Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-00267/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-00267-0/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)

---

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

PAULA ROCHELLE FRENCH,

Plaintiff,

v.

CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting

Commissioner of Social

Security,

Defendant.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Civil No. 13-0267-WQH (WVG)

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: 

DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR

SUMMARY JUDGMENT (DOC. NO. 12)

GRANTING DEFENDANT’S CROSSMOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

(DOC. NO. 13)

I

INTRODUCTION

On February 1, 2013, Plaintiff Paula Rochelle French

(“Plaintiff”), filed a Complaint for Review of the Final Decision of

the Commissioner of Social Security (“Complaint”). On May 20, 2013,

defendant Carolyn W. Colvin, Acting Commissioner of Social Security,

(“Defendant”), filed an Answer to the Complaint and lodged the

administrative record (“TR.”), pertaining to this case. On July 24,

2013, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Summary Judgment (“MSJ”). On

August 12, 2013, Defendant filed an Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion

13cv0267 1

Case 3:13-cv-00267-WQH-WVG Document 17 Filed 10/29/13 Page 1 of 48
 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

for Summary Judgment and a Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment

(“Opp.”). 

The Court, having reviewed Plaintiffs’ Complaint, Defendant’s

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

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 Cross-Motion for Summary

Judgment be GRANTED.

II

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On March 25, 2010, Plaintiff filed an application for

supplemental security income under Title XVI and XIX of the Social

Security Act (“Act”).1/ (TR. 17.) On July 6, 2010, Defendant denied

the initial claim for benefits, and on September 28, 2010, denied

reconsideration.2/ (TR. 58-62, 64-68.) 

Plaintiff requested a hearing before an Administrative Law

Judge (“ALJ”) which was held on March 4, 2011. (TR. 31-45.) 

Plaintiff, who was represented by counsel, appeared at the hearing. 

(Id.) On September 22, 2011, the ALJ issued his decision, concluding

that Plaintiff was not disabled as defined under the Act. (TR.17-

26.) The ALJ’s decision became the Acting Commissioner’s final

1/

Plaintiff’s application for supplemental security income benefits is dated

April 15, 2010. (TR. 119-122). However, in the ALJ’s Decision, it states the

application was filed on March 25, 2010. (TR. 17).

2/

The date of reconsideration was September 28, 2010. The actual letter of

reconsideration is undated. See TR. 17.

13cv0267 2

Case 3:13-cv-00267-WQH-WVG Document 17 Filed 10/29/13 Page 2 of 48
 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

decision when the Appeals Council denied Plaintiff’s request for

review on November 28, 2012. (TR. 3-6.)

III

STATEMENT OF FACTS

Plaintiff was born on March 17, 1958. (TR. 119.) Plaintiff

has not been employed since 2009. (TR. 36). However, her employment

history includes working as a daycare provider and as a cashier.3/

Id. Plaintiff claims she stopped working five years previously due

to chronic back pain and numbness.4/ (TR. 229). Plaintiff also

suffers from nontoxic nodular goiter,5/ hypertension,6/ anxiety,7/ and

major depressive disorder8/ (TR. 70, TR. 231).

3/ The record reflects that Plaintiff worked as a commissary worker

(cashier) from April 2005-August 2005 and as an at home daycare provider from 2005

to 2007. (TR. 149). However, Plaintiff’s attorney claims her last period of

employment was as a childcare worker through the YMCA, and Plaintiff stated at the

administrative hearing that she was last employed in 2009. (TR. 153, TR. 36). 

4/

Plaintiff made this statement on June 19, 2010, to Romualdo R. Rodriguez,

M.D., when she was being evaluated for a clinical psychiatric consultive exam. 

(TR. 229).

5/

Nontoxic nodular goiter is defined as “an enlargement of the thyroid

gland” caused by nodules, or lumps, on the thyroid. Goiters are seldom painful.

Nontoxic goiters usually do not have noticeable symptoms, unless they become very

large. Symptoms may include swelling on the neck, breathing difficulties,

coughing, wheezing, and difficulty swallowing with a large goiter, feeling of

pressure on the neck, and hoarseness. The Department of Medicine of the New York

University Langone M e d i c a l C e n t e r ( D e c . 2 0 1 1 ) 

http://medicine.med.nyu.edu/conditions-we-treat/conditions/nontoxic-nodular-goiter

6/ Hypertension is defined as “high blood pressure.” There are generally

no symptoms, but it can result in kidney disease and kidney problems. A.D.A.M.

Medical Encyclopedia (Jun. 10, 2011),

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmedhealth/PMH0001502.

7/

Anxiety is a feeling of fear, unease, and worry. The source of these

symptoms is not always known. A.D.A.M. Medical Encyclopedia (Jun. 10, 2011)

http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/003211.htm.

8/

Major depressive disorder is a depressed mood and/or loss of interest or

pleasure in life activities for at least two weeks and at least five of the

required symptoms that cause clinically significant impairment in social, work,

or other important areas of functioning almost everyday. National Center for

Biotechnology Informations, U.S. National Library of Medicine (2008),

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK64063.

13cv0267 3

Case 3:13-cv-00267-WQH-WVG Document 17 Filed 10/29/13 Page 3 of 48
 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, applying the five step sequential analysis in 20

C.F.R. Section 416.920, found Plaintiff was not disabled in

accordance with the Social Security Act Section 1614(a)(3)(A). 

Though the ALJ determined that Plaintiff suffered from mild lumbar

degenerative disc disease9/, cervical sprain, and sprain, these

conditions were not so debilitating as to restrict Plaintiff from

performing past relevant work as a child care provider. (TR. 19-

25). The ALJ determined Plaintiff could perform medium work as

defined in 20 CFR 416.967(c) except she is frequently able to climb,

stoop, kneel, and crouch. (TR. 21). The ALJ rejected the notion

that Plaintiff’s Residual Functional Capacity (“RFC”) was low stress

work due to her depression and anxiety symptoms. (TR. 34-36.) 

Plaintiff contends that the ALJ erred in finding that she was

not disabled under Section 1614(a)(3)(A) of the Social Security Act,

because the ALJ rejected the medical opinion of Plaintiff’s treating

physician, Melissa Hurd, M.D., when the ALJ determined Plaintiff’s

RFC. (MSJ at 11-12). Plaintiff contends that the ALJ’s reasons for

rejecting Dr. Hurd’s findings were not specific and legitimate based

on substantial evidence of record and are therefore erroneous.(MSJ

6-7). Additionally, Plaintiff asserts that there was no substantial

9/

Mild lumbar degenerative disc disease (DDD) refers to a syndrome in which

a compromised disc causes low back pain. MRI findings that are closely linked to

a painful disc include: disc space collapse of greater than 50% and cartilaginous

endplate errosion. Most patients with DDD will experience low-grade continuous

but tolerable pain that will occasionally flare for a few days or more. Symptoms

include continuous pain for more than six weeks centered in the lower back, that

may radiate to the hips and legs; pain that is frequently worse when sitting,

prolonged standing, bending forward, twisting and lifting; severe symptoms can

include numbness and tingling in the legs, as well as difficulty walking. Peter

F. Ullrich, M.D., Lumbar Degenerative Disc Disease, Spine-Health (Nov. 6, 2006),

available at http://www.spine-health.com/conditions/degenerative-disc-disease/

lumbar-degenerative-disc-disease-symptoms. 

13cv0267 4

Case 3:13-cv-00267-WQH-WVG Document 17 Filed 10/29/13 Page 4 of 48
 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

evidence to support the ALJ’s finding that his complaints lacked

credibility. (MSJ at 11-12).

A. MEDICAL HISTORY

1. TREATMENT WITH MELISSA HURD MEDICAL CORPORATION

On March 11, 2010, Plaintiff was seen by Dr. Hurd for

bilateral leg numbness and tingling that occurred twice a week

mostly in the left leg. (TR. 300-301). During the office visit,

Dr. Hurd reviewed Plaintiff’s x-ray results and noted that the

multiple views of Plaintiff’s lumbar spine revealed normal alignment

of lumbar segments, no acute fracture, no destructive legions,

normal disc spaces, with the posterior elements intact. (TR. 217-

218). 

