Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_15-cv-00807/USCOURTS-azd-2_15-cv-00807-0/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 (SSID)

---

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

WO 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Lance Nelson Goodman, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Carolyn W. Colvin, Acting Commissioner 

of Social Security, 

Defendant. 

No. CV-15-00807-PHX-JAT

ORDER 

 Pending before the Court is Plaintiff Lance Nelson Goodman’s appeal from the 

Social Security Commissioner’s denial of his application for disability insurance benefits 

under Title II of the Social Security Act. The Court now rules on Plaintiff’s appeal. 

I. Background 

 A. Procedural Background

 On February 9, 2012, Plaintiff filed an application for disability insurance benefits 

under Title II of the Social Security Act, alleging that he had been unable to work since 

November 30, 2010. (Tr. 145).1

 Plaintiff’s claims were initially denied on July 17, 2012, 

(Tr. 92), and upon reconsideration on January 22, 2013, (Tr. 98). Thereafter, Plaintiff 

timely requested a hearing, (Tr. 101), which was conducted by Administrative Law Judge 

(“ALJ”) Joan G. Knight on June 25, 2013 in Phoenix, Arizona, (Tr. 34). On August 30, 

2013, the ALJ issued a decision finding that Plaintiff suffered from ventricular 

 

1

 Citations to “Tr.” are to the certified administrative transcript of record. (Doc. 13). 

Case 2:15-cv-00807-JAT Document 20 Filed 08/09/16 Page 1 of 32
- 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 

tachycardia with ICD implant, status post left shoulder repair of rotator cuff tear and 

bicep tenosynovitis, and obesity. (Tr. 17). However, the ALJ found that Plaintiff was not 

disabled under the Social Security Act because he retained the Residual Functional 

Capacity (“RFC”) to perform jobs that exist in significant numbers in the national 

economy. (Tr. 26). Accordingly, the ALJ rendered an unfavorable decision denying 

Plaintiff disability insurance benefits. (Tr. 26–27).2

 After Plaintiff’s request for review of this decision by the Social Security 

Administration Appeals Council was denied on March 19, 2015, (Tr. 1, 5), he 

commenced this action in Federal Court on May 4, 2015, (Doc. 1). Plaintiff appeals the 

final decision of the ALJ under Title 42 of the United States Code Section 405(g), 

alleging “that the denial of his disability claim is not supported by substantial 

evidence[.]” (Id. at 2). In Plaintiff’s opening brief (the “Brief”), Plaintiff argues that the 

ALJ erred by: 1) improperly finding Plaintiff’s mental impairments were non-severe, 

resulting in the omission of any mental work-related limitations from Plaintiff’s RFC; 

2) making an improper credibility finding; and 3) relying on vocational expert (“VE”) 

testimony inconsistent with the Dictionary of Occupational Titles (“DOT”). (Doc. 14 at 

3). Accordingly, Plaintiff asks that the Court reverse the denial of his claim, and remand 

for further administrative proceedings. (Doc. 1 at 2). In opposition, Defendant filed a 

Response Brief contending that “[s]ubstantial evidence supports the ALJ’s decision that 

Plaintiff is not disabled under the Social Security Act.” (Doc. 17 at 12). Accordingly, 

Defendant asks that the Court “affirm the ALJ’s decision.” (Id.) 

 B. Plaintiff’s Background 

 Plaintiff was born on December 31, 1959 and lives with his wife. (Tr. 36, 198). 

 

2

 After examining the certified administrative transcript of record as well as the documents e-filed by the parties in the instant appeal, the Court notes there are two inconsequential discrepancies between the dates stated in the ALJ’s decision and the 

dates indicated in the rest of the record. Specifically, in the section of its decision entitled 

‘Jurisdiction and Procedural History,’ the ALJ asserts that Plaintiff’s claim was initially denied on July 16, 2012, (Tr. 14), whereas the record indicates that this claim was 

actually denied a day later on July 17, 2012, (Tr. 92). Further, the ALJ attests that 

Plaintiff’s claim was denied upon reconsideration on January 1, 2013, (Tr. 14), while the 

record states that this claim was denied on reconsideration on January 22, 2013, (Tr. 98). 

Case 2:15-cv-00807-JAT Document 20 Filed 08/09/16 Page 2 of 32
- 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 

Although he did not graduate high school, Plaintiff does have his GED. (Tr. 36–37). 

Plaintiff also completed vocational school training in auto mechanics, (Tr. 37), but “has 

no further education or specialized job training[,]” (Tr. 222). Plaintiff previously worked 

in masonry since 1988, serving as a mason tender, a masonry operator, and a laborer. 

(Tr. 163). However, Plaintiff contends that he “can no longer do this type of work” 

because of his medical conditions. (Tr. 174). Accordingly, Plaintiff “has been unable to 

sustain gainful employment since November 30, 2010,” the date on which he was laid off 

from his job in the construction industry. (Tr. 37, 222). 

 Currently, Plaintiff does not have any income, and receives public-assistance in 

the form of food stamps. (Doc. 2 at 1–2). On an average day, Plaintiff watches between 

twelve to fifteen hours of television, eats, goes for short walks, plays board games, and 

uses his computer. (Tr. 41, 198, 316). Plaintiff does not grocery shop or do any household 

chores, (Tr. 199), but does prepare meals for himself, (Tr. 280). Plaintiff can also drive, 

but “not long periods.” (Tr. 316).3

 Alleging that his injuries and conditions affect 

“virtually every aspect” of his day, Plaintiff relies on his wife to assist him with most 

tasks and contends that he spends the majority of his time “in the house due to limited 

mobility and range of motion.” (Tr. 196). Nevertheless, Plaintiff is able to care for his 

basic hygiene and bathe himself. (Tr. 41). Plaintiff states that “he has no friends,” and 

that he tries “to refrain from seeing people.” (Tr. 316). Now, he primarily only interacts 

with his wife. (Tr. 280). 

 C. Plaintiff’s Medical Background 

 On June 25, 2013, Plaintiff appeared before the ALJ regarding his alleged 

 

3

 There are multiple discrepancies between Plaintiff’s first and second Exertional 

Daily Activities Questionnaires. Plaintiff’s first Exertional Daily Activities Questionnaire, dated May 28, 2012, indicates he sleeps four to five hours a day, and naps two or three times daily. (Tr. 186). However, in Plaintiff’s second Exertional Daily Activities Questionnaire, dated November 8, 2012, Plaintiff indicated that he is sleep deprived, does not nap, and only sleeps for three or four hours. (Tr. 199). When asked 

how far he can drive at one time, Plaintiff indicates in the first Exertional Daily Activities Questionnaire that he has to get out of the car if he drives “more than one hour or so.” 

(Tr. 186). However, in response to the same question in the second questionnaire, Plaintiff states, “I can not [sic] sit for more than 20 minetes [sic] at a time.” (Tr. 199). 

Case 2:15-cv-00807-JAT Document 20 Filed 08/09/16 Page 3 of 32
- 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 

disability of cardiac problems, shoulder condition, depression, and substance abuse. 

(Tr. 34–57). In regard to Plaintiff’s alleged heart condition, Plaintiff was admitted for 

ventricular tachycardia, due to cocaine and alcohol abuse, in November of 2010. 

(Tr. 239–40). As a result of this condition, Plaintiff had surgery to install an implantable 

cardioverter defibrillator (“ICD”) “for secondary prevention in the setting of prior 

cocaine and alcohol abuse.” (Tr. 239). Plaintiff denied “any cardiac complaints” at his 

follow-up in December of 2010, (Tr. 240), and did not return for treatment until March 

2011, at which time he was readmitted to the hospital as a result of his ICD discharging 

multiple times, (Tr. 246, 253). At his follow-up appointments in April and July of 2011, 

Plaintiff reported that he was doing much better and had no further ICD discharges. 

(Tr. 237–38). Although Plaintiff presented in September of 2011 with atypical chest pain, 

Plaintiff’s ICD had not discharged. (Tr. 236). In October of 2011, Plaintiff’s stress 

echocardiogram indicated Plaintiff had “fair exercise tolerance” for his age and 

concluded that there was “no 2D echocardiographic evidence of inducible ischemia to 

achieve[] workload.” (Tr. 332). 

 Following these visits, Plaintiff did not return to see a cardiologist until July of 

2012, where it was noted that Plaintiff had not had any further ICD discharges but did 

have some fatigue after eating, “likely a side effect” of his prescribed medication. 

(Tr. 325). From July 2012 until the date of his hearing in June 2013, Plaintiff did not 

return for any follow up appointments with his cardiologists. (Tr. 22). However, Plaintiff 

did go to the emergency room “with a complaint of a possible near syncopal episode.” 

(Tr. 439). At this visit, Plaintiff refused admission against medical advice after his “chest 

x-ray revealed ‘no evidence of active pulmonary disease,’ an EKG revealed normal sinus 

rhythm and no acute ST changes were noted.” (Tr. 22) (citations omitted). Plaintiff stated 

at his hearing that he has unpredictable attacks every day, (Tr. 42), where he starts to feel 

dizzy and feels blood running through his chest until the defibrillator “settles it down[,]” 

(Tr. 47).4

 

4

 One reviewing physician has attributed these symptoms as possible side effects 

Case 2:15-cv-00807-JAT Document 20 Filed 08/09/16 Page 4 of 32
- 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 

 In regard to his shoulder condition, Plaintiff had elective arthroscopic surgery to 

repair his left rotator cuff in November of 2011. (Tr. 243). At his follow up appointment 

in March 2012, Plaintiff reported his symptoms were better, rated his pain with “heavy 

activity” as only 1/10, and assessed his satisfaction with the surgery at 8/10. (Tr. 458). At 

this time, the reviewing physician noted Plaintiff’s shoulder was “getting better,” and that 

other than “occasional pain with heavy activity,” Plaintiff “is very happy.” (Tr. 458). 

