part of Aydlett’s 

unemployment benefits claim (see AR 66, 489), and states as follows: 

The last time we saw him, he had severe endstage arthritis of 

his knee post-traumatic. It is my opinion at this time that it is deleterious to his health to work in any type of full 

weightbearing capacity, or capacity requiring frequent 

walking, lifting, or any heavy activities. This is a permanent 

restriction. He should be retrained so that he can continue to 

work. 

(AR 576). 

Aydlett was seen at Arizona Family Practice on January 20, 2010 with a complaint 

of back pain for 1–2 months. (AR 594). Aydlett stated that he thought the pain was from 

his knee problems, and that he could hardly bend over. The progress notes are largely 

illegible, but indicate that Aydlett had a torn MCL/ACL in his left knee in 1994, and a 

meniscus tear in his right knee. The doctor assessed lower back pain and degenerative 

joint disease in the knees, and recommended an x-ray of the lumbar spine. 

Aydlett was seen for x-rays of the lumbar spine on January 22, 2010. (AR 590). 

The impression was minimal lumbar scoliosis convex to the right. Findings noted that 

“[t]he disc spaces are fairly well maintained,” “[t]here is no evidence of acute fracture or 

subluxation,” and “[t]he pedicles are intact.” Id. 

Aydlett was seen at Arizona Family Practice on February 8, 2010 and reported 

continuing severe back pain. (AR 593). 

Aydlett had a MRI of the lumbar spine on May 13, 2010. (AR 589). The 

impression was a large central disc herniation at L5-S1. Findings were: 

L5-S1 has a huge central disc herniation nearly filling the spinal canal. This is deviating both S1 nerve roots. There is 

some degenerative narrowing to the neural foramina 

bilaterally. 

The remainder of the intervertebral disc levels are 

unremarkable. Facet degenerative changes are seen at L3-4 

and L4-5. Signal intensity in the conus medullaris is unremarkable. Signal intensity in the bone marrow is 

unremarkable. 

Id. 

Case 4:14-cv-02289-EJM Document 23 Filed 07/26/16 Page 4 of 26
- 5 - 

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 

On July 16, 2010 Aydlett went to Arizona Family Practice for treatment of an 

ingrown toe nail. (AR 592). 

Discharge instructions from Northwest Medical Center dated May 25, 2011 

include the following information about radiculopathy: 

Your spinal nerve roots have been hurt or damaged. . . . The 

damage may be due to a forceful accident. It may be due to 

something pressing on the nerve root, such as a “slipped 

disc” or tumor. It may also be due to something that causes 

the nerve to swell, such as some diseases. You may feel 

weakness, tingling or pain in the area that the nerve leads to 

(arm, shoulder, leg or foot). Treatment is aimed at the cause 

of the damaged nerve root. 

(AR 605). The instructions stated that Aydlett should: 

See your doctor regularly.

Protect this area from more injury. 

Move your affected part often to keep it from getting stiff. 

Avoid heavy lifting (more than 10 pounds). 

Apply a heating pad to the area that hurts. 

Id. 

B. Physical Therapy 

A physical therapy evaluation summary dated February 18, 2010 indicates that 

Aydlett presented with a several month history of low back pain with pain radiating into 

his right leg. (AR 586). The report states that Aydlett’s pain was a 8/10 and that 

significant impairments were gross lumbar range of motion and functional mobility and 

posture, with Aydlett reporting a significant decline in his ability to stand to cook and to 

exercise. The report notes that “there is good potential for therapy goals” and that Aydlett 

would be seen for PT twice a week for 3 weeks. 

At a PT appointment on February 22, 2010, Aydlett reported that his pain was a 

9/10 when standing and a 4/10 when sitting. (AR 584). On February 24, 2010, Aydlett 

reported that he felt a pop in his right leg when doing press ups and that he was sore. (AR 

583). An appointment on March 3, 2010 was cancelled because Aydlett was late. (AR 

Case 4:14-cv-02289-EJM Document 23 Filed 07/26/16 Page 5 of 26
- 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 

582). On March 5, 2010 Aydlett stated that he had a car accident and that he had pain in 

his lower back, left buttock, and left leg and knee, and that his pain was a 9/10. (AR 581). 

On March 8, 2010 Aydlett reported that he was doing better until the accident and that he 

now had pain in his right leg. (AR 580). On March 10, 2010 Aydlett stated that his pain 

was a 4/10 and that he had no leg symptoms. (AR 579). An appointment on March 16, 

2010 was cancelled when Aydlett did not call or show up. (AR 578). 

C. State-Agency Consulting Physicians 

Dr. Scott Krasner saw Aydlett for a consultative evaluation on August 24, 2010. 

(AR 595). Aydlett’s chief complaints were knee, shoulder, and back pain. Aydlett 

reported that he first had problems with his knees when he dislocated his left knee 

playing football in high school, and that he had ligament problems in his right knee from 

football and martial arts. Aydlett stated that he had arthroscopic surgery of his right knee 

in 1982 for ligament repair and surgery of his left knee by Dr. Wild in 1994 to repair 

ACL and MCL tears. Since that time, the pain in his knees has gotten worse to the point 

that he has difficulty walking. He saw Dr. Wild in February 2009 and Dr. Wild 

recommended that he stop doing the type of work that he was doing. Aydlett stated he 

had not had any medical treatment for his knees since last seeing Dr. Wild. 

Aydlett reported that he injured his back in January 2009 when he was moving 

furniture. He was seen by Dr. Wallach and had x-rays and a MRI, and was referred to a 

neurosurgeon, but had not seen the neurosurgeon yet. 

 At the consultative exam, Aydlett reported that his knees were feeling fine and 

that he still had pain in his back, especially when sitting down. Aydlett stated that his 

back pain was worse when waking up and occasionally radiates down his right leg to his 

calf. He denied numbness or tingling and stated he was not taking any medications. 

 On examination, Dr. Krasner noted the following pertinent findings: 

Musculoskeletal: Examination of his back reveals that he 

stands erect . . . There is some moderate tenderness in his 

lower back, although there are no muscle spasms present. He 

is able to forward flex 60 degrees, backwards extend 30 

degrees, flex laterally 40 degrees in each direction. He states 

of having pain with range of motion of his back. 