On June 8, 2010, Plaintiff was seen by Dr. Hurd for nontoxic 

nodular goiter, backache, and hypertension. Dr. Hurd reported that

Plaintiff’s symptoms were out of proportion to the findings revealed

in the x-ray and that medication had failed Plaintiff. After

conducting a physical exam of Plaintiff, Dr. Hurd noted a normal

curvature in Plaintiff’s spine and tender lower lumbar spine in

paraspinous muscles. (TR. 290-291). 

On June 29, 2010, Dr. Hurd wrote a note on behalf of Plaintiff

recommending that Plaintiff’s apartment be moved to the first floor

because she suffered from chronic back pain. (TR. 280). 

On July 1, 2010 Plaintiff was seen by Dr. Hurd for

labrynthitis. Dr. Hurd reported that Plaintiff was healthyappearing, well-nourished, and well-developed, with no acute

distress, and ambulating normally. (TR. 289). 

13cv0267 5

Case 3:13-cv-00267-WQH-WVG Document 17 Filed 10/29/13 Page 5 of 48
 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

 10

 11

 12

 13

 14

 15

 16

 17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

On July 20, 2010, Plaintiff was seen by Dr. Hurd for a followup for her backache. Dr. Hurd examined Plaintiff and reported that

Plaintiff’s symptoms were out of proportion to findings on x-ray and

Plaintiff reported pain with motion and extension. She further

noted that Plaintiff had started physical therapy and she thought it

was likely Plaintiff had degenerative disc disease. However, Dr.

Hurd also noted that Plaintiff’s insurance would only cover two

visits at the physical therapist. (TR. 286-287). Subsequently, on

July 20, 2010, the same day as the examination, Dr. Hurd wrote a

note limiting Plaintiff’s ability to work based on Plaintiff’s

complaint of chronic back pain and radicular symptoms of numbness

and tingling in the legs. She reiterated in the note that Plaintiff

had failed medications and was currently pursuing physical therapy

at the time to help alleviate her symptoms. She limited Plaintiff

to sitting and standing for less than 25 minutes, not lifting

heavier than 10 pounds, no climbing and no repeated bending or

twisting. (TR. 279). 

On September 7, 2010, Plaintiff was seen by Dr. Hurd for cramps

and a follow-up for her backache. Dr. Hurd did not examine her back

at this visit, but noted that Plaintiff was healthy-appearing, wellnourished, and well-developed. There was no note of any complaints

related to her back. (TR. 284-286). 

On March 1, 2011, Plaintiff was seen by Dr. Hurd for sinus pain

and a dry cough. At the visit, Dr. Hurd noted that Plaintiff’s

lawyer recommended she see a pain specialist. Plaintiff also told

Dr. Hurd that she had attended physical therapy twice, but could no

13cv0267 6

Case 3:13-cv-00267-WQH-WVG Document 17 Filed 10/29/13 Page 6 of 48
 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

longer afford to go. Dr. Hurd noted Plaintiff did not follow her

home exercise program all the time, but used Norco10/ periodically to

relieve her pain. (TR. 281). During the visit, Dr. Hurd noted that

her general appearance was overweight and that Plaintiff was in no

acute distress. Dr. Hurd reported her mental status as normal with

recent memory and remote memory as normal. (TR. 282). She also

reported her motor strength and tone as normal, with no

contractures, malalignment, tenderness, or bony abnormalities, and

normal movement of all extremities. (TR. 283). Dr. Hurd reviewed

Plaintiff’s last x-ray (no date) and reported no clear manner of

causation of Plaintiff’s chronic back pain. (TR. 284). Dr. Hurd’s

assessment plan was for Plaintiff to lose weight via home exercise

program, and to obtain an MRI on Plaintiff’s lumbar spine. (TR.

283-284).

2. PSYCHOLOGICAL CONSULTATION WITH ROMUALDO R.

RODRIGUEZ, M.D.

Plaintiff was seen by Dr. Rodriguez for a clinical

psychiatric consultive examination. (TR. 227-232). Dr. Rodriguez

reported on June 19, 2010, that Plaintiff had no history of mental

health care or treatment, including any type of counseling. (TR.

227). During the examination, Plaintiff was coherent and organized

and there was no tangentially or loosening of associations. (TR.

229). She was relevant and non delusional. (TR. 229). There was no

10/

 Norco is a combination medication used to relieve moderate to severe

pain. It contains a hydrocodone, a narcotic pain reliever,and acetaminophen, a

non-narcotic pain reliever. WebMD (July 2013), http://www.webmd.com/drugs/drug63-Norco+Oral.aspx.

13cv0267 7

Case 3:13-cv-00267-WQH-WVG Document 17 Filed 10/29/13 Page 7 of 48
 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

bizarre or psychotic thought intent and she denied recent auditory

or visual hallucinations. (TR. 229-230). She was alert and oriented

in all spheres and appeared to be at least of average intelligence. 

(TR. 230). 

During the examination, Plaintiff reported that “she uses a

ride from others, drives her own car, runs errands, goes to the

store, cooks and makes snacks, participates in household chores,

dresses and bathes herself. She denied any significant outside

activities except for occasional walks and described television as

her only hobby. She can leave home alone, handle her own cash and

pay her own bills.” (TR. 229). 

Plaintiff was able to understand, remember and carry out

simple one or two step and detailed and complex instructions and was

slightly limited in her ability to relate and interact with

supervisors, coworkers, and the public, maintain concentration,

attention, persistence, and pace; associate with day to day work

activity including attendance and safety; adapt to stresses common

to a normal work environment; accept instructions from supervisors; 

maintain regular attendance in the work place and perform work

activities on a consistent basis; and perform work activities

without special or additional supervision. (TR. 232). Plaintiff

was diagnosed with major depressive disorder and a Global Assessment

of Functioning (“GAF”) of 65 indicating some mild symptoms or some

13cv0267 8

Case 3:13-cv-00267-WQH-WVG Document 17 Filed 10/29/13 Page 8 of 48
 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

difficulty in social, occupational, or school functioning.11/ (TR.

231-232).

3. PHYSICAL RESIDUAL FUNCTIONAL CAPACITY ASSESSMENT

WITH M. YEE, M.D.

 A Physical Residual Functional Capacity Assessment dated

June 29, 2010, by Dr. Yee, a state medical consultant, found that

objective medical evidence supported a finding that the Plaintiff

could perform a significant range of light work. (TR. 235-238). 

Plaintiff was found to be only occasionally able to climb stairs and

ramps, and occasionally balance, stoop, kneel, crouch, and crawl,

but never climb ladders, ropes or scaffolds. (TR. 235-238).Dr. Yee

concluded that Plaintiff needed to avoid concentrated exposure to

vibration and hazards. 

Dr. Yee also concluded that Plaintiff’s current diagnosis of

backache, hypertension and goiter, were not so out of control that

they could not be treated with medications. (TR. 254). Dr. Yee

considered Plaintiff’s physical exam that appeared to have normal

findings, negative straight leg raising findings, Plaintiff’s full

motor strength and only tender to palpitation on lumbar spine

paraspinal muscles. (TR. 254). His opinion was affirmed by S.

Reddy, M.D., on September 7, 2010. (TR. 270).

11/ The GAF is a numeric scale (0 through 100) used by mental health

clinicians and physicians to rate subjectively the social, occupational, and

psychological functioning of adults. The scale is presented and described in the

Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) published by the

American Psychiatric Association. (See TR. 231 for Dr. Rodriguez’s diagnosis and

assignment of Plaintiff’s GAF score.). 

13cv0267 9

Case 3:13-cv-00267-WQH-WVG Document 17 Filed 10/29/13 Page 9 of 48
 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. MENTAL HEALTH ASSESSMENT WITH H. AMADO, M.D.

On May 15, 2009, Dr. H. Amado assessed Plaintiff’s mental

functional capacity based solely upon Plaintiff’s medical records. 

(TR. 239-252). Dr. Amado found that the objective medical evidence

supported a finding that the claimant had medically determinable

major depressive disorder and ruled out anxiety disorder not

otherwise specified. (TR. 242-243). Dr. Amado also found that

Plaintiff was mildly restricted in activities of daily living, mild

difficulties maintaining social functioning, mild difficulties in

maintaining concentration, persistence or pace, and had no episodes

of decompensation. (TR. 247).

