Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-02696/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-02696-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 864
Nature of Suit: Social Security - SSID Title XVI
Cause of Action: 42:405 Review of HHS Decision (SSID)

---

U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

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 THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TOD THELEN,

Plaintiff,

 v.

JOANNE BARNHART,

Defendant.

 /

No. C 04-02696 JSW

ORDER GRANTING

DEFENDANT’S CROSS-MOTION

FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

AND DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION FOR SUMMARY

JUDGMENT

Now before the Court is the motion of Plaintiff Tod Thelen (“Thelen”) for summary

judgment and the cross-motion of the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration

(“Commissioner”) for summary judgment. Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 16-5, the motions have

been submitted on the papers without oral argument. Having carefully reviewed the

administrative record and considered the parties’ papers and the relevant legal authority, the

Court hereby DENIES Thelen’s motion for summary judgment and GRANTS the

Commissioner’s cross-motion for summary judgment.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Thelen brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 405(g) and 1383(c)(3) to obtain

judicial review of a final decision of the Commissioner denying his request for Social Security

benefits and supplemental income. Thelen is a 42-year-old male with a high school diploma. 

(Certified Transcript of Record Proceedings “Tr.” at 26, 146.) His past vocational experience

includes hardwood floor installation, roofing, automotive quality control, and carpentry. (Tr. at

166-73.) He has not had substantial gainful employment since the date of his on-the-job injury,

Case 3:04-cv-02696-JSW Document 17 Filed 08/15/05 Page 1 of 12
U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

 July 6, 1999. (Tr. at 15.) Thelen claims he has a disability due to depression and back injuries,

including spondylolysis with spondylolisthesis, lumbar disc disease, pars defect, and bilateral

neuropathy. (Tr. at 140.) He alleges he is unable to stand or walk for long periods of time, has

difficulty completing simple tasks, and is unable to repeatedly lift, bend, or perform tasks with

his arms extended in front of his body. (Tr. at 43-45, 54-56.) 

Thelen was admitted to Marin General Hospital on July 6, 1999, after he injured his back

while ducking and stepping over a wheelbarrow at work. (Tr. at 199.) He was diagnosed with a

musculoskeletal strain of the lower back. (Id.) He received Toradal and Morphine for pain but

was still unable to move off of the gurney. (Id.) 

Between July 1999 and March 2001, Thelen was treated by Dr. Gemmer, who referred

him to several specialists to try to address his persistent back injuries. (Tr. at 206-14, 274, 277-

79.) Dr. Lieberson, a board certified neurological surgeon, reviewed a March 13, 2000 magnetic

resonance imaging (“MRI”) scan report of Thelen’s spine. Dr. Lieberson noted the report

identified multilevel degenerative disease and a possible spondylolysis at L5, that the L5-S1

disk was abnormal, and that there appeared to be foraminal stenosis at both L4-5 and L5-S1. 

(Tr. at 250.) 

Thelen showed no significant improvement, even after receiving three separate lumbar

epidural steroid injections on April 17, 2000, May 2, 2000, and June 6, 2000. (Tr. at 206-14,

274.) Subsequent x-rays in early 2001 revealed a question of unilateral spondylolysis on the

right at L5-S1, a right L5 pars interarticularis defect, a partial left L5 defect, and a partial defect

of the right first sacral lamina. (Tr. at 218-20, 223.) On March 15, 2001, Dr. Lieberson

performed a lumbar discogram and diagnosed Thelen with lumbar disc disease with low back

pain, noting that the pain seemed most intense at the L5-S1 level. (Tr. at 241-42.)

In a March 8, 2002 report, Dr. Lieberson later reclassified Thelen as “permanent and

stationary.” (Tr. at 263-65.) Thelen’s complaints remained unchanged, but were consistent

with a constant slight to moderate pain becoming occasionally moderate to severe. (Tr. at 264.) 

Dr. Lieberson recommended vocational rehabilitation because Thelen was not able to return to

Case 3:04-cv-02696-JSW Document 17 Filed 08/15/05 Page 2 of 12
U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3

his usual work. (Tr. at 263-65.) The objective medical tests still showed 50% loss of motion of

the back and radiographic evidence of spondylolysis. (Tr. at 264.) 

