Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-00901/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-00901-0/pdf.json

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

---

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

WO

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Cynthia D. Brown, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Michael J. Astrue, 

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 08-0901-PHX-FJM

ORDER

Plaintiff seeks judicial review of the Social Security Administration’s decision that

she is not eligible for disability benefits. We have before us plaintiff’s opening brief (doc.

16), defendant’s answering brief (doc. 18), and plaintiff’s reply (doc. 19).

I

 Plaintiff filed an application for supplemental social security income benefits in 2003,

alleging disability due to a gunshot wound in her back, hypertension, and depression. Her

application was denied initially and upon review. After a January 17, 2006 hearing, an

Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) denied plaintiff’s application for benefits by written

decision on March 21, 2006. Plaintiff appealed that decision to the United States District

Court for the District of Arizona, and upon stipulation of the parties, the ALJ’s decision was

vacated and the case remanded. A second hearing was held on December 5, 2007, and

plaintiff’s claim for benefits was again denied by written decision of the ALJ on January 10,

2008. This decision became the final decision of the Commission when no appeal was taken.

Case 2:08-cv-00901-FJM Document 21 Filed 07/28/09 Page 1 of 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

- 2 -

Tr. at 348-50. Plaintiff brings this action for judicial review pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 405(g)

and 1383(c)(3). 

 An ALJ’s decision to deny benefits will be overturned “only if it is not supported by

substantial evidence or is based on legal error.” Morgan v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin.,

169 F.3d 595, 599 (9th Cir. 1999). Substantial evidence is “such relevant evidence as a

reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.” Id. Under this standard,

an ALJ’s findings must be upheld “if supported by inferences reasonably drawn from the

record,” even where “evidence exists to support more than one rational interpretation.”

Batson v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 359 F.3d 1190, 1193 (9th Cir. 2004); see also 42

U.S.C. § 405(g). Plaintiff challenges the ALJ’s determination that her impairments do not

meet or exceed the severity requirements of a listed impairment and the ALJ’s determination

that she maintains the residual functional capacity to perform light work. 

II

The ALJ concluded that plaintiff suffers from three severe impairments – affective

disorder, obesity, and lumbar strain – but that they did not meet or equal the severity

requirements of a listed impairment in 20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1. Tr. at

440. Plaintiff argues that because she presented evidence that her affect disorder meets the

severity requirements of section 12.04, the ALJ was required to make specific findings

regarding the 12.04 criteria, which he failed to do. Although perhaps not neatly labeled, the

ALJ undertook a detailed evaluation of the medical evidence relied on by plaintiff to show

the 12.04 listing criteria. 

Plaintiff argues that she meets the listing requirement of 12.04 because she has

experienced sleep disturbance, weight gain, difficulty concentrating, and paranoia, which

have led to a marked decrease in maintaining social functioning. To show her symptoms,

plaintiff relies primarily on her subjective complaints, which the ALJ rejected based on a

credibility determination. Tr. at 446. She also relies on a function report completed by her

sister, Id. at 83-89, but the ALJ considered this report and weighed it in his analysis. Id. at

446. Finally, plaintiff relies on a medical assessment report by her treating physician, M.

Case 2:08-cv-00901-FJM Document 21 Filed 07/28/09 Page 2 of 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

1

 Plaintiff also points to a July 2005 report from Terros, Inc. recording an incident in

which she was transported from a restaurant to the treatment facility to refill her prescriptions

and immediately released. Tr. at 220-21. The ALJ considered this incident, and did not

deem it to be an episode of decompensation. Id. at 443. This determination is supported by

the evidence in record.

- 3 -

Bengala, M.D. The ALJ also considered this report and rejected it as unsupported by

medical evidence. Id. at 444. Plaintiff has not, therefore, shown any evidence that the ALJ

failed to address. 

