Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-03017/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-03017-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 863
Nature of Suit: Social Security - DIWC/DIWW (405(g))
Cause of Action: 42:0405id Review of HHS Decision (SSID)

---

1 

 

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

KAREN DENISE MARTIN,

Plaintiff,

v. 

NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Acting 

Commissioner of Social Security, 

Defendant.

Case No.: 3:16-cv-03017-H-BGS

ORDER: 

(1)DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION FOR SUMMARY 

JUDGMENT; and 

[Doc. Nos. 13, 14] 

(2)GRANTING DEFENDANT’S 

CROSS-MOTION FOR 

SUMMARY JUDGMENT

 [Doc. No. 19]

On December 13, 2016, Karen Denise Martin (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against 

Defendant Nancy A. Berryhill, Acting Commissioner of Social Security (“Defendant”), 

seeking judicial review of an administrative denial of disability benefits under the Social 

Security Act. (Doc. No. 1.) On February 27, 2017, Defendant filed an answer to Plaintiff’s

complaint along with the administrative record. (Doc. Nos. 9, 10.) On April 11, 2017, 

Plaintiff filed a motion for summary judgment, requesting that the Court reverse the 

Commissioner’s final decision and remand the case for further administrative proceedings. 

Case 3:16-cv-03017-H-BGS Document 23 Filed 10/26/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 13
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

(Doc. No. 14.) On June 15, 2017, Defendant filed a cross-motion for summary judgment 

and a response in opposition to Plaintiff’s motion, requesting that the Court affirm the 

Commissioner’s final decision. (Doc. Nos. 19, 20.) For the reasons below, the Court 

denies Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, grants Defendant’s cross-motion for 

summary judgment, and affirms the Commissioner’s final decision.

BACKGROUND

 

On June 21, 2013, Plaintiff applied for disability insurance benefits, claiming a 

disability onset date of August 18, 2009. (AR 170-80, 196.) Plaintiff is a 51-year-old 

woman who complains of neuropathy, diabetes, high blood pressure, gout, acid reflex, 

depression, and arthritis in her left foot, knees, and right shoulder. The Social Security 

Administration (“SSA”) initially denied Plaintiff’s application for benefits on September

12, 2013, and denied reconsideration on February 11, 2014. (AR 116-20, 125-31.) 

On May 7, 2015, Plaintiff had a hearing before an Administrative Law Judge 

(“ALJ”). (AR 28.) Plaintiff testified at the hearing, as did a vocational expert retained by 

the SSA. (Id.) Plaintiff also submitted as evidence her medical records, RFC 

questionnaires from her treating physician and nurse, the initial disability determination 

and reconsideration by the state agency physician, and her work and education history. 

(Id.) In both the initial disability determination and the reconsideration, the state agency 

physician found that the Plaintiff was not disable. (AR 101, 113.)

Social Security regulations require ALJs to use the following five-step inquiry in 

determining whether an applicant qualifies for disability benefits: (1) has the claimant been 

gainfully employed since the time of the disability onset date? (2) “is the claimant’s 

impairment severe?” (3) “does the impairment ‘meet or equal’ one of a list of specific 

impairments described in the regulations,” and if not, what is the claimant’s residual 

Case 3:16-cv-03017-H-BGS Document 23 Filed 10/26/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 13
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

functional capacity (“RFC”)1? (4) is the claimant capable of performing past relevant 

work? and (5) “is the claimant able to do any other work?” Tackett v. Apfel, 180 F.3d 

1094, 1098-99 (9th Cir. 1999); see also 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520, 416.920. In a decision 

dated July 8, 2015, the ALJ analyzed Plaintiff’s claim under this test and determined that 

she had not met her burden of proof. (AR 28-53.) At the first step, the ALJ determined 

that the Plaintiff had not been gainfully employed since the disability onset date of August 

18, 2009. (AR 30-31.) At the second step, the ALJ determined that Plaintiff had the 

following severe impairments: gout, Morton’s neuroma, neuropathy in her feet and ankles, 

obesity, diabetes, hypertension, and shoulder pain. (AR 31-33.)

At the third step, the ALJ concluded that Plaintiff did not have an ailment or 

combination of ailments that amounted to one of the SSA’s recognized list of impairments. 

(AR 33-34.) The ALJ then determined that Plaintiff had an RFC to perform light work,

“except that the claimant can stand/walk a total of two hours out of an eight hour day.” 

