Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-01176/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-01176-0/pdf.json

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

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Christopher Edwards, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Michael J. Astrue, Commissioner of Social

Security, 

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 10-01176-PHX-EHC

ORDER

This is an action for judicial review of a denial of disability insurance benefits under

the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). The matter is fully briefed (Doc. 13 & 15).

Plaintiff applied for disability benefitsin March 2006 at approximately 32 years of age

alleging an initial onset date of April 30, 2002 (Doc. 12 - Administrative Record [Tr.] 110-

122). Plaintiff amended his disability onset date to May 1, 2006 (Tr. 16, 262). Plaintiff is

insured for benefits through September 30, 2007 (Tr. 18). 

Plaintiff’s claim was denied initially (Tr. 59-60) and upon reconsideration (Tr. 61-62).

Plaintiff requested a hearing (Tr. 16). After a hearing on September 9, 2008 (Tr. 31-58), the

Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ") issued a decision on December 18, 2008 finding that

Plaintiff is not disabled (Tr. 13-26). The ALJ listed Plaintiff’s combination of severe

impairments as status post cervical fusion, diabetes mellitus (a chronic metabolic disorder),

Case 2:10-cv-01176-EHC Document 17 Filed 09/23/11 Page 1 of 15
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 -

gastroesophageal reflux disease, obesity and depression (Tr. 18). The Appeals Council denied

Plaintiff’s request for review (Tr. 1-4) which was a final decision. 

I.

Standard of Review

A person is “disabled” for purposes of receiving social security benefits if he or she

is unable to engage in any substantial gainful activity due to a medically determinable

physical or mental impairment which can be expected to result in death or which has lasted

or can be expected to last for a continuous period of at least twelve months. Drouin v.

Sullivan, 966 F.2d 1255, 1257 (9th Cir. 1992). Social Security disability cases are evaluated

using a five-step sequential evaluation process to determine whether the claimant is disabled.

The claimant has the burden of demonstrating the first four steps. Tackett v. Apfel, 180 F.3d

1094, 1098 (9th Cir. 1999). 

In the first step, the ALJ must determine whether the claimant currently is engaged in

substantial gainful activity; if so, the claimant is not disabled and the claim is denied. The

second step requires the ALJ to determine whether the claimant has a “severe” impairment

or combination of impairments which significantly limits the claimant’s ability to do basic

work activities; if not, a finding of “not disabled” is made and the claim is denied. At the

third step, the ALJ determines whether the impairment or combination of impairments meets

or equals an impairment listed in the regulations; if so, disability is conclusively presumed and

benefits are awarded. If the impairment or impairments do not meet or equal a listed

impairment, the ALJ will make a finding regarding the claimant’s “residual functional

capacity” based on all the relevant medical and other evidence in the record. A claimant’s

residual functional capacity (“RFC”) is what he or she can still do despite existing physical,

mental, nonexertional and other limitations. Cooper v. Sullivan, 880 F.2d 1152, 1155 n.5 (9th

Cir. 1989). At step four, the ALJ determines whether, despite the impairments, the claimant

can still perform “past relevant work;” if so, the claimant is not disabled and the claim is

Case 2:10-cv-01176-EHC Document 17 Filed 09/23/11 Page 2 of 15
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 -

denied. The Commissioner bears the burden as to the fifth and final step of establishing that

the claimant can perform other substantial gainful work. Tackett, 180 F.3d at 1099. 

The Court has the “power to enter, upon the pleadings and transcript of record, a

judgment affirming, modifying, or reversing the decision of the Commissioner of Social

Security, with or without remanding the cause for rehearing.” 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). The

decision to deny benefits should be upheld unless it is based on legal error or is not supported

by substantial evidence. Ryan v. Commissioner of Social Security, 528 F.3d 1194, 1198 (9th

Cir. 2008). Substantial evidence means “such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might

accept as adequate to support a conclusion.” Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389, 401, 91

S.Ct. 1420, 1427 (1971). The Court must consider the record in its entirety and weigh both

the evidence that supports and the evidence that detracts from the Commissioner’s

conclusion. Jones v. Heckler, 760 F.2d 993, 995 (9th Cir.1985).

II.

