Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-02664/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-02664-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 864
Nature of Suit: Social Security - SSID Title XVI
Cause of Action: 42:0405id Review of HHS Decision (SSID)

---

1

15-CV-2664-DMS(WVG) 

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

 HECTOR A. COVARRUBIAS, 

 Plaintiff, 

v. 

CAROLYN W. COLVIN, 

 Defendant. 

Case No.: 15-CV-2664-DMS(WVG) 

REPORT AND 

RECOMMENDATION ON 

CROSS-MOTIONS FOR 

SUMMARY JUDGMENT 

[Doc. Nos. 14, 16.] 

This is an action for judicial review of a decision by the Commissioner of 

Social Security, Carolyn W. Colvin (“the Commissioner,” or “Defendant”), 

denying Plaintiff Hector A. Covarrubias (“Plaintiff”) supplemental security income 

(“SSI”) benefits under Title XVI of the Social Security Act (“Act”). The parties 

have filed cross-motions for summary judgment, and the matter is before the 

undersigned Magistrate Judge for preparation of a Report and Recommendation, 

which will be submitted to the Honorable Dana M. Sabraw, United States District 

Judge. See 28 U.S.C. § 636; CivLR 72.1(c). For the reasons stated below, the Court 

RECOMMENDS that Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment be DENIED, 

Case 3:15-cv-02664-DMS-WVG Document 19 Filed 11/17/16 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 32
2

15-CV-2664-DMS(WVG) 

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

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

entered accordingly.

I. 

SUMMARY OF LEGAL BACKGROUND 

Pursuant to the Act, the Social Security Administration (“SSA”) administers 

the SSI program under Title 42 of the United States Code. 42 U.S.C. § 901. The Act 

authorizes the SSA to create a system by which it determines who is entitled to 

benefits and by which unsuccessful claimants may obtain review of adverse 

determinations. Id. §§ 423 et seq., 1381. Defendant, as Acting Commissioner of the 

SSA at the time of the Complaint’s filing, is responsible for the Act’s 

administration. Id. § 902(a)(4), (b)(4). 

A. SSA’s Five-Step Sequential Process 

The SSA employs a five-step sequential evaluation to determine whether a 

claimant is eligible for benefits. 20 C.F.R. §§ 416.920, 404.1520. To qualify for 

disability benefits under the Act, a claimant 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 claimant 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); § 1382(c)(3)(A). 

A claimant must meet both of these requirements to qualify as “disabled” 

under the Act, id. § 423(d)(1)(A), (2)(A), and bears the burden of proving that he 

or she “either was permanently disabled or subject to a condition which became so 

severe as to create a disability prior to the date upon which [his or] her disability 

insured status expired.” Johnson v. Shalala, 60 F.3d 1428, 1432 (9th Cir. 1995). An 

Case 3:15-cv-02664-DMS-WVG Document 19 Filed 11/17/16 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 32
3

15-CV-2664-DMS(WVG) 

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

administrative law judge (“ALJ”) presides over the five-step process to determine 

disability. See Barnhart v. Thomas, 540 U.S. 20, 24-25 (2003) (summarizing the 

five-step process). If the Commissioner finds that a claimant is disabled or not 

disabled at any step in this process, the review process is terminated at that step.

Corrao v. Shalala, 20 F.3d 943, 946 (9th Cir. 1994). 

 Step one in the sequential evaluation considers a claimant’s “work activity, 

if any.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(i). An ALJ will deny a claimant disability 

benefits if the claimant is engaged in “substantial gainful activity.” Id.

§§ 404.1520(b), 416.920(b). “Substantial work activity” is significant physical or 

mental work that a claimant does on a full or part-time basis. Comstock v. Chater, 

91 F.3d 1143, 1145 (8th Cir. 1996); 20 C.F.R. § 416.972(a). “Gainful work activity 

is work activity that you do for pay or profit,” but the SSA will so classify any 

activity “if it is the kind of work usually done for pay or profit, whether or not a 

profit is realized.” 20 C.F.R. § 416.972(b) (emphasis added). 

 If a claimant cannot provide proof of gainful work activity, the ALJ proceeds 

to step two to ascertain whether the claimant has a medically severe impairment or 

combination of impairments. The so-called “severity regulation” dictates the course 

of this analysis. Id. §§ 404.1520(c), 416.920(c); see also Bowen v. Yuckert, 482 U.S. 

137, 140-41 (1987). The severity regulation requires that for a claimant to be 

disabled, the claimant must have “any impairment or combination of impairments 

which significantly limit” his or her “physical or mental ability to do basic work 

activities,” with no allowance for “age, education, and work experience” given. 20 

C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(c), 416.920(c). The duration requirement set forth in 20 C.F.R. 

§ 404.1509 must be met by either a lone impairment or a combination of milder 

impairments. Id. § 404.1520(a)(4)(ii). 

Case 3:15-cv-02664-DMS-WVG Document 19 Filed 11/17/16 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 32
4

15-CV-2664-DMS(WVG) 

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

An ALJ will deny a claimant’s disability claim if the ALJ does not find that 

a claimant suffers from a severe impairment or combination of impairments which 

significantly limits the claimant’s physical or mental ability to do “basic work 

activities.” Id. § 404.1520(c). The ability to do “basic work activities” means “the 

abilities and aptitudes necessary to do most jobs.” Id. §§ 404.1521(b), 416.921(b). 

Examples of basic work activities include: “[p]hysical functions such as walking, 

standing, sitting, lifting, pushing, pulling, reaching, carrying, or handling”; 

“[c]apacities for seeing, hearing, and speaking”; “[u]nderstanding, carrying out, and 

remembering simple instructions”; “[u]se of judgment”; “[r]esponding 

appropriately to supervision, co-workers, and usual work situations”; and “[d]ealing 

with changes in a routine work setting.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1521(b)(1)-(6). 

 However, if the impairment is severe, the evaluation proceeds to step three. 

At step three, the ALJ determines whether the impairment is equivalent to one of 

several listed impairments that the SSA acknowledges are so severe as to preclude 

substantial gainful activity. Id. §§ 404.1520(d), 416.920(d). An ALJ conclusively 

presumes a claimant is disabled so long as the impairment meets or equals one of 

the listed impairments. ALJs are not yet required to consider age, education, and 

work experience at this stage. Id. § 404.1520(d). 

If the ALJ has not yet deemed a claimant disabled, but before formally 

proceeding to step four, the ALJ must establish the claimant’s Residual Functional 

Capacity (“RFC”). Id. §§ 404.1520(e), 404.1545(a). An individual’s RFC is his or 

her ability to do physical and mental work activities on a sustained basis despite 

limitations from his or her impairments. Id. §§ 404.945(a)(1), 404.1545(a)(1). The 

RFC analysis considers “whether [the claimant’s] impairment(s), and any related 

symptoms, such as pain, may cause physical and mental limitations that affect what 

[the claimant] can do in a work setting.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1545(a)(1), 

Case 3:15-cv-02664-DMS-WVG Document 19 Filed 11/17/16 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 32
5

15-CV-2664-DMS(WVG) 

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

416.945(a)(1). In establishing a claimant’s RFC, the ALJ must assess relevant 

medical and other evidence, as well as consider all of the claimant’s impairments, 

including impairments categorized as non-severe. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(3), (e). 