(AR 34.) The ALJ further found that Plaintiff:

cannot walk on uneven ground, climb ladders, work at unprotected heights or 

around dangerous machinery, or be exposed to temperature extremes. The 

claimant can only occasionally climb ramps or stairs, stoop, or bend. 

Moreover, the claimant can only occasionally lift above shoulder level with 

the dominant (right) upper extremity. As to the dominant upper extremity 

only, she is further restricted to frequent fingering and frequent handling. 

(AR 34.) 

At the fourth step, the ALJ determined that Plaintiff could not perform past relevant 

work as a medical assistant, groundskeeper, assembler, or home health aide. (AR 50-51.) 

At the fifth step, based on the RFC assessment and Plaintiff’s age, education, and

past relevant work experience, the ALJ determined that Plaintiff “has acquired work skills 

from past relevant work that are transferable to other occupations with jobs existing in 

 

1 Social Security regulations define residual function capacity as “the most you can still do despite your 

limitations.” 20 C.F.R. § 416.946(a)(1). 

Case 3:16-cv-03017-H-BGS Document 23 Filed 10/26/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 13
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

significant numbers in the national economy.” (AR 52.) Consequently, the ALJ 

determined that Plaintiff had not been disabled from August 18, 2009, the alleged onset 

date, through July 8, 2015. (AR 31.) 

On October 18, 2016, the Social Security Appeals Council denied Plaintiff’s request 

for review, rendering the ALJ’s decision final. (AR 1-7.) 

DISCUSSION

I. Relevant Legal Standards

A. SSA’s Sequential Five-Step Process. 

The SSA employs a sequential five-step evaluation to determine whether a claimant 

is eligible for benefits. 20 C.F.R. §§ 416.920, 404.1520. To qualify for disability benefits 

under the Act, a claimant must establish that: (1) he or she is unable “to engage in any 

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

impairment,” 42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(1)(A); (2) his or her impairment persisted at least longer 

than a twelve month period, id.; see also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1509; and (3) he or she “either 

was permanently disabled or subject to a condition which became so severe as to create a 

disability prior to the date upon which [his or] her disability insured status expired.” 

Johnson v. Shalala, 60 F.3d 1428, 1432 (9th Cir. 1995); see also 42 U.S.C. § 423(a)(1)(A).

The first step in the sequential evaluation considers a claimant’s “work activity, if 

any.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(i). An ALJ will deny a claimant disability benefits if 

the claimant is engaged in “substantial gainful activity.” Id. §§ 404.1520(b), 416.920(b). 

If a claimant cannot provide proof of gainful work activity, the ALJ proceeds to the 

second step to ascertain whether the claimant has a medically severe impairment or 

combination of impairments. The so-called “severity regulation” dictates the course of 

this analysis. Id. §§ 404.1520(c), 416.920(c); see also Bowen v. Yuckert, 482 U.S. 137, 

140-41 (1987). 

An ALJ will deny a claimant’s disability claim if the ALJ does not find that a 

claimant suffers from a severe impairment, or combination of impairments, which 

significantly limits the claimant’s physical or mental ability to do “basic work activities.” 

Case 3:16-cv-03017-H-BGS Document 23 Filed 10/26/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 13
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

20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(c). The ability to do “basic work activities” means “the abilities 

and aptitudes necessary to do most jobs.” Id. §§ 404.1521(b), 416.921(b). 

If the impairment is severe, the evaluation proceeds to the third step. At this step, 

the ALJ determines whether the impairment is equivalent to one of several listed 

impairments that the SSA acknowledges are so severe as to preclude substantial gainful 

activity. Id. §§ 404.1520(d), 416.920(d). An ALJ conclusively presumes a claimant is 

disabled so long as the impairment meets or equals one of the listed impairments. Id.

§§ 404.1520(d). 

If the ALJ determines that a claimant does not suffer from one of the SSA’s 

recognized severe ailments, the ALJ must establish the claimant’s Residual Functional 

Capacity (“RFC”) before proceeding to the fourth step of the inquiry. Id.

§§ 404.1520(e), 404.1545(a). An individual’s RFC is his or her ability to do physical and 

mental work activities on a sustained basis despite limitations from his or her impairments. 

Id. §§ 404.945(a)(1), 404.1545(a)(1). The RFC analysis considers “whether [the 

claimant’s] impairment(s), and any related symptoms, such as pain, may cause physical 

and mental limitations that affect what [the claimant] can do in a work setting.” Id. §§ 

404.1545(a)(1), 416.945(a)(1). In establishing a claimant’s RFC, the ALJ must assess 

relevant medical and other evidence, as well as consider all of the claimant’s impairments, 

including impairments categorized as non-severe. Id. § 404.1545(a)(3), (e). 

