Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-01773/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-01773-0/pdf.json

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

---

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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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

Ernest E. Barela, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Michael J. Astrue, Commissioner of Social

Security, 

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-09-01773-PHX-FJM

ORDER

This is an appeal from a denial of social security disability insurance benefits. The

court has before it plaintiff's opening brief (doc. 16), defendant's answering brief (doc. 21),

and plaintiff's reply (doc. 25).

Plaintiff, Ernest Barela, filed an application for disability insurance benefits on

October 12, 2006 alleging a disability onset date of June 27, 2004. His application was

denied initially, on reconsideration, and on February 18, 2009, after two administrative

hearings by an administrative law judge ("ALJ"). After the Appeals Council denied

plaintiff's request for review, the ALJ's decision became the final decision for purposes of

judicial review under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). On August 25, 2009 plaintiff filed an action in this

court challenging the Commissioner's final decision.

We may set aside a denial of benefits only if it is not supported by substantial

evidence or is based on legal error. Thomas v. Barnhart, 278 F.3d 947, 954 (9th Cir. 2007).

Substantial evidence is "such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as

Case 2:09-cv-01773-FJM Document 26 Filed 12/03/10 Page 1 of 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

- 2 -

adequate to support a conclusion." Orn v. Astrue, 495 F.3d 625, 630 (9th Cir. 2007). 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). 

The ALJ found that plaintiff has severe impairments of: back disorder, chronic kidney

disease, anxiety disorder, and depressive disorder. Tr. 20. Those impairments, however, did

not meet or medically equal one of the impairments in 20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpart P,

Appendix 1. Id. "After careful consideration of the entire record," the ALJ found that

plaintiff has the residual functional capacity ("RFC") to "perform simple, repetitive tasks

with no complex or detailed instructions. He requires no public contact, limited contact with

co-workers, structured supervision, and he is moderately limited in his ability to accept

criticism from supervisors. He requires a sit/stand option and is precluded from heavy lifting

and repetitive bending." Tr. 28. In reaching this conclusion, the ALJ thoroughly discussed

the medical record and determined that the functional limitations resulting from plaintiff's

impairments are less severe then alleged. Tr. 20-22. The ALJ discredited the opinion of

Rodrick L. Meraz, PA-C that plaintiff could perform less than sedentary work because Mr.

Meraz was not an acceptable medical source and plaintiff's testimony contradicted his

findings. Tr. 21. The ALJ also discredited plaintiff's testimony regarding the severity of his

limitations based on his inconsistent statements and the effectiveness of treatment. Tr. 22,

25. As to plaintiff's mental impairments such as anxiety, the ALJ found certain limitations

and incorporated them into his RFC assessment, but ultimately found plaintiff's anxiety

disorder not completely disabling. In reaching this conclusion, the ALJ discredited the

findings of Joanne M. Babich, PhD, a state agency doctor because her report was inconsistent

with her own findings and with the general medical record. 

After assessing plaintiff's RFC, the ALJ relied on a vocational expert's ("VE")

testimony, to determine that plaintiff was not capable of past work but was capable of the

unskilled light jobs of office helper, packer, and assembler. Tr. 27.

On appeal, plaintiff challenges a number of findings. First, plaintiff argues that the

Case 2:09-cv-01773-FJM Document 26 Filed 12/03/10 Page 2 of 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

- 3 -

ALJ committed error by failing to engage in a function-by-function analysis of his RFC.

Second, plaintiff contends that the ALJ failed to properly weigh medical source opinions

when he discredited Mr. Meraz and Dr. Babich's findings. Third, plaintiff challenges the

ALJ's discrediting his subjective complaints and failure to give clear and convincing reasons

for doing so. Finally, plaintiff argues that the ALJ committed error by relying on a

hypothetical that did not include all of plaintiff's impairments and by neglecting to resolve

conflicts between the VE and the Dictionary of Occupational Titles ("DOT"). 

II.

A. RFC Assessment

Plaintiff does not challenge the ALJ's findings at steps one through three of the

sequential analysis, but only asserts legal error at steps four and five. Initially, plaintiff

contends that the ALJ failed to set forth a function-by-function assessment of plaintiff's RFC

as required by Social Security Ruling ("SSR") 96-8p. It is the ALJ's responsibility to assess

a claimant's RFC based on all relevant medical evidence in the record. See 20 C.F.R. §

404.1546; SSR 96-5p. We will affirm an ALJ's RFC determination if the proper legal

standard is applied and if the decision is supported by substantial evidence in the record.

Bayliss v. Barnhard, 427 F.3d 1211, 1217 (9th Cir. 2005).