If an ALJ does not conclusively determine a claimant’s impairment or combination 

of impairments is disabling at step three, the evaluation advances to step four. 

At step four, the ALJ uses the claimant’s RFC to determine whether the 

claimant has the RFC to perform the requirements of their past relevant work. 20 

C.F.R. § 404.1520(f). The term “past relevant work” denotes work performed 

(either as the claimant actually performed it or as it is generally performed in the 

national economy) within the last fifteen years, or fifteen years prior to the date 

before which disability must be established. In addition, the work must have been 

substantial gainful activity and must have lasted long enough for the claimant to 

learn to do the job. Id. §§ 404.1560(b), 404.1565. So long as a claimant has the RFC 

to carry out his or her past relevant work, the claimant is not disabled. Conversely, 

if the claimant either cannot or does not have any past relevant work, the analysis 

presses onward. 

 At the fifth and final step of the SSA’s evaluation, the ALJ must verify 

whether the claimant is able to do any other work in light of his or her RFC, age, 

education, and work experience. Id. § 404.1520(g). If the claimant is able to do 

other work, the claimant is not disabled. However, if the claimant is not able to do 

other work and meets the duration requirement, the claimant is disabled. Id.

Although the claimant generally continues to have the burden of proving disability 

at step five, a limited burden of going forward with the evidence shifts to the SSA. 

At this stage, the SSA must present evidence demonstrating that other work that the 

claimant can perform—allowing for his RFC, age, education, and work 

Case 3:15-cv-02664-DMS-WVG Document 19 Filed 11/17/16 PageID.<pageID> Page 5 of 32
6

15-CV-2664-DMS(WVG) 

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

experience—exists in significant numbers in the national economy. Id.

§§ 404.1520, 1560(c), 416.920, 404.1512(f). 

B. SSA Hearings and Appeals Process 

 In accordance with Defendant’s delegation, the Office of Disability 

Adjudication and Review administers a nationwide hearings and appeals program. 

SSA regulations provide for a four-step process for administrative review of a 

claimant’s application for disability payments. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 416.1400, 404.900. 

Once the SSA makes an initial determination, three more levels of appeal exist: 

(1) reconsideration, (2) hearing by an ALJ, and (3) review by the Appeals Council. 

See id. §§ 416.1400, 404.900. If the claimant is not satisfied with the decision at 

any step of the process, the claimant has sixty days to seek administrative review. 

See id. §§ 404.933, 416.1433. If the claimant does not request review, the decision 

becomes the SSA’s—and hence Defendant’s—binding and final decree. See id.

§§ 404.905, 416.1405. 

 A network of SSA field offices and state disability determination services 

initially process applications for disability benefits. The processing begins when a 

claimant completes both an application and an adult disability report, and submits 

those documents to one of the SSA’s field offices. If the SSA denies the claim, the 

claimant is entitled to a hearing before an ALJ in the SSA’s Office of Disability 

Adjudication and Review. Id. §§ 404.929, 416.1429. A hearing before an ALJ is 

informal and non-adversarial. Id. § 404.900(b). 

 If the claimant receives an unfavorable decision by an ALJ, the claimant may 

request review by the Appeals Council. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.967, 416.1467. The 

Appeals Council will grant, deny, dismiss, or remand a claimant’s request. Id.

§§ 416.1479, 404.979. If a claimant disagrees with the Appeals Council’s decision 

or the Appeals Council declines to review the claim, the claimant may seek judicial 

Case 3:15-cv-02664-DMS-WVG Document 19 Filed 11/17/16 PageID.<pageID> Page 6 of 32
7

15-CV-2664-DMS(WVG) 

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

review in a federal district court pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) or § 1383(c). See

20 C.F.R. §§ 404.981, 416.1481. If a district court remands the claim, the claim is 

sent to the Appeals Council, which may either make a decision or refer the matter 

to another ALJ. Id. § 404.983. The Appeals Council may also review an ALJ’s 

decision sua sponte within sixty days of the decision. Id. § 416.1481. 

II. 

BACKGROUND 

A. Procedural History 

On June 27, 2012, Plaintiff protectively filed an application for SSI, alleging 

disability as of December 1, 2011. (AR 11.) On October 15, 2012, the SSA denied 

Plaintiff’s initial application. (AR 67-71.) On April 24, 2013, Plaintiff was again 

denied benefits upon reconsideration. (AR 75-78.) 

 On February 21, 2014, the ALJ held a hearing to review Plaintiff’s case in 

San Diego, California. (AR 23-49.) Plaintiff and vocational expert Corinne Porter 

testified at the hearing. (Id.) 

In a March 14, 2014 decision, the ALJ determined that Plaintiff: (1) had not 

engaged in substantial gainful activity since June 27, 2012 and (2) suffered a 

number of severe impairments. (AR 13.) However, based on the full medical and 

evidentiary record, the ALJ concluded that Plaintiff did not have an impairment or 

combination of impairments that met or medically equaled the severity of one of 

the listed impairments in 20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1. (AR 14.) Thus, 

under 20 C.F.R. § 416.967(c), the ALJ concluded that Plaintiff had the RFC to 

perform the full range of medium work. (AR 14-18.) Accordingly, the ALJ found 

that Plaintiff could perform his past relevant work as a paint-and-body auto repairer 

and was therefore not disabled. (AR 18.) 

Case 3:15-cv-02664-DMS-WVG Document 19 Filed 11/17/16 PageID.<pageID> Page 7 of 32
8

15-CV-2664-DMS(WVG) 

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

On March 14, 2014, Plaintiff requested a review of the ALJ’s decision. 

(AR 1.) On September 25, 2015, the Appeals Council denied review. (AR 1-4.) The 

ALJ’s decision thereupon became the SSA’s final and definitive determination in 

Plaintiff’s case. 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). 

On November 27, 2015, Plaintiff commenced the instant action for judicial 

review pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). (Doc. No. 1.) On March 15, 2016, Defendant 

filed an Answer to Plaintiff’s Complaint. (Doc. No. 11.) On April 15, 2016, Plaintiff 

filed a Motion for Summary Judgment (“MSJ”). (Doc. No. 14.) On May 12, 2016, 

Defendant filed a Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment (“Cross-MSJ”) and 

opposition to Plaintiff’s MSJ. (Doc. No. 16.) Plaintiff did not file an opposition to 

Defendant’s Cross-MSJ or a reply to Defendant’s opposition to his MSJ. 

B. Relevant Medical Records Submitted to the ALJ for Review 

1. State Agency Physician Reports 

 a. Dr. Joel Ross, October 15, 2012 

 On October 15, 2012, Joel Ross, M.D., performed a residual functional 

capacity assessment for the State. (AR 51-57.) Dr. Ross noted Plaintiff’s history of 

diabetes, hypertension, arthritis, muscle pain, fatigue, and blurred vision. (AR 51, 

54.) Despite these conditions, Dr. Ross concluded Plaintiff was capable of working 

at a medium exertional level and that he could return to work as “a general 

supervisor in a[n] autobody [and] car painting [shop].” (AR 53-54.) In reaching this 

conclusion, Dr. Ross found the objective medical evidence did not support 

Plaintiff’s “statements about the intensity, persistence and functionally limiting 

effects of the symptoms.” (AR 54.) Accordingly, Dr. Ross found Plaintiff was only 

“partially credible.” (Id.) 

