Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-4_12-cv-00759/USCOURTS-azd-4_12-cv-00759-0/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

 1 The Court notes that Plaintiff’s Opening Brief is 30 pages in length and he submitted

a separate 20-page statement of facts. This violates Local Rule Civil 16.1(d), which allows

25 pages for the opening brief inclusive of the facts. Because Defendant has not objected and

the matter is fully briefed, the Court will allow the additional pages.

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Manuel Damiano, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Carolyn W. Colvin, Acting

Commissioner of Social Security, 

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-12-0759-TUC-DTF

ORDER

Plaintiff Manuel Damiano brought this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), seeking

judicial review of a final decision by the Commissioner of Social Security (Commissioner).

Before the Court are Plaintiff’s opening brief and Defendant’s Response. (Docs. 14, 14-1,

17.)1

 The parties consented to exercise of jurisdiction by a Magistrate Judge, pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 636(c)(1). (Docs. 8, 10.) The Court finds that Plaintiff is not entitled to relief.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Damiano filed an application for Social Security disability insurance benefits (DIB)

and supplemental security income (SSI) on October 8, 2009. (Administrative Record (AR)

157, 161.) Damiano alleged disability from March 15, 2004. (AR 157, 161.) His application

was denied upon initial review (AR 77-78) and on reconsideration (AR 109-14). A hearing

was held on April 26, 2011 (AR 49-78), after which ALJ Larry E. Johnson found, at Step

Case 4:12-cv-00759-DTF Document 19 Filed 10/22/13 Page 1 of 11
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 2 -

Five, that Damiano was not disabled (AR 20-28). The Appeals Council denied Damiano’s

request to review the ALJ’s decision. (AR 1.)

FACTUAL HISTORY

Damiano was born on November 6, 1968, making him 35 at the alleged onset date of

her disability. (AR 157.) He left school around fifth grade and is illiterate. (AR 56, 206.) His

work experience is as a laborer and metal framer. (AR 208, 219.) At the age of 19 or 20, he

was shot in the hip. (AR 53, 62.) He broke his right ankle in approximately 2001, and he

testified it causes him a lot of pain and to fall regularly. (AR 53-54, 55.) He was laid off from

his last job because he could not carry a necessary amount, he could not move fast enough

and he would fall. (AR 55, 56.) He was hired for some lighter work for short periods but also

was laid off from those jobs. (AR 56, 59.)

The ALJ determined Damiano had two severe impairments: borderline intellectual

functioning and history of back pain. (AR 22.) The ALJ found that Damiano could perform

light work but was limited to unskilled work (AR 27) due to the following nonexertional

limitations: markedly limited in ability to make judgments on complex work-related

decisions; moderately limited in ability to understand, remember and carry out complex

instructions, and respond appropriately to usual work situations and changes in routine work

setting; and mildly limited in ability to make judgments on simple work-related decisions,

understand and remember simple instructions, and interact appropriately with the public,

supervisors and co-workers. (AR 24.) The ALJ concluded Damiano could not perform his

past relevant work, which required a higher exertional level, but based on the MedicalVocational Guidelines, he could perform other work available in the national economy. (AR

27.)

STANDARD OF REVIEW

The Commissioner employs a five-step sequential process to evaluate SSI and DIB

claims. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.920, 416.1520; see also Heckler v. Campbell, 461 U.S. 458, 460-

462 (1983). To establish disability the claimant bears the burden of showing he (1) is not

Case 4:12-cv-00759-DTF Document 19 Filed 10/22/13 Page 2 of 11
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 3 -

working; (2) has a severe physical or mental impairment; (3) the impairment meets or equals

the requirements of a listed impairment; and (4) claimant’s residual functional capacity

(RFC) precludes him from performing his past work. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.920(a)(4),

416.1520(a)(4). At Step Five, the burden shifts to the Commissioner to show that the

claimant has the RFC to perform other work that exists in substantial numbers in the national

economy. Hoopai v. Astrue, 499 F.3d 1071, 1074 (9th Cir. 2007). If the Commissioner

conclusively finds the claimant “disabled” or “not disabled” at any point in the five-step

process, he does not proceed to the next step. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.920(a)(4), 416.1520(a)(4).

“The ALJ is responsible for determining credibility, resolving conflicts in medical

testimony, and for resolving ambiguities.” Andrews v. Shalala, 53 F.3d 1035, 1039 (9th Cir.

1995) (citing Magallanes v. Bowen, 881 F.2d 747, 750 (9th Cir. 1989)). The findings of the

Commissioner are meant to be conclusive if supported by substantial evidence. 42 U.S.C.