Dr. Amado concluded that if Plaintiff “is properly treated

for depression she could easily recover from her symptoms in the

next twelve months.” (TR. 252). Dr. Amado’s opinion was affirmed by

Nicole Lazorwitz, Psy.D., on September 14, 2010. (TR. 271).

5. ORTHOPEDIC CONSULTATION WITH THOMAS J. SABOURIN,

M.D., ORS

On August 4, 2011, Plaintiff was seen by Thomas J. Sabourin,

M.D., for a clinical orthopedic consultive examination. The

physical examination conducted by Dr. Sabourin included formal

physical examination procedures and observations of Plaintiff’s

movements and actions during the taking of the history and physcial

examination. Dr. Sabourin noted that Plaintiff is a well-nourished,

well-developed female in no acute distress. Plaintiff is described

as sitting and standing with normal posture, without any tilt or

lists, and as sitting comfortably during the examination. During

13cv0267 10

Case 3:13-cv-00267-WQH-WVG Document 17 Filed 10/29/13 Page 10 of 48
 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 examination, Dr. Sabourin observed that Plaintiff brought her

cane to the examination, but walked without the cane voluntarily

around the examination room. In addition, Plaintiff was able to get

in and out of the chair, and on and off the examination table

satisfactorily. Plaintiff was able to sit on the examination table

with her legs straight out in front of her. (TR. 313-314).

Dr. Sabourin reported that Plaintiff is able to lift and

carry fifty pounds occasionally and twenty-five pounds frequently;

stand six hours, walk six hours, and sit six hours in an eight hour

workday; does not require a cane for ambulation; can continuously

reach, handle, finger, feel, push, and pull; can continuously use

the feet for operation of foot controls; frequently climb, balance,

stoop, kneel, crouch or crawl; and can only occasionally be exposed

to unprotected heights. (TR. 318-325).

Dr. Sabourin also reviewed Plaintiff’s medical records,

including a report of an MRI taken on July, 14, 2011. He noted that

the MRI shows relatively mild changes in Plaintiff’s lumbar spine

which would not account for her symptomatolgy and especially her

numbness and weakness. He also noted that the severity and duration

of her complaints were in significant disproportion to the

determinable condition. (TR. 316-317).

B. TESTIMONY AT THE ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING

1. TESTIMONY OF PLAINTIFF, PAULA R. FRENCH

At the hearing, Plaintiff stated that she had a driver’s

license, but had difficulty driving long distances because her hips

hurt. She stated that she had last worked in 2009 for one week at

13cv0267 11

Case 3:13-cv-00267-WQH-WVG Document 17 Filed 10/29/13 Page 11 of 48
 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

 10

 11

 12

 13

 14

 15

 16

 17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

a daycare. She reported that she had problems with her legs, back,

shoulders, and carpal tunnel syndrome, as well as depression and

anxiety. She stated that she was able to lift 5-10 pounds, sit for

20-25 minutes, stand for 20 minutes, and had problems going up and

down the stairs. She took Norco, Soma12/, and Xanax13/ and stated

that her medications made her sleepy, forgetful, and lose

concentration. She complained of urinary frequency.

IV

SUMMARY OF APPLICABLE LAW

A. Social Security Act and Disability Determination

The Act provides for the payment of insurance benefits to

persons who contributed to the program and who suffer from physical

or mental disability. 42 U.S.C. § 423(a)(1)(D). The Act defines

“disability” as the “inability to engage in any substantial gainful

activity by reason of any medically determinable physical or mental

impairment which can be expected to last for a continuous period of

not less than 12 months...” Id. An Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”)

will review an initial disability determination at an administrative

hearing. 20 C.F.R. § 404.929 (2013). 

12/

Soma contains carisoprodol which is used short-term to treat muscle pain

and discomfort. It is usually used along with rest, physical therapy, and other

treatments. It works by helping to relax the muscles. WebMD (March 2013),

http://www.webmd.com/drugs/drug-12153-Soma+Oral.aspx.

13/

Xanax contains alprazolam which is used to treat anxiety and panic

disorders. It belongs to a class of medications called benzoiazepines which act

on the brain and nerves (central nervous system) to produce a calming effect.

WebMD (March 2013), http://www.webmd.com/drugs/drug-9824-Xanax+Oral.aspx.

13cv0267 12

Case 3:13-cv-00267-WQH-WVG Document 17 Filed 10/29/13 Page 12 of 48
 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 Secretary of the Social Security Administration

established a five-step sequential evaluation process for an ALJ at

a hearing to determine whether the claimant qualifies as disabled.

See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520, 416.920 (2013). The ALJ will address the

following five steps to determine if a person is disabled: first,

whether the claimant is engaged in substantial gainful activity;

second, whether the claimant has a medically severe impairment or

combination of impairments; third, whether the claimant has a severe

impairment that is equivalent to a listed impairment that precludes

substantial gainful activity; fourth, whether the claimant may

perform work he performed in the past despite a severe impairment;

fifth, whether the claimant is able to perform other work in the

national economy in view of his age, education, and work experience.

20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(2013). 

B. ALJ Determination of Residual Functional Capacity

Prior to step four, the ALJ must determine the claimant’s

residual functional capacity (“RFC”) “to do physical and mental work

activities on a sustained basis despite limitations from his

impairments.” See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520. The ALJ must assess all of

the “relevant medical and other evidence” and consider “all of the

claimant’s impairments, including impairments that are not severe,”

to determine the claimant’s RFC. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(e),

404.1545(a)(3).

C. Remedy

If the district court finds error with the ALJ’s

determination, the court may remand the case to the Social Security

13cv0267 13

Case 3:13-cv-00267-WQH-WVG Document 17 Filed 10/29/13 Page 13 of 48
 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

Administration to award benefits or for additional evidence and

findings. Swenson v. Sullivan, 876 F.2d 683, 689 (9th Cir. 1989).

Courts typically remand for an award of benefits “where (1) the ALJ

has failed to provide legally sufficient reasons for rejecting such

evidence, (2) there are no outstanding issues that must be resolved

before a determination of disability can be made, and (3) it is

clear from the record that the ALJ would be required to find the

claimant disabled were such evidence credited.” Smolen v. Chater, 80

F.3d 1273, 1292 (9th Cir. 1996); see also Harmon v. Apfel, 211 F.3d

1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2000). The court should award benefits if the

ALJ fully developed the record and another “administrative proceeding would serve no useful purpose.” See Smolen, 80 F.3d at 1292. 

In contrast, the district court should remand the case for

additional evidence and findings “where there are outstanding issues

that must be resolved before a determination of disability can be

made, and it is not clear from the record that the ALJ would be

required to find the claimant disabled if all of the evidence were

properly evaluated.” Harman, 211 F.3d at 1179-81. Furthermore, the

court should remand a case if additional proceedings can remedy

defects in the original administrative proceedings. McAllister v.

Sullivan, 888 F.2d 599, 603 (9th Cir. 1989)(citing Lewin v. Schweiker, 654 F.2d 631, 635 (9th Cir. 1981)). Essentially, “the decision

of whether to remand for further proceedings turns upon the likely

utility of such proceedings.” Harman, 211 F.3d at 1179 (citing

Lewin, 654 F.2d at 635). 

V

13cv0267 14

Case 3:13-cv-00267-WQH-WVG Document 17 Filed 10/29/13 Page 14 of 48
 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

ALJ’S FINDINGS14/

The ALJ made the following pertinent findings:

1. [Plaintiff] has not engaged in

substantial gainful activity since March

25, 2010, the application date (20 CFR

416.971 et seq.).

2. [Plaintiff] has the following severe

impairments: mild lumbar degenerative disc

disease and cervical sprain (20 CFR

416.920(c)).

3. [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 (20 CFR 416.920(d), 416.925 and

416.926).

The record does not report the existence of

any functional limitations and or

diagnostic test results, which would

suggest that the impairments meet or equal

the criteria of any specific listing. In

addition, no treating or examining

14/

 The ALJ’s findings are found at TR. 29-37.