Case 4:14-cv-02289-EJM Document 23 Filed 07/26/16 Page 6 of 26
- 7 - 

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 

He is able to walk normally. He can walk on his heels and 

toes and do a deep-knee bend fully. When he does a deep- knee bend, he states of having low back pain and left knee 

pain. 

He has full range of motion of the hips, knees, and ankles 

with normal muscle strength. . . . he has decreased sensation 

over the lateral aspect of his left knee and leg. 

He has full range of motion [of the knees]. . . . There is some 

crepitus with flexion/extension bilaterally, though no pain. 

(AR 596). In his assessment, Dr. Krasner noted that, “[g]iven [Aydlett’s] history and 

exam, he will have some mild effects on his functional capabilities especially as it 

pertains to heavy lifting.” (AR 597). Dr. Krasner recommended work restrictions as 

follows: no lifting over 50 pounds maximum, repetitively over 25 pounds; and no 

restrictions on standing, walking, kneeling, or crouching. 

Dr. Krasner referred Aydlett for x-rays of his left knee. The x-ray report stated that 

Aydlett was “status post ACL repair. There are tricompartmental degenerative changes 

which are moderate to severe. There is prepatellar soft tissue swelling with a joint 

effusion.” (AR 604). 

Dr. Krasner also completed a Medical Source Statement of Ability to do WorkRelated Activities and indicated that Aydlett’s conditions would impose limitations for 

12 continuous months. (AR 601). Dr. Krasner opined that Aydlett could occasionally2

 lift 

and/or carry 50 pounds, and could frequently3 lift and/or carry 25 pounds. Id. He further 

indicated that Aydlett had no limitations in standing, walking, sitting, climbing, stooping,

kneeling, crouching, crawling, reaching, handling, fingering, or feeling, and assessed no 

environmental limitations. (AR 601–02). 

D. Additional Medical Information

On September 1, 2010 DDS physician Dr. Stephen Dickstein made an initial 

determination that Aydlett was not disabled. (AR 89–90). He noted that Aydlett was only 

 

2 “Occasionally” is defined as “up to 1/3 [generally no more than two hours] of an eight-hour day.”

3

 “Frequently” is defined as “1/3 to 2/3 of an eight-hour day.” 

Case 4:14-cv-02289-EJM Document 23 Filed 07/26/16 Page 7 of 26
- 8 - 

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 

partially credible because his allegation of being unable to carry clothes on hangers was 

overly restrictive. (AR 85). Dr. Dickstein completed a RFC assessment with the 

following limitations: occasionally lift and/or carry 50 pounds; frequently lift and/or 

carry 25 pounds; stand and/or walk for 6 hours in an 8-hour workday; sit for more than 6 

hours; unlimited pushing and pulling; frequently climb ramps/stairs, crouch, and crawl; 

never climb ladders/ropes/scaffolds; unlimited balancing and stooping; avoid heights and 

concentrated exposure to extreme cold; and avoid moderate exposure to fumes, odors, 

dusts, gases, poor ventilation, and hazards. (AR 86–88). Dr. Dickstein noted that Aydlett 

did not have the RFC to perform his PRW as actually performed because Aydlett’s RFC 

was for medium work and he reported lifting up to 100 pounds. However, Aydlett did 

have the RFC to perform his PRW as a maintenance man as it is normally performed in 

the national economy. (AR 89). 

On reconsideration, Aydlett was again found not disabled on January 6, 2011. (AR 

113). Disability examiner Larry Moser noted that Aydlett alleged changes on 

reconsideration, but that the only new condition, illness, or limitation was a doctor’s note 

about toenail pain. (AR 108). The reconsideration report notes that Aydlett is credible, 

that the “left knee [osteoarthritis] is a major contributing factor to claimant’s functional 

impairment,” and that “x-rays of [the left knee were] not known at CE and MSS which 

shows moderate to severe tricompartmental [osteoarthritis] impacting functional 

impairment significantly.” (AR 109). Dr. Kalen completed a RFC assessment with the 

following limitations: occasionally lift and/or carry 20 pounds; frequently lift and/or 

carry 10 pounds; stand and/or walk 4 hours; sit more than 6 hours; unlimited pushing and 

pulling; occasionally climb ramps/stairs, stoop, kneel, crouch, and crawl; never climb 

ladders/ropes/scaffolds; avoid heights and concentrated exposure to extreme cold; and 

avoid moderate exposure to fumes, odors, dusts, gases, poor ventilation, and hazards. 

(AR 109–11). Dr. Kalen opined that Aydlett did not have the RFC to perform his PRW as 

actually performed or generally performed, but that he could perform other sedentary 

work. (AR 112–13). 

Case 4:14-cv-02289-EJM Document 23 Filed 07/26/16 Page 8 of 26
- 9 - 

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 

E. Plaintiff’s Testimony

On an undated Disability Report, Aydlett stated that he stopped working because 

of knee problems, shoulder pain, back pain, and bone pain, and that he could not sit or 

stand for long periods. (AR 319). 

On an undated Disability Report—Appeal, Aydlett reported that “[i]t is getting 

harder to do easy tasks like walking sitting or just laying down.” (AR 347). He stated that 

he has “jarred my neck to where my body goes numb with tingling in arms & fingers” 

and that he had “numbness in arms & tingling in finger tips.” (AR 347–48). He also 

stated that he had tingling in his arms when sneezing and numbness in his neck when 

looking up. (AR 352). Aydlett reported that he could not sit or stand for long periods and 

could not play with his daughter or do family activities. (AR 351). 

On an undated Exertional Daily Activities Questionnaire, Aydlett described his 

daily activities as caring for his daughter including preparing her meals, doing her hair, 

taking her to school (walking due to vehicle problems), and helping her with homework. 

(AR 337). His daily activities also include doing the dishes, showering, laundry, and 

watching tv. Aydlett reported that it is difficult to bend over and that he gets sharp pains 

in his back and sometimes his leg, that his knee gives out when walking, making it 

difficult to walk his daughter to school, and that it hurts to change positions even while 

sitting. He walks as needed to do everyday functions, and it takes him about 30 minutes 

to walk his daughter 1.3 miles to school. Aydlett reported that it hurts to lift and carry 

things and that he tries to carry clothes on hangers but it’s difficult. (AR 338). He does 

his own grocery shopping and cleaning but has stopped doing laundry because of back 

pain and has difficulty doing dishes due to standing too long in one spot. He drives but 

stated he does not do any activities outside of his home because he can’t do the activities 

he used to do. Aydlett stated that before he became disabled, he “used to be able to do 

dishes and laundry all the time. Now I’m very limited because of the pain. When I did try 

to help with the laundry it frustrated me because just to carry 3 to 4 clothes items on 

hangers, hurt to the point I had to put them down and let me [sic] wife do it.” He does not 

Case 4:14-cv-02289-EJM Document 23 Filed 07/26/16 Page 9 of 26
- 10 - 

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 

take any medications but uses a TENS unit.4 (AR 339). Aydlett stated that it was very 

frustrating to be constantly in pain, that simple movements cause him pain, and that he 

hates not being able to do activities with his daughter. 