§ 405(g). Substantial evidence is “more than a mere scintilla but less than a preponderance.”

Tackett v. Apfel, 180 F.3d 1094, 1098 (9th Cir. 1999) (quoting Matney v. Sullivan, 981 F.2d

1016, 1018 (9th Cir. 1992)). The court may overturn the decision to deny benefits only

“when the ALJ’s findings are based on legal error or are not supported by substantial

evidence in the record as a whole.” Aukland v. Massanari, 257 F.3d 1033, 1035 (9th Cir.

2001). This is so because the ALJ “and not the reviewing court must resolve conflicts in the

evidence, and if the evidence can support either outcome, the court may not substitute its

judgment for that of the ALJ.” Matney, 981 F.2d at 1019 (quoting Richardson v. Perales, 402

U.S. 389, 400 (1971)); Batson v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 359 F.3d 1190, 1198 (9th Cir.

2004).

DISCUSSION

Damiano alleges the ALJ committed three errors, that he failed to give proper weight

to his treating physician; erred in giving great weight to an examining physician; and

improperly relied upon the guidelines at Step Five.

Case 4:12-cv-00759-DTF Document 19 Filed 10/22/13 Page 3 of 11
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

 2 Plaintiff mentions other arguments in the introduction to this claim but, because he

did not develop them in his brief, the Court does not address them. See Carmickle v. Comm,

Soc. Sec. Admin., 533 F.3d 1155, 1161 n.2 (9th Cir. 2008) (declining to address an issue not

argued with any specificity).

- 4 -

Treating Physician, Dr. Churchill

Plaintiff argues the ALJ failed to weigh properly the opinion of his primary care

doctor Patrice Churchill.2

 On August 20, 2010, Dr. Churchill completed a Physical Residual

Functional Capacity Assessment. (AR 318.) She concluded Damiano could stand for 2 hours

of an 8-hour day, sit for 15-30 minutes without changing positions and walk one block

without stopping; could occasionally lift 10 pounds but never lift 20 pounds; frequently reach

and constantly finger and grasp; must lie down during the day and alternate sitting and

standing; and, more than 5 days per month, would be unable to work due to physical

problems. (Id.) 

After providing his summary of the record evidence, the ALJ accorded no weight to

the opinion of Dr. Churchill because he found it was “simply not supported by the balance

of the medical evidence of record, which indicates minor, if any, findings.” (AR 26.) To

evaluate the ALJ’s finding regarding Dr. Churchill’s opinion, the Court reviewed the totality

of the record and summarizes below the medical evidence central to this issue.

In October 2009, Damiano presented at the ER with 4 days of abdominal pain. (AR

308.) He was diagnosed with a right inguinal hernia and cholelithiasis (gallstone disease).

(Id.) Subsequently, he had two surgeries, one to remove his gallbladder (November 2009)

and one to repair the hernia (February 2010). (AR 267, 298.) After the hernia surgery

Damiano was admitted to the hospital overnight due to pain but requested discharge the

following day feeling well. (AR 296.) There is no record evidence that these surgeries

imposed extended physical restrictions.

Damiano first saw Dr. Churchill on March 23, 2010, and her records continue until

the hearing before the ALJ. At the first appointment, Dr. Churchill gave Damiano a 30-day

prescription for Omeprazole for reflux. (AR 334.) Her records do not reflect any further

Case 4:12-cv-00759-DTF Document 19 Filed 10/22/13 Page 4 of 11
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 5 -

complaints of abdominal pain or treatment for any gastrointestinal issues. Dr. Churchill’s

records document Damiano’s complaints about back and ankle problems, however, they

provide limited medical findings to verify these reported symptoms. The abnormal findings

by Dr. Churchill were limited and non-acute: on July 29, 2010, Damiano had a mild stiff gait

and mild stiffness of his hip flexors (AR 341); on August 24, 2010, his gait and stance were

abnormal but there were no acute findings (AR 345); on September 21, 2010, he had a

decreased range of motion, particularly in flexion and extension, and the “usual” chronic

lumbar spasm, but there were no acute palpatory findings (AR 350); and on November 4,

2010, he presented with mild chronic spasm of upper and lower back muscles but no acute

findings (AR 353). Dr. Churchill prescribed a variety of medications in various combinations

for Damiano’s muscle pain, including Cyclobenzaprine, Diclofenac Sodium, Piroxicam,

Naproxen and Cymbalta. (AR 337, 342, 345, 350, 352, 354, 356, 357.) In November, 2010,

she gave him an injection of Ketorolac in the left upper outer quadrant (AR 358), and

subsequently referred him for steroid injections (AR 359).

