Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-01372/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-01372-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 863
Nature of Suit: Social Security - DIWC/DIWW (405(g))
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

 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MARK R. STINNETT

Plaintiff,

v.

MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner

of Social Security,

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Civil No. 11-1372-WQH(WVG)

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION:

DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 

FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT 

(DOC. #14)

GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION

FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT 

(DOC. #15) 

I

INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff Mark R. Stinnett (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), filed a

Complaint for Judicial Review and Remedy On Administrative Decision

under the Social Security Act [42 U.S.C. § 405(g)]. Defendant Michael

J. Astrue (hereinafter “Defendant”), filed an Answer to the Complaint

and the Administrative Record (hereafter “Tr.”), pertaining to this

case. Plaintiff has filed a Motion for Summary Judgment. Defendant has

filed an Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment and a

Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment.

1 11cv1372

Case 3:11-cv-01372-WQH-WVG Document 17 Filed 03/23/12 Page 1 of 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

The Court, having reviewed Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment,

Defendant’s Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment,

Defendant’s Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment, and the Administrative

Record filed by Defendant, hereby finds that Plaintiff is not entitled

to the relief requested and therefore RECOMMENDS that Plaintiff’s Motion

for Summary Judgment be DENIED and Defendant’s Motion for Summary

Judgment be GRANTED. 

II

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

 On March 6, 2007, Plaintiff filed an application for Disability

Benefits and a Period of Disability under Title II of the Social

Security Act (Act). Plaintiff also applied for Supplemental Security

Income (SSI) benefits under Title XVI of the Act, alleging that he was

disabled since June 11, 2006. The Commissioner of Social Security

denied his application initially and upon reconsideration. Plaintiff

requested a hearing before an Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”). On

December 18, 2009, Plaintiff, accompanied by his attorney, appeared at

a hearing before an ALJ. On April 2, 2010, the ALJ issued his hearing

decision, concluding that Plaintiff was not disabled as defined under

the Act. The ALJ’s decision became the Commissioner’s final decision

when the Appeals Council denied Plaintiff’s request for review on April

21, 2011.

III

ALJ’S FINDINGS1/

The ALJ made the following pertinent findings:

1. (Plaintiff) meets the insured status requirements

of the Social Security Act through December 31,

2009.

1/

The ALJ’s findings are found at Tr. 14-22.

2 11cv1372

Case 3:11-cv-01372-WQH-WVG Document 17 Filed 03/23/12 Page 2 of 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

2. (Plaintiff) has not engaged in substantial gainful

activity since June 11, 2006, the alleged onset

date.

This finding is based on the (Plaintiff’s) testimony and

his earnings record.

3. (Plaintiff) has the following severe impairments: a

seizure disorder, and status post multiple

fractures from a June 14, 2006 motorcycle accident.

(Plaintiff)’s impairments affect him more than minimally;

thus, they are considered to be severe. 

(Plaintiff)’s medically determinable mental impairments

of anxiety and alcohol abuse do not cause more than

minimal limitation in the (Plaintiff)’s ability to

perform basic mental work activities and are therefore

nonsevere.

In making this finding, the (ALJ) has considered the four

broad functional areas set out in the disability

regulations for evaluating mental disorders and in

section 12.00C of the Listing of Impairments (20 CFR,

Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1). These four broad

functional areas are known as the “paragraph B” criteria. 

The first functional area is activities of daily living. 

In this area, the claimant has no limitation. The next

functional area is social functioning. In this

area,(Plaintiff) has mild limitation. The third

functional area is concentration, persistence or pace. 

In this area, (Plaintiff) has mild limitation. The

fourth functional area is episodes of decompensation. In

this area, (Plaintiff) has experienced no episodes of

decompensation which have been of extended duration.

Because the claimant’s medically determinable mental

impairment causes 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, it is nonsevere.

The limitations identified in the “paragraph B” criteria

are not a residual functional capacity assessment but are

used to rate the severity of mental impairments at steps

2 and 3 of the sequential evaluation process. The mental

residual functional capacity assessment used at steps 4

and 5 of the sequential evaluation process requires a

more detailed assessment by itemizing various functions

contained in the broad categories found in paragraph B of

the adult mental disorders listings in 12.00 of the

Listing of Impairments. Therefore, the following

residual functional capacity assessment reflects the

degree of limitation the undersigned has found in the

“paragraph B” mental function analysis.

3 11cv1372

Case 3:11-cv-01372-WQH-WVG Document 17 Filed 03/23/12 Page 3 of 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

4. (Plaintiff) does not have an impairment or

combination of impairments that meets or medically

equals one of the listed impairments in 20 CFR Part

404, Subpart P, Appendix 1. 

The (Plaintiff)’s musculoskeletal impairments do not meet

or equal any of the 1.00 (musculoskeletal system)

listings of impairments. His seizure disorder does not

meet or equal Listing 11.02 (grand mal seizures) or

Listing 11.03 (petit mal seizures). 

5. After careful consideration of the entire record,

the (ALJ) finds that (Plaintiff) has the residual

functional capacity to perform light work except

(Plaintiff) can lift and carry 20 pounds

occasionally and 10 pounds frequently. He can

stand and walk for 6 hours out of an 8 hour work

day and he can sit for 6 hours out of an 8 hour

work day. He cannot climb ladders, ropes, or

scaffolds; he can occasionally climb ramps and

stairs; and he can occasionally stoop, crouch, and

crawl. He should avoid all exposure to hazardous

conditions such as working at heights or with

dangerous machinery. 