13cv0267 15

Case 3:13-cv-00267-WQH-WVG Document 17 Filed 10/29/13 Page 15 of 48
 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

physician has reported findings, which

either meet or are equivalent in severity

to criteria of any listed impairment, nor

are such findings indicated or suggested by

the medical evidence of record. 

4. After careful consideration of the

entire record, the [ALJ] finds that the

[Plaintiff] has the residual functional

capacity to perform medium work, as defined

in 20 CFR 416.967(c)except [Plaintiff] is

frequently able to climb, stoop, kneel, and

crouch.

In making this finding, the [ALJ] 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 416.929 and

SSRs 96-4p and 96-7p. The [ALJ] has also

considered opinion evidence in accordance

with the requirements of 20 CFR 416.927 and

SSRs 96-2p, 96-5p, and 06-3p.

13cv0267 16

Case 3:13-cv-00267-WQH-WVG Document 17 Filed 10/29/13 Page 16 of 48
 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 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(s)–i.e., an impairment(s) that

can be shown by medically acceptable

clinical and laboratory diagnostic

techniques–that could reasonably be

expected to produce the [Plaintiff’s] pain

or other symptoms.

Second, once an underlying physical or

mental impairment(s) that could reasonably

be expected to produce the [Plaintiff’s]

pain or other symptoms has been shown, the

[ALJ] must evaluate the intensity,

persistence, and limiting effects of the

[Plaintiff’s] symptoms to determine the

extent to which they limit the

[Plaintiff’s] functioning. For this

purpose, whenever statements about

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

13cv0267 17

Case 3:13-cv-00267-WQH-WVG Document 17 Filed 10/29/13 Page 17 of 48
 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 credibility of the statements based on

a consideration of the entire case record.

At the hearing, [Plaintiff] stated that she

had a driver’s license, but had difficulty

driving long distances because her hips

hurt. She stated that she last worked in

2009 for one week at a daycare. She

reported that she had problems with her

legs, back, shoulders, and carpal tunnel

syndrome, as well as depression and

anxiety. She stated that she was able to

lift 5-10 pounds, sit for 20-25 minutes,

stand for twenty minutes, and had problems

going up and down stairs. She took Norco,

Soma, Xanax, and stated that her

medications made her sleepy, forgetful, and

[lose] concentration. She complained of

urinary frequency having to use the

restroom a lot. 

After careful consideration of the

evidence, the [ALJ] finds that the

[Plaintiff]’s medically determinable

impairments could reasonably be expected to

cause the alleged symptoms; however, the 

13cv0267 18

Case 3:13-cv-00267-WQH-WVG Document 17 Filed 10/29/13 Page 18 of 48
 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

 10

 11

 12

 13

 14

 15

 16

 17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

[Plaintiff]’s statements concerning the

intesity, persistence and limiting effects

of these symptoms are not credible to the

extent they are inconsistent with the above

residual functioning capacity assessment. 

In terms of the [Plaintiff]’s alleged

disabling impairments, the record fails to

document any objective clinical findings

establishing that the [Plaintiff] was not

able to perform work in light of the

reports of the treating and examining

practitioners and the findings made on

examination. 

Melissa Hurd, M.D. reported on June 8,

2010, that the [Plaintiff]’s symptoms were

out of proportion with her findings on xray. (Exhibit 1F page 5). On July 1,

2010, Dr. Hurd reported that the

[Plaintiff] had a normal gait, 2+ reflexes

throughout, and intact coordination

testing. Dr. Hurd reported in treatment

notes on July 21, 2010, that the

[Plaintiff] had 5/5 motor strength in the

lower extremities in each muscle group. 

13cv0267 19

Case 3:13-cv-00267-WQH-WVG Document 17 Filed 10/29/13 Page 19 of 48
 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

(Exhibit 16F pages 7 and 9). Dr. Sabourin

reported on August 4, 2011, that the

[Plaintiff] sat and stood in a normal

posture and sat comfortably. She walked

without a limp and without her cane. She

was able to get in and out of a chair and

on and off the examination table without

difficulty. She was able to sit on the

examination table with her legs straight

out in front of her. Toe and heel walking

were normal. She had a normal range of

motion of the cervical spine. There was no

lumbar palpable spasm, swelling, or warmth. 

Straight leg raising was negative. She had

a full range of motion of the upper and

lower extremities. She had give way

testing in all muscles of the upper and

lower extremities. (Exhibit 18F pages 2-

4). These findings are indicative that the

[Plaintiff]’s complaints are not fully

substantiated by the objective medical

conclusions and her symptoms may not have

been as limiting as the [Plaintiff] has

alleged in connection with this

application.

13cv0267 20

Case 3:13-cv-00267-WQH-WVG Document 17 Filed 10/29/13 Page 20 of 48
 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 record fails to document that the

[Plaintiff] has been hospitalized for her

impairment or indicate that the [Plaintiff]

has received significant active care other

than for conservative routine maintenance. 

The [Plaintiff] complains of disabling back

and leg pain; however, the record fails to

show that the [Plaintiff] has any evidence

of significantly severe root or cord

impingement or encroachment, canal recess

or foraminal stenosis, and no evidence of

significantly severe bony abnormalities. 

Her own doctor stated that her complaints

were out of proportion with the medical

findings. There has been no significant

increase or changes in prescribed

medications reflective of an uncontrolled

condition, nor did the [Plaintiff] describe

side effects from her medication that would

prevent her from substantial gainful

activity. Furthermore, no treating or

examining source determined that the

[Plaintiff]’s impairments were totally

debilitating or rendered the [Plaintiff]

completely unemployable. 

13cv0267 21

Case 3:13-cv-00267-WQH-WVG Document 17 Filed 10/29/13 Page 21 of 48
 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] has taken into consideration the

nature, location, onset, duration,

frequency, radiation, and intensity of the

[Plaintiff]’s pain, as well as

precipitating and aggravating factors; the

type, dosage, effectiveness, and adverse

side effects of any pain medication; other

treatment, other than medication, for

relief of pain; functional restrictions;

and the [Plaintiff]’s daily activities, and

finds that her allegations of disabling

pain are out of proportion with the record. 

The [Plaintiff] has admitted certain

abilities which provide support for part of

the residual functioning capacity

conclusion in this decision. As detailed

above, the [Plaintiff], her daughter and

her examining physicians have described

daily activities which were not limited to

the extent that one would expect, given the

complaints of disabling symptoms and

limitations. The overall evidence suggests

that the [Plaintiff] has the ability to

care for herself and maintain her home. 

Furthermore, the performance of the

13cv0267 22

Case 3:13-cv-00267-WQH-WVG Document 17 Filed 10/29/13 Page 22 of 48
 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

 10

 11

 12

 13

 14

 15

 16

 17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

[Plaintiff]’s daily activities as described

is not inconsistent with the performance of

many basic work activities.

As for the opinion evidence, Trashanda

French, [Plaintiff]’s daughter reported in

a third party adult function report on June

2, 2010, that the [Plaintiff] had problems

lifting, squatting, bending, standing,

reaching, walking, sitting, kneeling, stair

climbing, completing tasks, concetration,

and using her hand and that her legs and

back are always hurting her. (Exhibit 5e). 

The [ALJ] took into consideration this

individual’s opinion regarding the

[Plaintiff]’s residual functional capacity

because of her close contact with the

[Plaintiff] over a period of time; however,

there is no evidence that this individual

is a physician, psychiatrist, psychologist,

chiropractor, osteopath, nurse, physical

therapist, mental health therapist, or

other type of medical or mental health

specialist or worker. There is no evidence

that she has ever had any medical training

or worked in any medical field or

13cv0267 23

Case 3:13-cv-00267-WQH-WVG Document 17 Filed 10/29/13 Page 23 of 48
 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

institution, or that she is familiar with

the Social Security Act, rules, or

regulations or the U.S. Department of Labor 

Dictionary of Occupational Titles. The

objective evidence of the record does not

support this individual’s allegations as to

the limitations of the [Plaintiff]’s

residual functional capacity. As such this

is only the opinion of one that has a

familial relationship with the [Plaintiff]

and this opinion cannot be considered to

have any significant weight regarding the

[Plaintiff]’s residual functional capacity. 

