Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-01093/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-01093-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 863
Nature of Suit: Social Security - DIWC/DIWW (405(g))
Cause of Action: 42:206 Social Security Benefits

---

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

RICHARD MICHAEL TWAY,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 12cv1093-WQH-WVG

ORDER

vs.

MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of

Social Security Administration,

Defendant.

HAYES, Judge:

The matter before the Court is the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 24) issued

by United States Magistrate Judge William V. Gallo, recommending that the Motion for

Summary Judgment (ECF No. 15) filed by Plaintiff be denied and the Cross-Motion for

Summary Judgment (ECF No. 18) filed by Defendant be granted.

BACKGROUND

On April 13, 2010, Plaintiff filed an application for Social Security Disability Insurance

benefits (“SSDI”), alleging disability beginning on June 13, 2002. (ECF No. 11-2 at 16). On

August 10, 2010, Plaintiff’s application was denied. (ECF No. 11-4 at 2-5). On September

9, 2010, Plaintiff’s request for SSDI was denied on reconsideration. Id. at 8-12.

On September 10, 2010, Plaintiff requested an administrative hearing before an

Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”). Id. at 14-15. Two hearings were held, on April 6, 2011

and September 6, 2011, before ALJ Edward D. Steinman. (ECF No. 11-2 at 51-91). Plaintiff

testified at the April 6, 2011 hearing, as did Malcolm A. Brahms, M.D., an impartial medical

- 1 - 12cv1093-WQH-WVG

Case 3:12-cv-01093-WQH-WVG Document 30 Filed 03/27/13 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

expert. Id. at 69-91. At the September 6, 2011 hearing, Dr. Brahms and Alan E. Cummings,

a vocational expert, testified. Id. at 51-68.

On September 17, 2011, the ALJ issued a partially favorable decision in Plaintiff’s case. 

(ECF No. 11-2 at 12-26). The ALJ found that Plaintiff had an impairment meeting the criteria

of 20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1, Section 1.041

 from October 1, 2007 through

June 1, 2009, the period during which Plaintiff, a former piano mover, suffered from

“degenerative disc disease of the lumbar spine, status post lumbar surgery.” Id. at 19-21. The

ALJ found that, beginning June 2, 2009, Plaintiff “has not had an impairment or combination

of impairments that meets or medically equals the severity of one of the impairments listed in

20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1.” Id. at 21. The ALJ concluded that, “beginning

June 2, 2009, [Plaintiff] has been capable of making a successful adjustment to work that exists

in significant numbers in the national economy.... [Plaintiff’s] disability ended June 2, 2009.” 

Id. at 25. In reaching his decision, the ALJ found the testimony of Dr. Brahms, regarding the

1

Section 1.04 of 20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1 provides for the following

impairments:

Disorders of the spine (e.g., herniated nucleus pulposus, spinal arachnoiditis,

spinal stenosis, osteoarthritis, degenerative disc disease, facet arthritis, vertebral

fracture), resulting in compromise of a nerve root (including the cauda equina)

or the spinal cord. With:

A. Evidence of nerve root compression characterized by neuro-anatomic

distribution of pain, limitation of motion of the spine, motor loss (atrophy with

associated muscle weakness or muscle weakness) accompanied by sensory or

reflex loss and, if there is involvement of the lower back, positive straight-leg

raising test (sitting and supine);

or

B. Spinal arachnoiditis, confirmed by an operative note or pathology report of

tissue biopsy, or by appropriate medically acceptable imaging, manifested by

severe burning or painful dysesthesia, resulting in the need for changes in

position or posture more than once every 2 hours;

or

C. Lumbar spinal stenosis resulting in pseudoclaudication, established by

findings on appropriate medically acceptable imaging, manifested by chronic

nonradicular pain and weakness, and resulting in inability to ambulate

effectively, as defined in 1.00B2b.