On a letter dated July 10, 2011 Aydlett wrote: “I have not been going to see 

doctors because of not being able to afford to. I don’t have insurance and without 

insurance it is hard to get to see the specialists that have been recommended. Watching 

my wife working so hard and still struggling is depressing.” (AR 360). 

Aydlett testified at his hearing before the ALJ on September 15, 2011. He stated 

that his wife has supported him since January 2009, that they receive $15 a month in food 

stamps, and that he previously received unemployment insurance benefits. (AR 58). 

Aydlett testified that when he applied for unemployment benefits, he stated that he was 

able and ready to work, and that he actively looked for jobs like cooking, phone work, 

delivery jobs, and sit-down jobs like secretary. (AR 59). When he applied for jobs, he 

indicated that he had knee, back and neck problems and was looking for sit-down jobs. 

(AR 64–65). When questioned by the ALJ about cooking not being a sit-down job, 

Aydlett stated that he had to go apply for the jobs that the employment office told him to 

apply for. (AR 65). 

Regarding his medical treatment, Aydlett testified that Dr. Wild is an orthopedic 

surgeon and that Dr. Wild wrote him a letter for his unemployment claim. (AR 66). 

Aydlett has not had any treatment with Dr. Wild since the 1990s. He received AHCCCS 

from approximately March 2009 to September 2010 and saw Dr. Kisner, his primary care 

physician at Arizona Family, during this time, but did not get treatment for his knee. (AR 

67). Aydlett went to see Dr. Kisner because he started having problems with his back and 

neck. (AR 68). Dr. Kisner wanted to send him to a neurosurgeon but Aydlett lost his 

insurance so he cannot go to specialists. (AR 66, 69). Aydlett testified that he could not 

go to the doctor as much as he wanted to for his problems due to lack of insurance, and 

 

4

 “TENS, or transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation, is a back pain treatment that uses low voltage electric current to relieve pain.” http://www.webmd.com/back- pain/guide/tens-for-back-pain 

Case 4:14-cv-02289-EJM Document 23 Filed 07/26/16 Page 10 of 26
- 11 - 

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 

that when he previously tried to get insurance he was denied due to a preexisting 

condition. (AR 69). He does not take any pain medication because he can’t afford it. (AR 

71). Aydlett reported his PT “went good while I was able to do it with the insurance, but 

[I] can’t do it without the insurance.” (AR 74). 

Aydlett stated that he could not sit for more than 2 hours a day without his legs 

going numb, and that after 2 hours he would have to stand up and walk around. (AR 71). 

In an 8 hour workday, he would have to get up 6 or 7 times to walk around. He can stand 

for about 15 minutes before needing to sit down. (AR 73). The ALJ noted that Aydlett 

had been sitting for about 20 minutes, and he stated that the bottom of his back was 

killing him. (AR 73). 

In a typical day, getting out of bed is “treacherous” because it hurts. (AR 71). 

Aydlett gets his daughter ready for school but “[m]ost of the time she has to help me.” He 

drives his daughter to school but has had to walk her a couple of times when they were 

having car problems. (AR 72). He can walk for a mile if he has to get his daughter to 

school, but “[a]ny other time I’m not going to do it” because “[i]t hurts too much.” (AR 

73). Doing dishes used to take him 10 or 15 minutes but now takes 2 hours because he 

has to go sit down. (AR 72). Aydlett expressed that “not being able to do things with my 

daughter is the biggest problem I have” and that “I’ve always been active in my life and I 

can’t do anything anymore.” (AR 75). 

Aydlett testified again at the hearing on October 10, 2012. He stated that he had 

not received any medical treatment since the last hearing and that “I can’t afford 

insurance so I can’t get any treatment.” (AR 35). He reported going to the emergency 

room twice but stated he did not have any x-rays because he is self-pay.

5 To treat his 

pain, he sits in a Jacuzzi and takes Ibuprofen and other over the counter pain relievers. 

 Aydlett still drives his daughter to school, and makes her breakfast, lunch, and 

dinner. (AR 36, 38). He can cook but he cannot bring in their 5 gallon containers of 

 

5 There is no record of emergency room visits aside from a discharge summary from Northwest Medical Center dated May 25, 2011. (AR 605). 

Case 4:14-cv-02289-EJM Document 23 Filed 07/26/16 Page 11 of 26
- 12 - 

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 

water. (AR 39–40). He used to be able to do laundry but cannot lift the laundry baskets 

and cannot play with his daughter. (AR 40). Aydlett grocery shops with his wife but does 

not lift anything. He can sit for 45 minutes in the car but it is uncomfortable, and walking 

up and down the stairs is hard for him. (AR 41). 

When questioned by the ALJ why he would not be able to do a sit-down job, 

Aydlett testified that he cannot sit for more than an hour because his leg goes numb and 

gets a burning sensation. (AR 39). It gets better if he stands for 15 minutes, and then he 

can sit for another hour. He could not get up and then sit down again for 8 hours. Laying 

down does not help, and he has to sleep in his recliner. 

F. Lay Testimony

The claimant’s wife, Susan Aydlett, submitted a letter dated October 17, 2010. 

(AR 340). Mrs. Aydlett stated that she has “seen him go from being able to do very hard 

work to now barely able to move on some days.” She described her husband’s condition 

as follows: 

When bending at the knees to pick something up you can hear 

cracking noises. He struggles to get back up. He can be 

walking down the hall and a knee will buckle which send jolts 

through his body. At times his knee has locked up like it 

doesn’t want to bend. 

