Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-01656/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-01656-0/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JAMES RUSSELL,

Plaintiff,

v.

MICHAEL J. ASTRUE,

Commissioner of Social Security,

Defendant.

 

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 11-CV-1656-W (JMA)

REPORT AND

RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED

STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

RE PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR

SUMMARY JUDGMENT [DOC.

NO. 11] AND DEFENDANT’S

CROSS-MOTION FOR

SUMMARY JUDGMENT [DOC.

NO. 12]

Plaintiff James Russell (“Plaintiff”) seeks judicial review of Defendant

Social Security Commissioner Michael J. Astrue’s (“Defendant”)

determination that he is not entitled to disability insurance benefits. The

parties have filed cross-motions for summary judgment. For the reasons

set forth below, the Court recommends that Plaintiff’s motion for summary

judgment be GRANTED, that Defendant’s cross-motion for summary

judgment be DENIED, and that the case be remanded for further

proceedings.

I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Plaintiff filed an application for disability insurance benefits on June

16, 2008 alleging a disability onset date of December 29, 2006 due to a

11cv1656

Case 3:11-cv-01656-W-JMA Document 13 Filed 02/15/13 Page 1 of 29
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

“broken back.” Admin. R. at 158-59, 182. Plaintiff’s disability claim was

denied initially on September 17, 2008 and again upon reconsideration on

December 3, 2008. Id. at 90-94, 101-05. On December 9, 2008, Plaintiff

requested an administrative hearing. Id. at 108. A hearing was conducted

on November 20, 2009 by Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) Eve B.

Godfrey, who determined on July 15, 2010 that Plaintiff was not disabled. 

Id. at 12-23. Plaintiff requested a review of the ALJ’s decision; the Appeals

Council for the Social Security Administration (“SSA”) denied Plaintiff’s

request for review on May 27, 2011. Id. at 1-6. Plaintiff then commenced

this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).

II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

Plaintiff was born on August 24, 1957 and completed twelfth grade. 

Id. at 158, 186. He worked as an operating engineer from 1987 to 2007. 

Id. at 183. He performed dredging on boats, which required pulling motors

and cables as well as lifting and carrying drums and wire rope of fifty or

more pounds frequently and one hundred or more pounds occasionally. Id.

He injured his back at work on December 11, 2006 while lowering a barrel

of line weighing approximately 150 pounds onto another vessel. Id. at 282,

461. Although he initially continued working after the accident, he stopped

working on December 29, 2006 due to his injuries. Id. at 182, 282. Plaintiff

is not married. Id. at 158.

III. MEDICAL EVIDENCE

A. Tri-City Medical Center (December 2006)

On December 11, 2006 (the date of Plaintiff’s work injury), Plaintiff

was taken to Tri-City Medical Center via ambulance with a report that he

had experienced a seizure while driving. Id. at 419. The emergency

2 11cv1656

Case 3:11-cv-01656-W-JMA Document 13 Filed 02/15/13 Page 2 of 29
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

department noted that Plaintiff had a history of seizures due to alcohol

withdrawal, and that Plaintiff’s past medical history was significant for

alcoholism. Id. at 419-20. Plaintiff also complained of muscle pains and

spasms across his back. Id. at 419.

B. Jason A. Kouri, M.D., Treating Physician (December 2006) 

Plaintiff first visited Dr. Jason A. Kouri of U.S. Healthworks Medical

Group on December 22, 2006, after being told by a chiropractor that he

had a possible fracture in his back caused by his work injury. Id. at 407. 

Lumbosacral x-rays revealed a mild to moderate loss in height at L1 and L2

which suggested recent trauma. Id. at 411. Dr. Kouri diagnosed lumbar

sprain and spondylolisthesis (the forward slippage of a segment of the

spine),1

 placed Plaintiff on modified duty at work, and prescribed Motrin,

lumbar support, and physical therapy. Id. at 407, 410. During a visit on

December 29, 2006, Dr. Kouri noted that Plaintiff was still lifting more than

five pounds at work. Id. at 414. Dr. Kouri recommended that Plaintiff limit

his lifting to no more than five pounds and referred Plaintiff for a CT scan. 

Id. The CT scan, which was performed on January 3, 2007, showed mild

compression fractures at L1 and L2 and multilevel spondylosis

(degeneration of the disc spaces between the vertebrae)2

 at L4-L5 and L5-

S1. Id. at 264.

C. L. Mercer McKinley, M.D., Examining Physician (January 2007)

On January 17, 2007, Dr. L. Mercer McKinley of Pacific Spine Clinic,

Inc. conducted an orthopedic evaluation of Plaintiff at the request of AIG,

his employer’s insurance carrier. Id. at 461. Plaintiff reported stabbing and

aching in the upper portion of his lumbar spine, but no pain radiating into

1

See http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/back-surgery/HQ00305 (as visited Feb. 13, 2013).

2

See http://www.medterms.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=13959 (as visited Feb. 13, 2013).

3 11cv1656

Case 3:11-cv-01656-W-JMA Document 13 Filed 02/15/13 Page 3 of 29
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

his lower extremities. Id. at 462. He also reported that he had been sent

home by his employer because no suitable work was available for him. Id.

Dr. McKinley found that Plaintiff was temporarily totally disabled, and

recommended physical therapy, Miacalium nasal spray to promote healing

of the compression fractures at L1 and L2, and a MRI if symptoms

continued. Id. at 464. 

D. Sidney H. Levine, M.D., Treating Physician (January-April 2007)

Plaintiff first consulted with Dr. Sidney H. Levine, a board-certified

orthopedic surgeon, on January 9, 2007. Id. at 259, 261-63, 281. Plaintiff

reported a constant stabbing pain in his low back. Id. at 282. Dr. Levine

diagnosed compression fractures at L1 and L2 and discogenic disease at

L4-L5, and found that Plaintiff was temporarily totally disabled. Id. at 286. 

Dr. Levine referred Plaintiff for a DEXA scan to determine if Plaintiff had

osteoporosis, and recommended range of motion exercises and a return

visit in two weeks. Id. Plaintiff was seen on January 23, 2007 and

February 20, 2007. Id. at 257-58, 260. 

A lumbar MRI performed on March 29, 2007 showed acute to

subacute fractures of L1 and L2 and some spondylosis at L4-L5 and L5-S1. 

Id. at 268. Plaintiff’s DEXA bone scan revealed mild osteopenia. Id. at

270. At a visit on April 5, 2007, Dr. Levine noted that Plaintiff had

completed physical therapy and that a TENS (transcutaneous electrical

nerve stimulation) unit had helped Plaintiff’s symptoms, but that he

continued to experience low back pain. Id. at 258. 