Background Facts

Plaintiff’s Medical Records - August 2000 to March 2006

In August 2000, Plaintiff experienced shoulder and forearm discomfort after lifting a

heavy load at work (Tr. 342-343). An MRI of Plaintiff’s cervical spine showed reversed

cervical lordosis (curvature) secondary to muscle spasm, and a herniated disc at C4-C5

causing minimal spinal cord deformity (Tr. 340). Plaintiff had surgery in November 2000 (Tr.

339). M.A. Paracha, M.D., post-surgery, reported Plaintiff’s “significant resolution of right

arm discomfort” and no other focal neurological deficits but noted Plaintiff’s complaints of

headaches (Tr. 339). Dr. Paracha advised Plaintiff to follow-up with another doctor regarding

a release to return to work (Tr. 339). In September 2001, Plaintiff complained to Dr. Paracha

about worsening headaches for the past year (Tr. 337-338) but the headaches appeared to be

resolved after Dr. Paracha prescribed blood pressure medication between November 2001 and

January 2002 (Tr. 334-335). Plaintiff complained of headaches to other providers in January

2003 (Tr. 315) and in September 2003 (Tr. 266). 

Case 2:10-cv-01176-EHC Document 17 Filed 09/23/11 Page 3 of 15
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

Meralgia refers to pain in the thigh. Paresthetica refers to “burning pain, tingling,

pruritus, or formication along the lateral aspect of the thigh in the distribution of the lateral

femoral cutaneous nerve due to entrapment of that nerve.” Stedman’s Medical Dictionary,

at 1093 (27th ed. 2000).

- 4 -

In November 2001, Plaintiff complained to Dr. Paracha of numbness which radiated

into his right leg (Tr. 335). February 25, 2002 nerve conduction studies revealed meralgia

paresthetica1

 (Tr. 344). Dr. Paracha assessed the condition as caused by weight gain (Tr. 332-

333). In March and April 2002, Dr. Paracha recommended that Plaintiff lose weight and a

nerve block if the pain was not resolved with medication (Tr. 330-331). The record does not

show any further treatment by Dr. Paracha after April 2002.

In November 2002, Plaintiff was treated at a hospital emergency room for complaints

of neck and right arm pain (Tr. 298-300). He again sought treatment for neck pain in April

2003 (Tr. 290-292). Plaintiff reported left hand pain and swelling in July 2003 (Tr. 275-277).

In November 2003, Plaintiff was treated by John Knudsen III, M.D., for complaints

of neck pain that radiated down both arms into his wrists and that worsened with use of his

arms. Dr. Knudsen reported that Plaintiff’s history and symptoms were consistent with

cervical radiculopathy and administered a series of cervical epidural steroid injections (Tr.

281, 284-286, 289).

In June 2004, Plaintiff was involved in a motorcycle accident that resulted in

compressed fractures of the T9 and T6 vertebrae in his upper back. Michael Seiff, M.D., noted

Plaintiff’s report of back pain and prescribed a back brace. Dr. Seiff reported that Plaintiff was

neurologically intact without sensory or motor deficits and no pathological long tract findings

(Tr. 327). In July 2004, Dr. Seiff noted that Plaintiff was “intermittently compliant” with the

brace and feeling overall relief (Tr. 328). 

In March 2006, a medical provider noted that Plaintiff was taking a muscle relaxant

(Flexeril) for muscle spasms and that Plaintiff reported doing well on his medication (Tr.

435).

Case 2:10-cv-01176-EHC Document 17 Filed 09/23/11 Page 4 of 15
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 -

Plaintiff’s Medical Records - May 2006 through the end of 2006

In May 2006, Plaintiff sought treatment for osteoarthritis and muscle spasms (Tr. 434).

In June 2006, Plaintiff was treated for muscle spasms (Tr. 433).

In May 2006, Charles Lindsay, D.O., completed a form as Plaintiff’s treating physician

since November 2004. Dr. Lindsay opined that Plaintiff could lift less than 10 pounds, stand

and/or walk less than 2 hours and sit less than 6 hours in an 8-hour day, and never climb,

stoop, kneel or use fingers (Tr. 345-347). 

During the latter part of 2006, Plaintiff was treated for neck and spine pain and muscle

spasms (Tr. 427-431). In October 2006, nerve conduction studies of Plaintiff’s upper

extremities were within normal limits (Tr. 447). 

