Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-4_08-cv-00649/USCOURTS-azd-4_08-cv-00649-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 864
Nature of Suit: Social Security - SSID Title XVI
Cause of Action: 42:205 Denial Social Security Benefits

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Pattijo Patterson , 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Michael J. Astrue, Commission of the

Social Security Administration , 

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 08-649-TUC-RCC

ORDER

On March 18, 2010, the Honorable Jacqueline Marshall, United States Magistrate

Judge, filed a Report and Recommendation ("Recommendation") in this action (Doc. 19).

The Recommendation advised the Court to DENY the Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary

Judgment (Doc. 12). 

On March 29, 2010, Plaintiff filed objections to the Recommendation. Plaintiff

contends that the Magistrate Judge failed to apply the proper legal standards in the social

security appeal. Defendant did not file a reply. 

i. Administrative Law Judge Credibility Findings 

Plaintiff argues that the Magistrate Judge applied the wrong legal standard when the

Judge cited Silver v. United States Postal Service, 951 F.2d 1033, 1042 (9th Cir. 1991), for

proposition that administrative law judges are given “great deference” when making

Case 4:08-cv-00649-RCC Document 21 Filed 07/14/10 Page 1 of 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

- 2 -

credibility determination. Pl. Obj. at 2. Plaintiff contends that this case does not apply to

social security cases. Plaintiff alleges the Burnell v. Sullivan, 947 F.2d 341, 345-56 (9th Cir.

1991)(en banc) should apply. After reviewing the record and case law, the District Court

finds that the Magistrate Judge’s citation to Silver was not erroneous. The Magistrate Judge

did not ignore Ninth Circuit law. In fact, Magistrate Judge cited the Burnell. The Court does

not find an error. 

Next, Plaintiff argues that Magistrate Judge failed to apply the proper legal standard

to evaluate and weigh the treating physician’s opinion against the record as a whole. In

particular, Patterson argues that the administrative law and the Magistrate Judge erroneously

rejected treating physician Dr. Archambault’s, and psychologist Dr. Duperret’s opinions.

After review of the record and the Recommendation, the Court finds that Magistrate Judge

did not commit an error. 

Lastly, Plaintiff argues that the Magistrate Judge misapplied the Burnell standard,

when the Magistrate Judge failed to cite any evidence of malingering and state “clear and

convincing” reasons for discrediting her testimony. Plaintiff argues that these findings are

required before a judge could reject the Plaintiff’s subjective complaints of pain that exceed

objective medical findings. Pl. Obj. 3. Plaintiff alleges that the Magistrate Judge rejected the

plaintiff’s subjective complaints because they exceeded the objective medical evidence. 

Plaintiff notes correctly that “an adjudicator may not reject a claimant’s subjective

complaints based soley on a lack of objective medical evidence to fully corroborate the

alleged severity of pain.” Burnell, 947 F.2d at 345. After reviewing the record, the Court

finds that the Magistrate Judge did not commit an error. The medical evidence presented

supports Plaintiff’s subjective complaints of pain but the alleged intensity, duration, and

limiting effects are inconsistent. Since 2004, the medical record(opinion and testing) shows

that the Plaintiff has been generally successful in controlling her disabling symptoms. There

is also evidence that shows she was able to perform some household chores and run errands.

This along with the lack of objective medical evidence and medical treatment notes that

supports the magistrate judge’s finding. 

Case 4:08-cv-00649-RCC Document 21 Filed 07/14/10 Page 2 of 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

- 3 -

The Court considers the Recommendation (Doc. 10) to be thorough and wellreasoned. After a thorough and de novo review of the record, the Court will ADOPT the

Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Marshall. Therefore, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Court adopts Magistrate Judge Marshall’s

Report and Recommendation (Doc. 19). 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment is

denied.(Doc. 12).

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall close this case and

enter judgment accordingly. 

DATED this 13th day of July, 2010.

Case 4:08-cv-00649-RCC Document 21 Filed 07/14/10 Page 3 of 3