Following this appointment, Plaintiff did not return for any subsequent treatment until 

May 2013, shortly before his hearing before the ALJ. (Tr. 457). At this visit, Plaintiff 

indicated that he “fe[lt] like his symptoms ha[d] worsened recently,” (Tr. 457), with pain 

aggravated by lifting and reaching motions, (Tr. 454). However, a reviewing physician 

noted that Plaintiff’s postoperative rotator cuff tear “appears stable.” (Tr. 309). Plaintiff 

specified at the ALJ proceedings that he now has “arthritis in [his] shoulders and [his] 

neck,” and needs back surgery as a result of chronic back pain. (Tr. 43, 307). Plaintiff 

was prescribed Percocet for the joint pain in his shoulder region. (Tr. 368). 

 Plaintiff also alleges to suffer additional impairment as a result of depression and 

anxiety, but has “never sought mental health treatment” at any out-patient or in-patient 

psychiatric facility. (Tr. 316). In the past, Plaintiff’s primary care provider and 

cardiologists consistently noted that Plaintiff had a “normal mood and affect.” (Tr. 18). 

Although Plaintiff contends he began to have difficulty with depression over the course 

of the past few years, (Tr. 315), the ALJ indicated that he was “never diagnosed until his 

primary care provider noted that he presented with disability paperwork,” (Tr. 18). 

Plaintiff attributes his depression to his medical issues, specifically because he has been 

unable to work, has gained weight as a result of his inability to do physical activities, and 

because his health continues to decline. (Tr. 281). Plaintiff states he is moody and that he 

has “just phased [himself] out of everything over the years.” (Tr. 315). While Plaintiff 

has contemplated suicide in the past, he has “not recently,” nor has he ever attempted to 

 

due to medication. (Tr. 309). Plaintiff himself has acknowledged that, “[t]he blood pressure medicine may be why I’m blacking out.” (Tr. 315). 

Case 2:15-cv-00807-JAT Document 20 Filed 08/09/16 Page 5 of 32
- 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 

take his life. (Tr. 315). Plaintiff’s primary care provider prescribed buspirone for 

Plaintiff’s nerves and anxiety. (Tr. 372). 

 While Plaintiff’s medical record illustrates that he has a history of alcohol abuse, 

Plaintiff stated at the ALJ proceedings on June 25, 2013 that he only occasionally drinks 

alcohol, “not even once a month,” due to his high blood pressure. (Tr. 45). However, 

when Plaintiff’s risk factors were reviewed at an appointment in May of 2013, Plaintiff 

confirmed that he drinks “six cans of beer” per week. (Tr. 455). Plaintiff also has a 

history of cocaine, marijuana and methamphetamine use, but contends that “his addiction 

is in the past.” (Tr. 226).5

 In regard to his cocaine use, Plaintiff stated at the hearing 

before the ALJ that he has been “clean and sober for two and a half years.” (Tr. 44). 

Regarding the ALJ’s question of whether drugs and alcohol were part of Plaintiff’s 

lifestyle today, Plaintiff responded, “You couldn’t pay me to do either one right now.” 

(Tr. 44). However, Plaintiff’s medical record demonstrates that he was drinking alcohol 

and smoking marijuana prior to being admitted to the hospital in March of 2011. (Tr. 62). 

Further, Plaintiff’s testimony at the proceedings before the ALJ is inconsistent with his 

medical record, as illustrated by the following exchange between the ALJ and Plaintiff: 

Q: Since November 2010, have you used any other drugs 

not prescribed by your doctors? 

A: No ma’am, high blood pressure medicine and painkillers. 

Q: The records indicate, though, in March 2011, you . . . tested positive for alcohol and marijuana. Any use of marijuana since November 2010? 

A: No. 

(Tr. 46). 

 In addition to the medical conditions listed above, Plaintiff has chronic tinnitus 

 

5

 In addition to an incarceration for a DUI at age 19, (Tr. 281), Plaintiff was once arrested “when [he] was caught with 800 pounds of marijuana in Arkansas[,]” (id.) As a 

result, Plaintiff spent time in prison in Arkansas. (Id.) Plaintiff was also “caught with raw cocaine,” for which he spent time in the Maricopa County prison facility. (Tr. 316). Plaintiff is not currently “under any legal sanctions” or on probation for any drug related crimes. (Tr. 157, 281). 

Case 2:15-cv-00807-JAT Document 20 Filed 08/09/16 Page 6 of 32
- 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 

associated with hearing loss. (Tr. 309). However, this condition “has not been alleged to 

cause any significant impairment of his ability to conduct work activity,” (Tr. 22), and, 

on physical examination, Plaintiff’s ears were found to be “normal,” (Tr. 232). Plaintiff 

has also been diagnosed as morbidly obese. (Tr. 309). 

II. Legal Standard 

 The ALJ’s decision to deny benefits will be overturned “only if it is not supported 

by substantial evidence or is based on legal error.” Magallanes v. Bowen, 881 F.2d 747, 

750 (9th Cir. 1989) (quotation omitted). “Substantial evidence” means more than a mere 

scintilla, but less than a preponderance; it is such “relevant evidence which a reasonable 

person might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.” Reddick v. Chater, 157 F.3d 

715, 720 (9th Cir. 1998). 

 In determining whether there is substantial evidence to support a decision, the 

Court considers the record as a whole, weighing both the evidence that supports the 

ALJ’s conclusions and the evidence that detracts from the ALJ’s conclusions. Reddick, 

157 F.3d at 720; see also Gallant v. Heckler, 753 F.2d 1450, 1453 (9th Cir. 1984) (“The 

inquiry here is whether the record, read as a whole, yields such evidence as would allow a 

reasonable mind to accept the conclusions reached by the ALJ.” (citation omitted)). 

“Where evidence is susceptible of more than one rational interpretation, it is the ALJ’s 

conclusion which must be upheld; and in reaching his findings, the ALJ is entitled to 

draw inferences logically flowing from the evidence.” Gallant, 753 F.2d at 1453 

(citations omitted); see Batson v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 359 F.3d 1190, 1193 (9th 

Cir. 2004). This is because “[t]he trier of fact and not the reviewing court must resolve 

conflicts in the 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); see Young v. Sullivan, 911 F.2d 180, 184 (9th Cir. 1990). 

 The ALJ is responsible for resolving conflicts in medical testimony, determining 

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

Cir. 1995). Thus, if on the whole record before the Court, substantial evidence supports 

Case 2:15-cv-00807-JAT Document 20 Filed 08/09/16 Page 7 of 32
- 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 

the Commissioner’s decision, the Court must affirm it. See Hammock v. Bowen, 879 F.2d 

498, 501 (9th Cir. 1989); see also 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). On the other hand, the Court “may 

not affirm simply by isolating a specific quantum of supporting evidence.” Orn v. Astrue, 

495 F.3d 625, 630 (9th Cir. 2007) (quotation omitted). 

 Notably, the Court is not charged with reviewing the evidence and making its own 

judgment as to whether Plaintiff is or is not disabled. Rather, the Court’s inquiry is 

constrained to the reasons asserted by the ALJ and the evidence relied upon in support of 

those reasons. See Connett v. Barnhart, 340 F.3d 871, 874 (9th Cir. 2003). 

 A. Definition of Disability

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

show that, among other things, he is “under a disability.” 42 U.S.C. § 423(a)(1)(E). The 

Social Security Act defines “disability” as the “inability to engage in any substantial 

gainful activity by reason of any medically determinable physical or mental impairment 

which can be expected to result in death or which has lasted or can be expected to last for 

a continuous period of not less than 12 months.” 42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(1)(A). A person is: 

under a disability only if his physical or mental impairment or impairments are of such severity that he is not only unable to do his previous work but cannot, considering his age, education, and work experience, engage in any other kind of substantial gainful work which exists in the national 

economy. 

42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(2)(A). 

 Disability has “a severity and durational requirement for recognition under the 

[Social Security] Act that accords with the remedial purpose of the Act.” Flaten v. Sec’y 

of Health & Human Servs., 44 F.3d 1453, 1459 (9th Cir. 1995). “A claimant bears the 

burden of proving that an impairment is disabling.” Matthews v. Shalala, 10 F.3d 678, 

680 (9th Cir. 1993) (quoting Miller v. Heckler, 770 F.2d 845, 849 (9th Cir. 1985)). “The 

mere existence of an impairment is insufficient proof of a disability.” Matthews, 10 F.3d 

at 680 (citing Sample v. Schweiker, 694 F.2d 639, 642–43 (9th Cir. 1982)). Rather, “[t]he 

applicant must show that he is precluded from engaging in not only his ‘previous work,’ 

but also from performing ‘any other kind of substantial gainful work’ due to such 

Case 2:15-cv-00807-JAT Document 20 Filed 08/09/16 Page 8 of 32
- 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 

impairment.” Id. (quoting 42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(2)(A)). 

 B. Five-Step Evaluation Process 

 The Social Security regulations set forth a five-step sequential process for 

evaluating disability claims. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4); see also Reddick, 157 F.3d at 

721. A finding of “not disabled” at any step in the sequential process will end the inquiry. 

20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4). The claimant bears the burden of proof at the first four steps, 

but the burden shifts to the Commissioner at the final step. Reddick, 157 F.3d at 721. The 

five steps are as follows: 

 First, the ALJ determines whether the claimant is “doing substantial gainful 

activity.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(i). If so, the claimant is not disabled. 