On April 1, 2002, Dr. Lieberson diagnosed Thelen with lumbar disc disease and

spondylolysis based on another MRI and radiographic evidence. (Tr. at 259.) Dr. Lieberson

reported that Thelen could not lift over ten pounds and could not bend repeatedly. (Tr. at 261.) 

On September 25, 2002, Dr. Lieberson noted that nothing had changed since his April progress

report and that there was no evidence of a focal neurological deficit. (Tr. at 253-54.)

Dr. Wheeler, a board eligible neurologist, examined Thelen on January 18, 2003, and

diagnosed him with chronic low back pain. (Tr. at 290-94.) He noted that Thelen had a normal

gait, strength, sensation and range of motion. (Tr. at 293.) Dr. Wheeler also noted that Thelen

was going to a vocational school, and that he hoped to pass the test to obtain a license to become

a building inspector. (Tr. at 291.) Thelen reported daily activities of limited household chores,

such as washing dishes or cleaning, and spending time with his children. (Id.) Dr. Wheeler

assessed that Thelen could lift or carry forty pounds occasionally and twenty pounds frequently,

limited by exacerbation of his back pain. (Tr. at 293.) Dr. Wheeler indicated that Thelen could

occasionally perform postural maneuvers, such as bending, stooping or crouching, with the

same limitation. (Id.) Additionally, Thelen could be expected to stand and walk at least six

hours and sit without restriction during an eight-hour workday. (Id.) Thelen was taking

Remeron, Lodine, and Norco, and he had suffered from asthma and depression in the past. (Id.) 

Earlier, on June 27, 2001, Dr. Levinson, Ph.D. evaluated Thelen’s psychological status

to help determine his candidacy for a multi-disciplinary pain treatment program at Kentfield

Rehabilitation hospital. (Tr. at 363-66.) Thelen completed a battery of psychological tests,

indicating a severe level of depression. (Tr. at 365-66.) Thelen began pain management

psychotherapy with Dr. Levinson in preparation for the program through September, when

Golden Eagle Insurance Company declined to approve the treatment. (Tr. at 288-89, 366.) 

During this psychotherapy, Thelen exhibited some difficulty with memory and concentration, as

well as some resistance to interacting with others. (Tr. at 287.)

Case 3:04-cv-02696-JSW Document 17 Filed 08/15/05 Page 3 of 12
U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

4

On February 20, 2003, the Social Security Administration referred Thelen to Dr. Auluck

for a one-time psychiatric evaluation. (Tr. at 307-11.) Dr. Auluck diagnosed Thelen with Major

Depression, recurrent 296.33 (severe without psychotic features) with his global assessment

functioning at 60. (Tr. at 309-10.) Thelen continued to report a dysphoric mood, insomnia, lack

of drive, low energy level and impaired concentration. (Tr. at 309.) Dr. Auluck characterized

Thelen’s concentration as “patchy” with difficulty maintaining persistence and pace. (Id.) Dr.

Auluck also stated that Thelen’s daily activities and social functioning were “clearly limited,”

but found that he was able to interact fairly well with co-workers, supervisors, and members of

the public. (Id.) He noted that Thelen’s ability to maintain an eight hour workday or a forty

hour work week on a consistent basis was compromised. (Tr. at 309-10.) 

On June 4, 2003 and June 11, 2003, state agency medical consultants assessed that

Thelen had the residual functioning capacity to do light work with occasional stooping or

crouching. (Tr. at 322-23.) Additionally they felt that his psychiatric impairment was nonsevere and that his main impairment was due to his physical, rather than mental, problems. (Tr.

at 323.) They concluded that Thelen’s depression, while classified as “major,” was not severe

enough to satisfy the criteria under the listed impairment § 12.04, Affect Disorders. (Tr. at 329-

33.) When asked what his daily activities were on June 10, 2003, Thelen stated the following:

walking one mile a day, doing the dishes, helping his five children with their homework and

occasionally taking them to the park or playing catch with them. (Tr. at 323.) It was also

reported that “DEA could hear his wife coaching him in the background.” (Id.)