E. Michael P. Muldoon, M.D., Examining Physician (April 2007)

On April 18, 2007, Dr. Michael P. Muldoon, an orthopedic surgeon,

conducted a Long Shore and Harbor Medical Evaluation at the request of

AIG. Id. at 446. Dr. Muldoon noted that Plaintiff’s medications included

Darvocet and Calcitonin, and that Plaintiff had consumed 6-12 beers per

4 11cv1656

Case 3:11-cv-01656-W-JMA Document 13 Filed 02/15/13 Page 4 of 29
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

day over the past thirty years. Id. at 447. Plaintiff reported non-radiating

low back and mid-back pain rating six on a scale of ten, as well as neck

pain that had been present since the time of his injury. Id. at 448. Upon

physical examination, Dr. Muldoon found that Plaintiff’s range of motion

measured 60 degrees in flexion, 20 degrees in extension, lateral bend on

the right 35 degrees, and lateral bend on the left 30 degrees. Id. at 450. 

Straight leg raising was negative. Id. Dr. Muldoon’s diagnoses included

compression fractures at L1 and L2, degenerative lumbar spondylosis,

alcoholism, history of metabolic bone disease, and possible osteomalacia

versus osteoporosis. Id. at 451. Dr. Muldoon opined that Plaintiff had two

major risk factors for metabolic bone disease: his chronic alcoholism as

well as a familial history of hypoparathyroidism or hypercalcemia. Id. He

stated that this had resulted in a weakened bone and the natural

progression of this condition would have resulted in disability even absent

Plaintiff’s work injury. Id. at 452. Dr. Muldoon recommended repeat visits

to treating orthopedic surgeons and repeat radiographs to assess the

progression of Plaintiff’s spinal deformity, and that if increased kyphosis

(forward rounding of upper back)3

 occurred, bracing and even surgery

might be required. Id. He also recommended over-the-counter analgesics

and anti-inflammatories, continued participation in an exercise program,

and possibly an endocrinologic workup. Id. Finally, he stated that it was

highly unlikely that Plaintiff would be able to return to his previous

occupation. Id.

F. Sidney H. Levine, M.D., Treating Physician (June-September 2007)

On June 11, 2007, Dr. Levine, Plaintiff’s treating orthopedic surgeon,

3

See http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/kyphosis/DS00681 (as visited Feb. 13, 2013).

5 11cv1656

Case 3:11-cv-01656-W-JMA Document 13 Filed 02/15/13 Page 5 of 29
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

responded to AIG’s inquiry about whether he agreed with Dr. Muldoon’s

report. Id. at 288. Dr. Levine agreed with Dr. Muldoon’s conclusions about

Plaintiff’s future medical treatment and his inability to return to his former

work in an unrestricted manner. Id. at 290. However, Dr. Levine disagreed

that Plaintiff’s compression fractures were related to weakened bones due

to Plaintiff’s history of chronic alcohol use. Id. He observed that there was

nothing in Plaintiff’s DEXA scan that indicated Plaintiff had any

predisposition to fractures, and that Plaintiff’s mild osteopenia would not, in

his opinion, result in compression fractures. Id. Dr. Levine stated that

although Plaintiff could not return to his former work in an unrestricted

manner, he could return to modified duties working on boats, if he could

operate equipment and lift no more than 30-40 pounds. Id. at 289.

Plaintiff’s condition remained the same in August and September

2007, with Dr. Levine noting a palpable muscle spasm in Plaintiff’s lumbar

area during that time. Id. at 292, 246-47, 251, 254-55. In November 2007,

Dr. Levine found that Plaintiff’s condition was permanent and stationary for

rating purposes, and opined that Plaintiff was precluded from performing

heavy work. Id. at 296-97. Plaintiff’s range of motion in his back was

forward flexion 45 degrees, extension 15 degrees, lateral bend 20 degrees,

and rotation right and left 15 degrees. Id. at 295. Dr. Levine stated that

Plaintiff’s subjective low back complaints were intermittent and slight to

moderate on occasion, progressing to moderate such that the pain could

be tolerated but would cause a marked handicap in the performance of the

activities precipitating the symptoms. Id. at 296. He also determined, while

performing a representative job analysis, that Plaintiff could work an eight

hour workday, lift up to thirty pounds, and perform a job requiring standing

up to five hours per day and walking 1-2 hours per day on an intermittent

basis, as long as he could stand for a maximum of fifteen minutes at a time

6 11cv1656

Case 3:11-cv-01656-W-JMA Document 13 Filed 02/15/13 Page 6 of 29
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

followed by a five-minute break from the activity. Id. at 304, 306-07. 

G. Kevin Yoo, M.D., Treating Physician (February 2008)4

On February 27, 2008, Plaintiff presented to Dr. Kevin Yoo for a

neurosurgical consultation. Id. at 315-18. Plaintiff rated his back pain as a

seven on a scale of ten, reported that physical therapy, pain medication,

and time had not eased his pain, and that he had also developed leg

discomfort in the past few months. Id. at 315. Plaintiff related that he took

1-2 tablets of Darvocet per week and drank alcohol every day. Id. at 316. 

Upon physical examination, Dr. Yoo found that Plaintiff had a limited range

of motion in his back: flexion 25% of normal, extension 10% of normal, and

lateral bending 30% of normal. Id. Plaintiff’s straight leg raise test was

negative. Id. Dr. Yoo opined that Plaintiff was a good candidate for kyphoor vertebro-plasty if, upon MRI, the compression fractures were found to be

active. Id. at 317. He also diagnosed possible lumbosacral

radiculopathies. Id. 

H. Richard M. Thunder, M.D., Examining Physician (June 2008)

Plaintiff appeared for an Independent Medical Examination with Dr.

Richard M. Thunder of Torrey Pines Orthopaedic Medical Group on June

17, 2008. Id. at 469-72. Dr. Thunder opined that Plaintiff’s pain was likely

due to an underlying lumbar spondylosis coupled with the compression

fracture resulting in a more forward flexed position, and that Plaintiff’s

occasional upper gluteal pain with some radiating symptoms was due to

nerve root impingement at L4-L5 as seen on the MRI performed in 2007. 

Id. at 471. Dr. Thunder concluded that surgery would not be beneficial in

reducing Plaintiff’s pain and that he should manage his symptoms with

4

A treating physician is defined by the regulations as a medical source who has provided treatment or evaluation, so long as the relationship with the medical

source is based on medical need for treatment or evaluation, rather than solely

on a need to obtain a report in support of a claim for disability. 20 C.F.R. §

404.1502.

7 11cv1656

Case 3:11-cv-01656-W-JMA Document 13 Filed 02/15/13 Page 7 of 29
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

therapy and pain medication. Id. He recommended Plaintiff stay as active

as he could and stated there was potential in the long run for his pain to

improve. Id. He also stated that heavy construction work would no longer

be a realistic occupation for Plaintiff. Id. 

