Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-02237/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-02237-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 864
Nature of Suit: Social Security - SSID Title XVI
Cause of Action: 42:0405id Review of HHS Decision (SSID)

---

1 

16-cv-02237-WQH-JMA

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

RAY P. SIMS, 

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Acting 

Commissioner of Social Security, 

Defendant.1

Case No.: 16-cv-02237-WQH-JMA 

REPORT & RECOMMENDATION 

OF UNITED STATES 

MAGISTRATE JUDGE RE 

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR 

SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND 

DEFENDANT’S CROSS-MOTION 

FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT 

[ECF Nos. 15, 16] 

 Plaintiff Ray P. Sims (“Plaintiff”) seeks judicial review of Defendant Social 

Security Commissioner Nancy A. Berryhill’s (“Defendant”) determination that he 

is not entitled to disability insurance benefits (“DIB”) and supplemental security 

income (“SSI”). The parties have filed cross-motions for summary judgment. 

[ECF Nos. 15, 16.] For the reasons set forth below, the Court recommends 

Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment be DENIED and Defendant’s cross-

                                                                

1 Nancy A. Berryhill, the new Acting Commissioner of Social Security, is substituted as the 

Defendant in this suit pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 25(d). 

Case 3:16-cv-02237-WQH-JMA Document 18 Filed 07/27/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 21
2 

16-cv-02237-WQH-JMA

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

motion for summary judgment be GRANTED. 

I. BACKGROUND

 Plaintiff Ray P. Sims was born on June 16, 1969 and is a high school 

graduate. (Admin. R. at 198, 220.) Until January 10, 2012, the alleged onset 

date, Plaintiff worked as a home inspector. (Id. at 53, 221.) Plaintiff stopped 

working in January 2012 due to an aortic dissection that was caused by blunt 

force trauma from a physical altercation. (Id. at 54.) 

On March 5, 2012, Plaintiff filed an application for a period of disability and 

disability insurance benefits. (Id. at 71.) On March 6, 2012, Plaintiff protectively 

filed an application for supplemental security income. (Id. at 28, 78.) In both 

applications, Plaintiff alleged a disability onset date of January 10, 2012. (Id. at 

71, 78, 196-201.) The Social Security Administration (“SSA”) denied the claim 

initially on June 20, 2012 and again upon reconsideration on July 10, 2013. (Id. 

at 114-17, 122-27.) On July 31, 2013, Plaintiff filed a written request for an 

administrative hearing. (Id. at 128-29.) On November 14, 2014, a hearing was 

conducted by Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) Keith Dietterle, who determined 

on January 5, 2015 that Plaintiff was not disabled within the meaning of the 

Social Security Act. (Id. at 28-42.) On February 8, 2015, Plaintiff requested a 

review of the ALJ’s decision. (Id. at 23.) The Appeals Council for the SSA 

denied Plaintiff’s request for review on July 5, 2016. (Id. at 1-7.) Plaintiff then 

commenced this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). Plaintiff raises only one 

issue: that the ALJ failed to properly consider Plaintiff’s memory loss in 

assessing Plaintiff’s ability to work. 

II. MEDICAL EVIDENCE 

A. Sharp Grossmont Hospital (January 2012) 

On January 9, 2012, Plaintiff presented to Sharp Grossmont Hospital 

Case 3:16-cv-02237-WQH-JMA Document 18 Filed 07/27/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 21
3 

16-cv-02237-WQH-JMA

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

with unprovoked chest pain. (Id.) He was found to have a type A dissecting 

aortic aneurysm. (Id.) He was then admitted to the Intensive Care Unit 

(“ICU”) and underwent surgical intervention by Dr. Yuan Lin the same day. 

(Id. at 291.) After surgery, Plaintiff had a prolonged postoperative ICU 

course due to hypoxemia, which was the apparent result of chronic 

marijuana use. (Id.) Once this was resolved, Plaintiff underwent physical 

therapy and rehabilitation. (Id.) Plaintiff was discharged on January 19, 

2012 with a number of medications: Coreg 25mg, Lisinopril 20mg, Lipitor 

40mg, Enteric-coated aspirin 81mg, and Norvasc 10 mg. (Id.) After being 

discharged from the ICU, and undergoing further physical therapy, Plaintiff 

consequently regained his function and was again able to ambulate 

normally. (Id.) 