Contrary to plaintiff's allegations, the ALJ did not describe plaintiff's RFC merely in

categorical terms, such as the ability to engage in sedentary or light work. Rather, the ALJ

engaged in a detailed discussion of plaintiff's various limitations. The ALJ's RFC assessment

found that plaintiff could: 

"consistently perform simple, repetitive tasks. To reduce

opportunities for anxiety, he is restricted from work involving

complex or detailed instructions. For the same reason, he is

restricted against public contract. He is assigned only limited

contact with co-workers and assigned structured (non-heavy

handed) supervision in light of his "sensitivity" to criticism as

described by Dr. Babich (moderately deficit). He requires a

sit/stand option and is precluded from heavy lifting and repetitive

bending." Tr. 26. 

This is not a mere categorical assessment.

We also disagree with plaintiff's contention that the ALJ failed to sufficiently define

Case 2:09-cv-01773-FJM Document 26 Filed 12/03/10 Page 3 of 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

- 4 -

certain limitations, such as "structured supervision" or the "sit/stand option." Plaintiff

offered no authority supporting the argument that every term in an RFC assessment must be

defined. Even if such a requirement did exist, we conclude that the ALJ's RFC assessment

is sufficiently clear. Contrary to plaintiff's allegation, the ALJ actually does define structured

supervision, she uses the phrase, "non-heavy handed." Id. Furthermore, the VE testified that

the jobs of assembler, office helper, and packer, although unskilled in nature, still would

entail some supervision. Tr. 71. Lastly, Gallant v. Heckler, 753 F.2d 1450, 1454 (9th Cir.

1989), did not set forth a requirement that an ALJ describe in detail the nature of a sit/stand

option. Here, we find the term effectively conveys the need for plaintiff to have a job that

allows him to alternate between sitting and standing.

Next, plaintiff argues that the ALJ did not consider the frequency and duration of his

anxiety disorder. A review of the ALJ's findings, however, demonstrates that the ALJ did

consider limitations created by plaintiff's anxiety disorder. For example, the ALJ found that

plaintiff only had mild restrictions in his activities of daily living but, because of his anxiety

disorder, on occasion "has moderate difficulties in maintaining social functioning." Tr. 25.

This finding reflects the ALJ's conclusion that plaintiff's anxiety disorder has an occasional

limiting effect, which is a rational interpretation of the record. Additionally, the ALJ's

considerations of plaintiff's anxiety disorder is reflected in the above mentioned RFC

assessment. Finally, the ALJ's findings that plaintiff needs "limited contact with co-workers"

and has only a "moderate ability to accept criticism from supervisors" are sufficiently clear.

B. Medical Source Opinion

Plaintiff contends that the ALJ failed to properly weigh medical source opinions

because she discredited Mr. Meraz and Dr. Babich. "By rule the Social Security

Administration favors the opinion of a treating physician over non-treating physicians." Orn

v. Astrue, 495 F.3d 625, 631 (9th Cir. 2007) (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527). Although Mr.

Meraz treats plaintiff, he is only a physician's assistant. A physician's assistant is not an

acceptable medical source and thus cannot be considered a treating source whose opinion

may be entitled to controlling weight. See SSR 06-03p, 2006 WL 2329939, at *2.

Case 2:09-cv-01773-FJM Document 26 Filed 12/03/10 Page 4 of 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

1

 Defendant's argument that Dr. Babich's opinion could only serve as substantial

evidence if it was consistent with the entire record is incorrect. That standard applies to nonexamining physicians. See Lester, 81 F.3d at 831. The record indicates Dr. Babich actually

saw plaintiff and therefore he is an examining source.

- 5 -

Furthermore, as an "other source" Mr. Meraz's opinion cannot establish plaintiff's medical

limitations. Id. Here, the ALJ correctly recognized this and offered further reasons for

discrediting Mr. Meraz's opinion (lack of objective medical evidence, contradicted by

plaintiff's testimony). Tr. 21. The mere fact that Dr. Awad signed off on the report is

insufficient to afford it great weight. Plaintiff testified that he did not know Dr. Awad, Tr.

48, and there is no evidence that Mr. Meraz worked with Dr. Awad on an interdisciplinary

team. See Gomez v. Chater, 74 F.3d 967, 970-71 (9th Cir. 1996) (affording great weight to

a nurse practitioner's opinion because she worked closely on an interdisciplinary team with

a doctor). Thus, the ALJ properly discredited Mr. Meraz's opinion.

As to Dr. Babich's opinion, plaintiff challenges the ALJ's determination that his

findings are inconsistent and therefore not entitled to great weight. First, we note that Dr.

Babich is not plaintiff's treating physician. Dr. Babich is a state agency doctor who

physically examined plaintiff because plaintiff was applying for disability benefits.