Many of Dr. Churchill’s findings were normal: on April 13, 2010, full range of motion

and no tenderness in musculoskeletal system (AR 337); on August 24, 2010, back normal on

exam with no costo vertebral angle tenderness (AR 344); and on November 4, 2010, full

range of motion, no limping and absence of pain (AR 353). Further, x-rays taken of

Damiano’s hips, lumbar spine and feet were negative (AR 335, 374) and preliminary labs

covering arthritis were negative and normal (AR 335). An MRI of the lumbar spine revealed

bulging discs at L4-L5 and L5-S1 with mild spondylosis. (AR 376.) However, the

neurosurgeon to whom Damiano was referred, Dr. Brian Callahan, found only mild disc

disease that did not require surgery and did not explain Damiano’s stated pain. (AR 323.)

Subsequent nerve conduction studies, as recommended by Dr. Callahan, were normal. (AR

323, 324.) Dr. Callahan’s physical exam revealed normal muscle strength and reflexes, no

Babinski sign, normal gait and coordination, and intact sensation. (AR 322-23.)

Damiano was sent for two consultative physical examinations. He was examined by

Dr. Enrique Suarez on December 29, 2009, who found that Damiano had normal range of

Case 4:12-cv-00759-DTF Document 19 Filed 10/22/13 Page 5 of 11
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 6 -

motion, reflexes, ambulation and x-rays. (AR 286.) After summarizing the exam as normal,

Dr. Suarez concluded that Damiano had no limitations on his activities. (AR 282, 286.) 

He was examined again on June 27, 2011, by Dr. Amna Yaqoob. Dr. Yaqoob

performed a straight leg raise test bilaterally and a Romberg test, both of which were

negative. (AR 389.) Damiano’s strength was normal with good muscle tone, and his gait,

sensory examination, deep tendon reflexes and cranial nerves were unremarkable. (Id.) There

was no paravertebral muscle spasm or tenderness and all tested range of motion was normal,

but Damiano resisted examination of his lumbar range of motion. (Id.) Dr. Yaqoob noted that

he squatted, bent forward and extended his back and moved laterally without restriction, took

his shoes off and put them back on, and he got on and off the examination table and sat

comfortably. (AR 388-89.) His general physical movement was unremarkable, which the

doctor found inconsistent with Damiano’s reported experiences. (AR 388.) Dr. Yaqoob

diagnosed back pain with normal cervical examination; right ankle pain secondary to mild

osteoarthritis post-traumatic with normal range of motion and no limitations; and abdominal

pain secondary to gastroesophageal reflux disease with no limitations to physical activity.

(AR 389.) She found no 12-month limitations on Damiano’s activity. (AR 390, 396-401.)

Damiano argues, first, that Dr. Churchill’s opinion should have been accorded

controlling weight as his treating physician. The governing regulations provide:

When a treating physician’s opinion on the issue(s) of the nature and severity

of your impairment(s) is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and

laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other

substantial evidence in your case record, we will give it controlling weight.

20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(d)(2), 416.927(d)(2). Dr. Churchill’s opinion that Damiano was

significantly restricted in his ability to work was not well-supported by clinical and

laboratory techniques. Over the course of treating Damiano for a year, she periodically

documented mild non-acute abnormalities such as stiff gait, decreased range of motion or

muscular spasms in the back. (AR 341, 345, 350, 353.) During other exams he exhibited full

range of motion, absence of tenderness and no pain. (AR 337, 344, 353.) All laboratory

findings, including x-rays, blood testing and nerve conduction studies, were negative with

Case 4:12-cv-00759-DTF Document 19 Filed 10/22/13 Page 6 of 11
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 7 -

the exception of a lumbar MRI (AR 323, 324, 335, 374, 376), which revealed such minor

impairment that Dr. Churchill acknowledged there was “no real disc disease” (AR 356).

Further, Dr. Churchill’s opinion is inconsistent with the other medical record

evidence. Dr. Callahan, a neurosurgical specialist, found no abnormalities during his exam

of Damiano and concluded the disc disease did not explain Damiano’s pain. (AR 322-24.)

Similarly, Drs. Suarez and Yaqoob, practitioners in internal medicine, examined and tested

Damiano a year-and-a-half apart and all of the results were normal. (AR 286, 389.) These

doctors concluded that Damiano was not physically restricted in his ability to work. (AR 282,

396-401.) In light of the record in entirety, Dr. Churchill’s opinion was not entitled to

controlling weight.