Dr. Ross further opined that Plaintiff could sit, stand, or walk, with normal 

breaks, for about six hours in an eight-hour day. (AR 55.) Further, Dr. Ross found 

Case 3:15-cv-02664-DMS-WVG Document 19 Filed 11/17/16 PageID.<pageID> Page 8 of 32
9

15-CV-2664-DMS(WVG) 

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

Plaintiff could occasionally lift or carry up to 50 pounds and could frequently do 

the same with 25 pounds. (AR 55.) 

Based on the documented findings presented, Dr. Ross determined Plaintiff 

was not disabled. (AR 57.) Dr. Ross’s Personalized Decision Notice told Plaintiff: 

Your condition results in some limitations in your ability to perform work 

related activities. However, these limitations do not prevent you from 

performing work you have done in the past as [a] supervisor in the auto body 

paint shop, as normally performed in the national economy. We have 

determined that your condition is not severe enough to keep you from 

working. We considered the medical and other information, your age, 

education, training, and work experience in determining how your condition 

affects your ability to work. 

(AR 57.) 

 b. Dr. K. Wahl, April 24, 2013 

On April 24, 2013, K. Wahl, M.D., performed a residual functional capacity 

assessment for the State. (AR 58-65.) Dr. Wahl noted Plaintiff’s history of diabetes, 

high blood pressure, arthritis, muscle pain, fatigue, and blurred vision. (AR 58, 61.) 

Despite these conditions, Dr. Wahl, like Dr. Ross, concluded Plaintiff was capable 

of working at a medium exertional level and that Plaintiff’s limitations would not 

prevent him from returning to work at a paint and body shop. (AR 64.) 

In reaching this conclusion, Dr. Wahl also found the objective medical 

evidence did not support Plaintiff’s “statements about the intensity, persistence and 

functionally limiting effects of the symptoms.” (AR 54.) Like Dr. Ross, Dr. Wahl 

found that Plaintiff was only “partially credible.” (AR 62.) 

Dr. Wahl further opined Plaintiff could sit, stand, or walk, with normal 

breaks, for about six hours in an eight-hour day. (AR 55.) Further, Dr. Wahl opined 

Plaintiff could occasionally lift or carry up to 50 pounds and could frequently do 

the same with 25 pounds. (AR 55.) 

Case 3:15-cv-02664-DMS-WVG Document 19 Filed 11/17/16 PageID.<pageID> Page 9 of 32
10

15-CV-2664-DMS(WVG) 

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

In his final determination, Dr. Wahl found Plaintiff was “Not Disabled” and 

he could perform past relevant work as “Generally Performed in the National 

Economy.” (AR 64.) 

2. Medical Records, Vista Community Clinic, May 11, 2012 - 

December 13, 2013 

Records of Plaintiff’s office visits to Vista Community Clinic were submitted 

as part of the record in three segments, and the Court summarizes each segment in 

turn. 

 a. May 11, 2012 – September 24, 2012 

During office visits between May 11, 2012 and September 24, 2012, 

Plaintiff’s treating physician typically concluded that Plaintiff had no abnormalities 

despite his pre-existing medical conditions and complaints. (AR 191-245.) With 

few exceptions, Plaintiff was considered to have normal muscle function, regular 

cardiovascular rhythm, normal respiratory function, normal sensory function, 

normal ranges of motion in all extremities, normal musculosketal results, no edema, 

no fatigue, and was in no apparent distress. (AR 198, 209, 212, 217, 220, 253, 260, 

263, 270, 274.) The exceptions to the otherwise “normal” findings were noted on 

August 8, 2012, when the treating physician found Plaintiff was experiencing 

edema in his ankles and on May 23, 2012, when the physician noted that Plaintiff 

had “right knee tenderness” and “mild crepitis” in both knees. (AR 205, 217.) 

During this time period, Plaintiff also complained of pain, but stated that 

medication or walking relieved the pain. (AR 204.) 

With respect to Plaintiff’s diabetic condition, his treating physician noted he 

was compliant with medication and follow-up visits and that Plaintiff was educated 

on the topic. (AR 197, 214, 219.) 

Case 3:15-cv-02664-DMS-WVG Document 19 Filed 11/17/16 PageID.<pageID> Page 10 of

 32
11

15-CV-2664-DMS(WVG) 

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

 b. October 1, 2012 – November 20, 2012 

During office visits from October 1, 2012, to November 20, 2012, Plaintiff 

continued, for the most part, to have “normal” physical examination test results but 

was found to have a reduced range of motion in his right shoulder on October 24, 

2012. (AR 256, 263, 267, 279, 260.) However, X-ray results revealed that Plaintiff’s 

shoulder was normal, and that medication prescribed because of his shoulder pain 

helped relieve the symptoms. (AR 255-60, 279.) 

In regards to his diabetes management during this time period, Plaintiff was 

directed to maintain a diet low in sodium, fat, and cholesterol. (AR 262-74.) The 

treating physician noted that Plaintiff possessed the requisite knowledge, 

willingness, and self-managing skills needed to treat his diabetes. (AR 253, 267, 

269, 271, 273.) At the final follow-up appointment during this time period, Plaintiff 

reported that his blood sugar levels were almost always normal. (AR 252.) It was 

further noted that Plaintiff did not mention any complications with his diabetes 

mellitus diagnosis. (AR 267.) 

 During an office visit on October 24, 2012, Plaintiff stated he had feelings of 

depression and anxiousness, including thoughts of “death or suicide.” (AR 259.) 

The treating physician, however, noted Plaintiff “never had these feelin[gs]” and 

that Plaintiff alleviated those feelings “with exercise.” (AR 259.) In response to 

Plaintiff’s claims of depression, his physician prescribed Elavil. (AR 261.) On a 

follow-up visit on November 20, 2012, Plaintiff stated he had been taking Elavil as 

prescribed and that he was “feeling really well with it.” (AR 252.) Plaintiff also 

stated that he was sleeping well, had less pain, and had less anxiety and depression 

in a follow-up visit. (AR 252.) 

Case 3:15-cv-02664-DMS-WVG Document 19 Filed 11/17/16 PageID.<pageID> Page 11 of

 32
12

15-CV-2664-DMS(WVG) 

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

 c. November 21, 2012 – December 13, 2013 

The final set of medical records from the clinic span from November 21, 

2012, until December 13, 2013. (AR 280-319.) After physical examinations during 

those office visits, Plaintiff again was found to be within normal ranges for muscle 

function, cardiovascular rhythm, respiratory function, and sensory function. (AR 

281, 285, 291-92, 295, 298, 302, 306.) Plaintiff was also found to be within normal 

ranges of motion in all extremities, he had no edema or fatigue, and was in no 

apparent distress. (Id.) 

As for his diabetes management, Plaintiff was adhering to both medication 

and follow-up recommendations. (AR 284, 290.) Specifically, his diabetes was 

being “managed with diet, oral medications and fingerstick blood sugars,” and he 

“possessed knowledge of his diabetes and its management.” (AR 297-98, 303.) 