In making this finding, the undersigned has considered

all symptoms and the extent to which these symptoms can

reasonably be accepted as consistent with the objective

medical evidence and other evidence, based on the

requirements of 20 CFR 404.1529 and 416.929 and SSRs 96-

4p and 96-7p. The ALJ also considered opinion evidence.

In considering the (Plaintiff)’s symptoms, the ALJ must

follow a two-step process in which it must first be

determined whether there is an underlying medically

determinable physical or mental impairment - i.e., an

impairment that can be shown by medically acceptable

clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques - that

could reasonably be expected to produce the claimant’s

pain or other symptoms. 

Second, once an underlying physical or mental impairment

that could reasonably be expected to produce the

claimant’s pain or other symptoms has been shown, the ALJ

must evaluate the intensity, persistence, and limiting

effects of (Plaintiff)’s symptoms to determine the extent

to which they limit (Plaintiff)’s functioning. For this

purpose, whenever statements about the intensity,

persistence, or functionally limiting effects of pain or

other symptoms are not substantiated by objective medical

evidence, the ALJ must make a finding on the credibility

of the statements based on a consideration of the entire

case record. 

4 11cv1372

Case 3:11-cv-01372-WQH-WVG Document 17 Filed 03/23/12 Page 4 of 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

(Plaintiff) testified that he is 46 years of age. He

graduated from high school and attended college for one

year. He has worked in the past as a warehouse worker

and sales representative. He quit working on June 12,

2006 due to injuries from a motorcycle accident. He

currently drinks a few beers every week but does not

drink excessively. He had a seizure in 2004 due to

drinking and stress. He was on a golf course while on a

business trip. He blacked out and hit his head on a

curb. He was taken to the hospital by ambulance. He

filed a worker’s compensation claim. He had a seizure 7

months before the hearing, which was a minor episode. He

did not black out and he was not treated for his

incident. He alleges he cannot work due to chronic back

pain. He cannot concentrate and he has problems sitting. 

He takes medications. He has problems lifting. He has

a crushed vertebrae at T-7 of the thoracic spine. His

doctors have told him there is nothing that can be done,

and he has to live in pain. He has seen a psychiatrist

because he has a fear of death and other problems. He

does not like to be alone and is fearful when driving, so

he does not drive. He has no driver’s license because he

lost it due to driving while under the influence at the

time of the June 2006 accident. He has not attempted to

renew it because of his fear of seizures. After he had

a seizure, he returned to work in a warehouse. After his

motorcycle accident, the claimant moved to Redding. He

lives with his girlfriend in her house. He takes Vicodin

for pain. Side effects include feeling tired, angry, and

concentration deficits. He currently drinks 8-12 beers

a week. He knows he cannot drink too much because of his

medications. He has difficulty working on a computer

keyboard. After sitting at a computer, he has a burning

sensation in has back after 45 minutes. His condition

worsens as the day goes on. He has to rest every 30

minutes for 15-20 minutes. He does not sleep well at

night due to nightmares. He goes to bed at 11:30pm and

arises at 10:00am. He sleeps for 4-6 hours. He is often

tired and naps during the day. He does not get dressed

4-5 days out of the month due to feeling tired and having

difficulty functioning. He would not be able to go to

work every morning. He would take excessive breaks and

need to frequently change position. He might have to

lie down while at work. His doctors do not want to do

surgery as it might cause more pain and loss of movement. 

He spends most of his day on the couch reading, watching

television, and dealing with the pain. He has pain and

discomfort when riding in a car. He wants to see a

neurosurgeon but his current treatment is for medications

only. His health insurance does not pay for physical

therapy. He has hepatitis C, but this condition does not

affect him.

After careful consideration of the evidence, the

undersigned finds that the (Plaintiff)’s medically

determinable impairments could reasonably be expected to

5 11cv1372

Case 3:11-cv-01372-WQH-WVG Document 17 Filed 03/23/12 Page 5 of 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

cause the alleged symptoms; however, (Plaintiff)’s

statements concerning the intensity, persistence, and

limiting effects of these symptoms are not credible to

the extent they are inconsistent with the above residual

functional capacity assessment. 

The evidence of record reflects that on September 29,

2004, the (Plaintiff) reportedly suffered a seizure

during a business trip. (Plaintiff) had been drinking

six to seven beers per day for two days prior to the

incident; he had the seizure later that morning. In May

2004, the claimant said he had been drinking heavily for

three weeks, then stopped drinking for two days when he

had his first seizure. 

On November 1, 2004, a consulting neurologist examined

(Plaintiff), whose examination was normal. The

neurologist concluded that the seizures were due to

alcohol use and withdrawal, lack of sleep and increased

work stress. The neurologist concluded that (Plaintiff)

should not be exposed to extreme stress, work at heights,

be in water without supervision, drive, and engage in

excessive alcohol consumption. (Plaintiff) was placed on

anti-seizure medication, which controlled his symptoms. 

A November 24, 2004 electroencephalogram showed no

evidence of seizure activity. Magnetic resonance imaging

(MRI) of the brain was negative. 