Function Reports - 2006

In April 2006, Plaintiff completed a Function Report (Tr. 147-154) in which he stated

that he helped his wife get their children ready for school, drove the children to and from

school, and performed household chores such as washing dishes and taking out the trash.

Plaintiff’s activities also included taking care of the children and helping with their

homework; feeding, playing with and bathing the dog; preparing simple meals; doing laundry;

and shopping for food and clothing. Plaintiff reported he could lift 50 pounds and walk one

block; could concentrate for 15 to 30 minutes; and could follow written instructions “pretty

well.”

In April 2006, Sundae Edwards, Plaintiff’s wife, completed a Function Report (Tr.

138-145) in which she stated that Plaintiff picked up their son from pre-school, watched their

sons while she was at work, and performed household chores such as cooking, laundry and

dishes. Mrs. Edwards reported that Plaintiff rarely did yard work. She stated that Plaintiff

could lift up to 50 pounds. 

Physical and Psychological Examination Reports - 2006

In July 2006, Jason Taylor, D.O., examined Plaintiff regarding a disability evaluation

(Tr. 351-357). Dr. Taylor noted Plaintiff’s reports of neck pain, muscle spasms, chronic

Case 2:10-cv-01176-EHC Document 17 Filed 09/23/11 Page 5 of 15
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 -

migraine headaches, and chronic swelling in his hands. Plaintiff also reported discomfort with

prolonged sitting and occasional numbness in his fingers. On examination, Plaintiff had

limited range of motion in his cervical spine but normal range of motion in his back, shoulder,

elbows, and wrists. Plaintiff walked with a normal gait and had full 5/5 grip strength and

intact sensation in his hands and arms. Plaintiff appeared to sit comfortably and move on and

off the examination table without difficulty (Tr. 354-357). Plaintiff reported living with his

wife and three children (ages 5, 9 and 11), and that his daily activities included helping around

the house, taking his children to school, driving to the store, and shopping (Tr. 354). Based

on his examination, Dr. Taylor found that Plaintiff was limited to lifting 50 pounds

occasionally and 25 pounds frequently, occasional climbing, and was not limited in sitting,

standing or walking (Tr. 351-353, 357).

On August 23, 2006, Stephen Gill, Ph.D., performed a psychological evaluation of

Plaintiff (Tr. 378-389). Plaintiff drove himself to the appointment. Plaintiff reported taking

anti-depressant medication but had stopped because it interfered with his blood pressure

readings. Plaintiff was not currently receiving mental health treatment. Plaintiff reported that

his daily activities included dressing himself, getting his children ready for school, taking a

nap, helping his children with their homework, and watching television. Plaintiff said he was

capable of preparing simple meals, performing “minimal household chores” and paying the

bills (Tr. 378-380). During the examination, Plaintiff appeared depressed and easily distracted

but was able to respond to simple questions and instructions. There was no evidence of

thought disturbance. Dr. Gill reported that Plaintiff was functioning in the low average range

intellectually with reasonably intact mental status; appeared to have limited insight and

judgment; could reason to avoid hazards and exercise judgment; and, could learn and

implement a simple repetitive task in an independent work environment (Tr. 380-382). Dr.

Gill opined that Plaintiff was moderately limited (“fair but not precluded”) in activities

involving sustained concentration and persistence, social interaction, and adaptation; and

mildly limited in activities involving understanding, carrying out and remembering (Tr. 383-

Case 2:10-cv-01176-EHC Document 17 Filed 09/23/11 Page 6 of 15
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 -

389). Dr. Gill stated his diagnosis as depressive disorder, moderate to severe, with episodes

of anxiety and panic, not otherwise specified, and that this condition would impose limitations

for 12 months (Tr. 383). 

Non-Examining Reviewing Reports - 2006 

On August 14, 2006, Ernest Griffith, M.D., completed a Residual Functional Capacity

Assessment of Plaintiff, noting Plaintiff’s primary diagnosis of “cervical DDD post fusion w

neck pain,” a secondary diagnosis of hypertension and obesity, with other alleged impairments

of back pain and dyspnea (shortness of breath) (Tr. 358-365). Dr. Griffith opined that Plaintiff

could occasionally lift 50 pounds, frequently lift 25 pounds, could stand, walk and sit for 6

hours out of an 8-hour workday, and was unlimited in the ability to push and/or pull (Tr.