He can be stretching with his arms above his head and his 

shoulder will go out of socket. I’ve seen him trying to do 

things around the house to help like dishes, laundry, etc., only 

to find he is wincing in pain. When doing these things he has 

felt sharp shooting pains go down his legs and arms. He has 

complained of his arms feeling tingly and going numb. 

. . . 

He hasn’t gone to the doctors constantly due to the fact we 

can’t afford it. My medical at work is too much to add him on 

and he doesn’t qualify for AHCCCS because of my income. 

Id. 

G. Vocational Evidence

Vocational Expert (“VE”) Jose Chaparro testified at the hearing before the ALJ on 

October 10, 2012. He described Aydlett’s past work as follows: commercial cleaner, 

Case 4:14-cv-02289-EJM Document 23 Filed 07/26/16 Page 12 of 26
- 13 - 

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 

heavy and unskilled; merchandise delivery, medium and unskilled; hand packager, 

medium and unskilled; truck driver helper, heavy and unskilled. (AR 42–43). 

Based on the first hypothetical presented by the ALJ, Chaparro testified that a 

person who could do the full range of medium work with no other limitations could do 

the jobs of merchandise delivery and hand packager. (AR 43). Based on the second 

hypothetical presented by the ALJ,6 Chaparro testified that a person with those 

limitations could do jobs at the light level such as ticket seller, toe closing machine 

tender, and outside deliverer. (AR 44–45). Based on the third hypothetical presented by 

the ALJ, Chaparro testified that a person who could do the full range of light work “could 

do the world of light and sedentary unskilled work, and he could perform the jobs I 

proposed in hypothetical two.” (AR 46). Chaparro gave examples including fast food 

worker and cashier II. 

H. ALJ’s Findings 

i. December 22, 2011 Decision 

The ALJ found that Aydlett had the severe impairment of degenerative disc 

disease, but that the medical evidence of record did not establish that Aydlett’s 

impairment met or medically equaled the criteria of SS listing 1.04. (AR 130–31). 

The ALJ found that Aydlett’s statements regarding the intensity, persistence, and 

limiting effects of his symptoms were “not credible to the extent they are inconsistent 

with the . . . [RFC] assessment.” (AR 131). The ALJ stated that Aydlett was “less than 

credible with respect to the extent to which his impairments preclude the performance of 

work related activities” because “examination of the claimant found that he remained 

highly functional and able to perform work,” and because when Aydlett collected 

unemployment benefits, he “represented that he was ready, willing, and able to work and 

was, in fact, actively seeking employment.” (AR 132–33). The ALJ noted that Aydlett’s 

 

6 This hypothetical included the following limitations: lift and/or carry 20 pounds occasionally and 10 pounds frequently; stand or walk for 4 out of 8 hours; sit more than 6 

hours; occasionally climb ramps and stairs, stoop, kneel, crouch, and crawl; never climb 

ladders, ropes, or scaffolds; no limit on balance; avoid moderate exposure to fumes, 

odors, dust, gases, poor ventilation, and hazards. (AR 43–44). 

Case 4:14-cv-02289-EJM Document 23 Filed 07/26/16 Page 13 of 26
- 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 

receipt of unemployment benefits was not dispositive of his disability claim, but that his

inconsistent statements regarding his ability to do work negatively impacted his

credibility. (AR 133). 

The ALJ gave great weight to Dr. Krasner’s opinion because he was able to 

personally examine Aydlett and review his medical history, and because Dr. Krasner’s 

“findings are recent and consistent with the majority of the medical evidence of record.” 

(AR 132). The ALJ gave no weight to the letter written by Dr. Wild because “Dr. Wild 

has not treated or examined the claimant since 1994 and is unable to give any opinion as 

to the claimant’s current level of functioning.” The ALJ stated that she could not give 

significant weight to Susan Aydlett’s letter because she was not medically trained to 

make exacting observations as to frequencies and degrees of medical signs and 

symptoms, because she was not a disinterested third party, and, “[m]ost importantly,” 

because her testimony, “like the claimant’s, is simply not consistent with the 

preponderance of the opinions and observations by medical doctors in this case.” 

The ALJ found that Aydlett had the RFC to perform the full range of medium 

work. (AR 131). She concluded that he could perform his PRW as a maintenance 

person/property manager, a liquidator, a pizza delivery driver, a mail room stock person, 

and an assembler, both as actually and generally performed. (AR 133). The ALJ therefore 

concluded Aydlett was not disabled. 

ii. December 17, 2012 Decision 

The ALJ found that Aydlett had the severe impairments of degenerative disc 

disease and degenerative joint disease, but that these impairments did not meet or 

medically equal the severity of one of the listed impairments. (AR 22–23). 

The ALJ again found that Aydlett’s statements regarding the intensity, persistence, 

and limiting effects of his symptoms were “not credible to the extent they are inconsistent 

with the . . . [RFC] assessment.” (AR 23). The ALJ noted that Aydlett’s PT records stated 

he had good potential for improvement, that he responded favorably to treatment, and 

that his compliance with appointments was sporadic. The ALJ also noted that at the CE, 

Case 4:14-cv-02289-EJM Document 23 Filed 07/26/16 Page 14 of 26
- 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 

Aydlett reported that his knees were feeling fine, that he had intermittent low back pain 

but no numbness or tingling, and that he was not taking any pain medications. (AR 23–

24). The ALJ noted Dr. Krasner’s opinion that Aydlett would be able to work at a 

medium exertional level with no sitting, standing, walking, postural, or environmental 

limitations. (AR 24). The ALJ further noted that Aydlett had not sought any further 

treatment and that he only took over the counter medications. The ALJ also stated that 

she found Aydlett “to be less than credible with respect to the extent to which his 

impairments preclude the performance of all work” because the CE indicated that he 

remained capable of performing some work, because objective studies revealed that his 

impairments were not so severe as to require surgery, and because Aydlett had sought 

minimal treatment and did not take prescription medications. (AR 24). 

The ALJ again gave great weight to the opinion of Dr. Krasner because he was 

able to personally examine Aydlett and review his medical history, and because he 

obtained updated radiological studies of Aydlett’s knee and back. (AR 24). The ALJ 

noted that she found “Dr. Krasner’s opinion to be well based upon the objective medical 

evidence and, accordingly, gives it controlling weight.” The ALJ gave reduced weight to 

the opinion of the state agency medical consultant Dr. Kalen who opined that Aydlett was 

limited to sedentary work because the consultant “did not have the opportunity to 

personally examine the claimant.” The ALJ noted that she thus felt “that Dr. Krasner’s 

opinion is more likely to accurately reflect the claimant’s [RFC].” The ALJ gave reduced 

weight to Dr. Wild’s opinion that Aydlett was precluded from heavy work. The ALJ 

noted that Dr. Wild did not opine that Aydlett was precluded from all work, and that he 

recommended Aydlett be trained to do other work. 