 Second, if the claimant is not gainfully employed, the ALJ next determines 

whether the claimant has a “severe medically determinable physical or mental 

impairment.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(ii). To be considered severe, the impairment 

must “significantly limit[] [the claimant’s] physical or mental ability to do basic work 

activities.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(c). Basic work activities are the “abilities and aptitudes 

to do most jobs,” such as lifting, carrying, reaching, understanding, carrying out and 

remembering simple instructions, responding appropriately to co-workers, and dealing 

with changes in routine. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1521(b). Further, the impairment must either 

have lasted for “a continuous period of at least twelve months,” be expected to last for 

such a period, or be expected “to result in death.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1509 (incorporated by 

reference in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(ii)). The “step-two inquiry is a de minimis

screening device to dispose of groundless claims.” Smolen v. Chater, 80 F.3d 1273, 1290 

(9th Cir. 1996). If the claimant does not have a severe impairment, then the claimant is 

not disabled. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(c). 

 Third, having found a severe impairment, the ALJ next determines whether the 

impairment “meets or equals” one of the impairments listed in the regulations. 20 C.F.R. 

§ 404.1520(a)(4)(iii). If so, the claimant is found disabled without further inquiry into the 

claimant’s age, education, and work experience. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(d). If not, before 

Case 2:15-cv-00807-JAT Document 20 Filed 08/09/16 Page 9 of 32
- 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 

proceeding to the next step, the ALJ will make a finding regarding the claimant’s RFC 

“based on all the relevant medical and other evidence in [the] case record.” 20 C.F.R.

§ 404.1520(e). A claimant’s RFC is the most he can still do despite the effects of all the 

claimant’s medically determinable impairments, including those that are not severe. 20 

C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(1). 

 At step four, the ALJ determines whether, despite the impairments, the claimant 

can still perform “past relevant work.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(iv). To make this 

determination, the ALJ compares its “residual functional capacity assessment . . . with the 

physical and mental demands of [the claimant’s] past relevant work.” 20 C.F.R. 

§ 404.1520(f). If the claimant can still perform the kind of work he previously did, the 

claimant is not disabled. 20 C.F.R. § 1520(a)(iv). Otherwise, the ALJ proceeds to the 

final step. 

 At the final, fifth step, the ALJ determines whether the claimant “can make an 

adjustment to other work” that exists in the national economy. 20 C.F.R. 

§ 404.1520(a)(4)(v). In making this determination, the ALJ considers the claimant’s RFC 

and his “age, education, and work experience.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(g)(1). If the 

claimant can perform other work, he is not disabled. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(v). If the 

claimant cannot perform other work, he will be found disabled. 

 In evaluating the claimant’s disability under this five-step process, the ALJ must 

consider all evidence in the case record. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(3); 20 C.F.R. 

§ 404.1520b. This includes medical opinions, records, self-reported symptoms, and thirdparty reporting. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527; 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529; SSR 06–3p, 71 Fed. 

Reg. 45593-03. 

C. The ALJ’s Evaluation under the Five-Step Process 

 In step one of the sequential evaluation process, the ALJ found that Plaintiff had 

not engaged in substantial gainful activity since his alleged onset date of November 30, 

2010. (Tr. 16). At step two, the ALJ concluded that Plaintiff had the following severe 

medically determinable impairments: “ventricular tachycardia with ICD implant; status 

Case 2:15-cv-00807-JAT Document 20 Filed 08/09/16 Page 10 of 32
- 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 

post left shoulder repair of rotator cuff tear and bicep tenosynovitis; and obesity.” 

(Tr. 17). The ALJ deemed these impairments “severe” because they had caused and 

would continue to cause “more than minimal work-related functional limitations.” (Id.)

At step three, the ALJ determined that Plaintiff’s impairments, singly and in combination, 

did not meet or medically equal the severity of the impairments listed in the Social 

Security regulations. (Tr. 19). 

 Before moving on to step four, the ALJ conducted an RFC determination after 

careful consideration of the entire record, including Plaintiff’s testimony and the 

objective medical evidence. (Tr. 20). The ALJ found that Plaintiff “has the residual 

functional capacity to perform light work.” (Id.) Consequently, the ALJ stated that: 

[T]he claimant is able to occasionally lift and carry 20 

pounds, frequently lift and carry 10 pounds, and is unlimited in his ability to push or pull other than for weight limits suggested. He can sit, or stand/walk each activity for about 6 out of 8 hours, with normal breaks. The claimant is also able 

to occasionally crawl, but should never be required to climb ladders, ropes, or scaffolds, and can frequently climb ramps, stairs, stoop, kneel and crouch. He can occasionally reach 

overhead with the nondominant left upper extremity. He must avoid concentrated exposure to hazards including moving machinery and unprotected heights. 

(Id.)

At step four, the ALJ found that Plaintiff could not perform “any past relevant 

work.” (Tr. 25). Finally, the ALJ concluded at step five that based on Plaintiff’s RFC, 

age, education, and work experience, Plaintiff could perform significant numbers of jobs 

existing in the national economy including fast food worker, cashier, and car wash 

attendant. (Tr. 25–26). Consequently, the ALJ found that Plaintiff was not disabled under 

the Social Security Act. (Tr. 26). 

III. Analysis 

 Plaintiff makes three main arguments for why the Court should set aside the ALJ’s 

decision. Specifically, Plaintiff asserts that the ALJ committed the following errors: 

1) improperly finding Plaintiff’s mental impairments were non-severe at step two, 

resulting in the inappropriate omission of any mental work-related limitations from 

Case 2:15-cv-00807-JAT Document 20 Filed 08/09/16 Page 11 of 32
- 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 

Plaintiff’s RFC; 2) making an improper credibility finding by failing to consider 

Plaintiff’s “stellar” work record; and 3) relying on VE testimony inconsistent with the 

DOT without explaining the inconsistency. (Doc. 14 at 3). After considering the record as 

a whole, the Court concludes that substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s decision. 

Accordingly, the Court affirms. 

A. Whether Substantial Evidence Supports the ALJ’s Finding that 

Plaintiff’s Mental Impairments are Not Severe

 Plaintiff contends the ALJ erred at step two of the sequential evaluation process by 

classifying his mental impairments as not severe. (Doc. 14 at 10–11). Consequently, 

Plaintiff claims the ALJ improperly omitted Plaintiff’s mental functional limitations from 

the RFC. (Id. at 4–11). In support of his argument, Plaintiff argues that “[t]he opinions of 

both consultative psychological examiners,” Dr. Lavit and Dr. Geary, establish that 

Plaintiff has mental work-related limitations.” (Id. at 4). Plaintiff further alleges that Dr. 

Lavit and Dr. Geary’s opinions are consistent with the underlying medical record, 

including their own examination findings. (Id. at 6). Moreover, Plaintiff insists that “the 

ALJ’s rationales for determining that [Plaintiff’s] mental impairments are non-severe and 

result in no mental limitations on his ability to work are legally deficient and/or factually 

inaccurate.” (Id. at 8). As a result, Plaintiff contends that the ALJ’s mental nonseverity 

finding lacks the support of substantial evidence. (Id.) 

At step two of the sequential evaluation, the ALJ “determines whether the 

claimant has a medically severe impairment or combination of impairments.” Smolen, 80 

F.3d at 1289–90. “An impairment or combination of impairments can be found nonsevere 

only if the evidence establishes a slight abnormality that has no more than a minimal 

effect on an individual’s ability to work.” Frias v. Colvin, No. CV-15-02185-JEM, 2015 

WL 8492453, at *7 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 10, 2015) (citing Smolen, 80 F.3d at 1290). 

Accordingly, “an ALJ may find that a claimant lacks a medically severe impairment or 

combination of impairments only when his conclusion is ‘clearly established by medical 

evidence.’” Webb v. Barnhart, 433 F.3d 683, 687 (9th Cir. 2005) (citation omitted). 

“Thus, applying our normal standard of review to the requirements of step two, we must 

Case 2:15-cv-00807-JAT Document 20 Filed 08/09/16 Page 12 of 32
- 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 

determine whether the ALJ had substantial evidence to find that the medical evidence 

clearly established that [the claimant] did not have a medically severe impairment or 

combination of impairments.’” Id. 

When the severity of a mental impairment is evaluated at step two, the ALJ must 

first determine whether the claimant has a “medically determinable mental 

impairment[].” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520a(b)(1). Should the ALJ decide that a claimant has 

such a medically determinable mental impairment, the ALJ “must specify the symptoms, 

signs, and laboratory findings that substantiate the presence of the impairment[]” in her 

written decision. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520a(b)(1), (e)(4). Next, the ALJ must rate “the 

degree of functional limitation resulting from the impairment[]” in four broad functional 

areas: (i) activities of daily living; (ii) social functioning; (iii) concentration, persistence, 

or pace; and (iv) episodes of decompensation. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520a(b)(2), (c)(3).6

 The 

degree of functional limitation is based on the extent to which the claimant’s impairment 

interferes with his ability “to function independently, appropriately, effectively, and on a 

sustained basis.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520a(c)(2). Finally, after the degree of functional 

limitation is rated, the ALJ determines the severity of the claimant’s mental impairment. 

20 C.F.R. § 404.1520a(d). If the degree of limitation in the first three functional areas is 

“none” or “mild” and “none” in the fourth area, it is generally concluded that the 

impairment is not severe, “unless the evidence otherwise indicates that there is more than 

a minimal limitation in [the claimant’s] ability to do basic work activities.” 20 C.F.R. 

§ 404.1520a(d)(1). 