B. Indian Health Council (Febrary 2012 – August 2012) 

On Febrary 3, 2012, Plaintiff presented to Dr. Charlene Tobin at 

Southern Indian Health Council. (Id. at 524.) Plaintiff complained of 

weakness, dizziness, sleeplessness due to medication, and discomfort 

from the aortic dissection surgery, and that his C Pap machine for sleep 

apnea had been stolen. (See Id. at 524-25.) Dr. Tobin noted that Plaintiff 

was a pleasant man with a slight slur to his speech. (Id. at 525.) She 

found Plaintiff to have the following ailments: 1) aortic dissection with 

clinical death for 20 minutes and surgery; in a coma for 7 days, 2) brain 

injury from the coma resulting in some slurred speech, 3) anemia from 

blood loss in surgery, 4) fatigue, 5) sleep apnea with need for C Pap 

machine, and 6) elevated blood sugar. (Id. at 525-26.) Over the following 

months, he was treated for these ailments at this facility. (See Id. at 521-

541.) 

Case 3:16-cv-02237-WQH-JMA Document 18 Filed 07/27/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 21
4 

16-cv-02237-WQH-JMA

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

C. Albert Sharf, M.D. (May 2012 – July 2014) 

 On October 16, 2012, Plaintiff presented to Dr. Albert Sharf 

complaining of chest pain lasting 15-20 minutes and palpitations lasting five 

minutes. (Id. at 554.) Plaintiff also complained of dizziness, occasional 

claudication, and trouble remembering things. (Id.) Dr. Sharf diagnosed 

Plaintiff with “unspecified hypertensive heart disease without heart failure.” 

(Id. at 555.) On March 12, 2013, Plaintiff presented to Dr. Sharf 

complaining of tunnel vision with lighting flashes and dizziness for the last 

month. (Id. at 556.) He denied any chest pain, though he did complain of 

“chest pressure” similar to cramping. (Id. at 556, 591.) Dr. Sharf’s 

diagnosis remained the same and he put in an urgent referral to

ophthalmology (Id.) On June 18, 2013, Plaintiff presented to Dr. Sharf 

complaining of mild palpitations about once per day. (Id. at 589.) Plaintiff 

denied any chest pain, but said he suffered from dizziness with sudden 

movements. (Id.) Dr. Sharf added “other acute and subacute forms of 

ischemic heart disease” to Plaintiff’s diagnosis. (Id. at 589.) On July 8, 

2013, Plaintiff again presented to Dr. Sharf, stating that his palpitations had 

improved. (Id. at 587.) He denied any chest pain, dizziness or 

claudication. (Id.) Dr. Sharf’s diagnosis remained the same through 

November 2013. (Id.) 

 On February 24, 2014, Plaintiff underwent the following procedures at 

Alvarado Hospital: (1) selective coronary arteriography, (2) left 

ventriculography, and (3) thoracic and abdominal aortography. (Id. at 640.) 

The procedures were successful. (See id. at 640-41.) The post-operative 

plan consisted of long acting nitrates to be added to his medical regimen. 

(Id. at 641.) Contrary to many of Plaintiff’s other medical histories, during 

Case 3:16-cv-02237-WQH-JMA Document 18 Filed 07/27/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 21
5 

16-cv-02237-WQH-JMA

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

pre-op, Plaintiff stated that he was a regular marijuana user. (Id. at 642.) 

 On May 20, 2014, Plaintiff presented to Dr. Sharf for a cardiovascular 

exam, complaining of chest pressure, numbness of both legs at night, 

claudication, a hernia that he recently noticed, dyspnea on exertion, 

palpitations in the morning, and edema. (Id. at 638.) Dr. Sharf’s diagnosis 

again was unspecified hypertensive heart disease without heart failure, and 

other acute and subacute forms of ischemic heart disease. (Id. at 639.) 

Plaintiff’s medications as of this visit included: Lisinopril, aspirin, nitrostat, 

and carvedilol. (Id.) 

 On July 29, 2014, Dr. Sharf completed a Residual Functional 

Capacity (“RFC”) Questionnaire for Plaintiff, in which he described 

Plaintiff’s diagnoses as: aortic dissection, hypertension, and chest pain. 

(Id. at 650.) There was no diagnosis of any mental impairments. (Id.) Dr. 

Sharf identified Plaintiff’s symptoms as: chest pain, angina, shortness of 

breath, fatigue, weakness, edema, nausea, palpitations, dizziness, and 

sweatiness, and indicated these symptoms were brought on by stress. (Id. 

at 650-51.) Dr. Sharf indicated that Plaintiff had marked limitations of 

physical activity and was incapable of even “low stress” jobs due to his 

aortic dissection. (Id. at 651.) Dr. Sharf also found that Plaintiff’s physical 

symptoms led to emotional difficulties including depression, which in turn 

contributed to the severity to Plaintiff’s subjective symptoms and functional 

limitations. (Id.) 