However, it was also documented that Plaintiff was not adhering to exercise 

recommendations. (AR 284, 290.) In addition, at times, Plaintiff’s sugar levels were 

“poorly controlled.” (AR 301.) 

3. Disability Report from Field Office 

On July 11, 2012, a Disability Report was filed by a Social Security 

Representative. (AR 145-47.) The report was filed after the representative 

conducted a face-to-face interview with Plaintiff. (AR 145.) The representative 

noted that she did not observe Plaintiff having difficulty with any of the following: 

hearing, reading, breathing, understanding, coherency, concentrating, talking, 

answering, sitting, standing, walking, seeing, using hands, or writing. (AR 146.) 

4. Disability Report Filed by Plaintiff 

On July 12, 2012, Plaintiff filed a Disability Report with the SSA. (AR 148-

54.) In this report, Plaintiff stated that he had diabetes, high blood pressure, arthritis, 

muscle pain, fatigue, and blurred vision. (AR 149.) However, he stated that his 

Case 3:15-cv-02664-DMS-WVG Document 19 Filed 11/17/16 PageID.<pageID> Page 12 of

 32
13

15-CV-2664-DMS(WVG) 

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

conditions do not cause him pain or other symptoms. (AR 149.) Plaintiff also stated 

that he had worked at a paint-and-body shop for about 15 years between 1995 and 

2010. (AR 150.) 

C. Plaintiff’s Testimony 

Plaintiff testified at the Hearing before the ALJ on February 21, 2014. (AR 

23-49.) Plaintiff stated he was born on February 12, 1955 and has the equivalent of 

a 12th-grade education. (AR 27, 30.) He testified that he currently lives with a 72-

year-old friend and that he cleans, cooks, and does both yard work and housework. 

(AR 28-29.) 

Plaintiff stated that he was employed at an auto body shop in the past where 

he worked on repairing and painting cars. (AR 40.) When painting cars, Plaintiff 

stated he would lift up to five or six pounds and work for about eight hours a day. 

(AR 40.) When performing auto body work, Plaintiff stated he “had to lift up to 50 

pounds” and “[s]ometimes even more when I had to lift up, like, a companion [sic] 

and replace it on a car. It took between two men because it just weigh[ed] over 100 

pounds easy.” (Id.)

Plaintiff also performed “handyman work” between 2011 and 2012, but 

stated he was “not doing anything at all” at the time of the hearing. (AR 32, 41.) He 

stated that the handyman work consisted of “[m]ore than anything dry wall repair, 

window cleaning, yard cleaning, [and] maybe some plumber work,” but the work 

was “[n]ot very heavy.” (AR 32, 41.) 

With respect to his health, Plaintiff stated that if he adhered to his diet and 

medication, that his blood sugar levels were controlled and testified that sometimes 

his blood levels go up, but that if he “behave[s] good,” they are controlled. (AR 34.) 

In regards to his heart palpitations, Plaintiff explained he still experienced 

palpitations, but his heart condition was managed well with medication. (AR 35-

Case 3:15-cv-02664-DMS-WVG Document 19 Filed 11/17/16 PageID.<pageID> Page 13 of

 32
14

15-CV-2664-DMS(WVG) 

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

36.) He stated that he was no longer taking the medicine he was prescribed because 

“[his heart] seem[ed] to be okay.” (AR 36.) 

Plaintiff was asked about his depression and stated he was still taking 

medication for it. (AR 36.) Plaintiff further testified that he was sent to see a 

psychiatrist for his depression, but was never called back in and did not go again. 

(AR 36-37.) Plaintiff testified that the psychiatrist he visited once did not prescribe 

him any medication because the psychiatrist did not think it was necessary. (AR 

37.) 

When Plaintiff was asked about how long he could stand up, he stated he 

could do so comfortably for about an hour, but would be uncomfortable if he forced 

himself to do so for three hours “because the pain is just really kind of hard on 

my . . . bottom part of my feet.” (AR 38.) However, he stated he could “sit pretty 

much okay.” (AR 39.) Plaintiff also testified that he had problems and pain in his 

right shoulder, but agreed the X-ray results showed no skeletal problems. (AR 42-

43, 30.) 

D. Examination of Vocational Expert 

 Corrine Porter, a vocational expert, also testified at the hearing. (AR 45-48.) 

Plaintiff stipulated to the vocational expert’s professional qualifications and had no 

objections to her testimony. (AR 45-46.) The ALJ asked Ms. Porter to assume a 

hypothetical person is “the same age, same work experience, work is of the medium 

level description, at medium level exertion [of Plaintiff]. Would that paint and auto 

body position be available?” (AR 46.) Ms. Porter testified that the person described 

in the hypothetical could perform Plaintiff’s past relevant work as a paint and auto 

body repairer. (AR 46.) Ms. Porter further testified that there were no transferrable 

skills from that job description. (AR 47.) 

Case 3:15-cv-02664-DMS-WVG Document 19 Filed 11/17/16 PageID.<pageID> Page 14 of

 32
15

15-CV-2664-DMS(WVG) 

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

E. The ALJ’s Findings1

The ALJ made the following pertinent findings: 

1. The claimant has not engaged in substantial gai nful activity 

since June 27, 2012, the application date (20 CFR 416.971 et seq.). 

2. The claimant has the following severe impairments: diabetes 

mellitus, hypertension; history of heart palpations; osteoarthritis; 

umbilical hernia; obesity (20 CFR 416.920(c)). 

 

The above-listed impairments are considered severe because those 

impairments are more than slight abnormalities and have more than a 

minimal effect on the claimant’s ability to do basic physical and/or 

mental work activities. The severity of the above listed impairments are 

established by the objective medical findings, the opinions and 

conclusions of the treating physicians, laboratory studies and other 

medical evidence as discussed more fully in Finding 4. 

 

The claimant testified at the hearing that he was recently hospitalized 

for a virus. The claimant alleged weakness since the hospitalization and 

that his doctor stated that it could take him t[w]o months to fully 

recover. The claimant also mentioned he has lost 15 pounds. The 

undersigned notes there is no medical evidence in the record to support 

the claimant’s allegations. The undersigned further notes that it is 

unlikely that this condition has lasted or can be expected to last for a 

continuous period of not less than 12 months. In addition, the claimant 

alleged he had his hernia for many years, but he has not sought 

treatment. 

3. The claimant does not have an impairment or combination 

of impairments that meets or medically equals the severity of one 

of the listed impairments in 20 CFR Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 

1 (20 CFR 416.920(d), 416.925 and 416.926). 

 

1

 The ALJ’s findings have been taken verbatim from the record. Quotes and 

emphasis appear as they do in that docketed compendium, as do any spelling and 

other errors. 

Case 3:15-cv-02664-DMS-WVG Document 19 Filed 11/17/16 PageID.<pageID> Page 15 of

 32
16

15-CV-2664-DMS(WVG) 

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

The undersigned has considered the claimant’s medically determinable 

impairments, singly and in combination, under any medical Listings. 