At the fourth step, the ALJ uses the claimant’s RFC to determine whether the 

claimant has the RFC to perform the requirements of his or her past relevant work. Id. § 

404.1520(f). So long as a claimant has the RFC to carry out his or her past relevant work, 

the claimant is not disabled. Id. §§ 404.1560(b)(3). Conversely, if the claimant either 

cannot or does not have any past relevant work, the analysis presses onward.

At the fifth and final step of the SSA’s evaluation, the ALJ must verify whether the 

claimant is able to do any other work in light of his or her RFC, age, education, and work 

experience. Id. § 404.1520(g). If the claimant is able to do other work, the claimant is 

not disabled. However, if the claimant is not able to do other work and meets the duration 

Case 3:16-cv-03017-H-BGS Document 23 Filed 10/26/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 5 of 13
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

requirement, the claimant is disabled. Id. Although the claimant generally continues to 

have the burden of proving disability at step five, a limited burden shifts to the SSA. At 

this stage, the SSA must present evidence demonstrating that other jobs that the claimant 

can perform—allowing for his RFC, age, education, and work experience—exist in 

significant numbers in the national economy. Id. §§ 404.1520, 1560(c), 416.920, 

404.1512(f).

B. Standard of Review. 

Unsuccessful applicants for social security disability benefits may seek judicial 

review of a Commissioner’s final decision in a federal district court. See 42 U.S.C. § 

405(g). “As with other agency decisions, federal court review of social security 

determinations is limited.” Treichler v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 775 F.3d 1090, 1098 

(9th Cir. 2014). 

“An ALJ’s disability determination should be upheld unless it contains legal error 

or is not supported by substantial evidence.” Garrison v. Colvin, 759 F.3d 995, 1009 (9th

Cir. 2014). “‘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.’” Bray v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 554 F.3d 1219, 1222 (9th 

Cir. 2009) (quoting Andrews v. Shalala, 53 F.3d 1035, 1039 (9th Cir. 1995)). The Court 

must consider the record as a whole, weighing both the evidence that supports and the 

evidence that detracts from the Commissioner’s conclusions. Garrison, 759 F.3d at 1009. 

“‘Where the evidence as a whole can support either a grant or a denial, [a court] may not 

substitute [its] judgment for the ALJ’s.’” Bray, 554 F.3d at 1222 (quoting Massachi v. 

Astrue, 486 F.3d 1149, 1152 (9th Cir. 2007)). “‘The ALJ is responsible for determining 

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

Garrison, 759 F.3d at 1010 (quoting Shalala, 53 F.3d at 1039).

Further, even when the ALJ commits legal error, a reviewing court will uphold the 

decision if that error is harmless. Treichler, 775 F.3d at 1099; see also Molina v. Astrue, 

674 F.3d 1104, 1115 (9th Cir. 2012) (“We have long recognized that harmless error 

Case 3:16-cv-03017-H-BGS Document 23 Filed 10/26/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 6 of 13
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

principles apply in the Social Security Act context.”). “[A]n ALJ’s error is harmless where 

it is ‘inconsequential to the ultimate nondisability determination.’” Molina, 674 F.3d at 

1115. “‘[T]he burden of showing that an error is harmful normally falls upon the party 

attacking the agency’s determination.’” Id. at 1111 (quoting Shinseki v. Sanders, 556 U.S. 

396, 409 (2009)). 

III. Analysis 

Plaintiff moves for summary judgment on the following grounds: (1) the ALJ’s RFC 

determination is not supported by substantial evidence, and (2) the ALJ erred by failing to 

develop the record. (Doc. No. 14.) Conversely, Defendant moves for summary judgment 

on the grounds that the ALJ’s RFC was supported by substantial evidence, and there was 

no legal error. The Court addresses each of these arguments in turn. (Doc. No. 19.)

A. The ALJ’s RFC Assessment Was Based on Substantial Evidence.

Plaintiff claims that the ALJ’s decision was not based on substantial evidence for 

two reasons: (1) the ALJ improperly evaluated the medical opinions of Dr. Fredrick 

Thomas and Nurse Helen Lai and (2) the ALJ incorrectly found that Plaintiff’s testimony 

was not credible. (Doc. No. 14.)