Therefore, Dr. Babich is an examining physician whose opinion would be entitled to more

weight than a non-examining physician and only could be rejected for specific and legitimate

reasons. See Lester v. Chater, 81 F.3d 821, 830-31 (9th Cir. 1995).1

 Here, the ALJ offered

specific and legitimate reasons for discrediting Dr. Babich's opinion. 

The ALJ found that Dr. Babich's opinion was internally inconsistent and inadequately

supported by clinical findings. See Thomas, 278 F.3d at 957 (stating that an ALJ need not

accept the opinion of any physician that is "brief, conclusory, and inadequately supported by

clinical findings"). Dr. Babich concluded that plaintiff had marked limitations in his ability

to work in coordination with or proximity to others without being distracted, complete a

normal workday or week without interruptions from psychologically based symptoms, and

perform at a consistent pace without an unreasonable number and length of rest periods. Tr.

Case 2:09-cv-01773-FJM Document 26 Filed 12/03/10 Page 5 of 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

- 6 -

23 (citing Dr. Babich's reports). The ALJ found that this was inconsistent with Dr. Babich's

other findings of only mild limitations in plaintiff's ability to get along with co-workers

without being distracted or showing behavioral extremes. We find that this is a reasonable

interpretation of the record. See Batson, 359 F.3d at 1193 (stating that we uphold an ALJ's

interpretation of the record as long as it is rational, even if another interpretation exists).

Furthermore, the ALJ discredited Dr. Babich's opinion because it was inconsistent

with other medical sources. Tr. 24. For example, Houshang Semino, M.D. evaluated

plaintiff and found that he had a GAF of 65 and that his anxiety disorder was responding

positively to treatment. Tr. 24, 542, 599. Plaintiff's records from the Southwest Behavioral

Service indicated only mild restrictions and also confirmed effectiveness of medication. Tr.

534, 538, 540, 544. In addition, we agree with the ALJ's finding that there is no indication

that plaintiff has moderate limitations in performing at a consistent pace. See Tr. 24, 334-37

(treatment records indicate normal and average results). Finally, as we discuss below,

because the ALJ properly discredited plaintiff's subjective complaints, she could then

discredit Dr. Babich's opinion because he based his findings in large part on what plaintiff

reported. See Morgan v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 169 F.3d 695, 602 (9th Cir. 1999).

Plaintiff also asserts that rather than discrediting Dr. Babich's findings as inconsistent,

the ALJ had a duty to re-contact Dr. Babich to resolve the perceived inconsistencies. While

20 C.F.R. § 416.912(e) does require the ALJ to develop the record and re-contact medical

sources, that regulation applies only to treating sources and is only triggered when the report

is inadequate to make a disability determination. See Thomas, 278 F.3d at 958. As

discussed above, Dr. Babich is not a treating physician and there is no indication in the

record that the ALJ found the report inadequate to make a determination.

C. Subjective Complaints

Plaintiff contends that the ALJ committed legal error by failing to properly assess his

subjective complaints of pain. Generally, "questions of credibility and resolution of conflicts

in the testimony are functions solely for the agency." Parra v. Astrue, 481 F.3d 742, 750 (9th

Cir. 2007). "If the ALJ finds that the claimant's testimony as to the severity of [ ] pain and

Case 2:09-cv-01773-FJM Document 26 Filed 12/03/10 Page 6 of 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

- 7 -

impairments is unreliable, the ALJ must make a credibility determination with findings

sufficiently specific to permit the court to conclude that the ALJ did not arbitrarily discredit

claimant's testimony." Id. at 958 (citing Bunnell v. Sullivan, 947 F.2d 341, 345-46 (9th Cir.

2001)). The ALJ may consider factors such as the plaintiff's: reputation for truthfulness,

inconsistencies between the testimony itself or the testimony and conduct, daily activities,

work record, and testimony from physicians and third parties. Id.

Here, contrary to plaintiff's allegations, the ALJ does discuss why she discredited

plaintiff's testimony and provides a sufficient nexus for doing so. The ALJ properly found

that plaintiff's allegations of disabling limitations were inconsistent with his daily activities

of household chores, caring for his own personal needs, participation in a weekly dart league,

taking long walks, and ability to socialize with friends. See id.; Tr. 24. The ALJ noted that

plaintiff testified only to a limited version of these activities despite its inconsistency with

his prior reports and despite the ALJ's attempt to elicit more testimony. Tr. 25. Furthermore,

the ALJ reasoned that plaintiff's ability to play darts indicates his cervical spine problem is

not as severe as alleged. Tr. 26. The ALJ also considered various physicians' reports in

evaluating plaintiff's credibility, which was proper since it was not the only factor used. As

the ALJ observed, the overall medical record supports a conclusion that plaintiff's back

problems and anxiety and depressive disorders were responsive and improved with treatment.