359). Dr. Griffith found that Plaintiff was limited in his ability to reach in all directions and

was unlimited in the ability to handle, finger and feel (Tr. 361). Dr. Griffith reported that

Plaintiff’s claims of back impairment and dyspnea were not confirmed by examination (Tr.

363). Dr. Griffith’s report was consistent with the ability to perform a range of medium work

(Doc. 15 at 6-7). 

On September 13, 2006, Alan Goldberg, Psy.D., completed a Mental Residual

Functional Capacity Assessment of Plaintiff (Tr. 390-392). Dr. Goldberg opined that Plaintiff

had some moderate limitations but that he could perform simple unskilled work (Tr. 392). Dr.

Goldberg reported that Plaintiff could understand, carry out and remember simple

instructions; make simple work-related decisions; and respond appropriately to supervision

and work situations although he would do best with limited interaction with co-workers (Tr.

392). 

Plaintiff’s Medical Records - 2007

Plaintiff received physical therapy between February and March 2007 as referred by

Charles Lindsay, M.D. (Tr. 532-543). Plaintiff reported in February 2007 that he could walk

one mile but could not lift overhead or engage in repetitive bending or stooping (Tr. 542). In

June 2007, Plaintiff was treated for non-cardiac chest pain and told a medical provider that

Case 2:10-cv-01176-EHC Document 17 Filed 09/23/11 Page 7 of 15
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 -

he was more actively trying to coach Little League baseball. He was encouraged to continue

with lifestyle modification and to lose weight (Tr. 491).

Non-Examining Reviewing Reports - 2007

On March 21, 2007, Stephen Fair, Ph.D., completed a Case Analysis in which he

affirmed Dr. Goldberg’s September 13, 2006 opinion that Plaintiff had the ability to perform

unskilled work (Tr. 487). 

On April 3, 2007, Donna DeFelice, M.D., completed a Residual Functional Capacity

Assessment regarding Plaintiff that contained an opinion similar to that of Dr. Griffith. Dr.

DeFelice opined that Plaintiff could occasionally lift 50 pounds, frequently lift 25 pounds,

could stand, walk and sit 6 hours out of an 8-hour workday, and was unlimited in the ability

to push and/or pull (Tr. 480). Dr. DeFelice found that Plaintiff was limited in his ability to

reach in all directions and was unlimited in the ability to handle, finger and feel (Tr. 482). Dr.

DeFelice’s report was consistent with the capacity to perform medium work (Doc. 15 at 6-7).

Plaintiff’s Medical Records - 2008

In March 2008, Plaintiff complained to a provider of pain in his right leg, was assessed

with bursitis of the hip, and received an injection (Tr. 498-500).

In February and April 2008, Plaintiff reported left shoulder pain (Tr. 497, 501-502) and

received physical therapy for his shoulder between April and May 2008 (Tr. 547-556).

Plaintiff told his therapist that he hurt his shoulder after he walked his dog and the leash

pulled on his left shoulder (Tr. 555). In April 2008, Plaintiff was treated for lower back and

shoulder pain and right leg weakness (Tr. 496). In May 2008, Plaintiff demonstrated limited

strength in his legs but normal lordosis curve in his back (Tr. 495). Plaintiff’s medical records

showed a similar report and results in July 2008 (Tr. 493-494). 

 III.

The Hearing Before the ALJ - September 9, 2008

Plaintiff, represented by counsel, and Thomas Mitchell, a Vocational Expert (VE),

testified at the hearing (Tr. 33).

Case 2:10-cv-01176-EHC Document 17 Filed 09/23/11 Page 8 of 15
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 -

Plaintiff testified that he lives with his wife and three children. Plaintiff is 5'7" tall and

weighs 211 pounds. He graduated from high school and has a valid driver’s license (Tr. 37).

Plaintiff went back to work after his November 2000 surgery and was laid off from his job in

April 2002 (Tr. 42-43, 45). In 2003 Plaintiff received a certified accounting degree but was

unable to find a job in that field (Tr. 38, 43, 45-46). Plaintiff has previously worked as an

inventory clerk, laborer, machine operator, radiator shop mechanic, dispatcher and cashier,

and in airplane brake maintenance (Tr. 39-42). 