1. The ALJ Properly Evaluated the Medical Opinions. 

In determining Plaintiff’s RFC, the ALJ must evaluate all medical opinions that it 

receives. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c). Generally, the ALJ gives more weight to opinions 

from treating sources. Id. §§ 404.1527(c)(1)-(2). If the treating source’s opinion is well 

supported “by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques” and is 

not inconsistent with other evidence in the record, then the opinion is given controlling 

weight. Id. § 404.1527(c)(2). Deference to treating physicians is appropriate because they 

“are likely to be the medical professionals most able to provide a detailed, longitudinal 

picture of [the] medical impairment(s) and may bring a unique perspective to the medical 

evidence that cannot be obtained from the objective medical evidence alone or from 

reports of individual examinations.” Id. 

Case 3:16-cv-03017-H-BGS Document 23 Filed 10/26/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 7 of 13
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 ALJ may choose not to give a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight 

when the opinion is inconsistent with other substantial evidence in the record. See id. “‘If 

the ALJ wishes to disregard the opinion of the treating physician, he must make findings 

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

in the record.’” Orn v. Astrue, 495 F.3d 625, 632 (9th Cir. 2007) (quoting Murray v. 

Heckler, 722 F.2d 499, 501 (9th Cir. 1983)) 

The ALJ considered all of the evidence and issued a detailed twenty-five page 

opinion explaining his decision. Specifically, the ALJ provided the following reasons for 

affording Dr. Thomas’s opinion little weight: the opinion was both unsupported by 

treatment records, and it was inconsistent with the medical record as a whole. (AR 47.) 

The ALJ arrived at this conclusion because Dr. Thomas’s records did not contain physical 

examinations, reported side effects of medication, reported issues with pain, and a detailed 

explanation for Dr. Thomas’s assessment RFC. (Id.) Based on this lack of evidence and 

his assessment of plaintiff’s lack of credibility, the ALJ concluded that Dr. Thomas’s 

opinion was founded on Plaintiff’s subjective allegations rather than on objective medical 

evidence. He thus assigned Dr. Thomas’s opinion little weight under 20 C.F.R. § 

404.1527(c). (Id.) 

 “The ALJ need not accept the opinion of any physician, including a treating 

physician, if that opinion is brief, conclusory, and inadequately supported by clinical 

findings.” Thomas v. Barnhart, 278 F.3d 948, 957 (9th Cir. 2002). Here, the ALJ correctly 

discounted the weight of Dr. Thomas’s opinion because it was conclusory and 

inadequately supported by medical evidence. (AR. 46.) First, Dr. Thomas’s RFC 

questionnaire contains no explanation to justify his medical opinion as to the extent of 

Plaintiff’s functional capacity. (AR 467-70.) Second, none of the physical examinations 

that Dr. Thomas conducted contain any objective medical evidence of impairments that 

would justify the conclusions Dr. Thomas reached in his RFC questionnaire. (AR 47, 347-

49, 369-70, 389-90, 401-02, 468-69.) Moreover, there are no physical examinations from 

other medical examiners that support Dr. Thomas’s opinion. (AR 345, 358, 362, 365, 

Case 3:16-cv-03017-H-BGS Document 23 Filed 10/26/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 8 of 13
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

371-372, 393, 404-05, 429, 461.) Thus, the ALJ provided a specific, legitimate reason for 

assigning little weight to Dr. Thomas’s medical opinion.

Similarly, the ALJ assigned little weight to Nurse Lai’s opinion for the same reasons 

he gave in assigning little weight to Dr. Thomas’s opinion. The opinion was both 

unsupported by treatment records, and it was inconsistent with the medical record as a 

whole. (AR 48-49.) The ALJ arrived at this conclusion because Nurse Lai’s opinion was 

internally inconsistent, lacked physical examinations that supported her findings, did not 

contain a detailed explanation of her findings, and contradicted Dr. Thomas’s opinion. (Id.) 

Just like Dr. Thomas’s opinion, the ALJ determined that these factors warranted assigning 

little weight to Nurse Lai’s opinion. (Id.) 

Internal inconsistencies within a medical opinion constitutes a legitimate basis for 

rejecting the opinion. See Morgan v. Comm’r, 169 F. 3d 595, 603 (9th Cir. 1999). Here, 

the ALJ correctly discounted the weight of Nurse Lai’s opinion because it was 

inconsistent. (AR 48-49.) First, Nurse Lai’s RFC determination is inconsistent with Dr. 