I. Sidney H. Levine, M.D., Treating Physician (2008)

During visits in January and April 2008, Plaintiff reported worsening

back pain to Dr. Levine, as well as sleeping disturbances and difficulty

getting out of bed. Id. at 248-50, 320-21. In August 2008, he complained

of severe low back pain and pain in the right buttock and posterior thigh

and calf, and stated he could no longer tolerate the pain and wished to

proceed with surgery. Id. at 321, 483. On physical examination, Dr. Levine

found marked tenderness in Plaintiff’s lower lumbar area, marked limited

range of motion in the back, and a positive straight leg raise test measuring

70 degrees on the right and 80 degrees on the left. Id. at 321, 325. A

lumbar MRI performed the month prior upon Dr. Yoo’s referral revealed a

left paracentral disc protrusion at L5-S1 mildly impinging on the traversing

left S1 nerve root, as well as the compression fractures at L1 and L2. Id. at

321, 484-85. Dr. Levine observed that he would normally recommend a

L5-S1 lumbar laminectomy with diskectomy under such circumstances, but

that Plaintiff could not obtain medical clearance for such a surgery due to a

low blood platelet count, which would lead to bleeding during surgery. Id.

at 325; see also id. at 362 (progress note from Neighborhood Healthcare

reflecting Plaintiff’s lab results, noting that Plaintiff was down to ten beers

per day from eighteen, and that Plaintiff could not have surgery until he

discontinued his alcohol use and was medically cleared for surgery). 

In December 2008, Dr. Levine completed a Lumbar Spine Residual

Functional Capacity Questionnaire in which he stated that Plaintiff’s

prognosis was guarded, that Plaintiff had limited range of motion and a

8 11cv1656

Case 3:11-cv-01656-W-JMA Document 13 Filed 02/15/13 Page 8 of 29
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

positive straight leg raise test, that he could sit, stand, and walk for less

than two hours out of an eight hour workday, and that he could lift less than

ten pounds only rarely. Id. at 391-93. 

J. Thomas A. Schweller, M.D., Examining Physician (August 2008)

On August 22, 2008, Plaintiff presented to Dr. Thomas A. Schweller

for a neuro-orthopedic consultation at the request of the Department of

Social Services. Id. at 341-43. Dr. Schweller noted that Plaintiff had some

increased alcohol use in the past, but he was decreasing his use due to

concern about his triglycerides. Id. at 342. On physical examination, Dr.

Schweller noted that Plaintiff’s range of motion in his back was flexion 30

degrees (normal 90 degrees), extension 5 degrees (normal 15 degrees),

and right and left lateral bending each 20 degrees (normal 20 degrees),

and found that straight leg raising on both the right and left were negative. 

Id. at 342. Dr. Schweller diagnosed Plaintiff with a musculoligamentous

sprain of the lumbar spine with lumbar disc disease. Id. at 343. He opined

that Plaintiff could sit, stand, and walk for six hours out of an eight-hour

workday, and could lift twenty pounds occasionally and ten pounds

frequently. Id. Notably, Dr. Schweller’s report provides no summary of

Plaintiff’s diagnostic tests (x-rays, CT scan, and MRIs) and no indication

that he reviewed these materials. Id. at 341-43. 

K. Neighborhood Healthcare, Treating Psychologist (December 2008 - February 2009) 

On December 22, 2008, Plaintiff underwent an initial assessment with

the behavioral health department at Neighborhood Healthcare. Id. at 508-

12. He reported a depressed mood, sleep difficulties, decreased appetite,

increased fatigue, and increased alcohol use as a means of numbing his

pain. Id. at 508. He stated that he had reduced his alcohol consumption to

ten beers per day due to the impact of alcohol on his blood work, and also

9 11cv1656

Case 3:11-cv-01656-W-JMA Document 13 Filed 02/15/13 Page 9 of 29
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

used marijuana a couple of time per week to deal with his pain. Id. at 510. 

Plaintiff was referred to a therapist for support and to decrease the

symptoms of his depression, and received psychiatric follow-up in January

and February 2009. Id. at 512, 504-07. 

L. Sidney H. Levine, M.D., Treating Physician (2009)

Plaintiff saw Dr. Levine again on January 6, 2009. Id. at 401, 474,

482. Dr. Levine deemed Plaintiff’s condition to be permanent and

stationary because he was not going to undergo the L5-S1 lumbar

laminectomy and fusion. Id. at 398. Dr. Levine explained that Plaintiff was

not a surgical candidate due to an underlying medical condition and

abnormal lab studies related to his alcoholism. Id. at 402, 403. Dr. Levine

stated that Plaintiff was not capable of gainful employment due to his

severe and unrelenting back pain associated with the severe disc

herniation at L5-S1. Id. at 403. He also opined that in order to avoid

further injury, he should be permitted to lie down for fifteen minutes every

hour. Id. Dr Levine noted that these restrictions were based upon

Plaintiff’s persistent symptoms, abnormal MRI study, abnormal x-rays,

limited range of motion in the back, muscle spasm, and the L1 and L2

compression fractures. Id. On November 4, 2009, Dr. Levine prepared a

report stating that Plaintiff was unable to perform the job duties of an

operating engineer, was limited in his ability to stand and walk and could

only carry out these activities for a maximum of thirty minutes at a time,

would not be able to work more than four hours in an eight hour day, would

not be able to sit for more than a maximum of thirty minutes at a time, and

would be limited to lifting less than ten pounds frequently and ten pounds

occasionally with no repetitive lifting. Id. at 514-17.

M. Ronald E. Feldman, M.D., Treating Physician (December 2009)

On December 15, 2009, Plaintiff saw Dr. Ronald E. Feldman, a

10 11cv1656

Case 3:11-cv-01656-W-JMA Document 13 Filed 02/15/13 Page 10 of 29
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

gastroenterologist, for evaluation of a cystic pancreatic mass seen on a

previous CT scan. Id. at 521-22. Dr. Feldman found no evidence that the

cyst was infected or that it was causing pain. Id. at 522.

 

IV. THE ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING

The ALJ conducted an administrative hearing on November 20, 2009. 

Id. at 28.

A. Plaintiff’s Testimony

Plaintiff testified that he sustained two injuries at work – one on

December 11, 2006, and another in late December 2006. Id. at 33-34. He

stopped working around the first week of January 2007. Id. at 34. He had

not had surgery as of the time of the hearing. Id. He testified he was

aware that a pancreatic cyst had shown up on his MRI, and that he had

had two bouts of pancreatitis in the past, but had not had it in the past three

years. Id. at 37-38. Plaintiff stated that he had recently settled an injury

case against his former employer and received $150,000. Id. at 40. He

testified that he was still having back pain, but had decided not to have

surgery because Dr. Levine told him his “red blood plates weren’t strong

enough to go to surgery” and Dr. Levine “didn’t want to take the chance of

me bleeding to death on the operating table.” Id. at 41, 43. 