Plaintiff testified that he has experienced headaches and depression since his

November 2000 surgery (Tr. 42-43). Plaintiff said his most serious problem is migraine

headaches, which he has daily for at least 2 hours per day (Tr. 43-44). Plaintiff testified that

his average headache pain is about 7 on a scale of one to 10 (Tr. 52). Plaintiff said he has

daily pain running down from his lower back into his right leg (Tr. 45). His daily pain

excluding headaches is about 6 (Tr. 52). Plaintiff estimated that he can sit or stand for 30

minutes at a time, walk for about 20 minutes, and lift 10 pounds (Tr. 46-47). Plaintiff said he

lies down for 3 hours per day (Tr. 47-48).

Plaintiff said he is not receiving treatment for depression (Tr. 49). Plaintiff testified that

his symptoms include a tendency to isolate himself, irritability, difficulty concentrating and

remembering, and lack of interest in normal activities (Tr. 49-50). Plaintiff said his doctor did

not believe his depression was severe enough to warrant treatment (Tr. 49). 

Plaintiff started seeing Dr. Lindsay in 2006 (Tr. 53). Plaintiff testified that he cannot

sustain work because of headaches, diarrhea and back and leg pain (Tr. 53).

When questioned by the ALJ regarding a person who could perform light unskilled

work, with no crawling, crouching, climbing, squatting, or kneeling; no use of legs or feet for

pushing or pulling foot or leg controls; and no use of the arms for above-shoulder-level work,

the VE testified that such a person could perform cashiering jobs, assembly jobs, and security

jobs, all of which exist in Arizona and in the national economy (Tr. 54-55). 

Case 2:10-cv-01176-EHC Document 17 Filed 09/23/11 Page 9 of 15
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 -

When questioned by Plaintiff’s attorney, the VE testified that the limitations reported

by Dr. Lindsay indicated less than sedentary work (Tr. 57). 

 IV.

The ALJ’s Findings

In a written decision dated December 18, 2008 (Tr. 16-26), the ALJ found that

Plaintiff had not engaged in substantial gainful activity since his amended onset date of May

1, 2006 (Tr. 18). The ALJ found that Plaintiff impairments of status post cervical fusion,

diabetes mellitus, gastroesophageal reflux disease, obesity and depression were severe when

considered in combination but that Plaintiff did not have an impairment or combination of

impairments that met or medically equaled a listing in the regulations (Tr. 18-19). The ALJ

found that, based on the entire record, Plaintiff has the residual functional capacity to perform

light work except that Plaintiff is unable to crawl, crouch, climb, squat, and kneel; he is unable

to use his lower extremities for pushing and pulling and is unable to use his upper extremities

for work above shoulder level; and that Plaintiff is limited to unskilled work (Tr. 20). 

In reaching this conclusion, the ALJ discussed at length Plaintiff’s hearing testimony,

including Plaintiff’s symptoms and limitations concerning headache pain and his back and leg

pain; and his testimony that he has depression for which he has received no treatment. The

ALJ found that Plaintiff’s medically determinable impairments could reasonably be expected

to cause some of the alleged symptoms but that Plaintiff’s statements concerning the intensity,

persistence and limiting effects of those symptoms were not credible (Tr. 20-21). The ALJ

discussed that Plaintiff’s medical records do not show that Plaintiff reported headaches to

medical professionals after the amended onset date of May 1, 2006 (Tr. 21). After noting that

Plaintiff underwent cervical fusion, the ALJ discussed that medical records show that the

surgery was successful, his muscle spasms have been successfully treated with medication,

Plaintiff has received physical therapy, and Plaintiff has not been under treatment for chronic

pain syndrome (Tr. 21). In addition, objective findings in Plaintiff’s medical records were

inconsistent with a finding of disability (Tr. 21-22).

Case 2:10-cv-01176-EHC Document 17 Filed 09/23/11 Page 10 of 15
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 -

The ALJ found that there was no evidence that Plaintiff’s weight interfered with

treatment related to his impairments (Tr. 22). The ALJ also found that there was no evidence

that Plaintiff has experienced symptoms associated with diabetes, hypertension, sleep apnea

or gastroesophageal reflux disease that would indicate that Plaintiff is more limited than as

found (Tr. 22). 