Thelen filed an application for Social Security Disability Insurance Benefits and Social

Supplemental Income on September 4, 2002, alleging he had disabilities beginning July 6, 1999. 

(Tr. at 107-09, 334-36.) His initial and reconsideration applications were denied on the basis

that his condition was not severe enough to prevent him from working. (Tr. at 74-78, 81-85.) 

Thelen timely filed a Request for Hearing on August 11, 2003. (Tr. at 86-87.) An administrative

law judge (“ALJ”) conducted a hearing on November 6, 2003. (Tr. at 20.) Thelen and a

vocational expert, Malcolm Brezinsky, both testified at the hearing. (Id.) 

Case 3:04-cv-02696-JSW Document 17 Filed 08/15/05 Page 4 of 12
U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

5

The ALJ found that Thelen’s alleged inability to work was not fully credible given his

own testimony about his daily activities and corroborating accounts found in his medical records

(Tr. at 18-19.) These daily activities included doing dishes, dressing and bathing himself, taking

walks, playing video games, and helping coach a little league baseball team for his children. 

(Tr. at 17-18.) Additionally, Thelen testified that he could occasionally lift twenty pounds from

the table. (Tr. at 55.) The ALJ also relied on the testimony of the vocational expert, who stated

that an individual of Thelen’s age, education, past relevant work, and functional limitations

could perform jobs as a cashier, an optical final assembler, or a semiconductor bonder. (Tr. at

18.) The vocational expert testified that someone with a mild impairment in attention and

concentration could perform these jobs, but that someone with a moderate impairment could not

perform any jobs offered in the national economy. (Tr. at 65.) The ALJ found that while

Thelen’s lumbar disc disease with low back pain was a severe impairment, he could perform

modest sedentary work, including lifting twenty pound objects from tabletop height, with a

stand or sit option every thirty minutes. (Tr. at 18-19.) Therefore, the ALJ concluded that

Thelen was not disabled within the meaning of the Social Security Act and denied benefits and

supplemental security income. (Tr. at 19.)

Thelen then filed a request for review of the ALJ’s unfavorable decision, which the

Appeals Council denied. (Tr. at 6-8.) Having exhausted his administrative remedies, Thelen

commenced this action for judicial review of the ALJ’s decision.

ANALYSIS

A. Standard of Review of the ALJ’s Decision to Deny Social Security Benefits

A federal district court may not disturb the ALJ’s decision unless it is based on legal

error or the findings of fact are not supported by substantial evidence. 42 U.S.C. § 405(g);

Reddick v. Chater, 157 F.3d 715, 720 (9th Cir. 1998). “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). To determine whether substantial evidence exists, courts must look at the

record as a whole, considering both evidence that supports and undermines the ALJ’s findings. 

Case 3:04-cv-02696-JSW Document 17 Filed 08/15/05 Page 5 of 12
U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

6

Reddick, 157 F.3d at 720. The ALJ’s decision must be upheld if the evidence is susceptible to

more than one reasonable interpretation. Id. at 720-21. 

B. Legal Standard for Establishing a Prima Facie Case for Disability

The ALJ follows a five-step sequential evaluation process to determine whether the

claimant is disabled. Id.; 20 C.F.R. § 416.920. First, the claimant must not be presently

engaged in substantial gainful employment. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(b). Second, the claimant’s

impairment must be “severe.” 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(c). Third, when the claimant has an

impairment that meets the duration required and is listed in Appendix 1 (a list of impairments

which are presumed severe enough to preclude work located in subpart P of part 404 of 20

C.F.R. § 416.920), or is equal to a listed impairment, benefits are awarded without considering

the claimant’s age, education, and work experience. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(d). Fourth, if the

claimant’s impairment does not meet or equal a listed impairment, the ALJ must assess all

relevant medical and other evidence in the claimant’s case record and make findings to

determine the residual functional capacity of the claimant to do his or her past work. 20 C.F.R.

§ 416.920(e). If the claimant is able to do his or her past work, payments are denied. Id. 

Finally, if the claimant cannot perform his or her past work, the ALJ must then determine

whether they are able to do any other type of work. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(f), 416.920(f). If the

ALJ finds that the claimant is not disabled at any step along the way, the claimant is not

disabled and there is no need to continue subsequent steps of the analysis. 20 C.F.R. §

404.1520. 