Based on the medical evidence of record as discussed in Finding 4 

below, the undersigned finds the claimant’s impairments, considered 

singly and in combination, do not meet or medically equal the criteria 

of any medical listing. No treating or examining physician has recorded 

objective clinical or diagnostic findings equivalent in severity to the 

criteria of any listed impairment, nor does the evidence show objective 

clinical or diagnostic findings that are the same or equivalent to those 

of any listed impairment. A more detailed discussion to support this 

finding follows in detail below. 

4. After careful consideration of the entire record, t he 

undersigned finds that the claimant has the residual functional 

capacity to perform the full range of medium work as defined in 20 

CFR 416.967(c). 

In making this finding, the undersigned has considered all symptoms 

and the extent to which these symptoms can reasonably be accepted as 

consistent with the objective medical evidence and other evidence, 

based on the requirements of 20 CFR 416.929 and SSRs 96-4p and 96-

7p. The undersigned has also considered opinion evidence in 

accordance with the requirements of 20 CFR 416.927 and SSRs 96-2p, 

96-5p, 96-6p, and 09-3p. 

In considering the claimant’s symptoms, the undersigned must follow 

a two-step process in which it must first be determined whether there is 

an underlying medically determinable physical or mental 

impairment(s)--i.e., an impairment(s) that can be shown by medically 

acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques—that could 

reasonably be expected to produce the claimant’s pain or symptoms. 

Second, once an underlying physical or mental impairment(s) that 

could reasonably be expected to produce the claimant’s pain or other 

symptoms has been shown, the undersigned must evaluate the intensity, 

persistence, and limiting effects of the claimant’s symptoms to 

determine the extent to which they limit the claimant’s functioning. For 

this purpose, whenever statements about the intensity, persistence, or 

functionally limiting effects of pain or symptoms are not substantiated 

Case 3:15-cv-02664-DMS-WVG Document 19 Filed 11/17/16 PageID.<pageID> Page 16 of

 32
17

15-CV-2664-DMS(WVG) 

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

by objective medical evidence, the undersigned must make a finding on 

the credibility of the statements based on a consideration of the entire 

case record. 

The claimant’s testimony does not establish any different conclusions 

than found herein. Although the claimant completed the equivalence of 

[] the 2nd grade in Mexico, he admitted that h[e] studied a vocational 

course for paint and body that is equivalen[t] to [] the 12th grade. The 

claimant testified he was not currently working and last worked in 2011 

as a handyman. The claimant stated he could not work because of pain. 

He said he could not sustain his job duties because of neuropathy. He 

could not stand for long periods of time. The claimant admitted he 

continues to do some handyman jobs. He said he does not do much 

besides cleaning up yards. 

The [claimant] testified he had lost weight. He said he is 5 feet and 5 

inches tall and weighed 186 pounds. The claimant complained that he 

was in the hospital for two days and two nights with a high fever and 

muscle pain. The claimant admitted he felt better. However, he 

mentioned he had to go back to a neurologist because his lips and 

tongue were numb. 

The claimant admitted he could perform a variety of activities of daily 

living. He testified that he lives with a good friend and helps around the 

house. He said he does repairs around the house and trims the rose 

bushes. He explained he could perform activities of daily living as long 

as he did not have be on his feet for long periods of time. 

The claimant assessed he could not move boxes weighing over 20 

pounds because it is difficult due to his problems with his arms. He 

explained that although his X-ray images of his arms showed he was 

normal, he said he has osteoarthritis and muscle pain. He specifically 

mentioned that his arthritis affects his right shoulder. The claimant 

mentioned he wears a special shoe for his diabetic diagnoses. He said 

he is compliant with medication and takes his insulin on a daily basis. 

He also admitted his blood pressure is controlled because he is 

compliant with medications. 

Case 3:15-cv-02664-DMS-WVG Document 19 Filed 11/17/16 PageID.<pageID> Page 17 of

 32
18

15-CV-2664-DMS(WVG) 

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

The claimant has described daily activities that are not limited to the 

extent one would expect, given the complaints of disabling symptoms 

and limitations. Some of the physical and mental abilities and social 

interactions required in order to perform these activities are the same as 

those necessary for obtaining and maintaining employment. The 

undersigned finds the claimant’s ability to participate in such activities 

diminishes the credibility of the claimant’s allegations of functional 

limitations. 

After careful consideration of the evidence, the undersigned finds 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 entirely credible for the reason explained in the 

decision. Also, the claims representative conducted a lengthy face-toface interview with the claimant and noted he had no physical or mental 

problems. (Ex. 1E, pp. 1-3). 

The undersigned has read and considered all of the limited medical 

evidence submitted by the claimant’s representative. Including the 

claimant’s representative’s brief (Exs. 12E; 1F-4F). In terms of the 

claimant’s alleged pain, as a matter of law, no symptom or combination 

of symptoms can be the basis for a finding of disability, no matter how 

genuine the individual’s complaints may appear to be, unless there are 

medical signs and laboratory findings demonstrating the existence of 

medically determinable physical or mental impairments that could 

reasonably be expected to produce the symptoms. When the existence 

of medically determinable physical or mental impairments that could 

reasonably be expected to produce the symptoms has been established, 

the intensity, persistence, and functionally limiting effects of the 

symptoms must be evaluated to determine the extent to which the 

symptoms affect the individual’s ability to do basic work activities. 

This requires the adjudicator to make a finding about the credibility of 

the individual’s statements about the symptoms and any functions 

effects (Social Security Ruling (“SSR”) 96-7p). As a matter of law, 

therefore, if the undersigned finds that the claimant’s allegations of pain 

are inconsistent with his reported daily activities, or the objective 

medical evidence, then the undersigned is required to find the claimant 

is less than entirely credible. When the primary alleged impairment is 

Case 3:15-cv-02664-DMS-WVG Document 19 Filed 11/17/16 PageID.<pageID> Page 18 of

 32
19

15-CV-2664-DMS(WVG) 

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

pain, a finding that the claimant’s less then entirely credibly can result 

in a finding of “not disabled.” 

The medical records indicated the claimant has complained of 

palp[itations] and pain in his lower back and hands (Ex. 2F, p. 13). 

However, the claimant admitted that his pain was relieved with 

diclofenac. Id. He also complained of “burning pain” in his feet. But he 

admitted walking alleviated his pain as well. Id. His physical 

examinations revealed he was overall normal (Ex. 2F). X-ray images of 

the claimant’s shoulder indicated it was normal (Ex. (3F, pp. 10, 34). 

The claimant noted that indomethacin was helping with his shoulder 

pain more as well. Id. 

Although obesity itself is not a listed impairment, the undersigned has 

considered the potential effects obesity has in causing or contributing 

to impairments in the musculoskeletal, respiratory, and cardiovascular 

system and that the combined effects of obesity with other impairments 

can be greater than the effects of each of the impairments considered 

separately (SSR 02-1p). 