With respect to Plaintiff’s depression, the ALJ noted there was no evidence of mental

health treatment in the record (Tr. 22). The ALJ did not assign controlling weight to Dr.

Gill’s assessment (Tr. 23). The ALJ discussed Plaintiff’s daily living activities and that he

had not had any episodes of decompensation (Tr. 23-24). The ALJ did not assign controlling

weight to the opinion of Dr. Lindsay, a treating physician (Tr. 24).

The ALJ found that Plaintiff did not have the ability to perform his past relevant work

as backup operator, inventory clerk, machine operator, radio dispatcher/cashier (all semiskilled medium); light duty mechanic (skilled medium); laborer (unskilled heavy); or utility

(semi-skilled heavy), as Plaintiff is limited to light work with additional limitations (Tr. 24).

The ALJ found that Plaintiff is not under a disability (Tr. 25).

V.

Discussion

Plaintiff argues that the ALJ improperly weighed medical source evidence and erred

by misinterpreting the evidence to Plaintiff’s detriment. Plaintiff seeks remand for an award

of benefits. Defendant argues that substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s decision that

Plaintiff is not disabled but if error is found, the matter should be remanded for further

administrative proceedings.

Generally, a treating physician’s opinion is afforded more weight than the opinion of

an examining physician, and an examining physician’s opinion is afforded more weight than

a non-examining reviewing or consulting physician’s opinion. Holohan v. Massanari, 246

F.3d 1195, 1202 (9th Cir. 2001). Where a treating doctor’s opinion is uncontradicted, an ALJ

may reject it only for “clear and convincing” reasons; however, a contradicted opinion of a

Case 2:10-cv-01176-EHC Document 17 Filed 09/23/11 Page 11 of 15
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 - 12 -

treating or examining physician may be rejected for “specific and legitimate” reasons. See

Lester v. Chater, 81 F.3d 821, 830-31 (9th Cir. 1995). “The opinion of a non-examining

physician cannot by itself constitute substantial evidence that justifies the rejection of the

opinion of either an examining or a treating physician;” such an opinion may serve as

substantial evidence only when it is consistent and supported by other independent evidence

in the record. Id. 

In this case, it was reasonable for the ALJ to not assign controlling weight to the

opinion of Dr. Paracha. Dr. Paracha treated Plaintiff for headaches intermittently between

November 2000 and January 2002, prescribing blood pressure medication which appeared to

alleviate Plaintiff’s headaches (Tr. 337-339, 334-335). Dr. Paracha last treated Plaintiff in

April 2002 (for a condition unrelated to headaches) (Tr. 330), more than four years before

Plaintiff’s amended onset date of May 1, 2006. There do not appear to be treatment records

regarding Plaintiff’s reports of headaches after the May 1, 2006 amended onset date other than

Dr. Taylor’s July 12, 2006 consultative examining report noting Plaintiff’s chronic headaches

(Tr. 354-357). The objective evidence appears to support the ALJ’s finding that Plaintiff’s

records do not show that Plaintiff reported headaches to treating medical professionals after

the amended onset date (Tr. 21). See Carmickle v. Commissioner of Social Security, 533 F.3d

1155, 1165 (9th Cir. 2008)(medical opinion that predated alleged onset date is of limited

relevance). 

It further was reasonable for the ALJ to not assign controlling weight to the May 2006

opinion of Dr. Lindsay reporting Plaintiff’s extreme functioning limitations. The ALJ

supported his decision to not assign controlling weight to the opinion of Dr. Lindsay, a

treating physician, by stating that the course of treatment was not consistent with the alleged

limitations and Dr. Lindsay’s opinion was inconsistent with other opinion evidence of record

and with Plaintiff’s activity level (Tr. 24). Medical records concerning Plaintiff’s November

2000 surgery showed significant resolution of right arm discomfort and no other focal

neurological deficits (Tr. 339). Plaintiff’s muscle spasms in 2006 were treated with

Case 2:10-cv-01176-EHC Document 17 Filed 09/23/11 Page 12 of 15
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 - 13 -

medication with good results (Tr. 428, 431, 433-435). Nerve conduction studies of Plaintiff’s

upper extremities in October 2006 were within normal limits (Tr. 447). Plaintiff’s daily

activities included taking his children to and from school, caring for his children while his

wife was at work, trying to coach baseball, and household chores. The ALJ in his findings

discussed these and other factors, such as Plaintiff’s physical therapy and his lack of treatment

for chronic pain syndrome (Tr. 21, 23, 24). Daily activities such as caring for young children

and maintaining a household may undermine claims of disabling impairments. See Rollins

v. Massanari, 261 F.3d 853, 856 (9th Cir. 2001). 