Second, Damiano argues the ALJ failed to provide specific reasons for rejecting Dr.

Churchill’s opinion and to apply the factors set forth in the regulations for weighing medical

opinions: examining relationship, treatment relationship, supportability, consistency,

specialization, and other factors. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c), 416.927(c). The ALJ discussed

some of these factors, acknowledging Dr. Churchill’s treating relationship with Damiano and

finding her opinion inconsistent with the record as a whole. However, there are no Ninth

Circuit cases finding reversible legal error solely because an ALJ does not discuss each factor

listed in §§ 404.1527(c), 416.927(c). The regulations provide that the ALJ is to apply the

factors and provide “good reasons” for the weight given to the treating source. 20 C.F.R.

§§ 404.1527(c)(2), 416.927(c)(2). Thus, it is legal error if the ALJ fails to provide “specific

and legitimate reasons,” supported by substantial evidence, to reject even a contradicted

opinion of a treating physician. See Lester v. Chater, 81 F.3d 821, 830-31 (9th Cir. 1995);

Connett v. Barnhart, 340 F.3d 871, 874 (9th Cir. 2003) (upholding ALJ’s rejection of

treating physician’s opinion in favor of contradictory examining physician based on

inconsistency with doctor’s notes and other sources).

While the claimant might have liked the ALJ to engage in a lengthier discussion

regarding his rejection of Dr. Churchill’s opinion, before the ALJ discounted the opinion he

provided a synopsis of the record and made findings regarding the other medical opinions

Case 4:12-cv-00759-DTF Document 19 Filed 10/22/13 Page 7 of 11
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 8 -

of record. (AR 25-26.) Ultimately, the ALJ provided a specific, legitimate reason for his

conclusion regarding Dr. Churchill’s opinion. As detailed above, after review of the record

as a whole, the Court finds substantial evidence to support the ALJ’s finding. The other

medical opinions all concluded that Damiano had no significant physical restrictions. (AR

90, 286, 292, 390, 396-401.) Further, the physical examinations and laboratory tests yielded

no acute abnormal results.

In light of the above summary of the medical record, there is substantial evidence to

support the ALJ’s finding that Dr. Churchill’s opinion about Damiano’s limitations was not

supported by the medical evidence. The ALJ did not err in giving her opinion no weight.

Examining Physician, Dr. Yaqoob

Damiano argues the ALJ erred in giving great weight to the opinion of Dr. Yaqoob

because her opinion was based on incomplete information, in that she lacked any medical

records or diagnostic findings. He contends the medical records are inconsistent with her

findings and that her opinion could not constitute substantial evidence to reject the opinion

of Dr. Churchill.

Dr. Yaqoob examined Damiano on June 27, 2011. (AR 387-89.) She gathered a

history from him, conducted a physical examination, provided diagnoses and opined on his

ability to do work-related activities. (AR 387-90.) She concluded his only limitation was that

he could not continually operate foot controls with his right foot. (AR 396-401.)

An ALJ may “reject the opinion of a treating physician in favor of a conflicting

opinion of an examining physician if the ALJ makes ‘findings setting forth specific,

legitimate reasons for doing so that are based on substantial evidence in the record.’” Thomas

v. Barnhart, 278 F.3d 947, 957 (9th Cir. 2002) (Magallanes v. Bowen, 881 F.2d 747, 751

(9th Cir. 1989)). If the examining physician relies upon her own clinical findings, diagnoses

or objective medical tests that differ from the treating physician, those findings constitute

substantial evidence. Orn v. Astrue, 497 F.3d 625, 632 (9th Cir. 2007).

As found above, the ALJ made a specific finding for rejecting the opinion of Dr.

Churchill, which the Court finds was based on substantial evidence. In turn, the ALJ

Case 4:12-cv-00759-DTF Document 19 Filed 10/22/13 Page 8 of 11
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 9 -

provided specific reasons to give weight to the opinion of Dr. Yaqoob. After noting that she

examined him, evaluated his work history and performed tests to evaluate his level of

functioning, the ALJ found her opinion “consistent with the majority of the medical evidence

of record insofar as they show that the claimant is not precluded from performing workrelated activities.” (AR 26.) As set forth above, Dr. Yaqoob offered her own diagnoses,

distinct from those of Dr. Churchill, and conducted her own objective medical testing.