The undersigned has considered the potential impact of obesity in 

causing or contributing to co-existing impairments as required by 

Social Security Ruling 02-01p. The claimant’s history of obesity is 

evidenced by his weight of 186 to 205 pounds at the height of 5 feet 

and 5 inched, with a calculated [fn. omitted] body mass index (“BMI”) 

of 30.9 to 34.112

 (Claimant’s Testimony; Ex. 2F, p. 18). The claimant’s 

weight, including the impact on his ability to ambulate as his other body 

systems has been considered within the limitations of the claimant’s 

residual functional capacity described herein. 

n.2 BMI is the ratio of an individual’s weight in kilograms 

to the square of his or her height in meters (kg/m2

) (Social 

Security Ruling 02-1p). For adults, both men and women, 

the Clinical Guidelines classify a BMI in the range 25-29.9 

as “overweight” and a BMI of 30 or above as “obesity.” 

The Clinical Guidelines recognize three levels of obesity. 

A BMI in the range of 30-34.9 is Level I. A BMI in the 

range of 35-39.9 is Level II. A BMI greater than or equal 

to 40 is Level III, which is considered “extreme” obesity 

Case 3:15-cv-02664-DMS-WVG Document 19 Filed 11/17/16 PageID.<pageID> Page 19 of

 32
20

15-CV-2664-DMS(WVG) 

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

and represents the greatest risk for developing obesityrelated impairments. 

Regarding the claimant’s hypertension, the medical evidence showed 

the claimant’s hypertension was being managed medically and should 

be amenable to proper control by adherence to the recommended 

medical management and medication compliance. The medical records 

show the claimant’s blood pressure is often within normal limits or only 

slightly elevated3

 (Exs. 2F; 4F). The claimant’s blood pressure 

measured at 112/80, 118/78, 146/804

 (Exs. 2F, pp. 9, 30; 4F, p. 26). In 

addition, there is no history of renal insufficiency, myocardial infarct, 

cerebrovascular accident, retinal damage, or functional limitations 

related to the claimant’s elevated blood pressures. The claimant has 

been compliant with medications and his hypertension has generally 

been controlled with medications (Ex. 4F, p. 18). 

n.3 For adults, the American Heart Association defines 

normal blood pressure at less than 120/80 and defines 

hypertension or high blood pressure at 140/90 or higher. 

n.4 A medical report noted the claimant’s blood pressure 

increase was due to him not taking medications for more 

than several months (Ex. 4F, p. 26). Otherwise, the 

medical records showed that his hypertension is controlled 

when he is compliant with medications. 

Regarding the claimant’s diagnosis of diabetes mellitus, the 

undersigned notes there is no medical listing for diabetes mellitus. The 

undersigned evaluated the claimant’s diabetes mellitus under the 

listings for other body systems pursuant to the guidance in section 9.00 

of the Listing of Impairments. The medical evidence showed the 

claimant’s diabetes was being managed medically and should be 

amenable to proper control by adherence to recommended medical 

management and medication compliance (the claimant’s testimony). 

There is no evidence the claimant suffered any end organ damage. 

Moreover, the claimant had no significant problems with his vision, 

kidneys, hands, or feet (Exs. 1F; 2F; 3F). Specifically, a medical report, 

dated September 24, 2012 indicated the claimant has been diagnosed 

with diabetes but it was managed with oral medications (Ex. 2F, p. 7). 

Case 3:15-cv-02664-DMS-WVG Document 19 Filed 11/17/16 PageID.<pageID> Page 20 of

 32
21

15-CV-2664-DMS(WVG) 

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

The claimant has been compliant with medications. Id. However, it was 

noted the claimant was not “adhering to exercise recommendations for 

his diabetes mellitus”5

 (Ex 4F, pp. 4, 11). Overall, the medical records 

showed the claimant was “doing well with medication” (Exs. 2F, p. 20; 

3F). 

n.5 This demonstrates a possible unwillingness to do what 

is necessary to improve his condition. It may also be an 

indication that the claimant’s symptoms were not as severe 

as the claimant purported. This evidence of 

noncompliance undermines the credibility of the 

claimant’s subjective complaints and alleged disability. 

Although the failure to follow prescribed treatment 

without a good reason can be the basis for a finding that 

the claimant is not disabled, the undersigned considered it 

as a credibility factor in this case and does not base the 

ultimate decision in this case on the factor alone (20 CFR 

416.930). 

The undersigned has read and considered all of the State agency 

physician’s reports (Exs. 2A; 3A). In determining the claimant’s 

residual functional capacity, the undersigned has given significant 

weight, but not full weight, to the opinions of the State agency medical 

psychological consultants on initial review on reconsideration. The 

opinions of all of these physicians are generally consistent in that they 

all assess the claimant is able to perform a range of work at the medium 

exertional level with some difference in the degree of specific functionby-function limitations. These opinions are all reasonable and 

supported by the record as a whole. No single assessment has been 

completely adopted as the residual functional capacity determined 

herein. The undersigned has adopted those specific restrictions on a 

function-by-function basis that are best supported by the objective 

evidence as a whole. There is no medical source statement from any 

source that suggests functional limitations more restrictive than the 

residual functional capacity found in this decision. There is no medical 

source statement of functional limitations from any source. 

In sum, the above residual functional capacity assessment is supported 

by the evidence as a whole. The claimant’s subjective complaints are 

Case 3:15-cv-02664-DMS-WVG Document 19 Filed 11/17/16 PageID.<pageID> Page 21 of

 32
22

15-CV-2664-DMS(WVG) 

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

less than fully credibly and the objective medical evidence does not 

support the alleged severity of symptoms. The claimant’s limitations 

would not preclude the performance of substantial gainful activity. For 

all the foregoing reasons, the undersigned finds the claimant was not 

under a disability as defined in the Social Security Act, at any time since 

June 27, 2012, the date the application was filed. 

5. The claimant is capable of performing past relevant work as 

a Paint and Body Auto Rep airer. This work does not req uire the 

performance of work-related activities precluded by the claimant’s 

residual functional capacity (20 CFR 416.965). 

. . . . 

6. The claimant has not been und er a disability, as defined in 

the Social Security Act, since June 27, 2012, the date the application 

was filed (20 CFR 416.920(f)). 

(AR 13-18.) 

F. The Parties’ Arguments 

 1. Plaintiff’s Arguments 

Plaintiff’s sole basis for his summary judgment motion is that the ALJ erred 

by finding that Plaintiff was only partially credible. (Doc. No. 14 at 4.) Plaintiff 

argues he demonstrated the existence of “a condition that would cause some degree 

of pain and dysfunction,” and that the ALJ failed to articulate “specific and 

legitimate reasons for rejecting the pain and limitation testimony.” (Id. at 5.) 

Specifically, Plaintiff contends that the ALJ made three specific errors: 

[T]he ALJ found [Plaintiff’s] testimony not credible because of [1] 

certain daily activities, [2] a social security claims representative did 

not observe any physical or mental limitations, [3] and a record notation 

finding [Plaintiff] did not adhere to diet recommendations. 

(Doc. No. 14 at 6.) 

Case 3:15-cv-02664-DMS-WVG Document 19 Filed 11/17/16 PageID.<pageID> Page 22 of

 32
23

15-CV-2664-DMS(WVG) 

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

2. Defendant’s Arguments 

 Defendant contends the ALJ’s findings on Plaintiff’s credibility rests on 

substantial evidence and should be affirmed, and in the alternative, that there is 

“clear and convincing evidence” to uphold the ALJ’s decision as well. (Doc. No. 