Here, the ALJ comprehensively illustrated why she found Plaintiff’s mental 

impairment to be non-severe at step two of the evaluation after careful consideration of 

the entire record of medical evidence and the claimant’s testimony. (Tr. 17–19, 24–25). 

First, the ALJ determined that Plaintiff had medically determinable mental impairments, 

 

6

 When rating the categories of daily living, social functioning, and concentration, persistence, or pace, the ALJ is to use a five point scale of none, mild, moderate, marked, and extreme. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520a(c)(4). When rating episodes of decompensation, the ALJ is to use a four-point scale of none, one or two, three, or four or more. Id.

Case 2:15-cv-00807-JAT Document 20 Filed 08/09/16 Page 13 of 32
- 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 

including dysthymic disorder and history of cocaine and alcohol abuse. (Tr. 17). Rating 

the degree of functional limitation, the ALJ found that Plaintiff’s “medically 

determinable mental impairments cause no more than ‘mild’ limitation in any of the first 

three functional areas and ‘no’ episodes of decompensation which have been of extended 

duration in the fourth area.” (Tr. 19). As a result, the ALJ concluded that these mental 

impairments, “considered singly or in combination with the claimant’s other severe and 

nonsevere conditions, do not cause anything more than minor restriction in their ability to 

complete work-related activities” and, therefore, are non-severe. (Id.) The ALJ’s 

conclusion is supported by the record. 

Plaintiff is correct that the opinions of Dr. Lavit and Dr. Geary indicate that 

Plaintiff has some mental work-related limitations.7

 However, these opinions do not, as 

 

7

 Dr. Lavit diagnosed Plaintiff with cocaine dependence, though in remission, alcohol abuse, and dysthymic disorder associated with a medical condition. (Tr. 284). 

Regarding Plaintiff’s understanding and memory, Dr. Lavit noted that Plaintiff’s “ability to understand and remember . . . instructions is not impaired.” (Tr. 285). Dr. Lavit neither 

had to repeat or explain questions, and Plaintiff was able to recall dates and events. (Id.) 

Accordingly, because Plaintiff “evidenced a positive memory and understanding,” Dr. Lavit found Plaintiff had “no limitations in remembering work like procedures.” (Id.) In 

regard to Plaintiff’s ability to sustain concentration and persistence, Dr. Lavit indicated 

that Plaintiff “remained focus through the meeting,” but noted that his ability to concentrate for extended periods of time and maintain a normal routine without special supervision “may be limited due to anxiety and depression.” (Id.) Dr. Lavit also 

mentioned that Plaintiff’s “ability to get along with co-workers, respond appropriately to supervision and maintain socially appropriate behavior may be impaired due to health factors and being reactive when he is angry.” (Id.) Regarding his capacity to adapt to change, Plaintiff may be limited “in his ability to respond appropriately to heightened stresses/changes in the workplace[,]” but “appears to have no limitation in taking appropriate action if he encounters a normal hazard.” (Tr. 284). While Dr. Lavit found 

that Plaintiff had mental work-related limitations, he did raise “concern as to Plaintiff’s 

veracity and possible exaggeration of symptoms[,]” as Plaintiff “was not consistent with 

records reviewed versus his data reported” to Dr. Lavit. (Id.) 

Dr. Geary, the second consultative psychologist, diagnosed Plaintiff with dysthymic disorder of late onset, mild to moderate and untreated, a history of alcohol abuse in partial reported remission, and polysubstance dependence in one year reported remission. (Tr. 316). Similar to Dr. Lavit, Dr. Geary also found that Plaintiff had no 

limitations in his ability to understand and remember instructions and work-like 

procedures. (Tr. 318). Regarding Plaintiff’s ability to carry out instructions, maintain 

concentration and sustain regular attendance, Dr. Geary noted that Plaintiff’s “pace seems somewhat slowed but he can carry out directives.” (Tr. 318). Unlike Dr. Lavit, Dr. Geary found that Plaintiff had no limitations in regard to social interaction. As far as his ability to adapt to change, Dr. Geary indicated that Plaintiff “would need some time to adjust to workplace changes but he would eventually do so.” (Tr. 319). 

Case 2:15-cv-00807-JAT Document 20 Filed 08/09/16 Page 14 of 32
- 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 

Plaintiff suggests, (Doc. 14 at 6), conclusively establish that Plaintiff’s mental 

impairments are severe, nor clearly establish that there is more than a minimal limitation 

in Plaintiff’s ability to do basic work activities. Rather, the ALJ provided clear and 

convincing reasons, supported by the evidence, indicating the opposite. (Tr. 17–19, 24–

25). Accordingly, “[w]here evidence is susceptible to more than one rational 

interpretation,” as Dr. Geary and Dr. Lavit’s reports are here, “it is the ALJ’s conclusion 

that must be upheld.” Burch v. Barnhart, 400 F.3d 676, 679 (9th Cir. 2005) (citing 

Andrews, 50 F.3d at 1039–40. 

The ALJ provided sound, specific reasons for finding that Plaintiff’s mental 

impairments are non-severe. (Tr. 17–19, 24–25). The ALJ noted that Plaintiff “clearly has 

made an effort to avoid others based on a self-described issue” and has “some cognitive 

deficits caused by his prior drug use expanding for the previous 25 years.” (Tr. 18). 

Nonetheless, the ALJ emphasized that Plaintiff’s “near constant unremarkable 

presentation with both his primary care provider and cardiologists, as well as no specific 

treatment from any mental health provider[,] and the suggestion of exaggerating hi[s] 

symptoms by Dr. Lavit are not convincing evidence of a severe mental health condition.” 

(Tr. 19). These specific, legitimate reasons laid out in the ALJ’s decision indicate that the 

medical evidence clearly established that Plaintiff did not have a severe mental limitation. 

See Frias, 2015 WL 8492453, at *7 (affirming the ALJ’s finding that claimant’s mental 

health impairments are only mild in severity, despite claimant’s contention that the 

moderate limitations assessed by the psychological examiner and two Agency reviewers 

“cannot be viewed as nonsevere,” because ALJ provided “specific, legitimate reasons for 

rejecting such limitations”). Accordingly, substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s finding 

at step two that Plaintiff’s mental limitations are non-severe. Where the ALJ’s 

interpretation of the record evidence is reasonable, as it is here, it should not be second 

guessed. Rollins v. Massanari, 261 F.3d 853, 857 (9th Cir. 2001). 

Plaintiff maintains “[i]t was clear error for the ALJ to assign ‘great weight’” to the 

opinions offered by Dr. Geary and Dr. Levit, but then omit the mental limitations they 

Case 2:15-cv-00807-JAT Document 20 Filed 08/09/16 Page 15 of 32
- 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 

offered from the RFC finding. (Doc. 14 at 8). Nevertheless, this argument fails, as it is 

based on Plaintiff’s gross mischaracterization of Dr. Geary and Dr. Levit’s opinions as 

supporting “additional functional limitations beyond those that the ALJ included in the 

RFC.” (Doc. 17 at 6). When determining Plaintiff’s RFC, the ALJ summarized Dr. Lavit 

and Dr. Geary’s opinions as follows: 

In both assessments, [Dr. Lavit]8

 and Dr. Geary opined that the claimant satisfied the diagnostic criteria for a dysthymic disorder, with a secondary diagnosis of polysubstance and alcohol abuse. . . . Tellingly, the claimant reported largely the 

same level of activity, but also that he was pursuing disability due to his physical impairments, had not engaged in any mental health treatment, and his choice to avoid others was 

based on a self-imposed restriction due to alleged mood 

swings. . . . Yet, despite the claimant’s allegations, based in part on his suggested exaggeration with [Dr. Lavit], the 

claimant was indicated to only be mildly impaired but nonetheless able to understand and remember simpl[e] and complex instructions without impairment. 

(Tr. 24–25). 

 The ALJ’s inclusion of this statement summarizing Dr. Lavit and Dr. Geary’s 

proffered mental limitations indicates that the ALJ considered “all of the [mental] 

limitations imposed by the claimant’s [mental] impairments, even those that are not 

severe[,]” when determining Plaintiff’s RFC. Carmickle v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 

533 F.3d 1155, 1164 (9th Cir. 2008) (citation omitted); see also Stubbs-Danielson v. 

Astrue, 539 F.3d 1169, 1174 (9th Cir. 2008) (finding that an RFC assessment “adequately 

captures” a claimant’s limitations in concentration, persistence, and pace as long as the 

assessment is “consistent with restrictions identified in the medical testimony”). 

Ultimately, the ALJ’s assessment was consistent with the medical evidence and 

testimony. 

Moreover, even if the ALJ should have found Plaintiff’s mental impairment to be 

severe, this error is harmless as “it is inconsequential to the ultimate nondisability 

 

8

 The ALJ’s RFC assessment incorrectly referred to Dr. Briggs as one of the consultative psychologists, rather than Dr. Lavit. As the Exhibits the ALJ cites in this 

section refer to Dr. Lavit’s consultative reviewing opinion—rather than that of Dr. Briggs—the Court surmises this was a mere oversight. 

Case 2:15-cv-00807-JAT Document 20 Filed 08/09/16 Page 16 of 32
- 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 

determination.” Molina v. Astrue, 674 F.3d 1104, 1115 (9th Cir. 2012); see also Gray v. 

Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 365 F. App’x 60, 61 (9th Cir. 2010) (rejecting argument that 

the ALJ erred at step two by determining certain impairments were nonsevere, because 

any alleged error was harmless since “the ALJ concluded that [claimant’s] other medical 

problems were severe impairments”); Feild v. Colvin, No. CV-12-00330-TUC-BPV, 

2013 WL 4525198, at *8 (D. Ariz. Aug. 27, 2013) (“Error in a step two determination 

that some impairments are nonsevere is harmless when the ALJ determines that other 

impairments are severe and proceeds through the sequential evaluation considering the 

allegations of functional limitations imposed by non-severe impairments.”). Despite 

finding that Plaintiff’s medically determinable mental conditions were non-severe, the 

ALJ found that Plaintiff had severe physical impairments at step two, and continued with 

the sequential evaluation. (Tr. 17). Then, at step five, (Tr. 26), the ALJ found that 

Plaintiff could perform three unskilled occupations—jobs that require “little or no 

judgment to do simple duties that can be learned on the job in a short period of time,” 20 

C.F.R. § 404-1568(a). Plaintiff has failed to provide any evidence indicating that he is 

incapable of utilizing “little or no judgment,” and therefore unable to perform the mental 

demands of these unskilled occupations. On the contrary, the record evidence, including 

Dr. Lavit and Dr. Geary’s reports, indicates Plaintiff has the capacity to do so. See

(Tr. 285, 318). Accordingly, substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s finding at step two 

that Plaintiff’s mental impairments were non-severe. 

B. Whether the ALJ Properly Assessed the Credibility of Plaintiff’s 

Subjective Complaints 

Next, Plaintiff challenges the ALJ’s credibility finding. (Doc. 14 at 11–12). While 

Plaintiff contends that the ALJ failed to adequately consider his “stellar” work record 

when making credibility findings, (Doc. 14 at 11–12), his argument has no merit. 

Nowhere in the ALJ’s decision does she mention that she explicitly did not consider 

Plaintiff’s work record when making her credibility findings. (Tr. 14–27). In fact, the 

ALJ specifically states that she considered the “entire record,” which would include any 

evidence of Plaintiff’s “stellar” work record, in making her determination. (Tr. 20). 

Case 2:15-cv-00807-JAT Document 20 Filed 08/09/16 Page 17 of 32
- 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 

Furthermore, there is no requirement that the ALJ automatically enhance Plaintiff’s 

credibility or credit all of his subjective complaints merely because he maintained work 

in the past; the Court has found no case law requiring an ALJ to do so, nor did Plaintiff 

provide any to this end. 

 “In reaching a credibility determination, an ALJ may weigh inconsistencies 

between the claimant’s testimony and his or her conduct, daily activities, and work 

record, among other factors.” Bray v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 554 F.3d 1219, 1226 

(9th Cir. 2009). “To determine whether a claimant’s testimony regarding subjective pain 

or symptoms is credible, an ALJ must engage in a two-step analysis.” Lingenfelter v. 

Astrue, 504 F.3d 1028, 1035–36 (9th Cir. 2007). First, as a threshold matter, “the ALJ 

must determine whether the claimant has presented objective medical evidence of an 

underlying impairment ‘which could reasonably be expected to produce the pain or other 

symptoms alleged.’” Id. at 1036 (quoting Bunnell v. Sullivan, 947 F.2d 341, 344 (9th Cir. 

1991)); see also Smolen, 80 F.3d at 1282 (“By requiring that the medical impairment 

‘could reasonably be expected to produce’ pain or another symptom, the . . . test requires 

only that the causal relationship be a reasonable inference, not a medically proven 

phenomenon.”). Second, if the claimant meets the first test, and there is no evidence of 

malingering, “the ALJ can reject the claimant's testimony about the severity of her 

symptoms only by offering specific, clear and convincing reasons for doing so.” Smolen, 

80 F.3d at 1281; see also Robbins v. Soc. Sec. Admin., 466 F.3d 880, 883 (9th Cir. 2006) 

(“[U]nless an ALJ makes a finding of malingering based on affirmative evidence thereof, 

he or she may only find an applicant not credible by making specific findings as to 

credibility and stating clear and convincing reasons for each.”). “General findings are 

insufficient; rather, the ALJ must identify what testimony is not credible and what 

evidence undermines the claimant’s complaints.” Lester v. Chater, 81 F.3d 821, 834 (9th 

Cir. 1995). 

When weighing a claimant’s credibility, “the ALJ may consider ‘ordinary 

techniques of credibility evaluation[.]’” Turner v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 613 F.3d 1217, 

Case 2:15-cv-00807-JAT Document 20 Filed 08/09/16 Page 18 of 32
- 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 

1224 n.3 (quoting Smolen, 80 F.3d at 1284). For example, the ALJ may consider 

inconsistencies in either the claimant’s testimony or between the testimony and the 

claimant’s conduct, id.; “‘unexplained or inadequately explained failure to seek treatment 

or to follow a prescribed course of treatment,’” Tommasetti v. Astrue, 533 F.3d 1035, 

1039 (9th Cir. 2008) (quoting Smolen, 80 F.3d at 1284); and “whether the claimant 

engages in daily activities inconsistent with the alleged symptoms,” Lingenfelter, 504 

F.3d at 1040. 

1. Plaintiff’s Limited Treatment History and Near Constant 

 Unremarkable Presentation 

In her explanation for why she found Plaintiff’s mental impairments non-severe at 

step two, the ALJ first noted that Plaintiff “has never engaged in any regular outpatient 

mental health treatment, or required any in-patient psychiatric care.” (Tr. 18). Rather, the 

ALJ pointed out that Plaintiff’s presentation to his physicians has largely been 

unremarkable: 

[I]n treatment with his cardiologists, the claimant has 

maintained a ‘normal affect’ through January of 2013 . . . , and with his primary care provider, the claimant has always 

been noted as demonstrating good judgment and insight, 

[and] normal mood and affect, . . . with his recent and remote 

memory normal and intact. . . . In fact, the claimant was never 

diagnosed with a depressive or anxiety disorder until his primary care provider noted that he presented with disability 

paperwork[.] . . .Yet, even there, the claimant maintained his 

unremarkable presentation, . . . and in the next three 

appointments with [his primary care provider], these mental diagnoses were not provided. 

(Id.) 

 Plaintiff, however, challenges the ALJ’s finding on this point. Plaintiff states he 

“specifically informed Dr. Lavit that he was unable to seek treatment for his symptoms 

due to his ‘limited insurance.’” (Doc. 14 at 9). Quoting Gamble v. Chater, Plaintiff 

contends that “[d]isability benefits may not be denied because of the claimant’s failure to 

obtain treatment he cannot obtain for lack of funds.” 68 F.3d 319, 321 (9th Cir. 1995). 

 “The fact that Plaintiff has had limited mental health treatment is not a sufficient 

sole reason to find that [his] mental impairments are not severe at Step Two.” Cook v. 

Case 2:15-cv-00807-JAT Document 20 Filed 08/09/16 Page 19 of 32
- 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 

Colvin, No. CV-15-08158-PCT-ESW, 2016 WL 3961710, at *5 (D. Ariz. July 22, 2016); 

see also Balladarez v. Colvin, No. CV-13-9490-MAN, 2014 WL 7185342, at *6 (C.D. 

Cal. Dec. 16, 2014) (“[T]he methods by which plaintiff treated, or failed to treat, his 

alleged mental impairments are not relevant to a determination of whether plaintiff has a 

‘medically determinable’ mental impairment.”). Nevertheless, the ALJ did not make its 

finding that Plaintiff’s mental impairments were not severe solely based on Plaintiff’s 

limited mental health treatment for those conditions, nor did the ALJ expressly place any 

weight on this factor in discounting Plaintiff’s credibility. 

Furthermore, while Plaintiff alleges that he did not seek medical care for his 

mental impairments due to his “limited insurance,” (Tr. 281), Plaintiff received other 

medical care from his cardiologists and from his primary care physician on many 

occasions from his alleged disability date onward, (Tr. 18–25); Plaintiff even had an 

elective surgery to repair a torn rotator cuff on his left shoulder, (Tr. 243). Accordingly, 

the Court holds that this was a specific, sound reason supporting the ALJ’s finding that 

Plaintiff’s mental impairments are non-severe, as Plaintiff clearly had the means, and the 

insurance, to pay for mental health treatment. See Flaten, 44 F.3d at 1464 (upholding an 

adverse credibility determination for failure to seek treatment despite claimant’s alleged 

inability to pay because claimant received other medical care during the time she 

professed she was unable to afford treatment); see also Fair v. Bowen, 885 F.2d 597, 603 

(9th Cir. 1989) (finding it appropriate to consider “an unexplained, or inadequately 

explained, failure to seek treatment” when engaging in credibility determinations). The 

Court therefore rejects Plaintiff’s claim that the ALJ erred in relying on Plaintiff’s failure 

to seek treatment for his mental impairments. 

2. Plaintiff’s Report During the Consultative Examinations 

 Regarding His Inability to Work 

According to the ALJ, Plaintiff’s lack of severe mental impairment is also 

supported by the fact that Plaintiff admitted he did not experience mental health issues 

that prevented him from working. (Tr. 18). Specifically, Plaintiff’s report to Dr. Lavit 

during the consultative psychological examination indicated that “he cannot work in his 

Case 2:15-cv-00807-JAT Document 20 Filed 08/09/16 Page 20 of 32
- 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 

profession (construction) because of the physical work.” (Tr. 279) (emphasis added). 

Although Plaintiff clearly indicated that he can no longer work in construction due 

to its physical requirements, Plaintiff contends that he also cited a mental condition 

barring his ability to work in his report to Dr. Lavit. (Doc. 14 at 9). In this report, Plaintiff 

states that he cannot work “due to having heart problems, feeling dizzy, chest pain[,] . . . 

heart arrhythmia[,]” and because “[h]e feels he is going to die.” (Tr. 279). According to 

Plaintiff, his statement to Dr. Lavit about his “fears of dying clearly suggest[s] underlying 

anxiety[,]” a nonphysical condition which precludes him from working. (Doc. 14 at 9). 