Plaintiff also claims that she meets the listing requirement of 12.04 because she

suffers severe anxiety attacks and suicidal thoughts, which have resulted in repeated episodes

of decompensation. The only recorded evidence of decompensation, however, occurred in

August 2006 when plaintiff was hospitalized for less than one week due to suicidal ideation

without a plan.1

 Id. at 569-74. As noted by the ALJ, this single episode is insufficient to

meet the criteria of listing 12.04. Id. at 445; see 20 C.F.R., Pt. 404, Subpt. P, App. 1,

§ 12.00(C)(4) (“The term repeated episodes of decompensation, each of extended duration

in these listings means three episodes within 1 year, or an average of once every 4 months,

each lasting for at least 2 weeks.”). 

We, therefore, conclude that the ALJ considered the evidence presented by plaintiff

regarding 12.04 factors and that his findings were based on substantial evidence in the

record. 

III

We also consider whether the ALJ erred in concluding that plaintiff has the residual

functional capacity to perform light work. Plaintiff argues that the ALJ’s assessment of the

record is insufficient because he did not properly weigh and evaluate the medical evidence.

We disagree.

Plaintiff contends that the ALJ improperly rejected a medical assessment completed

by her treating physician, Dr. Bengala. A treating physician’s opinion may be rejected,

however, where the opinion is “brief, conclusory, and inadequately supported by clinical

Case 2:08-cv-00901-FJM Document 21 Filed 07/28/09 Page 3 of 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

2

 Plaintiff tries to make much of the fact that the ALJ mentioned when rejecting Dr.

Bengala’s opinion that plaintiff had received a global assessment of function (“GAF”) score

of 60. She argues that this score is irrelevant because her GAF scores fluctuated during the

alleged period of disability. This score was not, however, the sole basis upon which the ALJ

rejected Dr. Bengala’s medical assessment. Tr. at 444. In addition, while plaintiff’s GAF

score may have at times indicated serious impairment, GAF scores do not “have a direct

correlation to the severity requirements in [the Social Security Administration’s] mental

disorders listings.” Revised Medical Criteria for Evaluating Mental Disorders and Traumatic

Brain Injury, 65 Fed. Reg. 50,746-01, 50,764-65 (Aug. 21, 2000).

- 4 -

findings,” Thomas v. Barnhart, 278 F.3d 947, 957 (9th Cir. 2002) (citation omitted). The

worksheet completed by Dr. Bengala is both brief and conclusory and does not identify

objective medical evidence upon which it is based. Tr. at 562-63. Although plaintiff cites

evidence in the record consistent with Dr. Bengala’s opinion, the record is also replete with

evidence supporting the ALJ’s findings.2

 “When evidence reasonably supports either

confirming or reversing the ALJ's decision, we may not substitute our judgment for that of

the ALJ.” Batson, 359 F.3d at 1196. 

Plaintiff also claims that the ALJ erred by giving substantial weight to the opinion of

Jayne Speicher-Bocija, Ph.D. without considering the limitations on plaintiff’s activities that

she recognized. Although the ALJ did not specifically list every limitation described by Dr.

Speicher-Bocija, he acknowledged that Dr. Speicher-Bocija found that plaintiff displayed

moderate symptoms. Tr. at 443. Nonetheless, the evaluation as a whole supports the ALJ’s

determination regarding plaintiff’s residual functional capacity. Id. at 158-63. Moreover,

while Dr. Speicher-Bocija’s opinion differs from that of Dr. Bengala, it is in accord with

other objective evidence on the record, and may be relied on as substantial evidence. See

Thomas, 278 F.2d at 957. 

Plaintiff next claims that the ALJ improperly rejected a portion of an evaluation by

Robert C. Woskobnick, D.O., opining that plaintiff needed a sit/stand option and could only

occasionally perform postural activities due to her back problems. Tr. at 153. However,

“[i]t is not necessary to agree with everything an expert witness says in order to hold that his

testimony contains ‘substantial evidence.’” Magallanes v. Bowen, 881 F.2d 747, 753 (9th

Case 2:08-cv-00901-FJM Document 21 Filed 07/28/09 Page 4 of 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

3

 Plaintiff also attempts to discredit the tests Dr. Huddleston used to find evidence of

malingering. Opening Brief, Ex. 4. She did not, however, present any evidence regarding

the reliability of the tests used by Dr. Huddleston to the ALJ or Appeals Council, and the

article upon which she now relies must be considered new evidence. We need to remand for

the consideration of new evidence only where plaintiff can show: (1) that new material

evidence is available; and (2) good cause for having failed to present the evidence earlier.