16-1 at 7 n.2.) Defendant’s Cross-MSJ addresses Plaintiff’s three contentions of 

error and further argues that the ALJ properly found that Plaintiff was not credible 

based on five criteria: 

(1) the objective medical evidence; (2) the State agency physicians 

all opined that [Plaintiff] was capable of medium exertion work; 

(3) medications and physical activity were effective in controlling 

his hypertension, palpitations, pain, and diabetes; (4) his activities 

of daily living showed more functional ability than alleged; and (5) 

the observations of an agency claims representative. 

(Doc. No. 16-1 at 12.) Defendant accordingly seeks summary judgment affirming 

the ALJ’s decision. 

III. 

STANDARD OF REVIEW 

“In assessing the credibility of a claimant’s testimony regarding subjective 

pain or the intensity of symptoms, the ALJ engages in a two-step analysis.” Molina 

v. Astrue, 674 F.3d 1104, 1112 (9th Cir. 2012). The ALJ must initially determine 

whether there is “objective medical evidence of an underlying impairment which 

could reasonably be expected to produce the pain or other symptoms alleged.” Id. 

“When an [ALJ] determines that a claimant for Social Security benefits is not 

malingering and has provided objective medical evidence of an underlying 

impairment which might reasonably produce the pain or other symptoms she 

alleges, the ALJ may reject the claimant’s testimony about the severity of those 

symptoms only by providing specific, clear, and convincing reasons for doing so.” 

Case 3:15-cv-02664-DMS-WVG Document 19 Filed 11/17/16 PageID.<pageID> Page 23 of

 32
24

15-CV-2664-DMS(WVG) 

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

Brown-Hunter v. Colvin, 806 F.3d 487, 488-89 (9th Cir. 2015). The ALJ is not 

“required to believe every allegation of disabling pain, or else disability benefits 

would be available for the asking, a result plainly contrary to 42 U.S.C. 

§ 423(d)(5)(A).” Fair v. Bowen, 885 F.2d 597, 603 (9th Cir.1989). 

The clear and convincing standard is “the most demanding required in Social 

Security cases” and “is not an easy requirement to meet.” Garrison v. Colvin, 759 

F.3d 995, 1015 (9th Cir. 2014) (quoting Moore v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 278 

F.3d 920, 924 (9th Cir. 2002)). To permit meaningful judicial review of the 

credibility determination, the ALJ must “specify which testimony she finds not 

credible, and then provide clear and convincing reasons supported by evidence in 

the record to support that credibility determination.” Brown-Hunter, 806 F.3d at 

488-89. “General findings are insufficient; rather, the ALJ must identify what 

testimony is not credible and what evidence undermines the claimant’s complaints.” 

Reddick v. Chater, 157 F.3d 715, 722 (9th Cir. 1998).

 The ALJ may also consider the factors listed in Social Security Ruling 88-

13, which include: 

1. The nature, location, onset, duration, frequency, radiation, and 

intensity of any pain; 2. Precipitating and aggravating factors (e.g., 

movement, activity, environmental conditions); 3. Type, dosage, 

effectiveness, and adverse side-effects of any pain medication; 4. 

Treatment, other than medication, for relief of pain; 5. Functional 

restrictions; and 6. The claimant’s daily activities. 

Burch v. Barnhart, 400 F.3d 676, 680 (9th Cir. 2005). 

 Furthermore, even if one or more reasons listed by the ALJ are invalid, so 

long as the ALJ provides some valid reasons, the ALJ’s credibility determination 

will be upheld. Carmickle v. Comm’r, SSA, 533 F.3d 1155, 1162-63 (9th Cir. 2008). 

Case 3:15-cv-02664-DMS-WVG Document 19 Filed 11/17/16 PageID.<pageID> Page 24 of

 32
25

15-CV-2664-DMS(WVG) 

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

IV. 

DISCUSSION 

A. Plaintiff is Not Entitled to Summary Judgment; the ALJ Did Not Err 

Because, at step one, the ALJ found that “[a]fter careful consideration of the 

evidence, the undersigned finds that [Plaintiff’s] medically determinable 

impairments could reasonably be expected to cause the alleged symptoms,” and 

made no findings on malingering, the Court’s task is to determine whether the 

ALJ’s adverse credibility finding is supported by substantial evidence under the 

clear-and-convincing standard. Carmickle v. Comm’r, SSA, 533 F.3d 1155, 1160, 

1161 (9th Cir. 2008). Based on the undersigned’s review of the entire record, the 

ALJ did not err in discounting Plaintiff’s testimony. The ALJ clearly and 

convincingly explained why Plaintiff’s “statements concerning the intensity, 

persistence and limiting effects of these symptoms are not entirely credible.” (AR 

at 16-18.) The Court will first address Plaintiff’s main three points of contention, in 

turn, and then will discuss the ALJ’s other findings that support the ALJ’s decision. 

1. Daily Activities

 Although Plaintiff notes that the ALJ took issue with his daily activities, 

(Doc. No. 14 at 6), the “ALJ was permitted to consider daily living activities in his 

credibility analysis.” Burch v. Barnhart, 400 F.3d 676, 681 (9th Cir. 2005); Social 

Security Ruling 88-13. 

 In evaluating the claimant’s testimony, “the ALJ may use ordinary 

techniques of credibility evaluation; for instance . . . whether the claimant engages 

in daily activities inconsistent with the alleged symptoms.” Molina v. Astrue, 674 

F.3d 1104 (9th Cir. 2012) (emphasis added). “Even where those activities suggest 

some difficulty functioning, they may be grounds for discrediting the claimant’s 

Case 3:15-cv-02664-DMS-WVG Document 19 Filed 11/17/16 PageID.<pageID> Page 25 of

 32
26

15-CV-2664-DMS(WVG) 

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

testimony to the extent that they contradict claims of a totally debilitating 

impairment.” Id. at 1113. 

 Here, the ALJ specifically found that Plaintiff “admitted he could perform a 

variety of activities of daily living” including “handyman jobs” and “cleaning up 

yards,” (AR 15), and the medical records also support this finding.2

 Specifically, 

the ALJ found: 

The claimant has described daily activities that are not limited to the 

extent one would expect, given the complaints of disabling symptoms 

and limitations. Some of the physical and mental abilities and social 

interactions required in order to perform these activities are the same as 

those necessary for obtaining and maintaining employment. The 

undersigned finds the claimant’s ability to participate in such activities 

diminishes the credibility of the claimant’s allegations of functional 

limitations. 

(AR 15.) 

The ALJ did not err. The ALJ first properly identified the specific portion of 

Plaintiff’s testimony that was in doubt: the intensity, persistence, and limiting 

effects of his impairments. The ALJ then properly provided specific reasons for 

doubting that testimony based on Plaintiff’s daily activities. The ALJ finally 

explained why those daily activities undermined the claimed intensity, persistence, 

and limited effect of Plaintiff’s impairments. In doing so, the ALJ implicitly 

recognized that yard work and handyman tasks are inherently physical activities 

and accordingly explained that the physical, mental, and social capacity required 

for these activities undermined Plaintiff’s complaints of disabling symptoms and 

limitations. In other words, the ALJ discounted Plaintiff’s credibility because he 

 

2

 For example, Plaintiff told his treating physician he was doing handyman work on 

May 25, 2012. (AR 214.) 