On March 9, 2005, another neurologist conducted a

neurologic consultative examination pursuant to the

claimant’s workers’ compensation claim. On examination,

the (Plaintiff)’s blood pressure was 140/90. Lung and

heart sounds were normal. Sensation, gait and reflexes

were also normal, as was a cerebellar examination. The

consultative neurologist concluded that (Plaintiff)’s

seizure activity was non-industrial in nature and likely

precipitated by (Plaintiff)’s chronic alcohol use and

sleep deprivation.

More current records reflect that (Plaintiff) reportedly

had one seizure in 2008, but he is not taking antiseizure medications. 

On June 11, 2006, (Plaintiff) sustained multiple

fractures to the thoracic spine, third rib, left scapula,

and left clavicle in a motor cycle accident. (Plaintiff)

had no memory of the accident, but apparently he had been

drinking alcohol and driving at 65 miles per hour when

the accident happened. (Plaintiff) also had some post

concussive symptoms, including confusion, but a

computerized tomography2/ scan of the head was negative. 

2/

Computerized Tomography (CT) scanning, also called computerized axial

tomography (CAT) scanning, is a medical imaging procedure that uses x-rays to 

show cross-sectional images of the body. A CT imaging system (continued)

6 11cv1372

Case 3:11-cv-01372-WQH-WVG Document 17 Filed 03/23/12 Page 6 of 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

No surgery was indicated, and (Plaintiff) remained in the

hospital for three days. 

By August 24, 2007, (Plaintiff) reported only mild back

pain. A physical examination revealed no neurological

deficits, and (Plaintiff) had full strength. However,

(Plaintiff) continued to have pain, so his physician

recommended a kyphoplasty.3/ On August 15, 2007, a

physical examination revealed a kyphotic curvature4/

related to the fracture, but otherwise, the physical

examination revealed no weakness, sensory loss, or

asymmetric reflects. Since it had been 14 months since

the injury, the fracture was solid, so his neurosurgeon

no longer recommended surgery; instead, it was

recommended that (Plaintiff) remove the back brace and

begin physical therapy and exercises.

On January 16, 2007, Dr. Ronald Kent conducted a

neurological consultative examination as an agreed

medical examiner, pursuant to (Plaintiff)’s seizure

activity; (Plaintiff) also reported having nightmares due

to the seizures. On examination, (Plaintiff)’s blood

pressure was 140/90; his height was 5'7", and his weight

was 152 pounds. (Plaintiff) had tenderness of the mid

thoracic spine and paraspinous musculature5/

 region. 

(Plaintiff)’s lumbosacral spine and neck were non-tender. 

(continued)

produces cross-sectional images or "slices" of areas of the body, like the slices

in a loaf of bread. These cross-sectional images are used for a variety of

diagnostic and therapeutic purposes. U.S. FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION,

http://www.fda.gov/Radiation-EmittingProducts/RadiationEmittingProductsandProcedures

/MedicalImaging/MedicalX-Rays/ucm115317.htm 

3/

Kyphoplasty is a procedure used on patients with compression fractures in the

spine and offers the potential to restore bone height in the vertebra and reverse

deformity of the spine. A patient undergoing kyphoplasty lies face down while the

physician advances a thin tube into the fractured vertebra from an incision in the

back. Through the tube, the physician drills a small hole into the bone and into

its soft center, providing a pathway for the physician to insert a small balloon

into the interior of the bone, which is then inflated. This pushes apart the caps

of the vertebra and restores the vertebra to its original shape as much as possible. 

The balloon is then deflated and then removed, leaving a cavity that the physician

fills with bone cement. MAYO CLINIC,

http://www.mayoclinic.org/vertebroplasty/kyphoplasty.html

4/

Kyphotic curvature refers to a forward rounding of the upper back; the term

“kyphosis” refers to an exaggerated rounding (more than 50 degrees), which is also

called “round back” or “hunchback.” MAYO CLINIC,

http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/kyphosis/DS00681 

5/

Paraspinous musculature refers to the muscles adjacent to the spinal column. 

NATIONAL INSTTIUTE OF HEALTH, MEDICAL DICTIONARY,

http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/mplusdictionary.html

7 11cv1372

Case 3:11-cv-01372-WQH-WVG Document 17 Filed 03/23/12 Page 7 of 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

Motor strength, coordination, gait, sensation, and

reflexes were within normal limits. Dr. Kent diagnosed

a seizure disorder, secondary to sleep deprivation and

alcohol withdrawal; and psychiatric residual of seizure

involving nightmares and panic attacks. It was Dr.

Kent’s opinion that the seizures were due to overuse of

alcohol and sleep deprivation, and that the only

restrictions (Plaintiff) had were preclusions from

excessive alcohol intake and sleep deprivation. 

On December 5, 2007, (Plaintiff) said the pain was better

controlled. 

During a September 5, 2008 office visit, (Plaintiff) said

he had maintained his pain with Vicodin, and he was

actively swimming and walking for exercise. He said his

pain worsened if he worked on his computer too long or

did too much yard work. (Plaintiff) also reported a

history of seizures; however, he said he had no more

seizures since 2004 and was not taking anti-seizure

medication. He complained of having nightmares since

being assaulted as a child, but he denied depression. On

examination, (Plaintiff)’s heart and lung sounds were

normal. (Plaintiff) had tenderness around T7 of the

thoracic spine; otherwise, the examination was normal. 