Plaintiff testified that he continued to take Darvocet once or twice per

day as needed for pain. Id. at 58. He stated he had pain on a daily basis

and that he felt as if his sciatic nerve was pinched. Id. He also stated that

it was hard for him to get comfortable and he had to change positions

often. Id. at 58-59. Dr. Yoo told him the MRI showed that he had

protruding discs that were “smashed together” and pushing against his

nerves, which was causing his leg problems. Id. at 61. He testified that he

walked a half-mile every morning to exercise and to take his three dogs

11 11cv1656

Case 3:11-cv-01656-W-JMA Document 13 Filed 02/15/13 Page 11 of 29
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

out, and sat down once or twice during the walk. Id. He testified that he

could stand three to four hours per day for a half-hour at a time. Id. at 62. 

He stated that he worked on stained glass in his garage as a hobby for

about four hours per day and alternated sitting and standing while doing so. 

Id. at 63. He then took a break and watched TV until he felt better. Id. He

stated he does not feel capable of standing for six hours out of an eighthour workday, and tries to lift as little weight as possible. Id. He stated he

was able to do the dishes and a little housework, but nothing “real heavy.” 

Id. at 64. He was able to lift a gallon of milk in each hand when grocery

shopping. Id. He testified he would not be able to lift twenty pounds

repetitively during the day. Id. at 65. He also stated that “some days are

better than others . . . sometimes I feel really bad, but then sometimes I

can actually get up out of bed without any problem.” Id. at 66. Overall, his

condition has stayed “about the same” and is not “getting any better,”

except since July 2008, it had maybe gotten “a little bit worse.” Id. Plaintiff

testified that he drank a six-pack of beer per day. Id. at 69. The doctor at

Neighborhood Health Clinic told him to stop drinking to help his blood work. 

Id. at 70. 

B. Medical Expert Testimony

Medical expert (“ME”) Donald I. Goldman, M.D. testified at the

administrative hearing by telephone. Id. at 28, 30, 45. Dr. Goldman

testified that Plaintiff did not meet Listing 1.04A or C because there was no

evaluation showing an orthopedic issue causing impairment lasting twelve

months or more. Id. at 45. Specifically, there was nothing demonstrating

that Plaintiff’s pain was not the result of pancreatitis, pancreatic cysts, or

blood disorders, and no EMG (nerve conduction study) or clinical findings,

such as atrophy, weakness, or reflex deficit, consistent with Plaintiff’s MRI

results. Id. at 45-46. The ME testified that “the point is, nobody knows

12 11cv1656

Case 3:11-cv-01656-W-JMA Document 13 Filed 02/15/13 Page 12 of 29
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

exactly which, whether it be medical or orthopedic, is causing this man’s

problem that would have continued to give him pain or an inability to

function over a period of six months, five months, one/two/three years

later.” Id. at 47. He further explained that “a positive MRI doesn’t mean

much” and that Dr. Levine’s records did not document a positive straight

leg raise, atrophy, weakness, or measurable loss of range of motion to

support his conclusion regarding Plaintiff’s limitations. Id. at 51. The ME

testified he was unable to give an opinion as to Plaintiff’s exertional abilities

because he had nothing to base it on. Id. at 53. With respect to Dr.

Levine’s notes that Plaintiff had restriction of range of motion and spasm,

the ME testified that Plaintiff had to have a better range of motion than Dr.

Levine had indicated because Plaintiff was able to sit in a chair. Id. at 53-

54. He also questioned whether anyone other than Dr. Levine, including

Dr. Yoo, had documented atrophy weakness, a positive straight leg raise,

or functional restrictions of motion. Id. at 54. In sum, the ME testified there

was no correlation between Plaintiff’s clinical findings and the findings on

the MRI, a bone scan should have been performed to determine when the

compression fracture occurred, and an EMG should have been performed. 

Id. at 55-56. 

C. Vocational Expert Testimony

Vocational expert (“VE”) witness Gloria Lasoff testified at the

administrative hearing. Id. at 28, 74. She characterized Plaintiff’s past

work as an operating engineer as skilled, heavy to very heavy work. Id. at

75. She testified that a person who had the restrictions set forth by Dr.

Levine in December 2008 (id. at 391-93) would not be able to perform

Plaintiff’s past work. Id. at 77-78. Additionally, she testified that a person

who would have to lie down every hour for fifteen minutes, as set forth by

Dr. Levine in his January 2009 report (id. at 403), would not be able to

13 11cv1656

Case 3:11-cv-01656-W-JMA Document 13 Filed 02/15/13 Page 13 of 29
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

sustain work. Id. at 81. The VE testified that a person with the restrictions

set forth by Dr. Schweller (id. at 343) could not perform Plaintiff’s past work

but could perform light work including as a garment folder, production

inspector, and assembler. Id. at 82. 

D. Amended Disability Onset Date

At the administrative hearing, Plaintiff’s attorney amended Plaintiff’s

disability onset date to December 15, 2008. Id. at 82-83. 

V. THE ALJ DECISION

After considering the record, ALJ Godfrey made the following

findings:

. . . .

2. The claimant has not engaged in substantial gainful activity since December 15, 2008, the amended alleged onset date

[citation omitted].

3. The claimant has the following severe impairment: degenerative disc disease of the lumbar spine and a history of

alcohol abuse [citation omitted].

. . . .

4. The claimant does not have an impairment or combination of impairments that meets or medically

equals one of the listed impairments in [the Social

Security regulations]. . . . .

5. After careful consideration of the entire record, the undersigned finds that the claimant has the residual functional capacity to

perform light work due to degenerative disc disease of the

lumbar spine with limitations to simple repetitive tasks due to

alcohol abuse as defined in 20 C.F.R 404.1567(b).

. . . . 

6. The claimant is unable to perform any past relevant work [citation omitted]. . . . .

10. Considering the claimant’s age, education, work experience, and residual functional capacity, there are jobs that exist in

significant numbers in the national economy that the claimant

14 11cv1656

Case 3:11-cv-01656-W-JMA Document 13 Filed 02/15/13 Page 14 of 29
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

can perform [citations omitted]. . . . .

11. The claimant has not been under a disability, as defined in the Social Security Act, from December 15, 2008, through the date

of this decision [citation omitted].

(Id. at 14-22.) 

VI. STANDARD OF REVIEW

To qualify for disability benefits under the Social Security Act, an

applicant must show that: (1) He or she suffers from a medically

determinable impairment that can be expected to result in death or that has

lasted or can be expected to last for a continuous period of twelve months

or more, and (2) the impairment renders the applicant incapable of

performing the work that he or she previously performed or any other

substantially gainful employment that exists in the national economy. See

42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(1)(A), (2)(A). An applicant must meet both

requirements to be “disabled.” Id. Further, the applicant bears the burden

of proving that he or she was either permanently disabled or subject to a

condition which became so severe as to disable the applicant prior to the

date upon which his or her disability insured status expired. Johnson v.