20 C.F.R. § 404, App. 1, Subpart P.

- 2 - 12cv1093-WQH-WVG

Case 3:12-cv-01093-WQH-WVG Document 30 Filed 03/27/13 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

severity of Plaintiff’s impairment and ongoing pain, to be “persuasive.” Id. at 20. According

to the ALJ, Dr. Brahms testified that “from June 2, 2009 on,” Plaintiff, having undergone two

surgeries, “continued to do well and was markedly improved compared to his preoperative

status.” Id. at 22. The ALJ found Plaintiff’s testimony of his own pain not credible. Id. at 23. 

The ALJ stated: “The vocational expert testified that ... [Plaintiff] would be able to perform

the requirements of representative occupations such as cleaner ...; assembler ...; and parking

lot attendant....” Id. at 25.

On November 19, 2011, Plaintiff submitted a request for review of the ALJ’s decision

with the Appeals Council. (ECF No. 11-4 at 90). On February 3, 2012, the Appeals Counsel

denied Plaintiff’s request for review, and the ALJ’s decision became the final decision of the

Commissioner of Social Security (“Commissioner”). (ECF No. 11-2 at 7-10). 

On May 3, 2012, Plaintiff commenced this action for judicial review of the

Commissioner’s final decision pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). (ECF No. 1).

On September 25, 2012, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Summary Judgment. (ECF No. 15). 

On October 23, 2012, Defendant filed a Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment. (ECF

No. 18).

On November 29, 2012, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation. 

(ECF No. 24). The Magistrate Judge stated in part:

The ALJ provided numerous reasons to support his conclusion that Plaintiff’s

back and leg pain limited him to a residual functioning capacity for a reduced

range of light work, but further limitation was not warranted. Substantial

evidence further supported the ALJ’s finding that, beginning on June 2, 2009,

Plaintiff was capable of making a successful adjustment to work that exists in

significant numbers in the national economy.

Id. at 28. The Magistrate Judge recommended that Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment

be denied and Defendant’s Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment be granted.

On January 14, 2013, Plaintiff filed objections to the Report and Recommendation. 

(ECF No. 27). Plaintiff objects to the Report and Recommendation “insofar as the report finds

that the Commissioner properly found that he was not presumptively disabled [as of June 2,

2009] pursuant to 20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpt. P, App. 1, Listing 1.04A.” Id. at 1. With respect

to the ALJ’s finding that Plaintiff’s impairments do not meet or medically equal a listed

- 3 - 12cv1093-WQH-WVG

Case 3:12-cv-01093-WQH-WVG Document 30 Filed 03/27/13 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

impairment as of June 2, 2009, Plaintiff contends:

The ALJ erred because the evidence of record established that Richard Tway’s

impairments are equivalent to the criteria set forth in Listing 1.04A... The ALJ

found that Richard Tway’s severe impairment is degenerative disc disease of the

lumbar spine, status post lumbar surgery. (A.R. 18, Finding No. 3)....

In [the ALJ’s] decision, there is absolutely no analysis of whether Tway’s

impairments equaled Listing 1.04A. At the hearing, the medical expert did not

even mention equivalency. The ALJ must adequately explain his evaluation of

the evidence and the combined effects of the impairments. Macia v. Sullivan, 900 F.2d 172, 176 (9th Cir. 1990). The ALJ’s conclusory statement is legally

insufficient. (A.R. 20, Finding No. 7).

The Report and Recommendation finds that the ALJ was not required to discuss

obesity. The Report and Recommendation is incorrect as a matter of law. When

considering whether Tway’s impairments equaled Listing 1.04, the ALJ was

required to consider obesity. 20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpt. P, App.1, 1.00Q....

Despite the evidence of record that demonstrates that Tway is obese, the ALJ did

not discuss Tway’s obesity. Contrary to the findings in the Report and

Recommendation, Tway did offer evidence that obesity exacerbates his other

impairments. Tway testified to the symptoms and limiting effect of his back

impairment. (A.R. 74-85). Social Security Ruling 02-lp specifically notes that

these symptoms are expected results of obesity....