Dr. Sharf opined that during a typical work day, Plaintiff’s cardiac 

symptoms were constantly (meaning more than 66% of an 8-hour workday) 

severe enough to interfere with attention and concentration needed to 

perform even simple work tasks. (Id.) Dr. Sharf indicated the following with 

Case 3:16-cv-02237-WQH-JMA Document 18 Filed 07/27/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 5 of 21
6 

16-cv-02237-WQH-JMA

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

respect to Plaintiff’s functional limitations in a competitive work situation: 

(a) He was unable to walk even one city block without rest or severe pain, 

(b) he could not sit even two hours in an 8-hour workday and could not 

stand/walk for two hours in an 8-hour workday, (c) he needed a job that 

permitted shifting positions from sitting to standing at will, (d) he would 

need to take unscheduled breaks during an 8-hour workday, (e) he could 

never lift even weights less than 10 lbs, (f) he could never twist, stoop, 

crouch, climb ladders, or climb stairs, and (g) he needed to avoid all 

exposure to extreme cold, extreme heat, high humidity, wetness, cigarette 

smoke, perfumes, soldering fluxes, solvents/cleaners, fumes/odors, dust, 

and chemicals. (Id. at 652-53.) Dr. Sharf estimated that Plaintiff would 

likely be absent for more than four days per month due to his impairments 

and noted he was “unable to work.” (Id.) 

D. Amy L. Kanner, M.D., Examining Physician (May 2013) 

 Plaintiff presented to Dr. Amy Kanner for an internal medicine

examination on May 13, 2013. (Id. at 558.) He complained of chest pain, 

shortness of breath, hypertension, eye problems, and abdominal aortic 

dissection. (Id.) Dr. Kanner observed Plaintiff to be a well-developed, wellnourished, obese male in no acute distress. (Id. at 560.) She observed 

Plaintiff to have no problem getting in and out of a chair and noted no 

apparent ataxia or dyspnea. (Id.) Dr. Kanner conducted a full physical 

examination, which resulted in mostly normal findings. (See id. at 560-64.) 

Her functional assessment was that Plaintiff could lift and carry 20 pounds 

occasionally and 10 pounds frequently, could stand or walk for 6 hours of 

an 8 hour work day, and could sit for 6 hours of an 8 hour work day. (Id. at 

564.) Dr. Kanner believed Plaintiff’s limitations were due to his history of 

Case 3:16-cv-02237-WQH-JMA Document 18 Filed 07/27/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 6 of 21
7 

16-cv-02237-WQH-JMA

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

abdominal aortic dissection. (Id.)

E. Gitane Patel, M.D., Ophthalmologist (May 2013) 

 Plaintiff presented to ophthalmologist Dr. Gitane Patel for an eye 

examination on May 20, 2013. (Id. at 571.) Dr. Patel found that Plaintiff 

had 20/20 visual acuity in both eyes. (Id.) Dr. Patel suggested that his 

visual disturbances were likely the result of migraine headaches and 

recommended evaluation by a neurologist. (Id. at 572.) 

F. Dan Whitehead, Ph.D. (April 2013 – June 2013) 

 Plaintiff presented to Dr. Dan Whitehead for a mental status 

evaluation on June 17, 2013. (Id. at 578.) Plaintiff told Dr. Whitehead that 

the reason for his social security claim was because he had an aortic 

dissection and because his “memory is shot.” (Id.) Dr. Whitehead 

extracted a brief history from Plaintiff, and then conducted a mental status 

evaluation and various psychological and neuropsychological tests. (See 

id. at 578-83.) 

Plaintiff was fully alert and coherent during the evaluation and was 

oriented to time, space, place, person, and situation. (Id. at 580.) Plaintiff 

demonstrated a good ability to remember recent events and circumstances 

in his life. (Id.) Plaintiff appeared neat and clean, well groomed and 

presentable. (Id.) He was able to perform “Serial 7’s” (a concentration 

test) at a good ability level. (Id.) Motor activity, speech, mood, and affect 

were all within normal levels. (Id.) Plaintiff was able to spell WORLD 

correctly backwards and forwards, was able to perform basic 

addition/subtraction and multiplication/division in his head, and was able to 

identify similarities between items. (Id.) Plaintiff did not have any issues 

with comprehension of test instructions. (Id. at 581.) He did not show any 

Case 3:16-cv-02237-WQH-JMA Document 18 Filed 07/27/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 7 of 21
8 

16-cv-02237-WQH-JMA

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

signs of problems with his thought processes. (Id.) 

The Trails A&B test conducted by Dr. Whitehead indicated no 

impairment. (Id.) On the Wechsler Memory Scales-4 test, Plaintiff had an 

immediate memory index score of 75 (5th percentile, borderline), a delayed 

memory score of 80 (9th percentile, low average), an auditory memory 

score of 81 (10th percentile, low average), and a visual memory score of 79 

(8th percentile, borderline). (Id.) 

Dr. Whitehead made the following assessment of Plaintiff based on 

his psychological testing and mental evaluation: 

.... 