Shalala, 60 F.3d 1428, 1432 (9th Cir. 1995). 

A. Sequential Evaluation of Impairments

The Social Security Regulations outline a five-step process to

determine whether an applicant is "disabled." The five steps are as

follows: (1) Whether the claimant is presently working in any substantial

gainful activity. If so, the claimant is not disabled. If not, the evaluation

proceeds to step two. (2) Whether the claimant’s impairment is severe. If

not, the claimant is not disabled. If so, the evaluation proceeds to step

three. (3) Whether the impairment meets or equals a specific impairment

15 11cv1656

Case 3:11-cv-01656-W-JMA Document 13 Filed 02/15/13 Page 15 of 29
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

listed in the Listing of Impairments. If so, the claimant is disabled. If not,

the evaluation proceeds to step four. (4) Whether the claimant is able to do

any work he has done in the past. If so, the claimant is not disabled. If not,

the evaluation continues to step five. (5) Whether the claimant is able to do

any other work. If not, the claimant is disabled. Conversely, if the

Commissioner can establish there are a significant number of jobs in the

national economy that the claimant can do, the claimant is not disabled. 20

C.F.R. § 404.1520; see also Tackett v. Apfel, 180 F.3d 1094, 1098-99 (9th

Cir. 1999).

B. Judicial Review

Sections 205(g) and 1631(c)(3) of the Social Security Act allow

unsuccessful applicants to seek judicial review of the Commissioner's final

agency decision. 42 U.S.C.A. §§ 405(g), 1383(c)(3). The scope of judicial

review is limited. The Commissioner’s final decision should not be

disturbed unless: (1) The ALJ's findings are based on legal error or (2) are

not supported by substantial evidence in the record as a whole. Schneider

v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 223 F.3d 968, 973 (9th Cir. 2000). 

Substantial evidence means “more than a mere scintilla but less than a

preponderance; it is such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might

accept as adequate to support a conclusion.” Andrews v. Shalala, 53 F.3d

1035, 1039 (9th Cir. 1995). The Court must consider the record as a

whole, weighing both the evidence that supports and detracts from the

ALJ’s conclusion. See Mayes v. Massanari, 276 F.3d 453, 459 (9th Cir.

2001); Desrosiers v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 846 F.2d 573, 576

(9th Cir. 1988). “The ALJ is responsible for determining credibility,

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

Vasquez v. Astrue, 572 F.3d 586, 591 (9th Cir. 2009) (citing Andrews, 53

F.3d at 1039). Where the evidence is susceptible to more than one rational

16 11cv1656

Case 3:11-cv-01656-W-JMA Document 13 Filed 02/15/13 Page 16 of 29
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

interpretation, the ALJ’s decision must be affirmed. Vasquez, 572 F.3d at

591 (citation and quotations omitted). 

Section 405(g) permits this Court to enter a judgment affirming,

modifying, or reversing the Commissioner’s decision. 42 U.S.C.A. §

405(g). The matter may also be remanded to the SSA for further

proceedings. Id. 

VII. DISCUSSION

Plaintiff contends the ALJ’s decision to deny Plaintiff disability status

was legally improper and was not supported by substantial evidence. 

Plaintiff makes the following arguments: First, the ALJ erred by failing to

give controlling weight to Dr. Levine, Plaintiff’s treating physician. Pl.’s

Mem. at 8-10. Second, the ALJ erred by finding that Plaintiff’s claims were

not credible. Id. at 10-13. 

A. The ALJ Erred in Her Consideration of Dr. Levine’s Opinion

Plaintiff argues the ALJ erred by not according controlling weight to

Dr. Levine’s opinions about Plaintiff’s impairments. Id. at 8-10. Plaintiff

contends that Dr. Levine’s opinions were well-supported and not

inconsistent with the other medical evidence in the record, and were thus

entitled to greater weight than that provided by the ALJ. Id. Defendant

counters that substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s rejection of Dr.

Levine’s opinion.

Generally, a treating physician’s opinion is given more weight by the

SSA than a nontreating physician’s opinion. See 20 C.F.R. §

404.1527(c)(2) (2012). A treating physician’s opinion is given “controlling

weight” if it is “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and

laboratory diagnostic techniques” and is “not inconsistent with the other

substantial evidence in [the] case record.” Id. “Controlling weight” is

17 11cv1656

Case 3:11-cv-01656-W-JMA Document 13 Filed 02/15/13 Page 17 of 29
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

defined as a medical opinion from a treating source that must be adopted. 

SSR 96-2P, 1996 WL 374188 (1996), at *1. If a treating physician’s

opinion is not given “controlling weight,” the SSA applies the factors it

applies to all medical opinions to determine the weight to give to the

opinion. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2).5

 A finding that a treating source

medical opinion should not be accorded “controlling weight” does not mean

that the opinion is rejected. Orn v. Astrue, 495 F.3d 625, 631-32 (9th Cir.

2007); SSR 96-2P, 1996 WL 374188, at *1. “In many cases, a treating

source’s medical opinion will be entitled to the greatest weight and should

be adopted, even if it does not meet the test for controlling weight.” Orn,

495 F.3d at 632. 

If the treating physician’s opinion is not contradicted by another

doctor, the ALJ may reject the opinion only by articulating “clear and

convincing” reasons supported by substantial evidence in the record. 

Lester v. Chater, 81 F.3d 821, 830 (9th Cir. 1995). If the treating

physician’s opinion is contradicted by another doctor, the ALJ may reject

the opinion of the treating physician only by giving “specific and legitimate”

reasons for doing so that are based on substantial evidence in the record. 

Id. (citing Murray v. Heckler, 722 F.2d 499, 502 (9th Cir. 1983)). “When an

examining physician relies on the same clinical findings as a treating

physician, but differs only in his or her conclusions, the conclusions of the

examining physicians are not “substantial evidence.” Orn, 495 F.3d at 632. 

“By contrast, when an examining physician provides ‘independent clinical

findings that differ from the findings of the treating physician,’ such findings

are ‘substantial evidence.’” Id. Independent clinical findings can consist of

5

20 C.F.R. § 404.1527 was amended on three occasions following the ALJ’s 2010 decision. However, as there was no substantive change regarding

the factors to consider in the weighing of medical opinions, the Court refers to the

newest version of the regulation for ease of reference. 

18 11cv1656

Case 3:11-cv-01656-W-JMA Document 13 Filed 02/15/13 Page 18 of 29
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

either (1) diagnoses that differ from those provided by another physician

and that are supported by substantial evidence or (2) findings based on

objective medical tests that the treating doctor has not considered. Id.

(citing Andrews, 53 F.3d at 1041). 