Therefore, her findings can constitute substantial evidence to reject a treating physician’s

opinion. More importantly, as discussed above, exclusive of Dr. Churchill’s opinion, the

opinion of Dr. Yaqoob is consistent with the remainder of the medical record. The ALJ’s

adoption of it is, therefore, supported by substantial record evidence.

Damiano’s specific arguments do not undermine this finding. First, Plaintiff contends

the medical records indicate a significant history of abdominal pain and treatment that were

not considered by Dr. Yaqoob. Specifically, Damiano had an abdominal gunshot wound, two

hernia surgeries, and removal of his gallbladder. Dr. Yaqoob recorded Damiano’s statements

that he had abdominal pain, with intermittent reflux-type symptoms that are worst when lying

down. (AR 388.) He informed her of his gunshot wound and ventral hernia, which she

confirmed upon physical examination. (AR 388, 389.) Contrary to his argument, Dr. Yaqoob

did more than “visualize the scars,” she also performed an exam and found that his abdomen

was “soft, nontender, not distended.” (AR 389.) Additionally, her observations revealed no

limitations in his movement. (AR 388-89.) She diagnosed him with abdominal pain

secondary to gastroesophageal reflux disease. (Id.) She further noted that he does not take

any medication and needs treatment, but found this did not limit his physical activity. (Id.)

The remainder of the record is not to the contrary. The gunshot wound occurred when

Damiano was approximately 20, which required repair of an abdominal wall hernia, and he

continued to work after that. (AR 62, 277.) As summarized in the section above, there is no

medical record evidence suggesting that Damiano suffered from long-term impairments

resulting from his gallbladder and hernia surgery. Further, Damiano sought and received

treatment only once from Dr. Churchill for issues related to his gastrointestinal system. (AR

Case 4:12-cv-00759-DTF Document 19 Filed 10/22/13 Page 9 of 11
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 10 -

334.) Thus, Dr. Yaqoob’s conclusions regarding Damiano’s abdominal complaints are

consistent with the remainder of the record and the ALJ’s adoption of her opinion is

supported by substantial evidence.

Second, Damiano contends that Dr. Yaqoob did not take into account his significant

musculoskeletal problems. As discussed extensively in the section above addressing the

opinion of Dr. Churchill, all laboratory findings relative to Damiano’s musculoskeletal

system were negative with the exception of mild lumbar disc degeneration, which the

specialist concluded was not the source of pain. (AR 323, 324, 335, 356, 374, 376.) Further,

over the course of eighteen months, numerous physical examinations by four different

doctors revealed only intermittent, limited, non-acute abnormalities. Again, Dr. Yaqoob’s

findings are consistent with the record. The ALJ’s decision to give her opinion great weight

was not error and is supported by substantial evidence.

Medical-Vocational Guidelines

Damiano argues, initially, that it was error for the ALJ to rely on the MedicalVocational Guidelines and not obtain the testimony of a vocational expert because Plaintiff

has nonexertional impairments that prevent him from performing the full range of light or

sedentary work. The ALJ found that Damiano’s non-exertional limitations (as set forth in the

ALJ’s RFC) had little or no effect on the occupational base of unskilled light work; therefore,

he found application of the Guidelines appropriate. (AR 27.) Plaintiff does not contend that

finding was in error. Rather, he contends that the ALJ’s RFC finding is erroneous because

it did not encompass the limitations found by Dr. Churchill or his ankle weakness and back

and foot pain. He argues that if the ALJ had adopted these additional limitations then

application of the Guidelines would have been improper. 

First, as discussed above, the Court found no error with respect to the ALJ’s treatment

of Dr. Churchill’s opinion or the other medical opinions. Second, Plaintiff’s reported ankle,

back and foot problems were not substantiated by objective medical evidence and Plaintiff

has not challenged successfully any of the findings on that point. Further, the ALJ found

Damiano not entirely credible regarding his subjective complaints (AR 25), and Plaintiff did

Case 4:12-cv-00759-DTF Document 19 Filed 10/22/13 Page 10 of 11
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 11 -

not dispute that finding. Therefore, the underlying premise of this claim – Plaintiff’s

challenge to the RFC – fails and so does the claim.

CONCLUSION

A federal court may affirm, modify, reverse, or remand a social security case. 42

U.S.C. § 405(g). Plaintiff has not established that the ALJ’s decision was based on legal error

or was not supported by substantial evidence. Therefore, the Commissioner’s decision is

affirmed.

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s case is DISMISSED and the Clerk of Court shall

enter judgment.

DATED this 22nd day of October, 2013.

Case 4:12-cv-00759-DTF Document 19 Filed 10/22/13 Page 11 of 11