Based on the memory and cognitive abilities 

demonstrated by the claimant during this evaluation, he 

seems capable of performing a variety of work activities 

that require simple tasks at a constant level of 

performance. Persons with intelligence and memory 

functions in the borderline range and above are typically 

able to perform a wide variety of simple work functions of 

a constant nature, as long as there are no other major 

problems or concerns. 

(Id. at 582.) 

G. Centro Medico (March 2012 – August 2013) 

 Between March 2012 and August 2013, Plaintiff presented to Centro 

Medico a number of times. (See id. at 622-35.) These visits were made in 

order to obtain ophthalmologist, cardiologist, and dental referrals, as well 

as x-rays. (See id.) 

H. Neighborhood Healthcare (July 2014 – September 2014) 

 On July 16, 2014, Plaintiff presented to Dr. Nathan McFarland at 

Neighborhood Healthcare regarding his hernia. (Id. at 664.) Plaintiff reported 

Case 3:16-cv-02237-WQH-JMA Document 18 Filed 07/27/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 8 of 21
9 

16-cv-02237-WQH-JMA

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

no feelings of depression. (Id.) He did, however, report daily knee pain and 

occasional swelling in his right knee, along with migraines, heartburn, and 

hypertension. (Id.) After examining Plaintiff, Dr. McFarland made the following 

assessments: (1) hypertension, (2) aortic dissection, (3) right knee meniscal 

tear, (4) epigastric hernia, and (5) atypical mole. (Id. at 665-66.) On August 21, 

2014, Plaintiff again presented to Dr. McFarland for a follow-up on labs. (Id. at 

658.) Plaintiff complained of anxiety since his surgery and consequently, Dr. 

McFarland added anxiety to his assessment of Plaintiff. (Id. at 658, 661.) 

 On September 19, 2014, Plaintiff presented to social worker Enzo Arya for 

a behavioral follow-up for depression and anxiety. (Id. at 671.) Plaintiff 

reported depressed mood more days than not, constant fatigue, difficulty 

concentrating, irritability and anger, excessive worrying, anxiety, and inability to 

feel pleasure. (Id. at 671.) Arya performed a mental examination of Plaintiff 

and made the following assessments: (1) major depressive disorder, recurrent 

episode, moderate and (2) anxiety disorder due to medical condition. (Id. at 

671-72.) 

III. THE ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING 

The ALJ conducted an administrative hearing on November 14, 2014. 

(Id. at 48-70.) 

A. Plaintiff’s Testimony 

 Plaintiff testified that until January 2012, he had worked as a home 

inspector. (Id. at 53.) He stopped working in January 2012 due to 

problems arising from an aortic dissection and the subsequent surgery. (Id. 

at 53-54.) Plaintiff testified he experiences shortness of breath and has 

trouble walking and sitting for long periods of time. (Id. at 55.) He 

attributed the walking trouble to his shortness of breath, though he had not 

Case 3:16-cv-02237-WQH-JMA Document 18 Filed 07/27/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 9 of 21
10 

16-cv-02237-WQH-JMA

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

taken any medication for this. (Id. at 55-56.) He testified that he could not 

lift at all due to a hernia in his chest area, for which he was scheduled to 

have surgery in 2015. (Id. at 57.) 

 Plaintiff testified to having sleep issues, specifically sleep apnea, 

though he did not have or use a CPAP machine for this. (Id.) Plaintiff also 

suffered from an inability to sleep through the night, because he was 

awakened by pain in his sternum and hips, and because he had a fear of 

not waking up. (Id. at 60.) He did not feel rested when he woke in the 

morning and testified he must lie down during the day for up to three to four 

hours. (Id. at 60-61.) 

 Plaintiff then testified about his daily activities. He lives with his 

sister, who treats him like a heart patient because their mother died from a 

heart attack. (Id. at 58.) Plaintiff testified he does not have trouble 

dressing himself, except when it comes to putting on shoes and socks, 

because bending over is difficult. (Id. at 58-59.) He does not socialize with 

friends and does not go out to eat or for entertainment. (Id. at 61.) He 

testified he enjoyed fishing, though he had not gone for three or four years. 

(Id.) Plaintiff rarely left the house alone. (Id. at 63.) 