Here, the ALJ did not give controlling weight to Dr. Levine’s opinion

for the following reasons:

First, with regard to the Form Listing 1.04A - Spinal Nerve Root Compression [Admin. R. at 389-90], Dr. Levine does not

provide objective medical evidence. In fact, Dr. Levine reported

that relative to the future need for medical treatment to the low

back should be conservative. Moreover, the claimant is not a surgical candidate due to abnormal laboratory studies

secondary to a history of alcoholism [exhibit reference omitted]. 

The extremely limited residual functional capacity seems to be

contradicted by his own reports, as well as the opinion of

examining physician Dr. [Schweller]6

 [exhibit references omitted]. Second, when one views the objective medical evidence of record, it . . . becomes clear that Dr. Levine’s

opinion of the claimant’s limitations is a conclusion based solely

upon the claimant’s subjective complaints, as opposed to the

objective evidence. There are no objective medical findings to

support his opinions, including his own reports. Third, Dr. Levine’s opinions are not well supported; the limitations are not

backed by citations to medical signs and laboratory results as

required by SSR-96-4P. Dr. Levine’s opinions are inconsistent

with [the] totality of the evidence, including the claimant’s

acknowledged activities and the opinions of Dr. [Schweller]

[exhibit reference omitted], Dr. Goldman, the medical expert

and board-certified orthopedic surgeon, and the State agency

physicians.

Admin. R. at 18. The ALJ then rejected Dr. Levine’s opinions as follows:

[T]he undersigned finds Dr. Levine’s opinions are neither

persuasive nor controlling and is not supported by the other

evidence of record, including the records of the claimant’s

consulting and examining sources. Since Dr. Levine’s opinion

is not well supported by medically acceptable clinical and

laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not deserving of the

great weight generally accorded to the opinions of a treating

physician, it is rejected (20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2)).

Admin. R. at 18.

6

The ALJ erroneously refers throughout her decision to “Dr. Sabourin” as the examining SSA physician rather than to Dr. Schweller. See, e.g., Admin. R. at 15-16, 18-19.

19 11cv1656

Case 3:11-cv-01656-W-JMA Document 13 Filed 02/15/13 Page 19 of 29
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 Court finds that the ALJ did not give Dr. Levine’s opinion the

deference it deserved. The factors set forth in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)

increase the weight that should have been afforded to Dr. Levine’s

opinions. Dr. Levine was Plaintiff’s treating physician over the course of

three years, from shortly after his work injury until at least the time of the

administrative hearing, and he therefore “obtained a longitudinal picture” of

Plaintiff’s impairment that the examining and nonexamining physicians did

not possess. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(i). Dr. Levine, a board-certified

orthopedic surgeon, had “reasonable knowledge” of Plaintiff’s lumbar spine

complaints as contemplated by § 404.1527(c)(ii) as well as the

“specialization” discussed in § 404.1527(c)(3)(5). The “supportability” of

Dr. Levine’s opinions lends further weight to his opinions. Contrary to the

ALJ’s conclusions, the record contains ample diagnostic and clinical

findings to support Dr. Levine’s opinions, including the December 2006

lumbar x-rays (Admin. R. at 411), January 2007 lumbar CT scan (id. at

264-65), March 2007 lumbar MRI (id. at 268-69), July 2008 lumbar MRI (id.

at 484-85), and limited range of motion findings, which were corroborated

by Dr. Yoo, a treating physician (id. at 316) and Dr. Schweller, the SSA

examining physician (id. at 342). The “consistency” of Dr. Levine’s

opinions with the record as a whole merits additional weight being placed

on his opinions. Dr. Levine’s diagnoses of back pain and radicular

symptoms caused by compression fractures at L1 and L2 and spondylosis

at L4-L5 and L5-S1 with nerve impingement are consistent with the

diagnoses rendered by Dr. Yoo, Dr. Thunder, and, to a certain extent, Dr.

Muldoon. See id. at 317, 471, 451. Only Dr. Schweller, the physician who

examined Plaintiff at the behest of the SSA and who, notably, failed to

mention any of Plaintiff’s objective diagnostic findings, provided a less

significant diagnosis: lumbar sprain with lumbar disc disease. Id. at 343. 

20 11cv1656

Case 3:11-cv-01656-W-JMA Document 13 Filed 02/15/13 Page 20 of 29
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 sum, an analysis of the factors set forth in § 404.1527 shows that Dr.

Levine’s opinions should have been accorded greater weight than that

accorded by the ALJ.

As Dr. Levine’s opinion was contradicted by other medical opinions in

the record, in order to reject Dr. Levine’s opinion, the ALJ was required to

articulate “specific and legitimate” reasons for doing so based on

substantial evidence in the record. Lester, 81 F.3d at 830-31. The ALJ

failed to do so. Dr. Levine’s determination that Plaintiff was not a surgical

candidate was not based upon a lack of the need for surgery but rather

Plaintiff’s inability to have surgery due to the effect of his alcohol

consumption on his laboratory findings. Thus, the ALJ’s statement that

Plaintiff’s condition warranted only “conservative” treatment is misleading,

and did not constitute a specific and legitimate reason to reject Dr. Levine’s

opinion regarding the effect of Plaintiff’s impairments. Dr. Schweller

rendered his opinion without considering any of Plaintiff’s positive

diagnostic findings, and thus his opinion does not constitute “substantial

evidence” that could be relied upon by the ALJ to reject Dr. Levine’s

opinion. See Andrews, 53 F.3d at 1039 (defining “substantial evidence” as

“such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to

support a conclusion”). As discussed in the preceding paragraph, there

was ample objective evidence to support Dr. Levine’s opinions, and thus

the ALJ’s determination that no objective findings supported his opinions

was not legitimate. The ALJ’s finding that Dr. Levine’s opinion was

inconsistent with the totality of the record was also not a legitimate reason

to reject his opinion. As discussed above, Dr. Levine’s diagnoses were

wholly consistent with the other opinions in the medical record, save one —

that of Dr. Schweller—whose own opinion was not supported by and did

not constitute substantial evidence. 

21 11cv1656

Case 3:11-cv-01656-W-JMA Document 13 Filed 02/15/13 Page 21 of 29
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 also found that the extremely limited residual functional

capacity provided by Dr. Levine for Plaintiff was contradicted by Plaintiff’s

own acknowledged activities. Admin. R. at 18. Presumably, the ALJ was

referring to Plaintiff’s testimony that he worked on stained glass in his

garage as a hobby for approximately four hours per day and alternated

sitting and standing while doing so. Id. at 63; compare with id. at 393 (Dr.

Levine’s December 2008 opinion that Plaintiff could sit, stand, and walk for

less than two hours per day). However, Dr. Levine later amended his

opinion regarding Plaintiff’s residual functional capacity and stated that

while Plaintiff could work for four hours in an eight-hour day, he could sit,

stand, and walk for only thirty minutes at a time. Id. at 517. Plaintiff’s

testimony does not contradict this opinion.