An October 16, 2008 physical examination revealed only

mild pain with motion of the thoracic spine. (Plaintiff)

had a full range of motion of the cervical spine, lumbar

spine, left shoulder, and lower extremities. During a

follow-up visit for pain medication on November 20, 2008,

(Plaintiff) reported his pain was well controlled; he had

improved function, no medication side effects, and no

sleep disturbance from pain. On January 20, 2009,

(Plaintiff) said he wanted a surgical consultation as

spasms in the area of the thoracic spine, but a full

range of motion of the lumbar spine and cervical spine.

An October 27, 2009 MRI of the thoracic spine showed

anterior wedging and prominent compression deformity at

T7, consistent with the prior injury; mild compression

deformities at T8 and T9, and degenerative disc disease

with the slight indentation to the left ventral aspect of

the spinal cord at T6-T7. An MRI of the lumbar spine

revealed degenerative disc disease and osteophytosis6/

 at

L4-L5, resulting in left lateral recess stenosis7/ and

6/

Osteophytosis is another name for the condition known as “bone spurs,” which

are projections that develop along the edges of bones where bones meet each other

(such as in between vertebrae). MAYO CLINIC,

http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/bone-spurs/DS00627

7/

Lateral Recess Stenosis occurs when the side of the spinal canal has been

restricted, or narrowed by an abnormailty within the spine’s structure. LASER SPINE

INSTITUTE, (continued)

8 11cv1372

Case 3:11-cv-01372-WQH-WVG Document 17 Filed 03/23/12 Page 8 of 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

narrowing of the neural foramina,8/ and trace L3-L4 disc

disease.

On October 20, 2009, (Plaintiff) said he was happy with

the pain relief with Vicodin but worried that it was

affecting his liver. (Plaintiff) denied numbness and

tingling of the legs. (Plaintiff) said he did not want

to take anti-seizure medications; and he did not want to

take anti-hypertensive medications because even though

(Plaintiff)’s blood pressure was elevated on the date of

the examination, he said it was normal when he took it at

the pharmacy. (Plaintiff) rated his level of pain as 6

on a scale of 1-10, but he reported improved functioning,

and he denied medication side effects or sleep

disturbance due to pain. On examination, (Plaintiff)’s 

kyphosis was moderate and he had tenderness at T8-9 and

L3-4 of the thoracic and lumbar spine. However, he had

no muscles (Sic) spasms; range of motion was normal; and

straight leg raising was negative. 

(Plaintiff) also has a history of hepatitis C and mildly

elevated liver enzymes, but an abdominal ultrasound was

negative and showed no evidence of liver disease, and

(Plaintiff) has not been treated for this condition. At

the office visit on October 20, 2009, (Plaintiff)’s

current treating source noted only to monitor this

condition on an annual basis. Thus, the hepatitis C is

considered to be non-severe as it has no more than a

minimal effect on (Plaintiff)’s ability to engage in

work-related activities. 

Regarding (Plaintiff)’s alleged mental impairments, the

record shows that (Plaintiff) has complained of anxiety,

nightmares, and a fear of having a seizure while driving. 

(Plaintiff) reportedly took Librium9/

 for a short time

after the May 2004 seizure, but there is no record that

(Plaintiff) has sought psychiatric treatment.

On May 5, 2007, Dr. Jason Yang conducted psychiatric

consultative examination of (Plaintiff). (Plaintiff)

complained of excessive worry, but he denied psychiatric

treatment or taking psychiatric medications. On

(continued)

http://www.laserspineinstitute.com/back_problems/spinal_stenosis/lateral_recess

8/

Narrowing of the neural foramina occurs when the nerve passageways in the

spine (on the right and left side) have less space than they previously did, causing

compression or pinching of the nerves. Laser Spine Institute,

http://www.laserspineinstitute.com/back_problems/foraminal_narrowing/types/bilateral

9/

Librium (Chlordiazepoxide) is used to relieve anxiety and to control

agitation caused by alcohol withdrawal. NATIONAL CENTER FOR BIOTECHNOLOGY INFORMATION, U.S.

LIBRARY OF MEDICINE, www.nlm.nih.gov/pubmedhealth/PMH0000568

9 11cv1372

Case 3:11-cv-01372-WQH-WVG Document 17 Filed 03/23/12 Page 9 of 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

examination, (Plaintiff) made good eye contact and had no

psychomotor changes. (Plaintiff) denied hallucinations. 

His attitude was cooperative. Attention, speech,

sensorium cognition, ability to perform simple

calculations, memory, fund of knowledge, mood, affect,

thought content, and thought process were all intact. 

Dr. Yang diagnosed an adjustment disorder with anxiety

and assessed a GAF of 65.10/ It was all his opinion that

(Plaintiff) could perform basic work-related activities

without any mental impairment. The (ALJ)agrees and

adopts Dr. Yang’s opinion, which is consistent with the

medical evidence.

Apart from objective findings ,there are substantial

reasons pursuant to SSR 96-7p to conclude that

(Plaintiff) remains able to engage in a wide range of

work-related activities. At the hearing, the claimant

responded well to questioning. He moved around without

difficulty; he did not appear uncomfortable; and he

walked without any problems. (Plaintiff) has hepatitis

C, but it has not caused problems. (Plaintiff) currently

does not have any seizures, and it appears this condition

is related to (Plaintiff)’s alcohol use. (Plaintiff)

claims he is afraid to work because he fears he will have

seizures. However, (Plaintiff) does household chores,

shops, gardens, listens to music, works on the computer,

spends time with his girlfriend and helps care for her

children, reads the newspaper, watches television, and

shops. He reportedly has a good relationship with family

and friends. (Plaintiff) reported recreational

activities, including hiking and camping. (Plainiff) has

minimized his use of alcohol; however, the record shows

that most of his problems, including his seizure

episodes, were related to his alcohol consumption. 