Dr. Hurd reported on July 20, 2010, that

the [Plaintiff] suffered from chronic back

pain and had radicular symptoms of numbness

and tingling, in the legs. She had failed

medications and was pursuing physical

therapy. It was reported that she could

sit for less than twenty-five minutes and

stand for less than twenty-five minutes and

that walking seemed to exacerbate her

symptoms. She was found to not be able to

lift heavier than ten pounds nor perform

repeated bending or twisting and cannot

13cv0267 24

Case 3:13-cv-00267-WQH-WVG Document 17 Filed 10/29/13 Page 24 of 48
 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

climb. (Exhibit 15f page 1). A treating

physician’s medical opinion, on the issue

of the nature and severity of an impairment

is entitled to special significance; and,

when supported by objective medical

evidence and consistent with otherwise

substantial evidence of record, entitled to

controlling weight. (Social Security

Ruling 96-2p). However, the opinion of the

doctor, who assessed the [Plaintiff] with

marked physical limitations is not afforded

any significant weight as this opinion

conflicts with the substantial evidence of

record, documenting less severe

limitations. (Social Security Ruling 96-

6p). The doctor did not adequately

consider the entire record, including her

own treatment records for the [Plaintiff]. 

Dr. Hurd reported on June 8, 2010, that the

[Plaintiff]’s symptoms were out of

proportion with her findings on x-ray. 

(Exhibit 1F page 5). She also reported

that the [Plaintiff] had virtually normal

physical examinations. (Exhibit 16F pages

7 and 9). The objective evidence in the

13cv0267 25

Case 3:13-cv-00267-WQH-WVG Document 17 Filed 10/29/13 Page 25 of 48
 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

record does not support the level of

severity that this doctor assigns. 

... 

A Medical Source Statement of Ability to do

Work-Related Activities (Physical) dated

August 4, 2011 by Dr. Sabourin found that

the objective medical evidence supported a

finding that the [Plaintiff] can

occasionally lift and carry 21-50 pounds

and 11-20 pounds frequently; can stand six

hours, walk six hours, and sit six hours in

an eight hour workday; does not require a

cane for ambulation; can continuously

reach, handle, finger, feel, push, and

pull; can continuously use the feet for

operation of foot controls; frequently

climb, balance, stoop, kneel, crouch or

crawl; and can occasionally be exposed to

unprotected heights. (Exhibit 18F pages 6-

11). 

Pursuant to 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527, the [ALJ]

assigns significant weight to these

consultive examiners’ opinions, as they are

13cv0267 26

Case 3:13-cv-00267-WQH-WVG Document 17 Filed 10/29/13 Page 26 of 48
 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

well-supported by the medical evidence,

including the [Plaintiff]’s medical history

and clinical and objective signs and

findings as well as detailed treatment

notes, which provides a reasonable basis

for [Plaintiff]’s chronic symptoms and

resulting limitations. Moreover, the

opinions are not inconsistent with other

substantial evidence of record. In

addition, these physicians are examining

sources that are familiar with Social

Security Rules and Regulations and legal

standards set forth therein and best able

to provide superior analysis of the

[Plaintiff]’s impairments and resulting

limitations. 

A Physical Residual Functional Capacity

Assessment dated June 29, 2010, by M. Yee,

M.D., a State medical consultant, found

that the objective medical evidence

supported a finding that the [Plaintiff]

could perform a significant range of light

work. The [Plaintiff] was found to [be

able] to occasionally to climb stairs and

ramps, and occasionally balance, stoop,

13cv0267 27

Case 3:13-cv-00267-WQH-WVG Document 17 Filed 10/29/13 Page 27 of 48
 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

kneel, crouch, and crawl, but never climb

ladders, ropes or scaffolds. She was found

to need to avoid concentrated exposure to

vibration and hazards (machinery, heights,

etc.). (Exhibit 3F). This opinion was

affirmed by S. Reddy, M.D., on September 7,

2010. (Exhibit 11F). 

The [ALJ], per SSR 96-6p considered these

opinions because they were based upon a

thorough review of the evidence and

familiarity with Social Security Rules and

Regulations and legal standards set forth

therein. Although the state agency

consultants opined that the [Plaintiff] was

only capable of a substantial range of

light work, the [Plaintiff]’s medical

condition indicates less severe exertional

limitations. Moreover, these doctors did

not have the opportunity to review the

additional medical evidence submitted after

the evaluations or to listen to the sworn

testimony of the [Plaintiff] or to observe

the [Plaintiff]’s demeanor. 

13cv0267 28

Case 3:13-cv-00267-WQH-WVG Document 17 Filed 10/29/13 Page 28 of 48
 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

 10

 11

 12

 13

 14

 15

 16

 17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

A Psychiatric Review Technique dated June

29, 2010, by M. Amado, M.D., a State

psychiatric consultant, found that the

objective medical evidence supported a

finding that the [Plaintiff] had medically

determinable major depressive disorder and

ruled out anxiety disorder not otherwise

specified. The [Plaintiff] was found to be

mildly restricted in activities of daily

living; have mild difficulties maintaining

social functioning; mild difficulties in

maintaining concentration, persistence or

pace, and have no episodes of

decompensation. The [Plaintiff] was not

found to have a history of chronic organic

mental disorder. (Exhibit 4f). This

opinion was affirmed by Nicole Lazorwitz,

Psy.D., on September 14, 2010. (Exhibit

12f). The [ALJ] has assigned significant

weight to the State psychiatric

consultants’ opinions with regard to

[Plaintiff]’s lack of severe mental

impairment pursuant to 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527

and SSR 96-6p because they were based upon

a thorough review of the evidence and

familiarity with Social Security Rules and

13cv0267 29

Case 3:13-cv-00267-WQH-WVG Document 17 Filed 10/29/13 Page 29 of 48
 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

Regulations and legal standards set forth

therein. They were well supported by the

medical evidence, including the

[Plaintiff]’s medical history and clinical

and objective signs and findings as well as

detailed treatment notes, which provides a

reasonable basis for [Plaintiff]’s chronic

symptoms and resulting limitations. 

Moreover, these opinions are not

inconsistent with other substantial

evidence of record. 

5. The [Plaintiff] is capable of

performing past relevant work as a child

care provider. This work does not require

the performance of work-related activities

precluded by the [Plaintiff]’s residual

functional capacity (20 CFR 416.965).

The exertional and non-exertional

requirements of this job are consistently

within the [Plaintiff]’s residual

functional capacity as determined in this

decision, and therefore the [Plaintiff]

retains the capacity to perform “past

13cv0267 30

Case 3:13-cv-00267-WQH-WVG Document 17 Filed 10/29/13 Page 30 of 48
 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

relevant work.” (Social Security Rulings

82-61 and 82-62). 

In comparing the [Plaintiff]’s residual

functional capacity with the physical and

mental demands of this work, the [ALJ]

finds that the [Plaintiff] is able to

perform it as actually and generally

performed. 

Although the [Plaintiff] is capable of

performing past relevant work, there are

other jobs existing in the national economy

that she is also able to perform. 

Therefore, the [ALJ] makes the following

alternative findings for step five of the

sequential evaluation process. 

The [Plaintiff] was born on March 17, 1958

and was 52 years old, which is defined as

an individual closely approaching advanced

age, on the date the application was filed

(20 CFR 416.963). The [Plaintiff] has at

least a high school education and is able

to communicate in English (20 CFR 416.964). 

Transferability of job skills is not

material to the determination of disability

13cv0267 31

Case 3:13-cv-00267-WQH-WVG Document 17 Filed 10/29/13 Page 31 of 48
 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

because using the Medical-Vocational Rules

as a framework supports a finding that the

[Plaintiff] is “not disabled,” whether or

not the [Plaintiff] has transferable job

skills. (See SSR 82-41 and 20 CFR Part

404, Subpart P, Appendix 2). 

In the alternative, considering the

[Plaintiff]’s age, education, work

experience, and residual functional

capacity, there are other jobs that exist

in significant numbers in the national

economy that the [Plaintiff] can also

perform (20 CFR 416.969 and 416.969(a)). 