The ALJ again found that Aydlett had the RFC to perform the full range of 

medium work. (AR 23). She concluded that he could perform his PRW as a pizza 

delivery person and as a hand packer, both as actually and generally performed. (AR 25). 

The ALJ therefore concluded Aydlett was not disabled. 

. . . 

Case 4:14-cv-02289-EJM Document 23 Filed 07/26/16 Page 15 of 26
- 16 - 

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 

III. Standard of Review 

The Commissioner employs a five-step sequential process to evaluate SSI and 

DIB claims. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.920, 416.1520; see also Heckler v. Campbell, 461 U.S. 

458, 460-462 (1983). To establish disability the claimant bears the burden of showing he 

(1) is not working; (2) has a severe physical or mental impairment; (3) the impairment 

meets or equals the requirements of a listed impairment; and (4) the claimant’s residual 

functional capacity (“RFC”) precludes him from performing his past work. 20 C.F.R. §§ 

404.920(a)(4), 416.1520(a)(4). At Step Five, the burden shifts to the Commissioner to 

show that the claimant has the RFC to perform other work that exists in substantial 

numbers in the national economy. Hoopai v. Astrue, 499 F.3d 1071, 1074 (9th Cir. 2007). 

If the Commissioner conclusively finds the claimant “disabled” or “not disabled” at any 

point in the five-step process, she does not proceed to the next step. 20 C.F.R. §§ 

404.920(a)(4), 416.1520(a)(4). 

Here, Aydlett was denied at Step Four of the evaluation process. Step Four 

requires a determination of whether the claimant has sufficient RFC to perform past 

work. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(e), 416.920(e). RFC is defined as that which an individual 

can still do despite his limitations. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1545, 416.945. A RFC finding is 

based on the record as a whole, including all physical and mental limitations, whether 

severe or not, and all symptoms. Social Security Ruling (SSR) 96-8p. If the ALJ 

concludes the claimant has the RFC to perform past work, the claim is denied. 20 C.F.R. 

§§ 404.1520(f), 416.920(f). 

The findings of the Commissioner are meant to be conclusive. 42 U.S.C. §§ 

405(g), 1383(c)(3). The court may overturn the decision to deny benefits only “when the 

ALJ’s findings are based on legal error or are not supported by substantial evidence in the 

record as a whole.” Aukland v. Massanari, 257 F.3d 1033, 1035 (9th Cir. 2001). As set 

forth in 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), “[t]he findings of the Secretary as to any fact, if supported by 

substantial evidence, shall be conclusive.” Substantial evidence “means such relevant 

evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion,” 

Case 4:14-cv-02289-EJM Document 23 Filed 07/26/16 Page 16 of 26
- 17 - 

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 

Valentine, 574 F.3d at 690 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted), and is “more 

than a mere scintilla, but less than a preponderance.” Aukland, 257 F.3d at 1035. The 

Commissioner’s decision, however, “cannot be affirmed simply by isolating a specific 

quantum of supporting evidence.” Sousa v. Callahan, 143 F.3d 1240, 1243 (9th Cir. 

1998) (internal citations omitted). “Rather, a court must consider the record as a whole, 

weighing both evidence that supports and evidence that detracts from the Secretary’s 

conclusion.” Aukland, 257 F.3d at 1035 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). 

The ALJ is responsible for resolving conflicts in testimony, determining 

credibility, and resolving ambiguities. Andrews v. Shalala, 53 F.3d 1035, 1039 (9th Cir. 

1995). “When the evidence before the ALJ is subject to more than one rational 

interpretation, [the court] must defer to the ALJ’s conclusion.” Batson v. Comm’r Soc. 

Sec. Admin., 359 F.3d 1190, 1198 (9th Cir. 2004). This is so because “[t]he [ALJ] and not 

the reviewing court must resolve conflicts in evidence, and if the evidence can support 

either outcome, the court may not substitute its judgment for that of the ALJ.” Matney v. 

Sullivan, 981 F.2d 1016, 1019 (9th Cir. 1992) (internal citations omitted). 

Additionally, “[a] decision of the ALJ will not be reversed for errors that are 

harmless.” Burch v. Barnhart, 400 F.3d 676, 679 (9th Cir. 2005). The claimant bears the 

burden to prove any error is harmful. McLeod v. Astrue, 640 F.3d 881, 888 (9th Cir. 

2011) (citing Shinseki v. Sanders, 556 U.S. 396, 129 S.Ct. 1696, 1706 (2009)). An error 

is harmless where it is “inconsequential to the ultimate nondisability determination.” 

Molina v. Astrue, 674 F.3d 1104, 1115 (9th Cir. 2012) (internal citations omitted); see 

also Stout v. Comm’r Soc. Sec. Admin., 454 F.3d 1050, 1055 (9th Cir. 2006). “[I]n each 

case [the court] look[s] at the record as a whole to determine whether the error alters the 

outcome of the case.” Molina, 674 F.3d at 1115. In other words, “an error is harmless so 

long as there remains substantial evidence supporting the ALJ’s decision and the error 

does not negate the validity of the ALJ’s ultimate conclusion. Id. (internal quotation 

marks and citations omitted). Finally, “[a] claimant is not entitled to benefits under the 

statute unless the claimant is, in fact, disabled, no matter how egregious the ALJ’s errors 

Case 4:14-cv-02289-EJM Document 23 Filed 07/26/16 Page 17 of 26
- 18 - 

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 

may be.” Strauss v. Comm’r Soc. Sec., 635 F.3d 1135, 1138 (9th Cir. 2011). 

IV. Analysis 

Aydlett argues that the ALJ erred in weighing the treating and consulting medical 

opinions and in giving improper consideration to Aydlett’s lack of treatment. (Doc. 17 at 

8). Aydlett also states generally that the ALJ failed to consider substantial evidence on 

record, including unemployment benefits information, physical therapy records, and third 

party statements. Id. at 8, 15.7

 Aydlett contends that these errors resulted in a 

nondisability determination that is not supported by substantial evidence, and requests 

that this Court find that he is entitled to benefits. Id. at 15. Alternatively, Aydlett requests 

that this matter be remanded for further administrative proceedings. Id. at 16. 