The claimant carries the initial burden of proving disability in steps one through four of

the analysis. Burch v. Barnhart, 400 F.3d 676, 679 (9th Cir. 2005). However, if the claimant

establishes that he or she is unable to continue with past work, the burden shifts to the ALJ in

step five to show that the claimant can perform other gainful work. Id. Here, after going

through the complete evaluation process, the ALJ denied Thelen’s application for benefits at

step five, concluding that Thelen was limited to less than a full range of sedentary work, and

that a significant number of such jobs existed in the national economy. (Tr. at 18.)

Case 3:04-cv-02696-JSW Document 17 Filed 08/15/05 Page 6 of 12
U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

7

C. Substantial Evidence Supports the ALJ’s Determination That Thelen is Not

Disabled

Thelen asserts that the ALJ erred in concluding that Thelen’s physical and mental

impairments did not meet or equal a listed impairment. Thelen alleges that his impairment in

attention and concentration is “moderate” instead of “mild,” and consequently that the

vocational expert’s testimony requires a finding that there were no jobs he could perform. 

Additionally, Thelen argues that the ALJ improperly discounted his claims of excessive pain. In

response, the Commissioner asserts that the ALJ’s finding that Thelen’s impairments were not

disabling is free of legal error and supported by substantial evidence. Specifically the

Commissioner argues that Thelen failed to prove mental disability, that the vocational expert’s

testimony supports the ALJ’s decision, and that the ALJ properly rejected Thelen’s subjective

complaints. 

1. The ALJ did not err in concluding that Thelen’s impairments did not meet

or equal a listed impairment.

Thelen contends that he meets the requirements for degenerative disc disease, which is

listed under Disorders of the Spine in § 1.04 of Appendix 1. 20 C.F.R. Pt. 404, subpart P, App.

1, § 1.04. He also argues that he meets the criterion for Affective Disorders in § 12.04 of

Appendix 1. 20 C.F.R. Pt. 404, subpart P, App. 1, § 12.04. The list of impairments in

Appendix 1 are presumed severe enough to preclude gainful work. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(d). 

However, the mere diagnosis of a listed impairment is not sufficient to sustain a finding of per

se disability; it must also meet the findings shown in the listing. Id. at § 404.1525(d); see also

Key v. Heckler, 754 F.2d 1545, 1549-50 (9th Cir. 1985). “An ALJ must evaluate the relevant

evidence before concluding that a claimant’s impairments do not meet or equal a listed

impairment.” Lewis v. Apfel, 236 F.3d 503, 512 (9th Cir. 2001). It is the ALJ’s purview and

responsibility to weigh conflicting evidence. Reddick v. Chater, 157 F.3d 715, 722 (9th Cir.

1998). Where there is conflicting evidence, the ALJ may conclude that the listing requirements

were not met if those conclusions are based on substantial evidence. See Lewis, 236 F.3d at

513-14. 

Case 3:04-cv-02696-JSW Document 17 Filed 08/15/05 Page 7 of 12
U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

8

In Key, there was conflicting evidence concerning four different listed impairments in

Appendix 1. Only one of the four doctors on record, Dr. Hunter, made contradictory findings,

but he did perform a full neurological examination. Id. Dr. Hunter’s findings precluded the

claimant from meeting at least one of the requirements of each listing. Id. For example,

Menier’s disease requires findings of disturbances of balance, but Dr. Hunter found no evidence

of ataxia, a constitutional unsteadiness in the use of the arms and legs. Id. While three other

doctors diagnosed the claimant with Menier’s disease, the ALJ weighed the conflicting evidence

in favor of Dr. Hunter’s opinion to find that the claimant did not meet or equal the listed

impairment, and this decision was upheld as based on substantial evidence. Id. 

Here, there is conflicting evidence about the severity of Thelen’s physical impairments. 