 Plaintiff testified he was seeing a psychologist for depression and 

anxiety. (Id. at 61-62.) This treatment involved mostly just talking, though 

Plaintiff had also been taking a low dose of Zoloft. (Id.) Plaintiff 

complained of bowel problems, which he thought may be either a side 

effect of the Zoloft or possibly Crohn’s disease, though he had not been 

evaluated for Crohn’s. (Id. at 62-63.) Plaintiff also testified to having had 

knee problems for a couple of years, for which he believed he would soon 

need to have surgery. (See id. at 63-64.) However, he indicated he was 

Case 3:16-cv-02237-WQH-JMA Document 18 Filed 07/27/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 10 of

 21
11 

16-cv-02237-WQH-JMA

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

going to try and alleviate those problems through physical therapy to avoid 

the surgery. (Id. at 65.) Plaintiff stated he had problems with his left 

shoulder, and could not reach for or lift things without pain. (Id.) He could 

not even reach for a cereal box with his left arm. (Id.) Furthermore, 

Plaintiff testified he had numbness and tingling in his legs, though he was 

uncertain as to the cause. (Id.) 

 Finally, Plaintiff testified regarding his memory and concentration 

issues. (See id. at 64.) He testified that since his aortic dissection surgery, 

he has had an inability to remember certain things, such as things he 

learned in school, including measurements and the like. (Id.) Plaintiff 

stated his concentration was lowered, such that he could not watch TV for 

too long without changing the channel. (Id.) He also testified that he felt he 

could work, but no more than two hours at a time, because he felt that 

beyond two hours, he would not be able to breathe, because of “too many 

people.” (Id.) 

B. Vocational Expert Testimony 

Vocational Expert (“VE”) Gloria Lasoff testified at the administrative 

hearing. Ms. Lasoff identified Plaintiff’s past work as inspector as light 

work. (Id. at 67.) The ALJ then presented the following hypothetical: 

.... 

Assume in hypothetical number 1 we have a 

younger individual. This individual has a 12th grade 

education, is literate, speaks English and the work 

experience as outlined by yourself. Hypothetical number 

1, this person can sit six hours in an eight-hour day, stand 

and walk six hours in an eight-hour day; can occasionally 

lift 20 pounds, frequently lift ten pounds; can occasionally 

climb stairs; should never climb ladders, scaffolds, ropes; 

can occasionally balance, stoop, kneel, crouch and crawl. 

Case 3:16-cv-02237-WQH-JMA Document 18 Filed 07/27/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 11 of

 21
12 

16-cv-02237-WQH-JMA

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

 This person can occasionally reach overhead with 

the left upper extremity; should have no concentrated 

exposure to unprotected heights, dangerous or fastmoving machinery; should have no concentrated 

exposure to vibrations. Based on that hypothetical would 

he be able to return to past work? 

(Id. at 67-68.) Ms. Lasoff replied that such a hypothetical individual would 

not be able to return to Plaintiff’s past work. (Id. at 68.) The ALJ then 

inquired whether there were other jobs in the labor market this person 

could perform. (Id.) Ms. Lasoff replied that there were: assembler, hand 

packager, and cashier, all of which consisted of light work. (Id.) 

 The ALJ then posed a second hypothetical: someone who because of 

difficulty with concentration would be off task 20 percent of the day. (Id.) 

Ms. Lasoff stated that such a person would be incapable of performing any 

work, including the above mentioned jobs. (Id.) In response to the ALJ’s 

third hypothetical, someone who, because of pain or concentration 

problems, would miss three or more days per month from work, Ms. Lasoff 

stated that such a person would be unemployable. (Id. at 68-69.) 

Plaintiff’s attorney then posed a fourth hypothetical: a person who could 

only sit for a total of two hours out of eight and could only stand and walk 

for a total of two hours out of eight. (Id.) Ms. Lasoff replied that such a 

person would be unemployable. (Id.) 

IV. THE ALJ DECISION 

 After reviewing the record, ALJ Dietterle made the following findings: 

.... 

1. The claimant meets the insured status requirements of 

the Social Security Act through June 30, 2013. 

Case 3:16-cv-02237-WQH-JMA Document 18 Filed 07/27/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 12 of

 21
13 

16-cv-02237-WQH-JMA

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

2. The claimant has not engaged in substantial gainful 

activity since January 10, 2012, the alleged onset date 

[citation omitted]. 

3. The claimant has the following severe impairments: 

aortic aneurysm, right knee medial meniscus tear, and left 

shoulder derangement [citation omitted]. 

4. The claimant does not have an impairment or 

combination of impairments that meets or medically 

equals the severity of one of the listed impairments in 20 

CFR Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1 [citation omitted]. 

5. After careful consideration of the entire record, the 

undersigned finds that the claimant has the residual 

functional capacity to perform light work as defined in 20 

CFR 404.1567(b) and 416.967(b) with the following 

limitations: the claimant can sit 6 hours in an 8 hour work 

day; stand and walk 6 hours in an 8 hour work day; 

occasionally lift 20 pounds; frequently lift 10 pounds; 

occasionally climb stairs; never climb ladders, scaffolds, 

or ropes; occasionally balance, stoop, kneel, crouch, 

crawl, occasionally reach over head with the left upper 

extremity; no concentrated exposure to unprotected 

heights, dangerous or fast moving machinery; and no 

concentrated exposure to vibrations. 