(Plaintiff) was also intoxicated at the time of the June

2006 motorcycle accident, and he lost his license after

being convicted to (sic) driving under the influence. 

The examining physicians have noted that alcohol has

caused or contributed to (Plaintiff)’s problems. 

(Plaintiff) takes Vicodin, and he stated it has helped

with the pain. All of the aforementioned factors are

inconsistent with the presence of an incapacitating or

debilitating medical condition.

As for the opinion evidence, the State Agency review

physicians determined that (Plaintiff) could perform

light exertion, but that (Plaintiff) was limited to

10/

According to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSMIV) (4th ed., 1994), A GAF score of 61-70 indicates some mild symptoms, such as

depressed mood and mild insomnia, or some difficulty in social occupational, or

school function, such as occasional truancy or theft within the household, but

generally functioning pretty well, and has some meaningful interpersonal

relationships.

10 11cv1372

Case 3:11-cv-01372-WQH-WVG Document 17 Filed 03/23/12 Page 10 of 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

standing and walking for 2 hours rather than 6 hours, and

that (Plaintiff) had preclusions from the following:

climbing ladders, ropes, or scaffolds; more than

occasional climbing of ramps and stairs; more than

occasional stooping, crouching, and crawling; and all

exposure to hazardous conditions such as working at

heights or with dangerous machinery. The State Agency

review psychiatrists concluded that (Plaintiff) did not

have a severe mental impairment. The ALJ concurs and

adopts these findings, which are consistent with the

overall medical evidence, except for the standing and

walking limitations. The record does not show that

(Plaintiff) has neurological deficits in the lower

extremities. The functional capacity adopted herein

takes full account of the mild objective findings,

incorporates the restrictions supported by objective

evidence, and accords the claimant every reasonable

benefit of the doubt. 

Karianne Lamoreaux, (Plaintiff)’s girlfriend, completed

a Third Party Report in which she reported the following

information: she and (Plaintiff) spend all of their time

together. (Plaintiff) spends his days eating, reading

the newspaper, watching television, either walking or

riding in a car to a mini-market, lying down, more

television watching, and then going to sleep. 

(Plaintiff) has bad dreams, insomnia, and pain. It is

difficult for him to bend over and put on his socks and

shoes. He sometimes asks for help washing his back. 

(Plaintiff) can make sandwiches and frozen dinners, but

nothing that involves standing for prolonged periods. He

does house and yard work, including wiping counters,

unloading the dishwasher, and checking the car fluids. 

He cannot do heavy or hard labor because of pain and

immobility. He travels by walking and riding in a car. 

He shops 3-4 times a week for groceries, which takes him

1-2 hours. (Plaintiff) can handle finances. Hobbies

include watching TV, reading newspapers, listening to

music, and web surfing. He emails and phones friends and

family, and socializes with Ms. Lamoreaux. He visits the

library and does local shopping 3-4 times a week, and the

couple does a driving outing on the weekends. 

(Plaintiff) has problems lifting, squatting, bending,

standing, reaching, walking, sitting, kneeling, stair

climbing, concentrating, and interacting with others. 

Medications make his concentration fuzzy. He can walk

for 10 minutes because he has to rest for 2-3 minutes. 

He can pay attention long enough to watch a 30 minute

sitcom; he has no difficulty following written or oral

instructions. (Plaintiff) interacts well with authority

figures. His reactions to stress vary from good to poor;

he cannot handle changes in a routine very well. He

needs to constantly wear a back brace. 

11 11cv1372

Case 3:11-cv-01372-WQH-WVG Document 17 Filed 03/23/12 Page 11 of 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

Much of what Ms. Lamoreaux reported is consistent with

the overall medical evidence. However, the mention of

concentration deficits is not supported by the record,

and there is no evidence the claimant has significant

anxiety such that he cannot withstand normal work stress

and changes in a work place. Although (Plaintiff) does

have lifting, carrying, walking, and standing

restrictions, there is also no evidence that

(Plaintiff)’s ability to perform a limited range of light

exertion is further reduced than found herein. It is

also noted that (Plaintiff) is supported by Ms.

Lamoreaux, so she has a motive in secondary gain. More

importantly any greater restrictions are not supported by

the overall evidence of record.

6. (Plaintiff) is capable of performing past relevant

work as a sales person. This work does not require

the performance of work-related activities

precluded by the claimant’s residual functional

capacity.

In comparing the (Plaintiff)’s residual functional

capacity with the physical and mental demands of this

work, the ALJ finds that (Plaintiff) is able to perform

it as actually and generally performed. 

Although (Plaintiff) is capable of performing past

relevant work, there are other jobs existing in the

national economy that he is also able to perform. 

Therefore, the Administrative Law Judge makes the

following alternative findings for step five of the

sequential evaluation process.

(Plaintiff) was born on June 14, 1963 and was 42 years

old, which is defined as a younger individual age 18-49,

on the alleged disability onset date. (Plaintiff) has at

least a high school education and is able to communicate

in English. Transferability of job skills is not

material to the determination of disability because using

the Medical - Vocational Rules as a framework supports a

finding that (Plaintiff) is “not disabled,” whether or

not (Plaintiff) has transferable job skills.