(Tr. at 225-62, 290-93.) Dr. Wheeler conducted a comprehensive orthopedic consultative

examination, and concluded that Thelen could be expected to stand or walk at least six hours,

and lift and carry twenty pounds limited by exacerbation of his back pain. (Tr. at 293.) A §

1.04 Spinal Disorder is a Musculoskeletal Disorder requiring a loss of function for at least

twelve months . 20 C.F.R. Pt. 404, subpart P, App. 1, § 1.00. Loss of function is defined as the

“inability to ambulate effectively” or the “inability to perform fine and gross movements

effectively”on a sustained basis. Id. To ambulate effectively, a claimant must be able to

maintain a “reasonable walking pace over a sufficient distance to sustain daily life activities,”

and to travel without assistance to a place of work or school. Id. To effectively perform fine

and gross movements, a claimant must be able to “use both upper arm extremities” to sustain

daily life activities like feeding and bathing oneself. Id. Thelen testified to, and/or reported to

consultative examiners, the ability to dress and bathe himself, to take walks, to ride the bus, to

go to school, to coach baseball and to play video games, etc. (Tr. at 18, 136-38, 149-59, 307-

11.) Therefore, the ALJ’s decision, supported by Dr. Wheeler’s findings and Thelen’s

testimony about his daily activities, is based on substantial evidence. 

Similarly, the ALJ determined that Thelen’s affective disorder with depression imposed

no restriction on daily activities, no difficulties in social functioning, no difficulties in

concentration, persistence or pace, and no episodes of decompensation. (Tr. at 17.) At least two

Case 3:04-cv-02696-JSW Document 17 Filed 08/15/05 Page 8 of 12
U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

9

of these limitations, at a marked level, are required findings for Affective Disorders. 20 C.F.R.

Pt. 404, subpart P, App. 1, § 12.04. Despite Dr. Auluck’s diagnosis of “Major Depression,

recurrent,” the state agency medical consultants specifically evaluated Thelen’s alleged mental

disability under the criteria for § 12.04. (Tr. at 309-10, 329-333.) However, the state agency

consultants diagnosed Thelen with “Major Depression, stable” and rated his resulting degree of

functional limitation as “mild.” (Tr. at 330-31.) This assessment, in combination with Thelen’s

testimony about his daily activities, constitutes substantial evidence to support the ALJ’s

determination that Thelen’s mental impairments, considered singly or in combination, did not

equal or meet any impairments listed in Appendix 1.

2. Substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s conclusion that Thelen could

perform modest sedentary work.

Thelen insists that the medical evidence of his depression shows at least moderate

impairment in attention and concentration, and that the ALJ lacked substantial evidence to

conclude that Thelen had only a mild impairment. The vocational expert testified that someone

with the same functional limitations as Thelen, plus a mild impairment in attention and

concentration, could work, for example, as a cashier, but that someone with a moderate

impairment could not perform any jobs offered in the national economy. (Tr. at 65.) 

While a treating physician’s opinion normally is afforded great weight in disability

cases, that opinion is not necessarily conclusive as to the ultimate issue of disability. 

Magallanes v. Bowen, 881 F.2d 747, 751 (9th Cir. 1989). “To reject the opinion of a treating

physician [that] conflicts with that of an examining physician, the ALJ must make findings

setting forth specific, legitimate reasons for doing so that are based on substantial evidence in

the record.” Id. (internal quotations omitted). To satisfy this burden, the ALJ must set out a

“detailed and thorough summary of the facts and conflicting clinical evidence, [state] his or her

interpretation thereof, and [make] findings.” Cotton v. Bowen, 799 F.2d 1403, 1408 (9th Cir.

1986). 

There is conflicting evidence of the severity of Thelen’s mental impairment. In 2001,

Dr. Levinson indicated that Thelen exhibited “some difficulty” with memory and concentration. 

Case 3:04-cv-02696-JSW Document 17 Filed 08/15/05 Page 9 of 12
U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

10

(Tr. at 287.) In 2003, Dr. Auluck, in a one-time consultative assessment, found that Thelen

would have difficulties in maintaining persistence. (Tr. at 309.) However, the ALJ specifically

stated that Dr. Auluck’s assessment “did not give adequate consideration to the claimant’s

activities which indicate his concentration, persistence, or pace is not impaired.” (Tr. at 17.) 

Dr. Auluck listed Thelen’s activities as dressing and bathing himself, with occasional assistance. 