However, the Court agrees with Defendant that “Plaintiff plainly linked his alleged fear 

to his physical condition, instead of a mental impairment.” (Doc. 17 at 5). It is obvious 

from Dr. Lavit’s written report that Plaintiff was describing the physical conditions he 

feels when he exerts himself, rather than his mental health. (Tr. 279). Plaintiff’s statement 

clearly undermines his contention that his mental impairments are severe, as these 

impairments, by his own admission by omission to Dr. Lavit, did not previously interfere 

with his ability to do basic work activities, while his physical afflictions had. 

Consequently, the Court holds that this was a specific, sound reason to support the ALJ’s 

finding that Plaintiff’s mental impairments are non-severe. Gallant, 753 F.2d at 1453 

(“Where evidence is susceptible of more than one rational interpretation, it is the ALJ’s 

conclusion which must be upheld[.]” (citations omitted)). 

3. Plaintiff’s Daily Activities and Possible Exaggeration of 

Symptoms 

 Finally, the ALJ noted that Dr. Lavit’s suggestion that Plaintiff was possibly 

exaggerating his symptoms supported her finding that Plaintiff lacks a severe mental 

impairment. (Tr. 18). Specifically, Dr. Lavit observed in his psychological report that 

Plaintiff’s statements, including his daily activities, were inconsistent with his treatment 

records, “raising concern as to his veracity and possible exaggeration of symptoms.” 

(Tr. 284). 

 Although Plaintiff asserts that Dr. Lavit’s conclusion was unfounded because he 

“only reviewed cardiology records, and was not provided with a copy of Plaintiff’s 

Case 2:15-cv-00807-JAT Document 20 Filed 08/09/16 Page 21 of 32
- 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 

primary care physicians records[,]” (Doc. 14 at 9), Plaintiff’s argument fails. Had Dr. 

Lavit reviewed the rest of the medical records—including those from Plaintiff’s primary 

care physician—he would have noted only meager evidence of mental health symptoms. 

In fact, throughout the record, Plaintiff’s doctors consistently observed that Plaintiff 

lacked mental health issues, see, e.g., (Tr. 237–39, 287, 290–92, 325, 328–30, 351, 357, 

364, 368, 371, 374, 378, 382, 385, 389, 392, 395, 400, 404, 408, 413, 415, 417–418), and 

Plaintiff obtained a near perfect score on his mini-mental status exam, (Tr. 280, 314). 

Moreover, as the ALJ explained, Plaintiff “was never diagnosed with a depressive or 

anxiety disorder until his primary care provider noted that he presented with disability 

paperwork[.]” (Tr. 18). Even then, his primary care provider indicated that Plaintiff 

exhibited “normal mood and affect.” (Tr. 371). Overall, Plaintiff’s medical records would 

have only “confirmed Dr. Lavit’s skepticism about Plaintiff’s allegations regarding his 

mental health symptoms.” (Doc. 17 at 4). Moreover, as “[c]ontradiction with the medical 

record is a sufficient basis for rejecting [a] claimant’s subjective testimony,” the ALJ did 

not err in noting Plaintiff’s inconsistent testimony here. Carmickle, 533 F.3d at 1161 see 

also Bickell v. Astrue, 343 F. App’x 275, 277 (9th Cir. 2009) (“Inconsistencies and a 

tendency to exaggerate provide a valid basis for discrediting the testimony of a claimant.” 

(citing Tonapetyan v. Halter, 242 F.3d 1144, 1148 (9th Cir. 2001))). 

 4. Conclusion 

Based on the foregoing, the ALJ’s negative credibility finding was a reasonable 

interpretation of the evidence. The ALJ made specific findings supported by the record 

that provided clear and convincing reasons to explain her credibility evaluation.9

Consequently, “it is not [the Court’s] role to second-guess it.” Rollins, 261 F.3d at 857 

 

9

 The ALJ cited additional reasons for finding Plaintiff’s subjective complaints not entirely credible. First, the ALJ noted that Plaintiff stopped working not because of his impairments, but because he had been laid off. (Tr. 21). As, “the physical or mental impairment(s) must be the primary reason for the individual’s inability to engage in substantial gainful activity,” the ALJ found this fact significant in the determination, 

especially “[w]hen taken in consideration with the claimant’s activity of applying for jobs while receiving unemployment benefit[s].” (Tr. 20–21). Second, the ALJ indicated that 

Plaintiff’s “statements concerning the intensity, persistence and limiting effects of [his] symptoms are not entirely consistent.” (Tr. 20). 

Case 2:15-cv-00807-JAT Document 20 Filed 08/09/16 Page 22 of 32
- 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 

(citing Fair, 885 F.2d at 604). 

C. Whether the ALJ Properly Relied on the Vocational Expert’s 

 Testimony Regarding the DOT 

 The Court next turns to Plaintiff’s argument that the ALJ erred at step five of the 

sequential evaluation by failing to resolve an alleged conflict between the VE’s testimony 

and the DOT. (Doc. 14 at 13–15). Specifically, Plaintiff claims that, according to the 

descriptions in the DOT, the jobs identified by the VE are incompatible with Plaintiff’s 

RFC, which limits him to occasional overhead reaching with his left arm. (Id. at 14–15). 

Plaintiff bases this contention on his review of the DOT supplement, the Selected 

Characteristics of Occupations Defined in the Dictionary of Occupational Titles

(“SCO”). (Id. at 13–15). According to Plaintiff, the SCO indicates that “the job of fast 

food worker requires constant reaching while the remaining jobs [identified by the VE, 

cashier and car wash attendant,] require frequent reaching.” (Id. at 14–15) (citations 

omitted). Accordingly, because “the jobs offered by the vocational expert ostensibly 

require frequent (or even constant) overhead reaching,” (id. at 15), while “[t]he ALJ’s 

RFC and hypothetical question to the vocational expert limited [him] to . . . only 

occasional overhead reaching” with his left arm, (id. at 14), Plaintiff alleges that the VE’s 

testimony conflicts with the DOT, (id. at 15). As a result, Plaintiff contends that the ALJ 

erred by relying on the VE’s testimony without resolving this purported inconsistency, 

and, consequently, did not meet its “burden of proof . . . at step 5 to establish that there is 

other work . . . [Plaintiff] can perform[.]” (Id. at 13). 

Defendant, on the other hand, argues that “substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s 

finding that the vocational expert’s . . . testimony was consistent with the Dictionary of 

Occupational Titles (DOT).” (Doc. 17 at 2). First, Defendant contends that “Plaintiff did 

not raise this issue during the administrative hearing and, as a result, has not preserved it 

on appeal.” (Id. at 10). Defendant reports that even though “the VE informed the ALJ that 

her testimony—in which she confirmed that a person with Plaintiff’s left upper extremity 

limitation could perform the jobs she identified—did not conflict with the DOT” at the 

administrative hearing, Plaintiff’s counsel declined the “opportunity to question the VE 

Case 2:15-cv-00807-JAT Document 20 Filed 08/09/16 Page 23 of 32
- 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 

. . . on this point[.]” Id. (citing Tr. 54–55). 

Defendant also contends, “even if Plaintiff had preserved this point, his argument 

fails on the merits because there is no apparent conflict between the VE’s testimony and 

the DOT.” (Id.) Defendant argues that an ALJ is only required to “obtain ‘a reasonable 

explanation [from the VE] for the apparent conflict’ between the VE’s testimony and the 

DOT” if the “VE’s testimony ‘appears to conflict with the DOT.’” (Id.) (quoting SSR 00-

4p, 2000 WL 1898704 (Dec. 4, 2000)). In support of its position that “[n]o such conflict 

existed here[,]” (id. at 11), Defendant cites Matthewson v. Colvin, No. CV-14-08204-

PCT-GMS, 2015 WL 9297648, at *3–6 (D. Ariz. Dec. 22, 2015), which, according to 

Defendant, holds that “a limitation to occasional overhead reaching with one upper 

extremity does not conflict with DOT occupations requiring frequent reaching,” (Doc. 17 

at 11). “Thus, given the lack of conflict,” Defendant argues “the ALJ was not required to 

obtain any further explanation from the VE about the occupations she identified.” (Id.) 

“At step five of the sequential evaluation for disability, the Commissioner bears 

the burden of proving that the SSI claimant can perform other work in the national 

economy, given the claimant’s RFC, age, education, and work experience.” Gonzales v. 

Colvin, No. 12-CV-01068-AA, 2013 WL 3199656, at *3 (D. Or. June 19, 2013) (citations 

omitted). When determining whether a claimant can perform other work, “the best source 

for how a job is generally performed” in the national economy is usually the DOT. Pinto 

v. Massanari, 249 F.3d 840, 845 (9th Cir. 2001) (citations omitted). However, “[t]he 

DOT is not the sole source of admissible information concerning jobs.” Johnson v. 

Shalala, 60 F.3d 1428, 1435 (9th Cir. 1995) (quotation omitted). Rather, the ALJ may 

also rely on testimony from a VE, even if the VE’s testimony on job traits varies from the 

DOT classification. Id. However, before relying on VE testimony about the requirements 

of a particular occupation, “the ALJ must [first] ask the VE if his or her testimony is 

consistent with the DOT.” Wentz v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 401 F. App’x 189, 191 

(9th Cir. 2010) (citing Massachi v. Astrue, 486 F.3d 1149, 1152–53 (9th Cir. 2007)). 