Thomas’s opinion regarding “whether or not the claimant requires manipulative 

limitations or breaks in excess of typical breaks to lie down or recline.” (AR 48-49, 337-

39, 467-70.) Second, Nurse Lai’s report indicates that she previously opined that she was 

unsure if the claimant could perform work before changing her response. (AR 339.) 

Finally, Nurse Lai’s opinion is inconsistent with the physical examinations conducted at 

Central Neighborhood Health Foundation that present the Plaintiff as “having normal 

findings.” (Ar. 48.) This substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s determination that 

Nurse Lai’s opinion was inconsistent. Thus, the ALJ provided a specific, legitimate reason 

for assigning little weight to Nurse Lai’s medical opinion.

2. The ALJ Correctly Found that Plaintiff Was Not Credible. 

The ALJ is not “required to believe every allegation of disabling pain, or else 

disability benefits would be available for the asking, a result plainly contrary to 42 U.S.C. 

§ 423(d)(5)(A).” Fair v. Bowen, 885 F.2d 597, 603 (9th Cir. 1989). To permit meaningful 

judicial review of the credibility determination, the ALJ must “specify which testimony 

Case 3:16-cv-03017-H-BGS Document 23 Filed 10/26/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 9 of 13
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

[he] finds not credible, and then provide clear and convincing reasons supported by 

evidence in the record to support that credibility determination.” Brown-Hunter v. Colvin, 

806 F.3d 487, 488-89 (9th Cir. 2015).

“In assessing the credibility of a claimant’s testimony regarding subjective pain or 

the intensity of symptoms, the ALJ engages in a two-step analysis.” Molina v. Astrue, 

674 F.3d 1104, 1112 (9th Cir. 2012). The ALJ must initially determine whether there is 

“objective medical evidence of an underlying impairment which could reasonably be 

expected to produce the pain or other symptoms alleged.” Id. 

When an [ALJ] determines that a claimant for Social Security benefits is not 

malingering and has provided objective medical evidence of an underlying 

impairment which might reasonably produce the pain or other symptoms [he 

or] she alleges, the ALJ may reject the claimant’s testimony about the severity 

of those symptoms only by providing specific, clear, and convincing reasons 

for doing so.

Brown-Hunter, 806 F.3d at 488-89. The ALJ may consider the factors listed in Social 

Security Ruling 88-13, which include:

1. The nature, location, onset, duration, frequency, radiation, and intensity of 

any pain; 2. Precipitating and aggravating factors (e.g., movement, activity, 

environmental conditions); 3. Type, dosage, effectiveness, and adverse sideeffects of any pain medication; 4. Treatment, other than medication, for relief 

of pain; 5. Functional restrictions; and 6. The claimant’s daily activities.

Burch v. Barnhart, 400 F.3d 676, 680 (9th Cir. 2005).

Further, even if one or more of the reasons that the ALJ lists are invalid, as long as 

the ALJ provides some valid reasons, the ALJ’s credibility determination will be upheld. 

Carmickle v. Comm’r, SSA, 533 F.3d 1155, 1162 (9th Cir. 2008) (stating that an ALJ’s 

citation to erroneous reasons is harmless if the “ALJ’s remaining reasoning and ultimate 

credibility determination were adequately supported by substantial evidence in the 

record[]”). 

As an initial matter, the ALJ found that the gout, Morton’s neuroma, neuropathy in 

her feet and ankles, obesity, diabetes, hypertension, and shoulder pain were medicallyCase 3:16-cv-03017-H-BGS Document 23 Filed 10/26/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 10 of 13
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

determinable severe impairments supported by the medical evidence. (AR 35.) Thus, with 

respect to these impairments, Plaintiff met her burden to show that she qualified for severe 

ailments, and the Record supports the ALJ’s finding.

Having found that Plaintiff qualified for some impairments, the ALJ then considered 

the credibility of Plaintiff’s testimony about the severity of the impairments and their

impact on her ability to perform any type of work. (AR. 36-43.) At that step, the ALJ 

properly doubted Plaintiff’s credibility about the severity of her symptoms and their lifelimiting consequences. (AR. 36.)

Here, the ALJ found that Plaintiff’s degree or intensity of her symptoms was

inconsistent with the rest of her testimony and the record. (AR 36.) The ALJ reached this 

conclusion based upon evidence that Plaintiff was working as a caregiver and gaps in the 

plaintiff’s treatment. (AR 36.) In enumerating these factors as the basis for his decision, 

the ALJ cited specific, clear, and convincing reasons for partially discounting Plaintiff’s 

credibility and testimony, and his consideration of these factors was proper.