In determining whether a successful

adjustment to other work can be made, the

[ALJ] must consider the [Plaintiff’s]

residual functional capacity, age,

education, and work experience in

conjunction with the Medical-Vocational

Guidelines, 20 CFR Part 404, Subpart P,

Appendix 2. If the [Plaintiff] can perform

all or substantially all of the exertional

demands at a given level of exertion, the

medical-vocational rules direct a

conclusion of either “disabled” or “not

13cv0267 32

Case 3:13-cv-00267-WQH-WVG Document 17 Filed 10/29/13 Page 32 of 48
 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

disabled” depending upon the [Plaintiff’s]

specific vocational profile (SSR 83-11). 

When the [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 decision making unless there is a rule

that directs a conclusion of “disabled”

without considering the additional

exertional and/or nonexertional limitations

(SSRs 83-12 and 83-14). If the [Plaintiff]

has solely nonexertional limitations,

section 204.00 in the Medical-Vocational

Guidelines provides a framework for

decision making (SSR 85-15).

If the [Plaintiff] had the residual

functional capacity to perform the full

range of medium work, considering the

[Plaintiff]’s age, education, and work

experience, a finding of “not disabled”

woud be directed by Medical-Vocational Rule

203.22. However, the additional

limitations have little or no effect on the

occupational base on unskilled medium work. 

A finding of “not disabled” is therefore

13cv0267 33

Case 3:13-cv-00267-WQH-WVG Document 17 Filed 10/29/13 Page 33 of 48
 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

appropriate under the framework of this

rule. 

6. The [Plaintiff] has not been under a

disability, as defined in the Social

Security Act, since March 25, 2010, the

date the application was filed (20 CFR

416.920(f). 

VI

STANDARD OF REVIEW

Unsuccessful applicants for Social Security benefits may seek

judicial review of a final agency decision of the Commissioner. 42

U.S.C. § 405(g). Upon review, the Commissioner’s decision must be

affirmed if it was supported by substantial evidence and based on

proper legal standards. Ukolov v. Barnhart, 420 F.3d 1002, 1004

(9th Cir. 2005). Substantial evidence means “more than a mere

scintilla” but less than a preponderance and must be “relevant

evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a

conclusion.” Sandgathe v. Chater, 108 F.3d 978, 980 (9th Cir. 1997)

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

Courts must examine the administrative record as a whole. 

Gonzalez v. Sullivan, 914 F.2d 1197, 1200 (9th Cir. 1990). The

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

substantial evidence, if improper legal standards were applied in

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

653, 655 (9th Cir. 1978). However, “[w]here evidence can rationally

be interpreted in more than one way, the court must uphold the

13cv0267 34

Case 3:13-cv-00267-WQH-WVG Document 17 Filed 10/29/13 Page 34 of 48
 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

Commissioner’s decision. Mayes v. Massanar, 276 F.3d 453, 459 (9th

Cir. 2001). 

VII

DISCUSSION

A. THE ALJ PROPERLY REJECTED THE TREATING PHYSICIAN’S

OPINIONS

Plaintiff argues she was denied Social Security disability

benefits because the ALJ did not provide specific and legitimate

reasons for rejecting the opinion of her treating physician, Dr.

Hurd. (Doc. No. 12 at 4). Specifically, she alleges that, while

the ALJ cited multiple reasons for not relying solely on Dr. Hurd’s

opinion, the ALJ’s reasons were not sufficiently specific and

legitimate enough to give more deference to a consulting physician. 

(Doc. No. 12 at 4-10). 

Defendant argues that the ALJ properly evaluated the medical

evidence by discussing and considering the various medical opinions

and by reviewing and citing to the objective medical evidence as a

whole. (Doc. No. 14-1 at 6-7). Defendant contends that in the

AlJ’s evaluation of these findings and opinions he met his burden of

providing specific and legitimate reasons for the weight given to

the various medical opinions. (Doc. No. 14-1 at 6). Defendant

further asserts that the ALJ did not discredit the treating

physician’s opinion, but merely discredited the July 20, 2010 letter

that prescribed Plaintiff’s limitations. (Doc. No. 14-1 at 7). 

1. APPLICABLE LAW

The opinions of treating physicians are generally entitled

greater weight than the opinions of examining and non-examining

13cv0267 35

Case 3:13-cv-00267-WQH-WVG Document 17 Filed 10/29/13 Page 35 of 48
 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

physicians. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1502; see also Orn v. Astrue, 495

F.3d 625, 631 (9th Cir. 2007); Smolen v. Chater, 80 F.3d 1273, 1285

(9th Cir. 1996). The ALJ may reject the treating physician’s

opinion in favor of another physician’s opinion if the evidence in

the record supports the alternative conclusion. See Orn, 495 F.3d at

632. When a treating physician’s opinion conflicts with another

doctor’s, the ALJ must provide only “specific and legitimate”

reasons for discounting the treating doctor’s opinion. Dominguez v.

Colvin, 927 F.Supp.2d 846, 858 (9th Cir. 2013) (citing Orn, 495 F.3d

at 632). The ALJ may discredit a treating physician’s opinion if it

is inconsistent with other substantial evidence in the record or is

not well-supported by medically accepted clinical and laboratory

diagnostic techniques. Orn, 495 F.3d at 631-32. 

The ALJ may satisfy the requirement of providing specific and

legitimate reasons by “setting out a detailed and thorough summary

of facts and conflicting clinical evidence, stating his

interpretation thereof, and making findings.” Tommasetti v. Astrue,

533 F.3d 1035, 1041 (9th Cir. 2008) (citing Magallanes v. Bowen, 881

F.2d 747, 751 (9th Cir. 1989)). The ALJ must not only offer his own

conclusions, he must also explain why his interpretations are

correct. Orn, 495 F.3d at 631 (citing Embrey v. Bowen, 849 F.2d

418, 421-22 (9th Cir. 1988). 

If the opinion is assigned less weight, the ALJ must weigh the

opinion using factors listed in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c). Id. at

632. The factors include: (1) the length of the treatment

relationship and frequency of examination; (2) the nature and extent

of the treatment relationship; (3) supportability of the opinion;

13cv0267 36

Case 3:13-cv-00267-WQH-WVG Document 17 Filed 10/29/13 Page 36 of 48
 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) consistency of the opinion with the record as a whole; (5) the

specialization of the treating source; and (6) any other factors

brought to the attention of the ALJ which tend to support or

contradict the opinion. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)(I)-(ii), (c)(3)-

(6); see Holohan v. Massanari, 246 F.3d 1195, 1202 (9th Cir. 2001).

2. ANALYSIS

In determining Plaintiff’s RFC for medium work, except that she

is frequently able to climb, stoop, kneel, and crouch, the ALJ

provided specific and legitimate reasons for rejecting Dr. Hurd’s

opinion. Upon review of the record as a whole, the Court finds that

substantial evidence supports these reasons. Gonzalez, 914 F.2d at

1200. 

First, the ALJ credited the opinions of the examining

physicians, Drs. Sabourin and Rodriguez, because their opinions are

supported by independent clinical findings and thus constituted

substantial evidence even if contradicted by the treating physician. 

(TR. 24); Orn, 495 at 632; Andrews v. Shalala, 53 F.3d 1035, 1041

(9th Cir. 1995); Thomas, 278 F.3d 947, 957 (9th Cir. 2001) (“The

opinions of non-treating ... physicians may also serve as

substantial evidence when the opinions are consistent with

independent clinical findings or other evidence in the record.”).

After an orthopedic consultative examination of Plaintiff on

August 4, 2011, Dr. Sabourin noted that Plaintiff’s “severity and

duration of her complaints [are] in significant disproportion to the

determinable condition.” (TR. 317). Dr. Sabourin considered

Plaintiff’s entire medical record, including Dr. Hurd’s treatment

notes and Plaintiff’s most recent MRI. (TR. 316). Dr. Sabourin

13cv0267 37

Case 3:13-cv-00267-WQH-WVG Document 17 Filed 10/29/13 Page 37 of 48
 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

opined that Plaintiff’s MRI on July 14, 2011, reveals only mild

changes in the lumbar spine that would not account for Plaintiff’s

symptoms, especially her numbness and weakness. (TR. 317). Based

on the physical examination and the medical record, Dr. Sabourin

concluded that Plaintiff is able to lift and carry 50 pounds

occasionally, and 25 pounds frequently; does not have any

manipulative limitations; can stoop, climb, kneel, and crouch

frequently; and has no need for assistive devices. (TR. 317). 