If “there is an apparent unresolved conflict between VE . . . evidence and the 

Case 2:15-cv-00807-JAT Document 20 Filed 08/09/16 Page 24 of 32
- 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 

DOT, the [ALJ] must elicit a reasonable explanation for the conflict before relying on the 

VE . . . evidence to support a determination or decision about whether the claimant is 

disabled.” SSR 00-4p.10 Accordingly, an “ALJ may rely on expert testimony which 

contradicts the DOT, but only insofar as the record contains persuasive evidence to 

support the deviation.” Johnson, 60 F.3d at 1435. For example, a reasonable explanation 

for such conflict might include “[i]nformation about a particular job’s requirements or 

about occupations not listed in the DOT . . . from a VE’s . . . experience in job placement 

or career counseling.” SSR 00-4p. 

Here, the Court does not find a conflict between the VE’s testimony and the DOT 

descriptions for the occupations identified by the VE. First, the ALJ specifically asked 

the VE what jobs a person could perform with Plaintiff’s characteristics and limitations, 

including a limitation to occasional overhead reaching with the left arm. (Tr. 52). In 

response, the VE testified that such an individual could work as a cashier, car wash 

attendant, or fast food worker. (Tr. 52–53). After the ALJ asked the VE whether her 

testimony was consistent with the DOT, the VE confirmed that it was, with one 

exception. (Tr. 55).11 Based on this testimony by the VE, the ALJ found at step five of 

the evaluation that the VE’s testimony was consistent with the information contained in 

the DOT. (Tr. 26). As a result, the ALJ determined that Plaintiff was not disabled, 

 

10 “An ALJ’s failure to inquire into a conflict between the VE’s opinion and the DOT job description, and a failure to address and explain such a conflict in the decision, constitutes procedural error.” Hernandez v. Colvin, No. SACV 15-1431-KS, 2016 WL 

1071565, at *4 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 14, 2016). Failure to do so, however, is harmless error 

where “no conflict existed or if the VE ‘provided sufficient support for [his] conclusion so as to justify any potential conflicts’” or deviation from the DOT. Coleman v. Astrue, 423 F. App’x 754, 756 (9th Cir. 2011) (quoting Massachi, 486 F.3d at 1152–53). 

11 The ALJ added an additional work limitation—a sit/stand, at-will option—to the hypothetical posed to the VE. (Tr. 53). Even with this limitation, the VE testified that a 

person with Plaintiff’s limitations and characteristics could still find work as a parking lot attendant or cashier. (Tr. 53). When the ALJ pointed out that “sit/stand at will is not a 

factor that’s listed in the DOT description of jobs[,]” the VE explained the inconsistency between the DOT and her testimony by stating that she based her opinion on her “30 years of placing people in jobs in the State of Arizona[.]” (Tr. 55). The ALJ then asked 

the VE whether the remainder of her testimony was consistent with the DOT, and the VE confirmed that it was. (Tr. 55). Notwithstanding, the ALJ ultimately did not incorporate a sit/stand, at-will option into the RFC finding, see (Tr. 20), and Plaintiff does not contest 

the ALJ’s finding on this point, see generally (Doc. 14). 

Case 2:15-cv-00807-JAT Document 20 Filed 08/09/16 Page 25 of 32
- 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 

(Tr. 26), because “there are jobs that exist in significant numbers in the national economy 

that . . . [Plaintiff] can perform[,]” (Tr. 25). 

Next, while Plaintiff argues that “it is at best unclear if any of [the jobs identified 

by the VE requiring frequent (or even constant) overhead reaching] can be performed 

using only one arm[,]” (Doc. 14 at 15), the ALJ did not limit Plaintiff to only using one 

arm for overhead reaching, (Tr. 20). Rather, not only can Plaintiff reach in an unlimited 

manner in any direction with his right arm, but the ALJ’s limitation stated that Plaintiff 

could “occasionally reach overhead with the nondominant left upper extremity.” (Tr. 20). 

Identical to the limitation of the claimant in Matthewson, Plaintiff’s ALJ “limitation 

allows for unlimited reaching with the left arm in any direction except up above shoulder 

level[,] . . . [a]nd even the limited activity—reaching overhead with the left arm—can be 

performed occasionally.” Matthewson, 2015 WL 9297648, at *3. 

Although Plaintiff argues that “the jobs offered by the vocational expert ostensibly 

require frequent (or even constant) overhead reaching,” (Doc. 14 at 15) (emphasis 

added), there is nothing in the DOT descriptions indicating that these jobs specifically 

require overhead reaching at all. See Fast Foods Worker, DOT 311.472-010, available at

1991 WL 672682; Cashier, DOT 211.462-010, available at 1991 WL 671840; Car Wash 

Attendant, DOT 915.667-010, available at 1991 WL 687869. Rather, “the DOT 

descriptions of the various positions only indicate that the jobs require unspecified 

reaching[.]” Dickmeier v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., No. 2:14-CV-00967-HZ, 2015 

WL 8514188, at *5 (D. Or. Dec. 11, 2015). In contrast, “when an occupation requires 

overhead work, the DOT narrative description will explicitly mention that requirement.” 

Gonzales, 2013 WL 3199656, at *3–4; see also Dickmeier, 2015 WL 8514188, at *5 

(citing examples of DOT job descriptions “expressly indicat[ing] when overhead work is 

involved”). Here, however, the DOT job descriptions for each of the three occupations 

cited by the VE do not specifically mention overhead work. 

Moreover, the DOT descriptions of the jobs identified by the VE do not indicate 

that they require the use of both arms to frequently reach overhead. See, e.g., Carey v. 

Case 2:15-cv-00807-JAT Document 20 Filed 08/09/16 Page 26 of 32
- 27 - 

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 

Apfel, 230 F.3d 131, 146 (5th Cir. 2000) (holding that job requirements in the DOT are 

not “bilateral” and, therefore, do not conflict with VE testimony that an individual with 

one arm could perform jobs requiring fingering and handling); Palomares v. Astrue, 887 

F. Supp. 2d 906, 920 (N.D. Cal. 2012) (concluding that occasional overhead reaching 

limitation for left arm is consistent with the DOT description requiring constant reaching 

[b]ecause the DOT does not explicitly require constant reaching with both arms”); 

McConnell v. Astrue, No. EDCV-08-667-JC, 2010 WL 1946728, at *6–7 (C.D. Cal. May 

10, 2010) (holding that the plaintiff’s limitation to work only with one hand did not 

conflict with jobs requiring reaching and handling because plaintiff was capable of 

performing these requirements with his other hand and there was no express bilateral 

requirement in the DOT for those occupations); Feibusch v. Astrue, No. CIV-07-00244-

BMK, 2008 WL 583554, at *5 (D. Haw. Mar. 4, 2008) (citations omitted) (“[T]he use of 

two arms is not necessarily required for jobs that require reaching and handling.”). 

Furthermore, there is no direct conflict between the DOT and the VE’s testimony. 

To find a conflict between the VE’s testimony and the DOT here, the Court “would have 

to read a requirement into the DOT that is not there.” Frias, 2015 WL 8492453, at *7 

(citing Gonzales, 2013 WL 3199656, at *4). Specifically, “[f]or the Court to find a 

conflict on these facts, it would have to read into the DOT’s description [of the fast food 

worker, cashier, and car wash attendant] a requirement of overhead reaching with both

arms[, or with the left arm specifically,] on a more than-occasional basis[.]” Lee v. 

Astrue, No. 6:12-CV-00084-SI, 2013 WL 1296071, at *11 (D. Or. Mar. 28, 2013). 

However, “[a]s the DOT [descriptions of the jobs identified by the VE] do[] not discuss 

overhead reaching, there is no conflict between the DOT and the ALJ’s RFC limitation.” 

Frias, 2015 WL 8492453, at *7 (citing Strain v. Colvin, No. CV-13-01973-SH, 2014 WL 

2472312, at *2 (C.D. Cal. June 2, 2014)). As a result, the ALJ here correctly relied on the 

testimony of the VE, who had personally experienced over “30 years of placing people in 

jobs in the State of Arizona,” (Tr. 55), and who testified that she relied on the DOT, 

(Tr. 55). Accordingly, “[t]he VE’s testimony is substantial evidence.” Frias, 2015 WL 

Case 2:15-cv-00807-JAT Document 20 Filed 08/09/16 Page 27 of 32
- 28 - 

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 

8492453, at *7; see also Bayliss v. Barnhart, 427 F.3d 1211, 1218 (“A VE’s recognized 

expertise provides the necessary foundation for his or her testimony.”). Thus, because 

substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s decision below, which is free from legal error, 

the Court here affirms. See Hammock, 879 F.2d at 501. 

Social Security Ruling 85-15 defines “reaching” as “extending the hands and arms 

in any direction.” SSR 85-15, 1985 WL 56857 (Feb. 26, 1979). However, “courts are 

divided on the question of whether ‘reaching’ in the DOT requires the ability to reach in 

all directions,” including overhead, “or whether ‘reaching’ . . . in the DOT requires the 

ability to use both arms or hands[.]” Lee, 2013 WL 1296071, at *11. Further, “there is no 

controlling precedent.” Id. In fact, two cases from within this District, Matthewson, 2015 

WL 9297648, at *2–6, and Marquez v. Astrue, No. CV-11-339-TUC-JGZ-DT, 2012 WL 

3011778, at *2–4 (D. Ariz. May 2, 2012), illustrate this dilemma in regard to whether a 

limitation on overhead reaching with one arm conflicts with a DOT description requiring 

reaching. Though within the same District, the courts came to markedly different 

conclusions in these two cases. 