In the alternative, considering (Plaintiff)’s age,

education, work experience, and residual functional

capacity, there are other jobs that exist in significant

numbers in the national economy that (Plaintiff) also can

perform. 

In determining whether a successful adjustment to other

work can be made, the ALJ must consider (Plaintiff)’s

residual functional capacity, age, education, and work

experience in conjunction with the Medical - Vocational

Guidelines. If (Plaintiff) can perform all or

substantially all of the exertional demands at a given

level of exertion, the medical-vocational rules direct a

12 11cv1372

Case 3:11-cv-01372-WQH-WVG Document 17 Filed 03/23/12 Page 12 of 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

conclusion of either “disabled” or “not disabled”

depending upon (Plaintiff)’s specific vocational profile. 

When (Plaintiff) cannot perform substantially all of the

exertional demands of work at a given level of exertion

and / or has nonexertional limitations, the medicalvocational rules are used as a framework for decisionmaking unless there is a rule that directs a conclusion

of “disabled” without considering the additional

exertional and / or nonexertional limitation. If

(Plaintiff) has solely nonexertional limitations, the

Medical-Vocational Guidelines provides a framework for

decision-making.

If (Plaintiff) had the same residual functional capacity

to perform the full range of light work, considering

(Plaintiff)’s age, education, and work experience, a

finding of “not disabled” would be directed by MedicalVocational Rule 202.21. However, the additional

limitations have little or no effect on the occupational

base of unskilled light work. A finding of “not

disabled” is therefore appropriate under the framework of

this rule. (Plaintiff)’s seizure precautions do not

impose significant limitations which would preclude him

from performing thousands of other existing jobs in the

regional and national economy. 

7. (Plaintiff) has not been under a disability, as

defined in the Social Security Act, from June 11,

2006, through the date of this decision.

IV

STANDARD OF REVIEW

 A district court may only disturb the Commissioner’s final decision

“if it is based on legal error or if the fact findings are not supported

by substantial evidence.” Sprague v. Bowen, 812 F.2d 1226, 1229 (9th

Cir. 1987); see Villa v. Heckler, 797 F.2d 794, 796 (9th Cir. 1986). 

Substantial evidence is defined as relevant evidence that a reasonable

mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. Richardson v.

Perales, 402 U.S. 389, 401 (1971); Matthews v. Shalala, 10 F.3d 678, 679

(9 th Cir. 1993). A reviewing court’s role is not to determine whether

the record can support the claimant’s alternative view of the evidence,

but whether substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s conclusions. Burch

v. Barnhart, 400 F.3d 676, 679 (9th Cir. 2005) (“Where evidence is

13 11cv1372

Case 3:11-cv-01372-WQH-WVG Document 17 Filed 03/23/12 Page 13 of 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

susceptible to more than one rational interpretation, it is the ALJ’s

conclusion that must be upheld.”). 

The court cannot affirm the Commissioner’s final decision simply by

isolating a certain amount of supporting evidence. Rather, the court

must examine the administrative record as a whole. Gonzalez v.

Sullivan, 914 F.2d 1197, 1200 (9th Cir. 1990). Furthermore, the

Commissioner’s decision must be set aside, even if supported by

substantial evidence, if improper legal standards were applied in

reaching that decision. See, e.g., Benitez v. Califano, 573 F.2d 653,

655 (9th Cir. 1978).

V

SUMMARY OF APPLICABLE LAW

Title II of the Social Security Act (hereinafter, “Act”), as

amended, provides for the payment of insurance benefits to persons who

have contributed to the program and who suffer from physical or mental

disability. 42 U.S.C. § 423(a)(1)(D). Title XVI of the Act provides

for the payment of disability benefits to indigent persons under the

Supplemental Security Income (SSI) program. § 1382(a). Both titles for

the Act define “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 last for a

continuous period of not less than 12 months...” Id. The Act further

provides that an individual:

... shall be determined to be 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, regardless of

whether such work exists in the immediate area in which he

lives, or whether a specific job vacancy exists for him, or

14 11cv1372

Case 3:11-cv-01372-WQH-WVG Document 17 Filed 03/23/12 Page 14 of 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

whether he would be hired if he applied for work. 42 U.S.C.

§ 423(d)(2)(a).

The Secretary of the Social Security Administration has established

a five-step sequential evaluation process for determining whether a

person is disabled. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520, 416.920. 

Step one determines whether the claimant is engaged in “substantial

gainful activity.” If he is, disability benefits are denied. 20 C.F.R.

§§ 404.1520(b), 416.920(b). If he is not, the decision maker proceeds

to step two.

Step two determines whether the claimant has a medically severe

impairment or combination of impairments. That determination is

governed by the “severity regulation,” which provides in relevant part:

If you do not have any impairment or combination of

impairments which significantly limits your physical or mental

ability to do basic work activites, we will find that you do

not have a severe impairment and are, therefore, not disabled. 

We will not consider your age, education, and work experience. 

§§ 404.1520(c), 416.920(c).

The ability to do basic work activities is defined as “the

abilities and aptitudes necessary to do most jobs.” 20 C.F.R. §§

404.1521(b), 416.921(b). Such abilities and aptitudes include

“[p]hysical functions such as walking, standing, sitting, lifting,

pushing, pulling, reaching, carrying, or handling;: “[c]apacities for

seeing, hearing, and speaking;” “[u]nderstanding, carrying out, and

remembering simple instructions;” “[u]se of judgment;” “[r]esponding

appropriately to supervision, co-workers, and usual work situations;”

and “[d]ealing with changes in a routine work setting.” Id. If the

claimant does not have a severe impairment or combination of

impairments, the disability claim is denied. If the impairment is

severe, the evaluation proceeds to step three.