42 U.S.C. § 405(g); Mayes v. Massanari, 276 F.3d 453, 462 (9th Cir. 2001). Regardless of

whether plaintiff would be able to show good cause, plaintiff cannot establish that the article

is material. Materiality requires plaintiff to show “that there is a ‘reasonable possibility’ that

the new evidence would have changed the outcome of the administrative hearing.” Mayes,

276 F.3d at 462. Even if the article had been part of the record before the ALJ, substantial

evidence supports the ALJ’s findings and inferences.

- 5 -

Cir. 1989) (quotation omitted). The ALJ’s decision to reject Dr. Woskobnick’s opinion

regarding a sit/stand option was supported by other evidence in the record, including Dr.

Woskobnick’s objective findings and plaintiff’s testimony that she could sit continuously for

2 hours and walk for thirty minutes. Tr. at 152-53, 474. 

The ALJ also afforded substantial weight to a psychological evaluation performed by

James E. Huddleston, Ph.D., which concluded that plaintiff could manage simple to

moderately complex work tasks and displayed evidence of malingering. Id. at 444, 536-52.

 Plaintiff contends that this report should not have been relied upon to determine her residual

functional capabilities because Dr. Huddleston was not able to complete a medical source

statement due to testing failures.3

 However, a medical opinion may be relied upon “as

substantial evidence when the opinions are consistent with independent clinical findings or

other evidence in the record.” Thomas, 278 F.3d at 957. Even though Dr. Huddleston was

unable to rely upon his test results due to plaintiff’s test-taking behavior and attitude, Id. at

542, he based his opinion on his clinical interview with plaintiff, and his review of her

medical records. Id. at 545. It was not, therefore, error for the ALJ to afford weight to Dr.

Huddleston’s opinions. 

IV

Finally, we consider whether the ALJ properly determined that plaintiff’s subjective

allegations regarding her symptoms and functional limitations were not wholly credible. An

Case 2:08-cv-00901-FJM Document 21 Filed 07/28/09 Page 5 of 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

- 6 -

ALJ is entitled to use ordinary techniques of credibility evaluation. However, because such

testimony is inherently subjective, the ALJ may not reject it unless he makes specific factual

findings that support the conclusion. Bunnell v. Sullivan, 947 F.2d 341, 345-46 (9th Cir.

1991). Because there is evidence in the record that plaintiff was malingering, the ALJ’s

reasons need not meet the clear and convincing standard. See Lester v. Chater, 81 F.3d 821,

834 (9th Cir. 1996). 

Here, the ALJ set forth sufficiently specific findings to support his credibility

determination. He found that the medical evidence did not fully support plaintiff’s

allegations because despite her claimed limitations, the objective medical record shows that

she has received only “sporadic and inconsistent treatment for her alleged impairments.” Tr.

at 446; see 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(b) (medical evidence must reasonably support subjective

claims). The ALJ also found plaintiff to be “vague and unresponsive when questioned about

her activities of daily living and overall functional capacity.” Tr. at 446. Moreover, the ALJ

described inconsistencies in plaintiff’s own statements to treating sources. 

We conclude that the ALJ’s determination that plaintiff’s testimony was not wholly

credible is supported by specific findings and is therefore entitled to deference. See Flaten

v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 44 F.3d 1453, 1464 (9th Cir. 1995). 

V

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED AFFIRMING the Commissioner’s decision denying

benefits. 

DATED this 27th day of July, 2009.

Case 2:08-cv-00901-FJM Document 21 Filed 07/28/09 Page 6 of 6