 The Commissioner contends that the Court should affirm the ALJ’s decision 

“because she reasonably weighed the available evidence and concluded Aydlett could 

perform medium work with some additional restrictions.” (Doc. 21 at 2). The 

Commissioner further states that Aydlett has failed to demonstrate harmful error 

requiring remand for an award of benefits, and requests that if the Court does find error, 

that this matter be remanded for further administrative proceedings. Id. at 12. 

 

7 Plaintiff’s cursory reference to these issues does not warrant further discussion by the Court. “A plaintiff challenging the Commissioner’s final decision regarding disability must specifically and directly argue issues in his or her opening brief.” Schopp 

v. Colvin, 2014 WL 4722524, at *4 (D. Or. Sept. 22, 2014). “A plaintiff must also carry his or her burden in establishing how the alleged errors were prejudicial.” Id. “We 

review only issues which are argued specifically and distinctly in a party’s opening brief. 

We will not manufacture arguments for an appellant, and a bare assertion does not 

preserve a claim . . . .” Greenwood v. FAA, 28 F.3d 971, 977 (9th Cir. 1994) (internal 

citation omitted). As indicated by the Ninth Circuit in Greenwood, “[j]udges are not like pigs, hunting for truffles buried in briefs.” Id. (quoting United States v. Dunkel, 927 F.2d 

955, 956 (7th Cir.1991) (per curiam)). Consequently, the Ninth Circuit has refused to address claims that were only “argue[d] in passing,” Brownfield v. City of Yakima, 612 

F.3d 1140, 1149 n. 4 (9th Cir. 2010), or that were “bare assertion[s] . . . with no 

supporting argument,” Navajo Nation v. U.S. Forest Serv., 535 F.3d 1058, 1079 n. 26 

(9th Cir. 2008). 

Here, Aydlett fails to identify any specific errors in the ALJ’s analysis of his unemployment benefits records, physical therapy records, or the third party statements, 

nor does Aydlett articulate how the ALJ erred in assessing his credibility. Because Plaintiff’s contention that the ALJ failed “to consider substantial evidence on record” was 

not argued with specificity, this argument is waived and the Court declines to address the

issue. 

Case 4:14-cv-02289-EJM Document 23 Filed 07/26/16 Page 18 of 26
- 19 - 

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 

The Court concludes that the ALJ properly assessed the non-examining stateagency medical consultant’s opinion and the treating physician’s opinion, and that the 

ALJ did not give improper consideration to Aydlett’s lack of treatment. Accordingly, the 

decision of the Commissioner will be affirmed. 

A. Lack of Medical Treatment 

The ALJ’s finding that Aydlett was not fully credible regarding the intensity, 

persistence, and limiting effects of his symptoms was based in part on her observation 

that Aydlett had not sought further treatment and only took over the counter medications 

for his impairments. (AR 24). The ALJ noted that “the claimant has sought only minimal 

medical treatment and does not take prescription medications to treat his pain.” Id. 

“[I]f a claimant complains about disabling pain but fails to seek treatment, or fails 

to follow prescribed treatment, for the pain, an ALJ may use such failure as a basis for 

finding the complaint unjustified or exaggerated.” Orn v. Astrue, 495 F.3d 625, 638 (9th 

Cir. 2007). However, “[d]isability benefits may not be denied because of the claimant’s 

failure to obtain treatment he cannot obtain for lack of funds.” Id. (quoting Gamble v. 

Chater, 68 F.3d 319, 321 (9th Cir. 1995)). While Social Security regulations require 

claimants to follow “treatment prescribed by [a] physician” to receive benefits, the same 

regulations make clear that if the claimant has “a good reason” for not following the 

prescribed treatment, rejection of treatment will not be held against the claimant. 20 

C.F.R. § 416.930(a) & (b); SSR 96–7p. The ALJ “‘must not draw any inferences about an 

individual’s symptoms and their functional effects from a failure to seek or pursue 

regular medical treatment without first considering any explanations that the individual 

may provide, or other information in the case record, that may explain infrequent or 

irregular medical visits or failure to seek medical treatment’ including inability to pay . . 

.” Orn, 495 F.3d at 638 (quoting SSR 96–7p at 7–8). 

Here, Aydlett alleges that the ALJ based her decision in part on the fact that there 

was minimal evidence of medical treatment in the record and because Aydlett did not 

take prescription medications for his pain. (Doc. 17 at 10). Aydlett further alleges that the 

Case 4:14-cv-02289-EJM Document 23 Filed 07/26/16 Page 19 of 26
- 20 - 

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 

ALJ failed to acknowledge that he did not have medical insurance or the funds to “seek 

the needed surgeries.” Id. While there is no evidence in the record that any surgeries were 

actually recommended, Aydlett posits that treatment “would have likely involved further 

surgeries in light of the severity of his impairments revealed by the radiological 

evidence.” Id. However, this is pure speculation on Aydlett’s part and there is nothing in 

the record to indicate that any surgeries were ever recommended. While Aydlett told Dr. 

Krasner that he was referred to a neurosurgeon and testified to the same, there is no 

evidence in the record of a referral. (AR 66, 69, 595). 

Further, while Aydlett contends that he did not seek further treatment due to lack 

of insurance, Aydlett testified that he received AHCCCS from approximately March 

2009 through September 2010, but did not seek any treatment for his knees during this 

time. (AR 67).8 Aydlett testified that he did see Dr. Kisner during this time for problems 

with his back and neck (AR 68), but the record reveals that Aydlett only saw Dr. Kisner a 

total of three times: Aydlett saw Dr. Kisner on January 20, 2010 with a complaint of back 

pain for 1–2 months (AR 594) and was referred for a x-ray of the lumbar spine which 

showed minimal lumbar scoliosis (AR 590). Aydlett saw Dr. Kisner again on February 8, 

2010 with a complaint of continuing severe back pain (AR 593), and again on July 16, 

2010 for treatment of an ingrown toenail (AR 592). Aydlett does not point to any 

evidence or make any claims that he was prescribed additional treatments or surgeries 

that AHCCCS would not cover. The record indicates that Aydlett was prescribed 

Diclofenac on February 8, 2010, but there is no information as to whether he ever 

obtained this medication. (AR 593). Thus, while Aydlett may have been without

insurance since September 2010 (or January 2011, as indicated by the AHCCCS letter), 

in the time period that he did have AHCCCS or other insurance coverage, he sought only 

 

8 It is somewhat unclear as to when exactly Aydlett did and did not have insurance coverage. A letter from Aydlett’s prior counsel states that Aydlett lost his own insurance in August 2010 and his AHCCCS coverage in January 2011. (AR 192). A letter from 

AHCCCS states that Aydlett’s coverage was denied as of January 2011. (AR 361). There 

is no evidence in the record of any medical treatment prior to Aydlett’s appointment with 

Arizona Family Practice on January 20, 2010. (AR 594). 