Richard Tway also maintains that the ALJ failed to properly take into account

his obesity in assessing his [residual functional capacity]. Social Security

Ruling 02-lp requires that an assessment be made of the effect of obesity has

upon the individual’s ability to perform routine movement and necessary

physical activity within the work environment.

Id. at 4-5. With respect to the ALJ’s finding that Plaintiff’s testimony regarding his pain was

not credible, Plaintiff contends:

[The] ALJ failed to set forth clear and convincing reasons for discounting his

subjective complaints. The ALJ cannot reject the claimant’s testimony based

solely on the alleged lack of objective medical evidence corroborating it. Moisa

v. Barnhart, 367 F.3d 882, 885 (9th Cir. 2004); see also Cotton v. Bowen, 799

F.2d 1403, 1407 (9th Cir. 1986).... 

The Report and Recommendation also found that the ALJ properly considered

the extent of Tway’s daily activities. Reliance on a claimant’s daily activities

is not a proper reason for rejecting these complaints.... 

The Report and Recommendation also found that the ALJ properly discounted

these complaints because of the conservative nature of Tway’s treatment. The

court was incorrect in articulating this rationale.... Richard Tway cannot be

discredited for failing to pursue non-conservative treatment options where none

exist.

Id. at 6-7. Plaintiff contends that the Court should reverse the decision of the Commissioner

and award benefits or, alternatively, remand the case for further proceedings before the

Commissioner. Id. at 7.

- 4 - 12cv1093-WQH-WVG

Case 3:12-cv-01093-WQH-WVG Document 30 Filed 03/27/13 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

On January 14, 2013, Defendant responded to Plaintiff’s objections. (ECF No. 28). 

Defendant contends that the decision of the ALJ is supported by substantial evidence and is

free of legal error. Id. at 2. Defendant contends:

Plaintiff failed to articulate a plausible theory and provide supporting evidence

of how his obesity or combined impairments were equal to a presumptively

disabling impairment.... Plaintiff further misrepresents Defendant’s position by

asserting that Defendant conceded that the ALJ was required to consider his

obesity even though he did not offer any evidence or theory that his obesity

affected his ability to work.

Id.

STANDARDS OF REVIEW

District Court Review of a Report and Recommendation

The duties of the district court in connection with a report and recommendation of a

magistrate judge are set forth in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). 

The district court must “make a de novo determination of those portions of the report ... to

which objection is made,” and “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings

or recommendations made by the magistrate.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). The district court need not

review de novo those portions of a report and recommendation to which neither party objects. 

See Wang v. Masaitis, 416 F.3d 992, 1000 n.13 (9th Cir. 2005); U.S. v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d

1114, 1121-22 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc). 

Review of Denial of a Disability Claim

When an applicant’s claim for disability benefits under the Social Security Act has been

denied, she may seek judicial review of the Commissioner’s decision. See 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). 

Where, as in this case, “the Appeals Council denies a request for review of an ALJ’s decision,

the decision of the ALJ represents the final decision of the Commissioner.” Batson v. Comm’r

of Soc. Sec. Admin., 359 F.3d 1190, 1193 n.1 (9th Cir. 2004) (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.981). A

reviewing court will reverse the ALJ’s decision only if “it is based upon legal error or is not

supported by substantial evidence.” Bayliss v. Barnhart, 427 F.3d 1211, 1214 n.1 (9th Cir.

2005) (citation omitted). “Substantial evidence is such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind

might accept as adequate to support a conclusion” and is “more than a mere scintilla but less

than a preponderance.” Webb v. Barnhart, 433 F.3d 683, 686 (9th Cir. 2005) (citation

- 5 - 12cv1093-WQH-WVG

Case 3:12-cv-01093-WQH-WVG Document 30 Filed 03/27/13 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

omitted). “If the record would support more than one rational interpretation, we defer to the

ALJ’s decision.” Bayliss, 427 F.3d at 1214 n.1 (citation omitted).