15 11cv1372

Case 3:11-cv-01372-WQH-WVG Document 17 Filed 03/23/12 Page 15 of 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

Step three determines whether the impairment is equivalent to one

of a number of listed impairments that the secretary acknowledges are so 

severe as to preclude substantial gainful activity. 20 C.F.R. §§

404.1520(d), 416.920(d). If the impairment meets or equals one of the

listed impairments, the claimant is conclusively presumed to be

disabled. If the impairment is not one that is conclusively presumed to

be disabling, the evaluation proceeds to step four.

Step four determines whether the impairments prevent the claimant

from performing work he has performed in the past. If the claimant is

able to perform his previous work, he is not disabled. 20 C.F.R. §§

404.1520(e), 416.920(e). If the claimant cannot perform his previous

work, the evaluation proceeds to step five.

Step five, the final step of the process, determines whether he is

able to perform other work in the national economy in view of his age,

education, and work experience. The claimant is entitled to disability

benefits only if he is not able to perform other work. 20 C.F.R. §§

404.1520(f), 416.920(f).

VI

DISCUSSION

A. THE ALJ ARTICULATED CLEAR AND CONVINCING REASONS TO REJECT

PLAINTIFF’S SUBJECTIVE SYMPTOM TESTIMONY.

Plaintiff argues that the ALJ failed to provide any clear reason to

reject his allegations of disabling impairment. Defendant contends that

the ALJ provided several clear and valid reasons for not accepting

Plaintiff’s subjective statements about the intensity, persistence, and

limiting effects of his symptoms (Tr. 16-20). 

An ALJ cannot be required to believe every allegation of

disability, or else disability benefits would be available for the

taking, which would be contrary to the Act. Fair v. Bowen, 885 F.2d

16 11cv1372

Case 3:11-cv-01372-WQH-WVG Document 17 Filed 03/23/12 Page 16 of 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

597, 603 (9th Cir. 1989). Congress expressly prohibits granting

disability benefits based on subjective complaints. 42 U.S.C. §

423(d)(5)(A) (“An individual’s statement as to pain or other symptoms

shall not alone be conclusive evidence of disability.”); 20 C.F.R. §

404.1529(a) (an ALJ will consider claimant’s statements about pain or

other symptoms but they will not alone establish [disability]”). As

such, the ALJ properly discounts credibility if he makes specific

credibility findings that are properly supported by the record and

sufficiently specific to ensure a reviewing court that he did not

“arbitrarily discredit” the testimony. Bunnell v. Sullivan, 947 F.2d

341, 345-46 (9th Cir. 1991); Social Security Ruling 96-7p, 1996 WL

374186 (finding must be sufficiently specific to make clear to the

claimant and to any reviewing court the weight the ALJ gave to the

individual’s statements and the reasons for that weight”).

The ALJ may consider a variety of credibility factors, including

“ordinary techniques of credibility evaluation;” the claimant’s daily

activities; nature, location, onset, duration, frequency, radiation, and

intensity of pain or other symptoms; precipitating and aggravating

factors; type, dosage, effectiveness, and adverse side-effects of any

medication; treatment, other than medication; functional restrictions;

unexplained, or inadequately explained, failure to seek or follow

treatment. Bunnell, 947 F.2d at 346-47. 

Here, the ALJ enumerated several specific credibility factors. He

found that, “ [a]part from objective findings, there are substantial

reasons... to conclude that the claimant remains able to engage in a

wide range of work-related activities” (Tr. 19). He properly considered

a variety of credibility factors before he determined that further

17 11cv1372

Case 3:11-cv-01372-WQH-WVG Document 17 Filed 03/23/12 Page 17 of 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

limitation beyond the residual functional capacity for a reduced range

of light work was not warranted (Tr. 20).

For example, the ALJ noted Plaintiff’s activities of daily living. 

See Thomas v. Barnhart, 278 F.3d 947, 958-59 (ALJ properly considers

inconsistencies between claimant’s testimony and daily activities). 

Plaintiff told the examining psychiatrist that he did household chores,

shopped, gardened, listened to music, read the newspaper, watched

television, worked on the computer, and socialized with his girlfriend

(Tr. 20). Plaintiff also told the psychiatrist that his current

recreational activities included hiking and camping (Tr. 20). 

The ALJ also reasonably relied on his observation of Plaintiff at

the hearing (Tr. 19). See Drouin v. Sullivan, 966 F.2d 1255, 1258-59

(9th Cir. 1992) (holding, that along with other evidence, an ALJ’s

observations during the hearing can constitute substantial evidence

supporting his credibility assessment). He noted that Plaintiff

responded well to questioning, moved around without difficulty, sat

comfortably throughout the hour long hearing, and walked without any

problems (Tr. 19).