6. The claimant is unable to perform any past relevant 

work [citation omitted]. 

7. The claimant was born on June 16, 1969 and was 42 

years old, which is defined as a younger individual age 

18-49, on the alleged disability onset date [citation 

omitted]. 

8. The claimant has at least a high school education and 

is able to communicate in English [citation omitted]. 

9. The claimant has acquired work skills from past 

Case 3:16-cv-02237-WQH-JMA Document 18 Filed 07/27/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 13 of

 21
14 

16-cv-02237-WQH-JMA

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

relevant work [citation omitted]. 

10. Considering the claimant’s age, education, work 

experience, and residual functional capacity, the claimant 

has acquired work skills from past relevant work that are 

transferable to other occupations with jobs existing in 

significant numbers in the national economy [citation 

omitted] . . . Accordingly, although the claimant’s 

additional limitations do not allow the claimant to perform 

the full range of light work, considering the claimant’s age, 

education and transferable work skills, a finding of “not 

disabled” is appropriate under the framework of MedicalVocational Rule 202.22. 

11. The claimant has not been under a disability, as 

defined in the Social Security Act, from January 10, 2012, 

through the date of this decision [citation omitted]. 

(Id. at 28-42.) 

V. STANDARD OF REVIEW 

 To qualify for disability benefits under the Social Security Act, an 

applicant must show: (1) He or she suffers from a medically determinable 

impairment that can be expected to result in death or that has lasted or can 

be expected to last for a continuous period of twelve months or more, and 

(2) the impairment renders the applicant incapable of performing the work 

that he or she previously performed or any other substantially gainful 

employment that exists in the national economy. See 42 U.S.C. § 

423(d)(1)(A), (2)(A). An applicant must meet both requirements to be 

“disabled.” Id. Further, the applicant bears the burden of proving that he or 

she was either permanently disabled or subject to a condition which 

became so severe as to disable the applicant prior to the date upon which 

his or her disability insured status expired. Johnson v. Shalala, 60 F.3d 

Case 3:16-cv-02237-WQH-JMA Document 18 Filed 07/27/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 14 of

 21
15 

16-cv-02237-WQH-JMA

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

1428, 1432 (9th Cir. 1995). 

A. Sequential Evaluation of Impairments 

 The Social Security Regulations outline a five-step process to

determine whether an applicant is "disabled." The five steps are as follows: 

(1) Whether the claimant is presently working in any substantial gainful 

activity. If so, the claimant is not disabled. If not, the evaluation proceeds 

to step two. (2) Whether the claimant’s impairment is severe. If not, the 

claimant is not disabled. If so, the evaluation proceeds to step three. (3) 

Whether the impairment meets or equals a specific impairment listed in the 

Listing of Impairments. If so, the claimant is disabled. If not, the evaluation 

proceeds to step four. (4) Whether the claimant is able to do any work he 

has done in the past. If so, the claimant is not disabled. If not, the 

evaluation continues to step five. (5) Whether the claimant is able to do 

any other work. If not, the claimant is disabled. Conversely, if the 

Commissioner can establish there are a significant number of jobs in the 

national economy that the claimant can do, the claimant is not disabled. 20 

C.F.R. § 404.1520; see also Tackett v. Apfel, 180 F.3d 1094, 1098-99 (9th 

Cir. 1999). 

B. Judicial Review 

 Sections 205(g) and 1631(c)(3) of the Social Security Act allow 

unsuccessful applicants to seek judicial review of the Commissioner's final 

agency decision. 42 U.S.C.A. §§ 405(g), 1383(c)(3). The scope of judicial 

review is limited. The Commissioner’s final decision should not be 

disturbed unless: (1) The ALJ's findings are based on legal error or (2) are 

not supported by substantial evidence in the record as a whole. Schneider 

v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 223 F.3d 968, 973 (9th Cir. 2000). 

Case 3:16-cv-02237-WQH-JMA Document 18 Filed 07/27/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 15 of

 21
16 

16-cv-02237-WQH-JMA

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

Substantial evidence means “more than a mere scintilla but less than a 

preponderance; it is such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might 

accept as adequate to support a conclusion.” Andrews v. Shalala, 53 F.3d 

1035, 1039 (9th Cir. 1995). The Court must consider the record as a 

whole, weighing both the evidence that supports and detracts from the 

ALJ’s conclusion. See Mayes v. Massanari, 276 F.3d 453, 459 (9th Cir. 

2001); Desrosiers v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 846 F.2d 573, 576 

(9th Cir. 1988). “The ALJ is responsible for determining credibility, 

resolving conflicts in medical testimony, and for resolving ambiguities.” 