Although, as observed by the ALJ, the ME, Dr. Goldman, expressed

concerns about Dr. Levine’s findings, the Court questions the legitimacy of

the ME’s opinions. The ME testified that Plaintiff should have had a bone

scan performed to determine when the compression fracture occurred (id.

at 55-56), apparently ignoring that a bone scan was performed in March

2007 (see id. at 270) and that both x-rays and a CT scan taken in the days

and weeks following his work injury revealed that Plaintiff’s compression

fractures were due to “recent trauma” and were “acute or subacute in

chronicity” (id. at 411, 264). Moreover, the ME’s disregard of Dr. Levine’s

findings appeared to be based in part upon his own supposition that

Plaintiff’s symptoms were being caused by pancreatitis or a pancreatic cyst

(id. at 45-46), an opinion discounted by Dr. Feldman’s post-hearing (but

pre-ALJ decision) finding that it was not likely that Plaintiff’s back pain was

being caused by Plaintiff’s pancreatic pseudocyst (id. at 521-22). Finally,

the ME’s insistence that Dr. Levine’s reports lacked, among other things, a

measurable loss of range of motion to support his conclusion regarding

22 11cv1656

Case 3:11-cv-01656-W-JMA Document 13 Filed 02/15/13 Page 22 of 29
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 limitations (see id. at 51) is simply not supported by the record. 

Dr. Levine’s finding that Plaintiff had a limited range of motion in his back

was corroborated by Dr. Yoo, a treating physician, and even the SSA

examiner, Dr. Schweller. See id. at 316, 342. 

Treating source medical opinions, irrespective of whether they are

entitled to controlling weight, are entitled to deference and must be

weighed in accordance with the factors provided in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527. 

Orn, 495 F.3d at 632. Applying these factors, Dr. Levine’s opinion is

entitled to great weight, and the ALJ committed error by not affording his

opinion the deference it deserved. Additionally, the ALJ failed to articulate

“specific and legitimate” reasons based on substantial evidence in the

record to reject Dr. Levine’s opinion, also constituting legal error. See

Lester, 81 F.3d at 830-31. “If additional proceedings can remedy defects in

the original administrative proceedings, a social security case should be

remanded.” Lewin v. Schweiker, 654 F.2d 631, 635 (9th Cir. 1981). The

Court recommends that the ALJ, upon remand, be required to provide due

consideration to Dr. Levine’s opinion and findings. 

B. Plaintiff’s Credibility Should be Reconsidered Upon Remand

Plaintiff argues that the ALJ erred in finding that Plaintiff’s claims

about his diminished residual functional capacity were not fully credible. 

Pl.’s Mem. at 10-13. In determining a claimant’s residual functional

capacity, the ALJ must consider all relevant evidence in the record,

including medical records, lay evidence, and “the effects of symptoms,

including pain, that are reasonably attributed to a medically determinable

impairment.” See Robbins v. Soc. Sec. Admin., 466 F.3d 880, 883 (9th Cir.

2006) (citing SSR 96-8p, 1996 WL 374184, at *5). “Careful consideration

must be given to any available information about symptoms because

subjective descriptions may indicate more severe limitations or restrictions

23 11cv1656

Case 3:11-cv-01656-W-JMA Document 13 Filed 02/15/13 Page 23 of 29
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

than can be shown by objective medical evidence alone.” SSR 96-8p,

1996 WL 374184, at *5. When considering a claimant’s subjective

symptom testimony, “if the record establishes the existence of a medically

determinable impairment that could reasonably give rise to the reported

symptoms, an ALJ must make a finding as to the credibility of the

claimant’s statements about the symptoms and their functional effect.” 

Robbins, 466 F.3d at 883 (9th Cir. 2006) (citations omitted). “While an ALJ

may find testimony not credible in part or in whole, he or she may not

disregard it solely because it is not substantiated affirmatively by objective

evidence.” Id. Rather, an ALJ may only find a claimant not credible by

making specific findings as to credibility and stating clear and convincing

reasons to discount the claimant’s subjective symptom testimony. Id.; see

also Lingenfelter v. Astrue, 504 F.3d 1028, 1036 (9th Cir. 2007). 

Here, the ALJ stated the following regarding Plaintiff’s credibility:

After careful consideration of the evidence, the undersigned

finds that the claimant’s medically determinable impairments

could reasonably be expected to cause the alleged symptoms;

however, the claimant’s statements concerning the intensity,

persistence and limiting effects of these symptoms are not

credible to the extent they are inconsistent with the above

residual functional capacity assessment [finding that Plaintiff

could perform light work with limitations to simple repetitive

tasks]. 

[1] In terms of the claimant’s alleged disabling impairments, the

record fails to document any objective clinical findings

establishing that the claimant was not able to perform work in

light of the reports of the treating and examining practitioners

and the findings made on examination.

[2] The claimant’s pain and limitations are not fully corroborated

by objective medical evidence. There is no physiological basis

for the intensity of his complaints.

[3] The claimant has not undergone any intensive pain regimen

or therapy which would have precluded him from performing

activities at the above exertional level on a sustained basis for

a period of 12 or more continuous months.

[4] The claimant has not generally received the type of medical

treatment one would expect for a totally disabled individual. 

The claimant’s course of treatment has generally reflected a

24 11cv1656

Case 3:11-cv-01656-W-JMA Document 13 Filed 02/15/13 Page 24 of 29
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

conservative approach.

[5] The record reflects significant gaps in treatment, further

indicating that the claimant’s symptoms and limitations have not

been as serious as has been alleged in connection with this

application and appeal.

[6] On December 11, 2006, the claimant was seen in the

emergency room at Tri City Medical Center for alcohol

withdrawal [exhibit reference omitted].

[7] In a vocational rehabilitation report dated May 31, 2008,

Roger A. Thrush, Ph.D, C.R.C. found the claimant to be a good

candidate for vocational rehabilitation and return to full-time

work in a different occupation [exhibit reference omitted]. 

[8] The claimant did not return to work, having retired in

December 2008. The claimant reported that he does stained

glass work in his garage, alternating between sitting and

standing throughout the day [exhibit reference omitted; emphasis in original].

[9] On August 22, 2008, Dr. [Schweller’s] functional assessment

was that of light level work with occasional limitations in

bending, stooping, and squatting. The claimant has no other

limitations [exhibit reference omitted].

[10] There is no twelve month period where the claimant’s

limitations provided disability.

[11] The record shows that the claimant was offered epidural

injections in the past, but he refused them [exhibit reference

omitted].

[12] On January 26, 2009, Dr. Levine reported that the claimant

is not a surgical candidate due to his underlying medical

condition related to his alcoholism [exhibit reference omitted].