Case 4:14-cv-02289-EJM Document 23 Filed 07/26/16 Page 20 of 26
- 21 - 

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 

minimal treatment for his alleged impairments, and the ALJ could properly take this into 

consideration when determining Aydlett’s credibility and the extent of his allegedly 

disabling conditions. See Orn, 495 F.3d at 638; Leal v. Astrue, 2009 WL 800935, at *6 

(E.D. Cal. Mar. 25, 2009) (“Claimant’s lack of treatment-seeking behavior for an 

allegedly disabling problem, at a minimum, creates considerable uncertainty about the 

veracity of Claimant’s subjective complaints . . .”). 

In sum, contrary to Aydlett’s assertion, the severity of his impairments is not 

clearly established by the medical record, and the ALJ did not err in taking Aydlett’s lack 

of medical treatment into consideration when assessing his credibility and finding that 

Aydlett was not disabled. 

B. Medical Testimony 

Aydlett alleges that the ALJ improperly rejected the RFC opinions of his treating

physician, Dr. Wild, and the non-examining state-agency medical consultant, Dr. Kalen. 

The Ninth Circuit distinguishes between treating, examining, and nonexamining 

physicians, and as a general rule, more weight is usually accorded to the treating 

physician’s opinion. Lester v. Chater, 81 F.3d 821, 830 (9th Cir. 1996). The ALJ may 

reject a treating or examining physician’s uncontradicted opinion only if he gives clear 

and convincing reasons for doing so. Id. at 830-31; see also Weetman v. Sullivan, 877 

F.2d 20, 22 (9th Cir. 1989). If the treating or examining physician’s opinion is 

contradicted by another doctor, the ALJ may reject that opinion only if he provides 

specific and legitimate reasons supported by substantial evidence in the record. Lester, 81 

F.3d at 830–31. Further, “when evaluating conflicting medical opinions, an ALJ need not 

accept the opinion of a doctor if that opinion is brief, conclusory, and inadequately 

supported by clinical findings.” Bayliss v. Barnhart, 427 F.3d 1211, 1216 (9th Cir. 2005). 

Finally, if the ALJ determines that the plaintiff’s subjective complaints are not credible, 

this is a sufficient reason for discounting a physician’s opinion that is based on those 

subjective complaints. Bray v. Comm’r Soc. Sec. Admin., 554 F.3d 1219, 1228 (9th Cir. 

2009). 

Case 4:14-cv-02289-EJM Document 23 Filed 07/26/16 Page 21 of 26
- 22 - 

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 

i. Dr. Wild 

The record includes a letter from Dr. Wild that was submitted as part of Aydlett’s 

unemployment benefits claim in 2009. (AR 66, 489). The letter states that Aydlett has 

been under Dr. Wild’s care since 1993 (AR 576) and that: 

The last time we saw him, he had severe endstage arthritis of 

his knee post-traumatic. It is my opinion at this time that it is deleterious to his health to work in any type of full 

weightbearing capacity, or capacity requiring frequent 

walking, lifting, or any heavy activities. This is a permanent restriction. He should be retrained so that he can continue to 

work. 

(AR 576). Aydlett reported that Dr. Wild performed surgery on his left knee in 1994 to 

repair ACL and MCL tears, and that he has not had any treatment with Dr. Wild since the 

1990s. (AR 595). 

In her December 22, 2011 decision, the ALJ gave no weight to the letter written 

by Dr. Wild because “Dr. Wild has not treated or examined the claimant since 1994 and 

is unable to give any opinion as to the claimant’s current level of functioning.” (AR 132). 

In her December 17, 2012 decision, the ALJ gave reduced weight to Dr. Wild’s opinion 

that Aydlett was precluded from heavy work. (AR 24). The ALJ noted that Dr. Wild did 

not opine that Aydlett was precluded from all work, and that he specifically 

recommended that Aydlett should be retrained to perform other work. 

The Court finds no harmful error by the ALJ in evaluating Dr. Wild’s opinion. 

While Dr. Wild is a treating physician and more weight is usually accorded to a treating 

physician’s opinion, Lester, 81 F.3d at 830, Dr. Wild has not actually treated Aydlett 

since the 1990s. Though Dr. Wild submitted his letter in support of Aydlett’s 

unemployment benefits claim in 2009, the opinions in his letter are based on the knee 

surgery Dr. Wild performed in 1994. Further, the entirety of Dr. Wild’s opinion consists 

of a brief, one paragraph letter without any supporting evidence, and the ALJ is not 

required to accept an opinion that is inadequately supported by clinical findings. See 

Bayliss, 427 F.3d at 1216. Finally, “[a]lthough a treating physician’s opinion is generally 

afforded the greatest weight in disability cases, it is not binding on an ALJ with respect to 

Case 4:14-cv-02289-EJM Document 23 Filed 07/26/16 Page 22 of 26
- 23 - 

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 

the existence of an impairment or the ultimate determination of disability,” Tonapetyan v. 

Halter, 242 F.3d 1144, 1149 (9th Cir. 2001), and Dr. Wild’s statement that Aydlett is 

unable to work in any full weight-bearing capacity is not the equivalent to a finding of 

disability under the SSA. See 42 U.S.C. §§ 423(d)(1)(A), 1382c(a)(3)(A). It is the role of 

the ALJ to determine whether a claimant is “disabled” within the meaning of the SSA, 

and that determination is based on both medical and vocational components. Edlund v. 

Massanari, 253 F.3d 1152, 1156 (9th Cir. 2001). 

 The Court concludes that the ALJ could properly assign reduced weight to Dr. 