Vasquez v. Astrue, 572 F.3d 586, 591 (9th Cir. 2009) (citing Andrews, 53 

F.3d at 1039). Where the evidence is susceptible to more than one rational 

interpretation, the ALJ’s decision must be affirmed. Vasquez, 572 F.3d at 

591 (citation and quotations omitted). 

 Section 405(g) permits this Court to enter a judgment affirming, 

modifying, or reversing the Commissioner’s decision. 42 U.S.C.A. § 

405(g). The matter may also be remanded to the SSA for further

proceedings. Id. 

VI. DISCUSSION 

 Plaintiff contends the ALJ’s RFC assessment is improper because 

the ALJ failed to incorporate Plaintiff’s memory impairments. (Pl.’s Reply at 

2.) Plaintiff does not contend there was any error with respect to 

consideration of his physical impairments. (See Pl.’s Mem. at 5.) 

A. Plaintiff’s Memory Impairments 

Although Plaintiff had subjective complaints of memory loss, there is 

little in the record to indicate that these issues were disabling. In fact, 

these subjective complaints arose only on three occasions. First, on one of 

Case 3:16-cv-02237-WQH-JMA Document 18 Filed 07/27/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 16 of

 21
17 

16-cv-02237-WQH-JMA

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

several visits to Dr. Sharf, Plaintiff mentioned having trouble remembering 

things. (Admin. R. at 554.) However, Dr. Sharf’s assessment of Plaintiff 

did not include anything about Plaintiff’s memory. (Id. at 556.) Second, 

during a psychological examination by Dr. Dan Whitehead, Plaintiff stated 

his memory was “shot.” (Id. at 578.) Third, during the administrative 

hearing, when Plaintiff was asked about any memory problems, he stated 

this: “. . . [S]ince the surgery, I lack in some of the things that I learned from 

my actual schooling. . . . I just don’t remember measurements and stuff like 

that.” (Id. at 64.) 

In evaluating Plaintiff’s alleged memory impairment, the ALJ relied 

upon the findings of Dr. Whitehead, an examining physician, who

conducted a psychological examination of Plaintiff on June 17, 2013. 

(Admin. R. at 31-32.) During this examination, Plaintiff was fully alert and 

oriented, coherent, and well groomed. (Id. at 580.) Plaintiff was able to 

perform serial sevens and simple math calculations. (Id.) Plaintiff’s 

immediate memory was assessed to be in the borderline range, and his 

delayed memory and memory process in the low average range. (Id. at 

581.) Dr. Whitehead assessed Plaintiff’s GAF score at 65-75, indicating 

some mild symptoms. (Id.) Dr. Whitehead found Plaintiff would have very 

mild restrictions relating to concentration, persistence, and pace, but no 

significant limitations in his abilities to understand, carry out, and remember 

simple instructions and detailed tasks, or in responding appropriately to 

usual work conditions, changes in routine work setting, co-workers, 

supervisors, and the public. (Id. at 582.) Additionally, notwithstanding 

Plaintiff’s memory test results, which were in the borderline to low average 

range, and in which Plaintiff scored in the 10th percentile and below, Dr. 

Case 3:16-cv-02237-WQH-JMA Document 18 Filed 07/27/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 17 of

 21
18 

16-cv-02237-WQH-JMA

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

Whitehead stated, “Persons with intelligence and memory functions in the 

borderline range and above are typically able to perform a wide variety of 

simple work functions of a constant nature, as long as there are no other 

major problems or concerns.” (Id.) Based upon these findings by Dr. 

Whitehead, the ALJ assessed Plaintiff’s mental impairments, including his 

memory loss, to cause no more than minimal limitation. (Id. at 31.) The 

Court finds the ALJ did not err in his evaluation of the evidence of Plaintiff’s 

memory impairment and that substantial evidence – specifically Dr. 

Whitehead’s findings – supports the ALJ’s conclusion that Plaintiff’s 

memory impairment (in combination with his other mental impairments) 

caused no more than minimal limitation. See Andrews v. Shalala, 53 F.3d 

1035, 1041 (9th Cir. 1995) (stating that the opinion of an examining 

physician, if based on independent clinical findings, qualifies as substantial 

evidence upon which the ALJ can rely). 

Plaintiff argues the ALJ erred by not including Plaintiff’s memory 

function findings in his RFC assessment, and more specifically, that his 

borderline and low average memory function scores should have been 

included in the hypotheticals to the VE. (Pl.’s Reply at 2, 4.) The record 

establishes the ALJ did not include Plaintiff’s mild impairments of memory 

function in his RFC assessment and hypotheticals to the VE because he 

found these scores to indicate only minimal limitation. (See Admin. R. at 

31-33.) In so finding, he was not required to include these limitations in his 

hypotheticals to the VE. See, e.g., Martinez v. Heckler, 807 F.2d 771, 774 

(9th Cir. 1986) (stating that an ALJ has discretion, based on his review of 

the evidence, to determine the limitations set forth in a hypothetical). 