Dr. Rodriguez reported on June 19, 2010, that Plaintiff had no

history of mental health care or treatment, including any type of

counseling. (TR. 227). During the examination, Dr. Rodriguez found

Plaintiff was coherent and organized and there was no tangentially

or loosening of associations; she was relevant and non-delusional;

there was no bizarre or psychotic thought intent and she denied

recent auditory or visual hallucinations; she was alert and oriented

in all spheres and appeared to be at least of average intelligence. 

(TR. 229-230). Dr. Rodriguez diagnosed Plaintiff with major

depressive disorder and a Global Assessment of Functioning (“GAF”)

of 65 indicating some mild symptoms or some difficulty in social,

occupational, or school functioning. (TR. 231-232).

 Second, the ALJ assigned less weight to the physical residual

functional capacity assessment by Dr. Yee and affirmed by Dr. Reddy

dated June 29, 2010, because these non-examining physicians did not

have the opportunity to review the additional medical evidence

submitted after evaluations, hear the sworn testimony of Plaintiff,

nor observe Plaintiff’s demeanor. (TR. 24-25). 

13cv0267 38

Case 3:13-cv-00267-WQH-WVG Document 17 Filed 10/29/13 Page 38 of 48
 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

Third, the ALJ also relied directly on Dr. Hurd’s treatment

notes and specifically pointed out where Dr. Hurd’s findings

contradict her marked physical limitations: (1) on June 8, 2010, Dr.

Hurd noted Plaintiff’s symptoms were out of proportion to findings

on x-ray; (TR. 22-23); (2) Dr. Hurd’s notations reveal virtually

normal physical examinations. (TR. 23-24). Specifically, the ALJ

rejected Dr. Hurd’s opinion in her July 2010 letter because her

opinion conflicts with the substantial evidence of record,

particularly, Dr. Hurd’s own treatment notes and x-rays. (See TR

300-301, 217-218, 279-287, 289, 290-291). Further, after review of

the entire record, the ALJ determined the evidence documented less

severe limitations than those posed by Dr. Hurd in the July 2010

letter. (TR. 22, 23-24, 215-216, 224, 235, 282-283, 287, 289, 313-

317). 

Dr. Hurd’s July 2010 letter noted that Plaintiff suffers from

chronic back pain accompanied with radicular symptoms of numbness

and tingling in the legs; she has failed medications; sit and stand

less than twenty-five minutes; walking exacerbates her symptoms;

cannot lift more than ten pounds; cannot perform repeated bending or

twisting; and she cannot climb. (TR. 279). However, Dr. Hurd

opines in her assessment, on multiple occasions, that Plaintiff’s xrays do not reveal causation of Plaintiff’s pain and that

Plaintiff’s symptoms are out of proportion to the findings on x-ray. 

(See TR. 284, 286-287, 290-291). On June 8, 2010, Dr. Hurd noted

Plaintiff exhibited tenderness in her paraspinous muscles, straight

leg test and motor examination were normal, and reported Plaintiff’s

symptoms as out of proportion based on the x-ray findings. (TR. 

13cv0267 39

Case 3:13-cv-00267-WQH-WVG Document 17 Filed 10/29/13 Page 39 of 48
 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

291). On July 20, 2010, on the same date the letter was written,

Dr. Hurd noted in her treatment notes that Plaintiff’s symptoms were

not in proportion with the x-ray finding. (TR. 287). 

Dr. Hurd’s treatment notes also assess Plaintiff as generally

healthy. (TR. 215-216, 224, 235, 282-283, 287, 289, 313-317). On

July 1, 2010, Dr. Hurd reported Plaintiff again as healthyappearing, well-nourished, and well-developed, in no acute distress,

ambulating normally, normal gait, with good reflexes and

coordination. (TR. 289). On July 20, 2010, Dr. Hurd reported

Plaintiff had normal reflexes, normal motor strength in her hips,

legs, knees, ankles, and feet, with some tenderness in the lumbar

spine and some pain on flexion and extension. (TR 287). On

September 7, 2010, Dr. Hurd noted her general appearance as healthyappearing, well-nourished, and well-developed. (TR. 285). 

On March 1, 2011, Plaintiff reported to Dr. Hurd that she did

not follow her home exercise program and only used Norco

periodically, and Dr. Hurd opined that Plaintiff was in no acute

distress, motor strength and tone were normal, no tenderness, or

bony abnormalities, normal movement of all extremities, and

prescribed weight loss via a home exercise program. (TR. 283-284). 

Dr. Hurd also opined that Plaintiff’s x-ray on July 14, 2011

revealed no clear manner of causation of chronic back pain and

prescribed a home exercise program. (TR. 286-287, 283-284).

The ALJ additionally relied on Dr. Amado’s consultive

psychiatric review dated June 29, 2010. On May 15, 2009, Dr. Amado

assessed Plaintiff’s mental functional capacity based solely upon

Plaintiff’s medical records. (TR. 239-252). Dr. Amado found that

13cv0267 40

Case 3:13-cv-00267-WQH-WVG Document 17 Filed 10/29/13 Page 40 of 48
 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 objective medical evidence supported a finding that the claimant

had medically determinable major depressive disorder and ruled out

anxiety disorder not otherwise specified. (TR. 242-243). Dr. Amado

concluded that if Plaintiff “is properly treated for depression she

could easily recover from her symptoms in the next twelve months.”

(TR. 252). Dr. Amado’s opinion was affirmed by Nicole Lazorwitz,

Psy.D., on September 14, 2010. (TR. 271).

As a result, the ALJ properly gave specific and legitimate

reasons as to why he gave little weight to Dr. Hurd’s July 2010

letter outlining Plaintiff’s functional limitations, and greater

weight to Drs. Sabourin, Rodriguez, and Amado. The ALJ’s findings

were supported by substantial evidence in the record, including the

findings of an examining physician, consulting physician, and the

results of objective clinical tests. The Court is satisfied that

the ALJ committed no legal error, as the specific and legitimate

standard was appropriately applied.

 B. SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE SUPPORTS THE ALJ’S FINDING THAT

PLAINTIFF WAS NOT CREDIBLE

Plaintiff argues that the ALJ did not have a valid basis for

finding her testimony not credible. (Doc. No. 12-1 at 10). 

Specifically, she alleges that, while the ALJ cited multiple reasons

for rejecting her testimony, the ALJ’s reasons were not clear and

convincing reasons for rejecting pain and limitation testimony. 

(See Doc. No. 12 at 11 citing to Smolen, 80 F.3d at 1281 [“When no

evidence of malingering exists in the record, the ALJ must

articulate clear and convincing reasons for rejecting the pain and

limitation testimony.”]. 

13cv0267 41

Case 3:13-cv-00267-WQH-WVG Document 17 Filed 10/29/13 Page 41 of 48
 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

Defendant argues that the ALJ provided the requisite specific

findings for discounting Plaintiff’s testimony concerning the

severity of her symptoms by citing to the lack of significant

clinical findings, inconsistencies between Plaintiff’s claimed

limitations and objective medical findings, evidence of exaggerated

symptoms, and ordinary activities of daily living. (Doc. No. 14-1

at 9). Further, Defendant contends that there was evidence of

Plaintiff’s malingering and this is supported by the ALJ’s finding

that the medical record indicated her symptoms may not have been as

limiting as she alleged. (Doc. No. 14-1 at 8-9). 

 1. APPLICABLE LAW

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). 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 597, 603 (9th Cir.

1989). However, to discredit a claimant’s testimony when a medical

impairment has been established, the ALJ must provide “specific,

cogent reasons for the disbelief.” Orn, 495 F.3d at 635. An ALJ’s

credibility finding must be properly supported by the record and be

sufficiently specific to ensure that he did not “arbitrarily

discredit” a claimant’s subjective testimony. Thomas v. Barnhart,

278 F.3d 947, 958-59 (9th Cir. 2002); Bunnell v. Sullivan, 947 F.2d

13cv0267 42

Case 3:13-cv-00267-WQH-WVG Document 17 Filed 10/29/13 Page 42 of 48
 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

341, 345-46 (9th Cir. 1991). “General findings are insufficient;

rather, the ALJ’s reasons must identify what testimony is not

credible and what evidence undermines Plaintiff’s complaints.” 