Wild’s opinion where Dr. Wild has not actually treated Aydlett since the 1990s and 

where the limitations Dr. Wild assessed in his letter were based on treatment that 

occurred 15 years earlier. Further, while Dr. Wild opined that Aydlett should not perform 

work requiring frequent walking, lifting, or heavy activities, he did not opine that Aydlett 

was unable to perform any work at all. Accordingly, the ALJ did not err by according Dr. 

Wild’s letter reduced weight. 

Aydlett also argues that the ALJ failed to pose a hypothetical to the VE with the 

limitations described by Dr. Wild. (Doc. 17 at 12). However, the ALJ is only required to 

include restrictions in a hypothetical that are supported by substantial evidence. See

Greger v. Barnhart, 464 F.3d 968, 973 (9th Cir. 2006). Here, the ALJ assigned reduced 

weight to Dr. Wild’s opinion, and gave specific and legitimate reasons for the weight 

finding. Because the ALJ properly assigned reduced weight to the opinion, the ALJ was 

not required to include all of Dr. Wild’s limitations in the hypothetical to the VE, 

particularly where those limitations were not supported by objective findings on 

examination.9

 The undersigned also notes that while Dr. Wild’s letter states that “at this 

time [] it is deleterious to [Aydlett’s] health to work in any type of full weightbearing 

capacity, or capacity requiring frequent walking, lifting, or any heavy activities,” the 

 

9 See e.g., Dr. Krasner’s findings that Aydlett was able to walk normally, do a deep-knee bend fully, and had full range of motion of the hips, knees, and ankles with normal muscle strength. (AR 596). 

Case 4:14-cv-02289-EJM Document 23 Filed 07/26/16 Page 23 of 26
- 24 - 

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 

letter does not contain any specific recommendations as to how frequently Aydlett could 

walk or lift, or what exactly Dr. Wild meant by heavy activities. 

Accordingly, the Court finds that the ALJ did not err in assigning reduced weight 

to Dr. Wild’s opinion, and in not including all of the limitations assessed by Dr. Wild in 

the hypothetical to the VE. 

ii. Dr. Kalen 

Aydlett’s application for DIB was denied on reconsideration on January 6, 2011. 

(AR 113). As part of that determination, state-agency medical consultant Dr. Kalen 

completed a RFC assessment for Aydlett based on the record, but did not examine 

Aydlett directly. Aydlett contends that the ALJ improperly rejected Dr. Kalen’s opinion 

in favor of Dr. Krasner’s opinion, and that the ALJ erred in failing to consider Dr. 

Kalen’s opinion with the record as a whole. (Doc. 17 at 13, 15). 

Opinions of non-examining physicians are generally entitled to less weight than 

treating or examining physician opinions. Lester, 81 F.3d at 830. Here, Dr. Kalen opined 

that Aydlett did not have the RFC to perform his PRW as actually performed or generally 

performed, but that he could perform other sedentary work. (AR 112–13). The ALJ gave 

reduced weight to Dr. Kalen’s opinion that Aydlett was limited to sedentary work 

because Dr. Kalen “did not have the opportunity to personally examine the claimant.” 

(AR 24). The ALJ noted that she thus felt “that Dr. Krasner’s opinion is more likely to 

accurately reflect the claimant’s [RFC].”10 

The Court finds that the ALJ properly resolved the conflict between Dr. Krasner’s 

opinion and Dr. Kalen’s opinion by assigning reduced weight to Kalen’s opinion because 

she did not personally examine Aydlett. In the hierarchy of medical opinions, Ninth 

Circuit case law holds that opinions from nonexamining and nontreating sources are to be 

given the least weight in assessing disability, and while Aydlett objects to the ALJ giving 

 

10 Dr. Krasner performed a physical CE of Aydlett and opined that Aydlett would “have some mild effects on his functional capabilities especially as it pertains to heavy 

lifting.” (AR 597). Dr. Krasner specifically recommended that Aydlett could lift 50 

pounds occasionally and 25 pounds frequently, and that Aydlett had no limitations in 

sitting, standing, or walking. (AR 601–02). 

Case 4:14-cv-02289-EJM Document 23 Filed 07/26/16 Page 24 of 26
- 25 - 

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 

greater weight to Dr. Krasner’s opinion than to Dr. Kalen’s opinion, “[t]he opinion of an 

examining physician is . . . entitled to greater weight than the opinion of a nonexamining 

physician.” Lester, 81 F.3d at 830. Moreover, the regulations specifically note that while 

an ALJ must consider opinion evidence from state-agency physicians, ALJs “are not 

bound by any findings made by State agency medical or psychological consultants.” 20 

C.F.R. § 404.1527(e)(2)(i). 

Accordingly, the ALJ did not err by giving reduced weight to Dr. Kalen’s opinion

where Dr. Kalen was neither a treating nor an examining physician and did not personally 

perform an assessment of Aydlett’s functional abilities and restrictions. The ALJ gave 

properly gave greater weight to the opinion of Dr. Krasner because he personally 

examined Aydlett and ordered updated radiological studies of Aydlett’s knee and back, 

and this was a specific and legitimate reason to accord less weight to Dr. Kalen’s opinion. 

V. Remedy

 A federal court may affirm, modify, reverse, or remand a social security case. 42 

U.S.C. § 405(g). Absent legal error or a lack of substantial evidence supporting the ALJ’s 

findings, this Court is required to affirm the ALJ’s decision. After considering the record 

as a whole, this Court simply determines whether there is substantial evidence for a 

reasonable trier of fact to accept as adequate to support the ALJ’s decision. Valentine, 

574 F.3d at 690. Here, the record contains sufficient substantial evidence to meet this 

standard. The Court concludes that the ALJ’s findings are supported by substantial 

evidence and there is no legal basis for reversing or remanding her decision. Therefore, 

Aydlett is not entitled to relief. 

VI. Conclusion 

In light of the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the decision of the 

Commissioner of Social Security is affirmed. The Clerk shall enter judgment 

accordingly and close its file on this matter. 

. . . 

. . . 

Case 4:14-cv-02289-EJM Document 23 Filed 07/26/16 Page 25 of 26
- 26 - 

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 

 Dated this 25th day of July, 2016. 

Case 4:14-cv-02289-EJM Document 23 Filed 07/26/16 Page 26 of 26