Furthermore, Plaintiff cites no authority to support his contention that 

Case 3:16-cv-02237-WQH-JMA Document 18 Filed 07/27/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 18 of

 21
19 

16-cv-02237-WQH-JMA

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

memory scores in the low average and borderline range limit a person’s 

ability to work more than minimally, and the evidence in the record reflects 

that a person with memory function scores in Plaintiff’s range is capable of 

“simple work functions of a constant nature.” (See Pl.’s Mem. at 6-10; Pl.’s 

Reply at 2-5; Admin. R. at 582.) The Court therefore finds the ALJ did not 

err by not including Plaintiff’s minimal limitations relating to memory 

function in his determination of Plaintiff’s RFC and in the hypotheticals 

posed to the VE. 

B. Harmless Error

Harmless error principles have long been recognized to apply in

Social Security cases. Molina v. Astrue, 674 F.3d 1104, 1115 (9th Cir. 

2012). The general principle for these cases is that an ALJ’s error is 

harmless where, looking at the record as a whole, the error does not alter 

the outcome of the case or the ultimate nondisability determination. (Id.; 

see also Mangan v. Colvin, 2014 WL 4267496, at *1 (N.D. Ill., Aug. 28, 

2014) (recognizing that courts may address issues sua sponte in Social 

Security cases). Here, assuming arguendo the ALJ did commit error by 

failing to properly consider Plaintiff’s memory loss, it is harmless error. The 

ALJ determined that Plaintiff was capable of performing light, unskilled 

work. (Admin. R. at 42; see also 20 C.F.R. pt. 404, subpt. P, app. 2, 

§ 202.22 (Medical-Vocational Guideline referring to unskilled light work).) 

Unskilled work is defined as: “[W]ork which needs little or no judgment to 

do simple duties that can be learned on the job in a short period of time . . . 

a person can usually learn to do the job in 30 days, and little specific 

vocational preparation and judgment are needed.” 20 C.F.R. 

§ 404.1568(a). Here, the ALJ found Plaintiff’s mental impairments do not 

Case 3:16-cv-02237-WQH-JMA Document 18 Filed 07/27/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 19 of

 21
20 

16-cv-02237-WQH-JMA

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

cause more than minimal limitation in his ability to perform basic mental 

work activities. (Admin. R. at 31.) In his assessment of Plaintiff’s mental 

impairments, the ALJ noted that Dr. Whitehead, the examining physician 

who evaluated Plaintiff’s mental impairments, stated Plaintiff would be able 

to understand, carry out, and remember simple instructions and detailed 

tasks and would have no limitations in responding appropriately to coworkers, supervisors, or the public. (Id. at 32.) Dr. Whitehead also stated 

more generally, “Persons with intelligence and memory functions in the 

borderline range . . . are typically able to perform a wide variety of simple 

work functions of a constant nature . . .” (Id. at 582.) This appears to be 

consistent with work that is “unskilled.” Even if the ALJ’s assessment of 

Plaintiff’s RFC had included Plaintiff’s borderline to low average memory 

function, Plaintiff has provided no authority to support the contention that 

this would preclude him from performing unskilled work. (See Pl.’s Mem. at 

6-10; Pl.’s Reply at 2-5; see also Bustamante v. Astrue, 2009 WL 112947, 

at *6 (W.D. Wash. Jan. 13, 2009) (upholding ALJ’s determination that a 

plaintiff with memory problems was able to perform unskilled work).) 

Therefore, the Court finds that any error in the omission of Plaintiff’s 

memory impairment in the ALJ’s RFC assessment is harmless error, 

because its inclusion would not alter the outcome of the ultimate 

determination that Plaintiff is not disabled. 

VII. CONCLUSION 

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

judgment should be DENIED and Defendant’s cross-motion for summary 

judgment should be GRANTED. 

 This report and recommendation will be submitted to the Honorable 

Case 3:16-cv-02237-WQH-JMA Document 18 Filed 07/27/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 20 of

 21
21 

16-cv-02237-WQH-JMA

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

William Q. Hayes, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Any 

party may file written objections with the Court and serve a copy on all 

parties on or before August 18, 2017. The document should be captioned 

“Objections to Report and Recommendation.” Any reply to the Objections 

shall be served and filed on or before September 1, 2017. The parties are 

advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the 

right to appeal the district court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 

(9th Cir. 1991). 

Dated: July 27, 2017 

Case 3:16-cv-02237-WQH-JMA Document 18 Filed 07/27/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 21 of

 21