Next, the ALJ noted that Plaintiff’s seizure activity was tied to

excessive drinking (Tr. 17), and that Plaintiff made inconsistent

statements about the contributory nature of alcohol (Tr. 20). For

instance, Plaintiff told the ALJ that he only had a “couple” of beers

prior to his September 2004 seizure and that he did not believe alcohol

contributed to his problems (Tr. 36). However, the ALJ explained that

“the record shows that most of his problems, including his seizure

episodes, were related to his alcohol consumption ... [he] was also

intoxicated at the time of the June 2006 motorcycle accident, and he

lost his license after [pleading guilty] to driving while under the

18 11cv1372

Case 3:11-cv-01372-WQH-WVG Document 17 Filed 03/23/12 Page 18 of 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

influence... [and] the examining physicians have also noted that alcohol

has caused or contributed to the claimant’s problems” (Tr. 20). 

Congress expressly prohibits granting disability benefits if alcohol use

is “material” to the claimant’s impairments. 42 U.S.C. §§ 423(d)(2)(c),

1382c(a)(3)(J). 

Additionally, the ALJ observed that Plaintiff’s back treatment had

been conservative, and that the medication he took effectively

controlled his pain (Tr. 20). See Warre v. Comm’r, 439 F.3d 1001, 1006

(9th Cir. 2005) (“impairments that can be controlled effectively with

medication are not disabling for the purpose of determining eligibility

for SSI benefits”). Also, Plaintiff had not experienced seizures during

his time of claimed disability and it appeared that his condition before

this period was related to his alcohol use (Tr. 19-20). Plaintiff does

not point to any error with the ALJ’s findings regarding the objective

medical evidence, which is a necessary baseline factor in the ALJ’s

credibility analysis. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(a) (in evaluating

symptoms the ALJ will consider “medical history, the medical signs and

laboratory findings”); Bunnell, 947 F.2d at 344 (in evaluating

credibility, the ALJ should first consider objective medical evidence

and then consider other factors). The ALJ properly discussed the lack

of objective evidence to support Plaintiff’s allegations (Tr. 16-19). 

Regarding back pain, the ALJ summarized Plaintiff’s history of back

pain and impairment (Tr. 17-18). This evidence reveals that Plaintiff’s

pain was well controlled with medication; he was able to walk, swim, and

take care of his daily activities. His pain was only exacerbated by

activities such as running, or sitting or standing for “long” periods;

he reported no sleep problems or medication side-effects (Tr. 425-33). 

This level of daily activity was inconsistent with Plaintiff’s testimony

19 11cv1372

Case 3:11-cv-01372-WQH-WVG Document 17 Filed 03/23/12 Page 19 of 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

at the hearing where he described a “constant” level of disabling back

pain, medication side-effects that significantly impaired his

concentration, and that he sometimes could not dress himself. (Tr. 41,

47, 49-52, 54). Because Plainiff remained “capable of caring for all

his own personal needs, the performance of his routine household

maintenance and shopping chores”, and even remained capable of

activities such as hiking, camping, and swimming, it was reasonable for

the ALJ to conclude that the claimant’s pain does not prevent the

claimant from working. 

Regarding seizures, Plaintiff admitted that they were infrequent

and not an ongoing problem (Tr. 40). In September 2008, he told a

treating physician that he had not had a seizure since 2004 and did not

take any seizure medication (AR 437). The examining neurologists opined

that Plaintiff’s seizure activity in 2004 was due to lack of sleep and

alcohol consumption (Tr. 208, 237). Dr. Kent also found “no reasonable

medical basis” for suspecting that Plaintiff’s seizures were related to

a neurological issue such as epilepsy (Tr. 235). The ALJ concluded that

Plaintiff had not had seizures during his time of claimed disability and

it appeared that his condition before this time was related to alcohol

use (Tr. 19-20). He reasonably determined that Plaintiff’s allegations

of disabling limitations were unsupported and not fully credible. See

Burch, 400 F.3d at 681 (“[a]lthough a lack of medical evidence cannot

form the sole basis for discounting pain testimony, it is a factor that

the ALJ can consider in [the] credibility analysis”). 

The ALJ provided numerous reasons to support his conclusion that

Plaintiff’s back pain and seizure disorder limited him to a residual

functioning capacity for a reduced range of light work, but further

limitation was not warranted (Tr. 15-20). Substantial evidence further

20 11cv1372

Case 3:11-cv-01372-WQH-WVG Document 17 Filed 03/23/12 Page 20 of 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

supported the ALJ’s finding that Plaintiff could return to his past

relevant work as a salesperson (Tr. 21). 

Accordingly, the Court RECOMMENDS that Plaintiff’s Motion for

Summary Judgment be DENIED and Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment

be GRANTED.

VII

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION

After a review of the record in this matter, the undersigned

Magistrate Judge RECOMMENDS that Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment

be DENIED and Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment be GRANTED.

This Report and Recommendation of the undersigned Magistrate Judge

is submitted to the United States District Judge assigned to this case,

pursuant to the provision of 28 U.S.C. §¤ 636(b)(1).

IT IS ORDERED that no later than April 13, 2012, any party to this

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

all parties. The document should be captioned “Objections to Report and

Recommendation.”

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that any reply to the objections shall be

filed with the Court and served on all parties no later than April 27,

2012. The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the 

21 11cv1372

Case 3:11-cv-01372-WQH-WVG Document 17 Filed 03/23/12 Page 21 of 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

specified time may waive the right to raise those objections on

appeal of the court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir.

1991).

DATED: March 23, 2012

 Hon. William V. Gallo

 U.S. Magistrate Judge

22 11cv1372

Case 3:11-cv-01372-WQH-WVG Document 17 Filed 03/23/12 Page 22 of 22