In addition, Dr. Taylor’s July 2006 consultative examination of Plaintiff revealed that

Plaintiff had limited range of motion in his cervical spine but normal range of motion in his

back, shoulder, elbows, and wrists; Plaintiff walked with a normal gait and had full 5/5 grip

strength and intact sensation in his hands and arms (Tr. 351-357). Dr. Taylor found that

Plaintiff was limited to lifting 50 pounds occasionally and was not limited in sitting, standing

or walking (Tr. 351-353, 357). 

While Dr. Lindsay, a treating physician, provided a diagnosis related to Plaintiff’s

cervical condition, he did not set forth any medical findings as the basis for his limitations

assessment (Tr. 345-347). The ALJ need not accept the opinion of any physician if that

opinion is not supported by clinical findings. Thomas v. Barnhart, 278 F.3d 947, 957(9th Cir.

2002).

 Plaintiff argues that the ALJ erred in not assigning significant weight to the opinion

of Dr. Gill, an examining psychologist. The ALJ included a lengthy discussion in his findings

regarding his reasons for not assigning controlling weight to the opinion of Dr. Gill (Tr. 22-

23). The ALJ found that Dr. Gill did not have the benefit of Plaintiff’s entire records, Dr.

Gill’s opinion was inconsistent with the overall objective evidence, and Dr. Gill relied heavily

on Plaintiff’s subjective reports of symptoms and limitations (Tr. 23). The ALJ discussed

that Plaintiff had not reported undergoing any current mental health treatment and had not

experienced any episodes of decompensation (Tr. 22-23). Plaintiff testified that his doctor

Case 2:10-cv-01176-EHC Document 17 Filed 09/23/11 Page 13 of 15
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 - 14 -

had not found his depression symptoms significant so as to warrant treatment (Tr. 49). The

ALJ discussed that Plaintiff had reported coaching Little League baseball, thereby raising the

question of whether he had exaggerated his symptoms (Tr. 23). The ALJ provided sufficient

reasons for his assessment of Dr. Gill’s opinion.

Finally, Plaintiff argues that the ALJ erred in relying on the opinions of Drs. DeFelice

and Goldberg, both reviewing physicians who did not examine Plaintiff. It does not appear

that the ALJ mentioned these opinions in his decision. On September 13, 2006, Dr. Goldberg,

a psychiatrist, reviewed Plaintiff’s medical records and opined that Plaintiff had some

moderate limitations but could perform simple unskilled work (Tr. 392). Dr. Goldberg

reported that Plaintiff could understand, carry out and remember simple instructions; make

simple work-related decisions; and could respond appropriately to supervision and work

situations although he would do best with limited interaction with co-workers (Tr. 392). On

April 3, 2007, Dr. DeFelice opined that Plaintiff could occasionally lift 50 pounds, frequently

lift 25 pounds, could stand, walk and sit 6 hours out of an 8-hour workday, and was limited

in his ability to reach in all directions (Tr. 480, 482). Dr. DeFelice’s report was consistent

with the capacity to perform medium work (Doc. 15 at 6-7). These opinions were consistent

with the overall medical evidence, including Plaintiff’s successful result from his cervical

fusion surgery, positive treatment of muscle spasms, no ongoing chronic pain syndrome

treatment, no ongoing mental health treatment and his description of his daily activities. 

The ALJ did not improperly weigh the medical source evidence or misinterpret the

medical evidence related to Plaintiff’s impairments. The Commissioner’s final decision is

based on substantial evidence. 

Accordingly, 

IT IS ORDERED that the decision of the Commissioner denying Plaintiff’s claim for

benefits is affirmed. 

//

Case 2:10-cv-01176-EHC Document 17 Filed 09/23/11 Page 14 of 15
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 - 15 -

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall enter Judgment

accordingly.

DATED this 23rd day of September, 2011.

Case 2:10-cv-01176-EHC Document 17 Filed 09/23/11 Page 15 of 15