ANALYSIS

I. Equivalency Determination

The Magistrate Judge correctly stated: “‘An ALJ is not required to discuss the combined

effects of a claimant’s impairments or compare them to any listing in an equivalency

determination, unless the claimant presents evidence in an effort to establish equivalence.’”

Id. at 22 (quoting Burch v. Barnhart, 400 F.3d 676, 683 (9th Cir. 2005)); see also Lewis v.

Apfel, 236 F.3d 503, 514 (9th Cir. 2001) (determining that the ALJ’s failure to consider

equivalence was not reversible error because the claimant did not offer any theory, plausible

or otherwise, as to how his impairments combined to equal a listing impairment). The

Magistrate Judge correctly stated: “Plaintiff is responsible for providing the theory of how

obesity affects his claim of equivalence.” Id. at 23 (citing Lewis, 236 F.3d at 514).

In his decision, the ALJ concluded that Plaintiff, beginning June 2, 2009, did not have

“an impairment or combination of impairments that meets or medically equals the severity of

one of the impairments listed in 20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1.” (ECF No. 11-2

at 21). In reaching that conclusion, the ALJ explained:

The record does not report the existence of any functional limitations and or

diagnostic test results, which would suggest that the impairments meet or equal

the criteria of any specific listing. In addition, no treating or examining

physician has reported findings, which either meet or are equivalent in severity

to the criteria of any listed impairment, nor are such findings indicated or

suggested by the medical evidence of record.

Id. 

The Magistrate Judge correctly found that “there was no evidence before the ALJ, and

none in the record, which states that Plaintiff’s obesity limited his functioning.” Id. at 23. The

Magistrate Judge correctly explained:

Neither treatment notes nor any diagnoses addressed Plaintiff’s limitations due

to obesity. The medical record is silent as to whether and how Plaintiff’s obesity

might have exacerbated his condition. Moreover, [Plaintiff] did not present any

testimony or other evidence at the hearing that his obesity impaired his ability

to work. Plaintiff testified that there were no other problems that would affect

his ability to work besides his leg and back pain. (Tr. 77). The only indications

of Plaintiff’s obesity in the record are medical records noting Plaintiff’s height,

- 6 - 12cv1093-WQH-WVG

Case 3:12-cv-01093-WQH-WVG Document 30 Filed 03/27/13 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

weight, and Body Mass Index, along with one comment by Dr. Sabourin stating

that Plaintiff was a ‘well-nourished somewhat obese male in no acute distress.’ 

(Tr. 305). 

Id. at 23-24. The Magistrate Judge correctly found that “Plaintiff did not offer any theories on

how his obesity might have affected the severity of his back impairment under the criteria of

Listing 1.04A, or equivalency under any listing.” Id. at 24. Although Plaintiff contends the

Court can determine that “obesity exacerbates his other impairments” based upon his testimony

about his “symptoms and the limiting effect of his back impairment” (ECF No. 27 at 5), the

Court finds that Plaintiff failed to “present[] evidence [of his obesity] in an effort to establish

equivalence.” Burch, 400 F.3d at 683. The Magistrate Judge correctly concluded that “the

ALJ was not required to address Plaintiff’s obesity in his findings.” (ECF No. 24 at 24).

II. ALJ’s Credibility Determination

The Magistrate Judge correctly stated that Congress expressly prohibits granting

disability benefits based solely on subjective complaints. (ECF No. 24 at 25) (citing 42 U.S.C.