(Tr. at 309.) The ALJ gave more weight to the opinions of the state agency medical consultants

in light of Thelen’s otherwise consistently reported daily activities. (Tr. at 17.) After reviewing

Thelen’s files and some follow-up investigation, the state consultants reported that Thelen’s

psychiatric condition was “currently non-severe.” (Tr. at 323.) When asked, Thelen reported

that his daily activities included walking one mile, doing the dishes and helping the kids with

their homework. (Tr. at 323.) These daily activities were also reported to Dr. Wheeler. (Tr. at

291.) To further support his finding that Thelen’s concentration was not severely impaired, the

ALJ also pointed to Thelen’s consistent testimony about his activities, such as playing video

games, and coaching children’s baseball. (Tr. at 17.) Therefore, substantial evidence supports

the ALJ’s determination that Thelen had a mild, instead of moderate, impairment in attention

and concentration.

3. The ALJ properly considered the objective medical evidence and Thelen’s

subjective complaints of excessive pain.

Thelen claims that the ALJ improperly disregarded his testimony regarding his severe

pain. This Court must give great weight to the ALJ’s credibility determinations. Fair v. Bowen,

885 F.2d 597, 602, 604 (9th Cir. 1989). However, the Ninth Circuit recognized that the degree

of pain is a purely subjective phenomenon. Id. at 601. Therefore, once a claimant submits

objective medical evidence establishing an impairment that “could reasonably be expected to

cause some pain, it is improper as a matter of law for an ALJ to discredit excess pain testimony

solely on the ground that it is not fully corroborated by objective medical findings.” Id. If the

ALJ does discredit the severity of the pain, he or she is required to set forth “specific findings

justifying that decision.” Id. at 602. Where those specific findings are supported by substantial

evidence, the decision should not be second-guessed. Id. at 604.

Case 3:04-cv-02696-JSW Document 17 Filed 08/15/05 Page 10 of 12
U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

11

In Fair, the ALJ set forth the requisite specific findings to justify his rejection of the

claimant’s excessive pain testimony. Id. at 604. The ALJ found that the claimant received

minimal conservative treatment for his complaints, he failed to follow his doctor’s advice

regarding exercise and weight reduction, and he remained capable of caring for himself and his

home. Id. For example, the claimant was able to care for his personal needs, perform his own

household and shopping chores, ride public transportation and drive his own car. Id. Despite

claimant’s testimony that his pain was prohibitive, this type of evidence justified the ALJ’s

determination that the claimant was not precluded from working. Id. 

Like the claimant’s daily activities relied upon in Fair, the ALJ’s decision to reject

Thelen’s subjective pain complaints was based on his own contradictory testimony about his

ability to walk to the store, occasionally lift up to twenty pounds of groceries from the table,

play video games, and coach children’s baseball. (Tr. at 17.) The ALJ also noted that Thelen

had reported similar activities to several consultative examiners, including doing dishes,

cleaning, and dressing and bathing himself. (Tr. at 18.) These specific findings are supported

by substantial evidence that justify the ALJ’s credibility determination.

The Court thus finds that the ALJ’s finding that Thelen’s impairments did not equal or

meet a listed impairment is supported by Dr. Wheeler’s report, the state agency medical

consultants’ report, and Thelen’s testimony. The ALJ’s balancing of conflicting evidence

concerning the severity of Thelen’s mental impairments in attention and concentration is

similarly based on objective medical records and hearing testimony. Additionally the ALJ

provided sufficient findings supported by the record as a whole to justify his decision to

discredit Thelen’s subjective pain testimony. The ALJ’s decision is therefore supported by

substantial evidence and is free of legal error. Although Thelen’s motion points to other

possible interpretations, it is not the job of this court to reevaluate the evidence.

Case 3:04-cv-02696-JSW Document 17 Filed 08/15/05 Page 11 of 12
U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

12

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, this Court hereby DENIES Thelen’s motion for summary

judgment and GRANTS the Commissioner’s cross-motion for summary judgment.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 15, 2005 

JEFFREY S. WHITE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:04-cv-02696-JSW Document 17 Filed 08/15/05 Page 12 of 12