Reddick v. Chater, 157 F.3d 715, 722 (9th Cir.1998) (quoting Lester

v. Chater, 81 F.3d 821, 834 (9th Cir. 1996)). 

In making a credibility determination, the ALJ may consider

a variety of credibility factors, including ordinary techniques of

credibility evaluation, such as the claimant’s reputation for lying,

prior inconsistent statements concerning the symptoms, and other

testimony by the claimant that appears less than candid; 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; and unexplained, or

inadequately explained, failure to seek treatment or to follow a

prescribed course of treatment. Bunnell, 947 F.2d at 346-47; Smolen

80 F.3d at 1284; see Orn, 495 F.3d at 637-39. 

 2. ANALYSIS

The ALJ gave specific reasons, supported by substantial

evidence, for discounting Plaintiff’s testimony. The ALJ found

Plaintiff’s testimony not credible concerning the intensity,

persistence and limiting effects of her symptoms because they were

inconsistent with the residual functional capacity assessment. (TR.

22). The ALJ considered the medical record as a whole, and

determined that the record fails to document any objective clinical

findings establishing that Plaintiff was not able to perform light

13cv0267 43

Case 3:13-cv-00267-WQH-WVG Document 17 Filed 10/29/13 Page 43 of 48
 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

work. (TR. 22). The ALJ gave specific reasons, supported by

substantial evidence, for discounting Plaintiff’s testimony.

First, in making this determination, the ALJ considered the

treatment notes of the treating physician, Dr. Hurd. (TR. 22). The

ALJ cites to Dr. Hurd’s treatment notes indicating Plaintiff’s

symptoms were not as limiting as Plaintiff claims; (1) On June 8,

2010, Dr. Hurd reported Plaintiff’s symptoms were out of proportion

with her findings on x-ray; (2) on July 1, 2010, Dr. Hurd opined

that Plaintiff had a normal gait, 2+ reflexes throughout, and intact

coordination testing; and (3) on July 21, 2010, Dr. Hurd reported

that Plaintiff had a 5/5 motor strength in the lower extremities in

each muscle group. (TR. 22). In addition, Dr. Hurd opines in her

assessment, on multiple occasions, that Plaintiff’s x-rays do not

reveal causation of Plaintiff’s pain and that Plaintiff’s symptoms

are out of proportion to the findings on x-ray. (See TR. 284, 286-

287, 290-291). On September 7, 2010, Dr. Hurd noted Plaintiff’s

general appearance as healthy-appearing, well-nourished, and welldeveloped. (TR. 285). On July 1, 2010, Dr. Hurd reported Plaintiff

again as healthy-appearing, well-nourished, and well-developed, in

no acute distress, ambulating normally, normal gait, with good

reflexes and coordination. (TR. 289). On March 1, 2011, Dr. Hurd

opined that Plaintiff was in no acute distress, motor strength and

tone were normal, no tenderness, or bony abnormalities, normal

movement of all extremities, and prescribed weight loss via a home

exercise program. (TR. 283-284). Dr. Hurd also opined that

Plaintiff’s last x-ray revealed no clear manner of causation of

chronic back pain and prescribed a home exercise program. (TR. 286-

13cv0267 44

Case 3:13-cv-00267-WQH-WVG Document 17 Filed 10/29/13 Page 44 of 48
 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

287, 283-284). 

Second, the ALJ considered Dr. Sabourin’s orthopedic physical

examination of Plaintiff and his review of her medical records on

August 4, 2011. (TR. 22). Dr. Sabourin noted that Plaintiff

maintained a normal posture; sat comfortably; walked without a limp

and without a cane; able to get in and out of a chair and on and off

the examination table without difficulty; toe and heel walking was

normal; normal range of motion of her cervical spine; full range of

motion of her extremities; no lumbar palpable spasm, or swelling, or

warmth; straight leg testing was negative; exhibited give way

testing in all muscles of the upper and lower extremities. (TR.

22). Based on the opinions of Drs. Sabourin and Hurd, the ALJ found

Plaintiff’s complaints were not fully substantiated by the objective

medical conclusions, and that Plaintiff’s symptoms may not have been

as limiting as she alleged. (TR. 22).

Third, the ALJ considered Plaintiff’s treatment, any treatment

other than medication, and the medical record to determine that

Plaintiff has not received significant active care other than

conservative routine maintenance. Evidence of “conservative

treatment” is sufficient to discount a claimant's testimony

regarding severity of an impairment. Parra v. Astrue, 481 F.3d

742, 751 (9th Cir. 2007) (citing Johnson v. Shalala, 60 F.3d 1428,

1434 (9th Cir.1995)). The ALJ emphasized that Plaintiff’s

complaints of disabling back and leg pain are unsubstantiated by xrays, Drs. Hurd and Sabourin’s reports, including Plaintiff’s

treating physician’s findings that Plaintiff’s complaints were out

of proportion with the medical findings. (TR. 22). 

13cv0267 45

Case 3:13-cv-00267-WQH-WVG Document 17 Filed 10/29/13 Page 45 of 48
 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 addition, the ALJ pointed out that there has been no

significant increase or changes in Plaintiff’s medication that would

indicate an uncontrolled condition. (TR. 22). Although Plaintiff

claims that her medications failed her and made her sleepy,

Plaintiff reported to Dr. Hurd on March 1, 2011, that she used Norco

periodically, not regularly. (TR. 281). The ALJ noted further that

Plaintiff’s side effects from her medication would not prevent her

from substantial gainful activity. (TR. 22). 

Fourth, the ALJ rejected Plaintiff’s testimony because the

overall record suggests that Plaintiff has the ability to care for

herself and maintain her home. (TR. 23); See Burch v. Barnhart, 400

F.3d 676, 681 (9th Cir. 2005)(stating that adverse credibility based

on activities may be proper if a claimant engages in numerous daily

activities involving skills that could be transferred to the

workplace.). The ALJ emphasizes that Plaintiff, Plaintiff’s

daughter, and examining physicians, Drs. Sabourin and Rodiriguez,

describe daily activities which are not that limited given the

complaints of disabling symptoms and limitations. (TR. 23). The

ALJ determined that the performance of Plaintiff’s daily activities

as described in the record is not inconsistent with the performance

of many basic work activities. (TR. 23).

Fifth, because of the close contact with Plaintiff over a

period of time, the ALJ considered the Plaintiff’s daughter’s

opinion in a third party function report dated June 2, 2010. (TR.

23). However, the ALJ gave little weight to this opinion because

there is no evidence in the record to suggest that Plaintiff’s

daughter has any form of medical expertise, medical training, or is

13cv0267 46

Case 3:13-cv-00267-WQH-WVG Document 17 Filed 10/29/13 Page 46 of 48
 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

familiar with the Social Security Act, rules, or regulations. (TR.

23). Further, because this opinion is from one with a familial

relationship with Plaintiff, the ALJ did not give this opinion

significant weight. (TR. 23).

Based on these considerations set forth by the ALJ, Plaintiff’s

medical records, treating physician’s treatment notes, examining

physician’s assessments, and Plaintiff’s test results are

substantial evidence that Plaintiff’s statements concerning her

symptoms were unreliable. Given the aforementioned discussion of

the ALJ’s reasons for discrediting Plaintiff’s opinion, the Court

finds that the ALJ properly set forth specific reasons, supported by

substantial evidence, in determining that Plaintiff’s statements

lacked credibility.

VIII

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION

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

Magistrate Judge RECOMMENDS that the Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary

Judgment be DENIED and Defendant’s Cross 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).3.

IT IS ORDERED that no later than November 21, 2013, 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

13cv0267 47

Case 3:13-cv-00267-WQH-WVG Document 17 Filed 10/29/13 Page 47 of 48
 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

be filed with the court and served on all parties no later than 

December 5, 2013 The parties are advised that failure to file

objections within the 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: October 29, 2013

 Hon. William V. Gallo

U.S. Magistrate Judge

13cv0267 48

Case 3:13-cv-00267-WQH-WVG Document 17 Filed 10/29/13 Page 48 of 48