§ 423(d)(5)(A); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(a) (explaining that “statements about your pain or other

symptoms will not alone establish that you are disabled...”)). The Magistrate Judge correctly

stated: “[T]he ALJ properly discounts credibility if he makes specific credibility findings that

are properly supported by the record and sufficiently specific to ensure a reviewing court that

he did not ‘arbitrarily discredit’ the testimony.” Id. (citing Bunnell v. Sullivan, 947 F.2d 341,

345-46 (9th Cir. 1991); Social Security Ruling 96-7p, 1996 WL 374186). The Magistrate

Judge correctly stated that there are several factors that an ALJ may consider in assessing

credibility, including “‘ordinary techniques of credibility evaluation’; the claimant’s daily

activities; nature, location, onset, duration, frequency, radiation, and intensity of pain or other

symptoms; precipitating and aggravating factors; type, dosage, effectiveness, and adverse sideeffects of any medication; treatment, other than medication; functional restrictions;

unexplained, or inadequately explained, failure to seek or follow treatment.” Id. (quoting

Bunnell, 947 F.2d at 346-47). 

The Magistrate Judge correctly found that the ALJ cited several specific credibility

factors in making his decision. See ECF No. 24 at 25. The ALJ considered Plaintiff’s daily

- 7 - 12cv1093-WQH-WVG

Case 3:12-cv-01093-WQH-WVG Document 30 Filed 03/27/13 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

activities, including his ability to drive, read, watch television, and attend to his personal needs. 

(ECF No. 11-2 at 23). The ALJ considered the adverse side-effects of Plaintiff’s medication,

finding that “the record does not indicate that the claimant suffers from debilitating side effects

from his medication.” Id. The ALJ considered the dosage of Plaintiff’s medication, finding

that “[t]here have been no significant increases or changes in prescribed medication reflective

of an uncontrolled condition [since Plaintiff’s second surgery in December 2008],” and that

“[Plaintiff’s] analgesic medication history is inconsistent with his claimed severity of pain.”

Id. at 22-24. The ALJ considered the type of Plaintiff’s treatment, finding that Plaintiff has

received only “conservative routine maintenance since his second surgery in December 2008.” 

Id. at 21. The ALJ considered the statements of several doctors, including: Dr. Thomas

Sabourin, M.D., a consultative examiner, who stated that Plaintiff was “in no acute distress”

during a March 2011 orthopedic examination; and Dr. Brahms, who stated that Plaintiff could

perform “light work” as of June 2, 2009 and that the pain described by Plaintiff is not pain that

Dr. Brahms would expect after Plaintiff’s surgeries. Id. at 20-24, 55, 87-88; ECF No. 11-7 at

54. The ALJ concluded that “[t]he weight of the objective evidence does not support

[Plaintiff’s] claims of disabling limitations to the degree alleged.” (ECF No. 11-2 at 22). The

Court finds that the ALJ discounted Plaintiff’s testimony based on “specific credibility findings

that are properly supported by the record.” Bunnell, 947 F.2d at 345-46. 

The Magistrate Judge correctly concluded that “substantial evidence ... supported the

ALJ’s finding that, beginning on June 2, 2009, Plaintiff was capable of making a successful

adjustment to work that exists in significant numbers in the national economy.” (ECF No. 24

at 28).

CONCLUSION

After a de novo review of those portions of the Report and Recommendation to which

Plaintiff objected, and after a review of the ALJ’s decision and the Administrative Record, the

Court finds that the Magistrate Judge correctly evaluated the facts and correctly applied the

controlling law in this case. The Court concludes that the ALJ’s decision is supported by

substantial evidence and is free of legal error.

- 8 - 12cv1093-WQH-WVG

Case 3:12-cv-01093-WQH-WVG Document 30 Filed 03/27/13 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

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that (1) the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 24) is

ADOPTED in its entirety; (2) Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 15) is

DENIED; and (3) Defendant’s Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 18) is

GRANTED. The Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment for Defendant and against Plaintiff.

DATED: March 27, 2013

WILLIAM Q. HAYES

United States District Judge

- 9 - 12cv1093-WQH-WVG

Case 3:12-cv-01093-WQH-WVG Document 30 Filed 03/27/13 Page 9 of 9