In Marquez, the claimant argued that according to the descriptions in the DOT, the 

jobs identified by the VE requiring frequent reaching were incompatible with the 

claimant’s RFC, which limited the claimant from any overhead reaching with his left 

arm. Marquez, 2012 WL 3011778, at *1–2. Accordingly, the claimant alleged that “the 

VE’s testimony was in conflict with the DOT and the ALJ failed to provide sufficient 

justification for relying on the VE’s conflicting testimony.” Id. at *2. Remanding for 

further development by the ALJ, the court held that there is an inherent conflict when a 

VE testifies that a claimant with limited or no use of one arm can perform a job that 

requires a significant amount of reaching. Id. at *3–4. In arriving at this conclusion, the 

court determined that “frequent reaching includes reaching overhead with both arms” and 

stated that “[t]he DOT does not distinguish between types of reaching or reaching with 

the left or right hand.” Id. at *3. The court also noted that “neither the VE nor the ALJ 

clarified the potential conflict between Marquez’s reaching limitation and the job 

Case 2:15-cv-00807-JAT Document 20 Filed 08/09/16 Page 28 of 32
- 29 - 

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 

requirements.” Id. As a result, the court concluded that “the VE’s testimony regarding 

Marquez’s ability to perform the three identified jobs is not consistent with the DOT’s 

description of these jobs as requiring frequent reaching.” Id. 

Similarly, other courts outside of the District of Arizona have found apparent 

conflict between restrictions on overhead reaching and DOT descriptions requiring 

reaching generally in similar circumstances. See, e.g., Meyer v. Astrue, No. 1:09-CV01448-JLT, 2010 WL 3943519, *9 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 1, 2010); Marshall v. Astrue, No. 08-

CV-1735-L(WMC), 2010 WL 841252, at *6 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 10, 2010). Nonetheless, 

“Marquez is in the minority. Other district courts . . . have generally found that a claimant 

with limited use of one arm is not precluded from performing a job with frequent 

reaching, unless the DOT job description explicitly requires bilateral reaching.” Lessley v. 

Colvin, No. 15-CV-00096-HDM-VPC, 2015 WL 10710837, at *5 (D. Nev. Nov. 13, 

2015) (citations omitted). 

Although persuasive, Marquez is not binding on the Court. Further, the Court 

finds that the present case is factually distinguishable from Marquez. First, while both the 

claimant in Marquez and Plaintiff here have overhead reaching limitations with their left 

arms, the extent of these limitations are significantly different. Pointedly, the claimant in 

Marquez was limited from “any overhead work with his left upper extremity,” Marquez, 

2012 WL 3011778, at *1 (emphasis added), whereas, here, Plaintiff’s RFC states that he 

can “occasionally reach overhead with” his left arm, (Tr. 20) (emphasis added). Further, 

the court in Marquez noted that “neither the VE nor the ALJ clarified the potential 

conflict between Marquez’s reaching limitation and the job requirements.” Marquez, 

2012 WL 3011778, at *3. This is not the case at present, however. Here, the ALJ 

provided Plaintiff’s limitations in a hypothetical to the VE, and explicitly asked the VE if 

a person with Plaintiff’s limitations could perform the identified jobs. (Tr. 51–52). 

Rather, the Court finds that the present case is analogous to Matthewson. In 

Matthewson, the claimant contended that the jobs identified by the VE requiring frequent 

overhead reaching were incompatible with the claimant’s RFC, which limited him to 

Case 2:15-cv-00807-JAT Document 20 Filed 08/09/16 Page 29 of 32
- 30 - 

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 

occasional overhead reaching with the left arm. 2015 WL 9297648, at *2–3. Accordingly, 

the claimant argued that “the ALJ erred by relying on the testimony of the vocational 

expert without resolving [this] purported inconsistency” between the VE’s testimony and 

the DOT. Id. at *2. Affirming the ALJ’s decision, the court held that a limitation to 

occasional overhead reaching with the nondominant left arm did not conflict with DOT 

occupations requiring frequent reaching. Id. at *2–6. In coming to this conclusion, the 

court noted that there was nothing in the DOT job descriptions indicating that the jobs 

require overhead reaching, nor was there anything in the DOT suggesting that the 

claimant “must frequently do overhead reaching and must use both arms to do it.” Id. at 

*3. As a result, the court “determined that the facts of this case do not present an actual 

conflict between the vocational expert’s testimony and the DOT,” and, therefore, upheld 

the ALJ’s determination that “there are jobs that exist in significant numbers in the 

national economy that the claimant can perform[.]” Id. at *6. Likewise, here, the ALJ’s 

left-arm restriction is not inconsistent with the frequent (or constant) reaching demands of 

the occupations identified by the VE, as each occupation’s DOT description does not 

specifically require reaching with both arms or overhead reaching. 

Further, other courts have held that a limitation on reaching with one arm does not 

conflict with a DOT description requiring reaching generally. See, e.g., Carey, 230 F.3d 

at 145–46; Brown v. Colvin, No. CV-14-4420-JPR, 2015 WL 3823938, at *7–8 (C.D. 

Cal. June 19, 2015) (finding that “the ALJ’s left-arm restriction was not necessarily 

inconsistent with the frequent—or constant[—]reaching demands of the jobs identified in 

[claimant’s] step-five finding” where “the tasks listed in each position’s DOT description 

don’t necessarily require above-shoulder reaching or reaching with both arms”); 

Gonzales, 2013 WL 3199656, at *4 (finding no apparent conflict between the VE’s 

testimony and the DOT narrative requiring reaching where the plaintiff was limited to 

only occasional overhead reaching with the right arm); Palomares, 887 F. Supp. 2d at 

920 (concluding that occasional overhead reaching limitation for one arm was consistent 

with DOT requirement for constant reaching). 

Case 2:15-cv-00807-JAT Document 20 Filed 08/09/16 Page 30 of 32
- 31 - 

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 

Similarly, other courts have also held that a bilateral restriction on overhead 

reaching does not conflict with a DOT job description requiring reaching generally. See, 

e.g., Dickmeier, 2015 WL 8514188, at *5 (finding that the DOT descriptions of the jobs 

identified by the VE requiring frequent reaching are compatible with the plaintiff’s 

occasional bilateral overhead reaching limitation); Frias, 2015 WL 8492453, at *7 

(“There is no conflict between the ALJ’s RFC limitation of ‘occasional overhead 

reaching bilaterally’ and the DOT requirement of ‘frequent reaching.’”); Lee, 2013 WL 

1296071, at *10–11; Hernandez v. Astrue, No. CV-12–01009-RZ, 2012 WL 4840692, at 

* 1 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 4, 2012). But see, e.g., Prochaska v. Barnhart, 454 F.3d 731, 736 

(7th Cir. 2006) (concluding that a bilateral restriction on overhead reaching conflicts with 

a DOT description requiring reaching generally where claimant could not reach above the 

shoulder level more than occasionally with either arm)12

; Padilla v. Astrue, No. CV-12–

1197-JC, 2012 WL 4356150, at *4–5 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 21, 2012) (concluding that 

claimant, “an individual who is only limited to occasional ‘overhead’ reaching”, is 

precluded from jobs requiring “frequent” reaching). 

Finally, Defendant correctly notes that, as a result of the failure of Plaintiff’s 

counsel to pursue this issue with the VE at the administrative hearing, Plaintiff has not 

preserved this issue for appeal. Plaintiff’s counsel missed its opportunity to ask the VE 

about any potential conflict between the RFC limitation to only occasional overhead 

reaching with the left arm and the DOT requirements of frequent or constant reaching. 

“[W]hen claimants are represented by counsel, they must raise all issues and evidence at 

their administrative hearings in order to preserve them on appeal.” Meanel v. Apfel, 172 

F.3d 1111, 1115 (9th Cir. 1999). The ALJ, rather than the Court, was in the optimal 

position to resolve any conflict between the testimony provided by the VE about the jobs 

 

12 Although the Ninth Circuit cited Prochaska in a footnote in its holding in Massachi, 486 F.3d at 1154, this Tenth Circuit case is not binding on this Court on the issue of whether or not a designation in the DOT that an occupation involves frequent ‘reaching’ is consistent with a claimant’s RFC limitation on overhead reaching. See

Matthewson, 2015 WL 9297648, at *5. Rather, the Ninth Circuit cited Prochaska for its 

holding “that an ALJ’s failure to make the relevant inquiries under SSR-004p leaves ‘unresolved potential inconsistencies in the evidence.’” Massachi, 486 F.3d at 1154. 

Case 2:15-cv-00807-JAT Document 20 Filed 08/09/16 Page 31 of 32
- 32 - 

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 

a person with Plaintiff’s limitations could perform and the descriptions of those jobs in 

the DOT. See id. Furthermore, the Court does not find that manifest injustice would occur 

in deeming the argument waived. Id. (noting that a failure to comply with waiver rule is 

only excused “when necessary to avoid a manifest injustice”). 

As the VE’s testimony was consistent with the DOT, the ALJ did not err in relying 

on the VE’s testimony or by not obtaining an explanation for the alleged inconsistency. 

Accordingly, the Court holds that the ALJ’s determination that Plaintiff is not disabled 

because “there are jobs that exist in significant numbers in the national economy that the 

claimant can perform” is supported by substantial evidence. (Tr. 25–26). 

IV. Conclusion 

 For the reasons stated above, 

IT IS ORDERED that the final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security 

is AFFIRMED. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall enter judgment 

accordingly and terminate this case. 

 Dated this 9th day of August, 2016. 

Case 2:15-cv-00807-JAT Document 20 Filed 08/09/16 Page 32 of 32