First, the ALJ can consider a claimant’s daily activities and work record in assessing 

credibility. See Burch, 400 F.3d at 680; see also C.F.R. § 404.1529(a), (c) (in assessing 

credibility, the agency considers a claimant’s efforts to work and “information about [a 

claimant’s] prior work history”). Here, Plaintiff testified that she worked as a caregiver 

for her son-in-law part time. (AR 70-71.) Among other things, Plaintiff testified that she

did laundry and cooked for her son-in-law. (Id.) Although these activities do not amount 

to the level of substantially gainful employment, they do indicate that Plaintiff is capable 

of working. (AR 36.) This does not comport with Plaintiff’s testimony that she is 

incapable of working due to her medical conditions. (AR 72-74.)

Second, the ALJ can consider “unexplained or inadequately explained failure to 

seek treatment or follow a prescribed course of treatment” in assessing credibility. 

Tommasetti v. Astru, 533 F.3d 1035, 1039 (9th Cir. 2009); see also Burch, 400 F.3d at 

680 (treatment history is a factor that can be used for determining credibility); 20 C.F.R. 

§ 404.1520(b) (“If you do not follow the prescribed treatment without a good reason, we 

Case 3:16-cv-03017-H-BGS Document 23 Filed 10/26/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 11 of 13
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

will not find you disabled . . . .”) Here, the ALJ cites numerous gaps in treatment occurring 

intermittently throughout Plaintiff’s medical history from 2013 to 2015. (AR 36, 38-40, 

42, 306, 324-28, 341, 484-86, 401-02, 454-55, 483-83, 492.) Most recently, Plaintiff

failed to attend physical therapy from December 2014 to March 2015, despite Dr. 

Galloni’s recommendation for physical therapy. (AR 378-80, 454-55, 489-90.)

 In sum, the ALJ articulated specific reasons for his credibility determination. (AR 

36.) Those reasons were clear, convincing and find support from substantial evidence in 

the record. Accordingly, the ALJ’s credibility finding was not erroneous. Carmickle, 533 

F.3d at 1162-63.

B. The ALJ Adequately Developed the Record. 

Plaintiff next claims that the ALJ erred by failing to adequately develop the record. 

(Doc. No. 14 at 15.) Claimants are responsible for providing all evidence used to determine 

the RFC. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1512(a). Correspondingly, the ALJ has the responsibility of 

developing a complete medical history, for at least twelve months preceding the month in 

which claimants filed their applications, and making a reasonable effort to help obtain 

medical records. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1512(b)(1). “Every reasonable effort means that [the 

ALJ] will make an initial request for evidence from [the claimant’s] medical source . . . 

[and] if the evidence has not been received, [the ALJ] will make one follow up request.” 

20 C.F.R. § 416.912(b)(1)(i). The “ALJ’s duty to develop the record further is triggered 

only when there is ambiguous evidence or when the record is inadequate to allow for proper 

evaluation of the evidence.” McLeod v. Astrue, 640 F.3d 881, 885 (9th Cir. 2011) (quoting 

Mayes v. Massanari, 276 F.3d 453, 459–60 (9th Cir. 2001)). 

Here, the ALJ adequately developed the record. Although the ALJ has a 

responsibility to develop the record, Plaintiff has the initial burden of providing the 

evidence necessary for the evaluation. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1512(a), (b). Only after that initial 

burden is satisfied does the ALJ have a duty to develop the record, and the duty only arises

in cases where the evidence is either ambiguous or inadequate to evaluate Plaintiff’s RFC. 

See McLeod, 640 F.3d at 885. Here, the medical record is extensive, consisting of 

Case 3:16-cv-03017-H-BGS Document 23 Filed 10/26/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 12 of 13
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

numerous doctors’ visits and medical examinations spanning more than five years. Here, 

Plaintiff’s most recent medical records provide a complete and unambiguous overview of 

Plaintiff’s current medical condition, including up to date X-rays and MRIs. The record is 

also detailed and unambiguous regarding the extent of Plaintiff’s medical conditions. 

Thus, the ALJ did not have a duty to develop the record further.

Conclusion

The Court concludes that the ALJ’s decision was supported by substantial evidence. 

Therefore, the Court grants the Defendant’s motion for summary judgment and denies the 

Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: October 26, 2017

 

 MARILYN L. HUFF, District Judge

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Case 3:16-cv-03017-H-BGS Document 23 Filed 10/26/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 13 of 13