See Tr. 21-22, 24, 526, 534, 536, 538, 540, 542, 599; see also Crane v. Shalala, 76 F.3d 251,

254 (9th Cir. 1996) (finding responsiveness to treatment a proper reason to discredit a

plaintiff's credibility). Therefore, because the ALJ's credibility determination is supported

by substantial evidence, we will uphold it.

D. Burden of Proof at Step Five

Plaintiff finally argues that the ALJ proffered and relied on an incomplete hypothetical

to the VE and failed to identify and resolve conflicts between the VE and the DOT.

As to the hypothetical, an ALJ must ask a hypothetical question to a VE that is based

on medical assumptions supported by substantial evidence in the record and that reflects all

of the plaintiff's limitations. Roberts v. Shalala, 66 F.3d 179, 184 (9th Cir. 1995). An ALJ

Case 2:09-cv-01773-FJM Document 26 Filed 12/03/10 Page 7 of 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

- 8 -

may, however, "accept or reject restrictions in a hypothetical question that are not supported

by substantial evidence." Osenbrock v. Apfel, 240 F.3d 1157, 1164-65 (9th Cir. 2000)

(upholding the use of a hypothetical that did not include limitations testified to only by the

plaintiff). Here, the ALJ relied on the VE's answer to hypothetical number two that was

based in large part on the findings of Dr. Babich, but did not include his finding that plaintiff

had moderate limitations in his ability to sustain a work day or work in coordination with

others. Tr. 69. We agree with the ALJ that based on the finding that those limitations were

not supported by substantial evidence in the record, the hypothetical did not have to include

them. Tr. 27. Accordingly, there was no error. 

Finally, when a VE provides evidence about the requirements of a job, the ALJ has

a responsibility to ask about any possible conflict between that evidence and the DOT. See

SSR 00-4p; Massachi v. Astrue, 486 F.3d 1149, 1152-54 (9th Cir. 2007) (holding that

application of SSR 00-4p is mandatory). An ALJ's failure to do so is procedural error unless

there is no actual conflict or the VE provides sufficient evidence to support the conclusion.

Massachi, 486 F.3d at 1154, n. 19. 

Here, we agree with plaintiff that the ALJ committed procedural error by failing to

inquire about any conflict between the VE's testimony and the DOT. See id at 1154, n. 18

(stating that even when a VE simply testifies that a plaintiff is qualified for certain jobs, the

VE is indirectly providing evidence about the requirements of the job and therefore SSR 00-

4p applies). We also agree with plaintiff that there is an actual conflict with the position of

packer because the DOT classifies it as "medium work" and the VE testified that it was only

"light work." See Tr. 70, 72; U.S. Dep't. of Labor, Dictionary of Occupational Titles

("DOT") 920.687-130, 1991 WL 687993 (4th ed., rev. 1991). SSR 00-4p states that an ALJ

cannot rely on a VE's testimony that an occupation is "light" instead of "medium." Therefore

it was error for the ALJ to rely on the VE's testimony that plaintiff could work as a packer.

Nevertheless, any error with regard to the packer position is harmless because plaintiff

is still capable of performing the jobs of office helper and assembler. While plaintiff

maintains that a conflict exists because the DOT requires coordinated work for both positions

Case 2:09-cv-01773-FJM Document 26 Filed 12/03/10 Page 8 of 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

- 9 -

and the VE's testimony contradicted that, we find that no such conflict exists. The ALJ

concluded that plaintiff had the RFC to perform a job with limited co-worker contact. There

is nothing in the DOT provisions for either position indicating that more than limited coworker conduct is required. See DOT 239.567-010, 1991 WL 672232 (office helper); DOT

369.687-010, 1991 WL 673070 (assembler). In fact, both positions rate interaction with

people as "not significant" and list the skills of talking and hearing as occasional or not

present. See id. Furthermore, the VE testified that the position of office helper only requires

"occasional" co-worker contact. Tr. 71. Therefore, even if there was a conflict, the VE's

response would qualify as a reasonable explanation according to SSR 00-4p (stating that one

reasonable explanation for a conflict could be evidence from a VE based on his personal

experience). We therefore conclude that the ALJ's error in finding that plaintiff was qualified

for the position of packer is harmless because there is no conflict between the DOT and the

VE's testimony regarding assembler or office helper. Accordingly, we will uphold the ALJ's

finding that plaintiff has the RFC to be an assembler or office helper. 

Based on the foregoing, we conclude that the ALJ’s determination that plaintiff is not

disabled, and therefore not eligible for benefits, is supported by substantial evidence in the

record. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED AFFIRMING the Commissioner's denial of

benefits.

DATED this 3rd day of December, 2010.

Case 2:09-cv-01773-FJM Document 26 Filed 12/03/10 Page 9 of 9