[13] The claimant does not exhibit any significant disuse muscle

atrophy, loss of strength, or difficulty moving that is indicative of

severe and disabling pain.

[14] On August 22, 2008, the claimant reported to Dr.

[Schweller] that he can walk one-half mile, sit for up to two

hours, and he avoids lifting over 30 pounds [exhibit reference

omitted].

[15] The claimant does not use any assistive devices to

ambulate [exhibit reference omitted].

[16] There is no evidence of loss of weight due to loss of

appetite due to pain.

[17] There is no evidence of disuse of cognitive deficits due to

pain.

25 11cv1656

Case 3:11-cv-01656-W-JMA Document 13 Filed 02/15/13 Page 25 of 29
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

[18] On August 5, 2008, the claimant was down to drinking 10

beers a day from 18 beers a day [exhibit reference omitted].

[19] The record shows that the claimant is not compliant with

treatment due to refusal of kyphoplasty or vertebroplasty which

would be appropriate for active compression fractures only according to Dr. Kevin Yoo [exhibit reference omitted]. The

Regulations state, “in order to get benefits you must follow the

prescribed treatment, if you do not follow the prescribed

treatment without a good reason, we will not find you disabled”

(20 C.F.R. § 404.1530(b)). The claimant can be denied

benefits based on this regulation.

[20] The undersigned has taken into consideration the nature,

location, onset, duration, frequency, radiation, and intensity of

the claimant’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

claimant’s daily activities, and finds that his allegations of

disabling pain and limitations are out of proportion with the

record [exhibit reference omitted]. 

[21] The claimant’s statements regarding his inability to perform

work activities are not supported by the medical evidence in the

file.

[22] The claimant was able to participate in the administrative

hearing and respond to the questioning without any apparent

difficulties.

[23] Although the claimant has described daily activities which

are fairly limited, two factors weight against considering the

allegations to be strong evidence in favor of finding the claimant

disabled. First, allegedly limited daily activities cannot be

objectively verified with any reasonable degree of certainty. 

Secondly, even if the claimant’s daily activities are truly as

limited as alleged, it is difficult to attribute that degree of

limitation to the claimant’s medical condition, as opposed to

other reasons, in view of the relatively weak medical evidence

and other factors discussed in this decision. Overall, the

claimant’s reported limited daily activities are considered to be

outweighed by the other factors discussed in this decision. 

Moreover, the claimant does stained glass work in the garage.

I conclude that subjective allegations of disabling functional

limitations are not fully credible. Neither objective medical

evidence, nor subjective allegations to the extent they are

reasonably credible, warrants any more restrictive functional limitations that those I have found in this case. 

(Admin. R. at 18-20.) 

The issue of Plaintiff’s credibility should, upon remand, be

26 11cv1656

Case 3:11-cv-01656-W-JMA Document 13 Filed 02/15/13 Page 26 of 29
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

reexamined after proper consideration has been given to the medical

evidence, including Dr. Levine’s opinion, as discussed above. It is possible

that proceedings on remand will render some of the credibility issues moot. 

Even so, the Court finds it worthwhile to make the following observations

about the ALJ’s stated reasons for finding Plaintiff not credible:

First, as discussed above, the determination that Plaintiff was not a

surgical candidate was not based upon a lack of medical need for surgery,

but rather Plaintiff’s inability to have surgery due to the effect of his

alcoholism on his laboratory findings. Thus, the ALJ’s statements that

Plaintiff was not a surgical candidate or that he had refused surgery, and

the use of these statements by the ALJ as a basis for finding him not

credible (see reason nos. 12 and 19), cannot constitute a clear and

convincing reason for rejecting Plaintiff’s subjective pain and symptom

testimony. Moreover, the ALJ has failed to articulate how the effects of

Plaintiff’s alcoholism cast doubt on his credibility. It is unclear to the Court

how Plaintiff’s visit to the emergency room for alcohol withdrawal (reason

no. 6) and his statement that he had decreased his beer consumption from

eighteen to ten per day (reason no. 18) bear negatively on his credibility. 

To the contrary, the record reflects that Plaintiff has consistently been open

and honest about his alcohol consumption. The ALJ needs to provide

further explanation in order for any of these reasons to constitute a clear

and convincing reason to discount Plaintiff’s subjective pain testimony. 

The ALJ also observed that Plaintiff’s working on stained glass in the

garage cast doubt on his credibility (see reason nos. 8 and 23). However,

“[o]ne does not need to be ‘utterly incapacitated’ in order to be disabled.” 

Vertigan v. Halter, 260 F.3d 1044, 1050 (9th Cir. 2001) (citing Fair v.

Bowen, 885 F.2d 597, 603 (9th Cir. 1989)). An ALJ can rely upon Plaintiff’s

ability to perform daily activities to discredit his allegations of disability only

27 11cv1656

Case 3:11-cv-01656-W-JMA Document 13 Filed 02/15/13 Page 27 of 29
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

after making appropriate specific findings. See Gonzalez v. Sullivan, 914

F.2d 1197, 1201 (9th Cir. 1990) (stating that only if a claimant is able to

spend a substantial part of the day engaged in pursuits that involve

physical functions that are transferable to a work setting could a specific

finding as to this fact be sufficient to discredit an allegation of disability);

see also Fair, 885 F.2d at 603. In this case, the ALJ did not made the

requisite specific findings concerning the transferability of Plaintiff’s stained

glass activity to his ability to perform work. Without these findings, the

Court cannot find that such activities detract from Plaintiff’s symptom

allegations.

Finally, as previously discussed, Dr. Schweller’s opinion does not

constitute substantial evidence (see reason no. 9), and the ALJ’s statement

that “[t]here is no evidence of disuse of cognitive deficits due to pain” (see

reason no. 17) is nonsensical; therefore, neither statement can serve as a

clear and convincing reason to discount Plaintiff’s credibility. 

The Court recommends that the ALJ should reconsider Plaintiff’s

credibility upon remand.

VIII. CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth above, Plaintiff’s motion for summary

judgment should be GRANTED, Defendant’s cross-motion for summary

judgment should be DENIED, and the case should be remanded for further

proceedings.

This report and recommendation will be submitted to the Honorable

Thomas J. Whelan, United States District Judge assigned to this case,

pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Any party may file

written objections with the Court and serve a copy on all parties on or

before March 1, 2013. The document should be captioned “Objections to

28 11cv1656

Case 3:11-cv-01656-W-JMA Document 13 Filed 02/15/13 Page 28 of 29
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

Report and Recommendation.” Any reply to the Objections shall be served

and filed on or before March 8, 2013. The parties are advised that failure

to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the

district court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 

DATED: February 15, 2013 

Jan M. Adler

U.S. Magistrate Judge

29 11cv1656

Case 3:11-cv-01656-W-JMA Document 13 Filed 02/15/13 Page 29 of 29