Case 3:15-cv-02664-DMS-WVG Document 19 Filed 11/17/16 PageID.<pageID> Page 26 of

 32
27

15-CV-2664-DMS(WVG) 

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

found Plaintiff’s daily activities were inconsistent with his allegations of disability. 

This was a permissible finding. See Molina v. Astrue, 674 F.3d 1104, 1112 (9th 

Cir. 2012). 

 2. Observations of Social Security Claims Representative 

 Plaintiff contends the ALJ erred when he considered observations a Social 

Security Claims Representative made about Plaintiff. However, the ALJ complied 

with the Act’s Regulations and Rulings when he considered these observations in 

forming his credibility assessment. See 20 C.F.R. § 416.929 (c)(1)-(c)(4); SSR 96-

7P. Regulation SSR 96-7p, which was in effect when the ALJ issued his final 

decision, mandates that the “adjudicator must also consider any observations about 

the [claimant] recorded by Social Security Administration (SSA) employees during 

interviews, whether in person or by telephone.” 

 Here, the ALJ noted that the Social Security Representative “conducted a 

lengthy face-to-face interview with the claimant [Plaintiff] and noted he had no 

physical or mental problems.” (AR 16.) Contrary to Plaintiff’s assertion that this 

was improper, it would have been improper for the ALJ to not consider this 

information. Because the ALJ complied with governing agency policy, the ALJ did 

not err when he considered the Social Security Claims Representative’s Field 

Report. 

3. Record Notation Finding Pl aintiff Did Not Adhere to Diet 

Recommendations 

 Plaintiff next contends the ALJ erred when he considered Plaintiff’s “failure 

to follow a diet recommendation” during the disability assessment. As an initial 

matter, it appears Plaintiff confuses “diet” with “exercise,” as there is no notation 

throughout the record where the ALJ faults Plaintiff for his poor diet. However, the 

ALJ did note Plaintiff was not “adhering to exercise recommendations for his 

Case 3:15-cv-02664-DMS-WVG Document 19 Filed 11/17/16 PageID.<pageID> Page 27 of

 32
28

15-CV-2664-DMS(WVG) 

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

diabetes mellitus. (Ex. 4F, pp. 4, 11).” (AR 17.) To the extent Plaintiff intended to 

object to the ALJ’s consideration of his diet, he is not entitled to summary judgment 

on that basis—the ALJ did not consider his diet. To the extent Plaintiff actually 

intended to challenge the ALJ’s consideration for his failure to engage in exercise, 

the Court will now address that argument. 

The Act provides, in pertinent part: “If you do not follow the prescribed 

treatment without a good reason, we will not find you disabled or blind or, if you are 

already receiving benefits, we will stop paying you benefits.” 20 C.F.R. 

§ 416.930(b); see also Molina v. Astrue, 674 F.3d 1104 (9th Cir. 2012) (a claimant’s 

failure to adhere to a course of treatment without justification can be a permissible 

reason to discount his credibility).). For example, failure to follow exercise 

recommendations supports an ALJ’s adverse credibility finding and militates against 

a finding of disability. See, e.g., Coleman v. Astrue, 423 Fed. Appx. 754, 756 (9th 

Cir. 2011) (upholding ALJ’s adverse credibility determination where claimant failed 

“to follow repeated medical recommendations that she treat her pain with exercise 

and increased activity levels.”) (citation omitted) (unpublished); Montalvo v. Astrue, 

237 F. App’x 259, 262 (9th Cir. 2007) (upholding ALJ’s adverse credibility 

determination when the claimant, inter alia, “did not exercise despite that physician’s 

recommendation to do regular stretching and range-of-motion exercises.”) 

(unpublished). Accordingly, the ALJ was allowed to consider such evidence as part 

of his overall analysis. 

 Here, part of Plaintiff’s treatment regimen was to adhere to exercise 

recommendations. (AR 17, 284, 290.) Plaintiff gave no “good reason” for why he 

was not compliant with this exercise recommendation. (AR 17.) Moreover, the ALJ 

did not base his decision exclusively on this finding and stated: 

Although the failure to follow prescribed treatment without a good reason 

can be the basis for a finding that the claimant is not disabled, the undersigned 

Case 3:15-cv-02664-DMS-WVG Document 19 Filed 11/17/16 PageID.<pageID> Page 28 of

 32
29

15-CV-2664-DMS(WVG) 

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

considered it as a credibility factor in this case and does not base the ultimate 

decision in this case on the factor alone (20 CFR 416.930). 

(AR 17 n.5.) The ALJ considered Plaintiff’s failure to follow the recommend 

exercise plan as part of his overall analysis. He did so in conformity with the Act 

and caselaw that permitted him to do so. Accordingly, the ALJ did not err when he 

considered Plaintiff’s failure to adhere to an exercise plan. 

4. The ALJ Articulated Other Sp ecific, Clear and Convincing 

Reasons That Support His Credibility Determination3

Other portions of the record support the ALJ’s credibility determination. 

First, the ALJ partly based his credibility analysis on the objective medical evidence 

as a whole and found that “[t]here is no medical source statement from any source 

that suggests functional limitation more restrictive than the residual functional 

capacity found in this decision.” (AR 18.) This was an accurate assessment of the 

medical evidence before the ALJ. Both state physicians who examined and 

observed Plaintiff concluded he was capable of working at a medium exertional 

level and could return to work. (AR 53-54, 64.) No contrary finding exists in the 

record. “Generally, the more consistent an opinion is with the record as a whole, the 

more weight [the ALJ] will give to that opinion.” 20 CFR § 404.1 527(c)(4). 

Second, the ALJ properly concluded that Plaintiff’s shoulder was normal. (AR 

16.) Plaintiff complained of shoulder pain, but X-ray results revealed that there was 

no skeletal abnormality in Plaintiff’s shoulder, and medication helped relieve his 

shoulder pain and symptoms. (AR 255-60, 279.) 

 Finally, the ALJ also considered that Plaintiff’s “physical examinations 

revealed he was overall normal.” (AR 16.) This finding was also reasonably based 

 

3

 The following does not purport to be an exhaustive list of all the ALJ’s findings, 

but the Court finds them especially convincing. 

Case 3:15-cv-02664-DMS-WVG Document 19 Filed 11/17/16 PageID.<pageID> Page 29 of

 32
30

15-CV-2664-DMS(WVG) 

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

on the objective medical evidence before the ALJ. The medical record evinces that 

for the majority of Plaintiff’s clinic visits, he was considered to have normal muscle 

function, regular cardiovascular rhythm, normal respiratory function, normal 

sensory function, normal ranges of motion in all extremities, normal musculosketal 

results, no edema, no fatigue, and was in no apparent distress. (AR 198, 209, 212, 

217, 220, 253, 256, 260, 263, 267, 270, 274, 279, 281, 285, 291-92, 295, 298, 302, 

306.) The exceptions to the otherwise normal findings were either momentary or 

else anomalous.4

 Based on the foregoing, the ALJ’s credibility finding was not erroneous, and 

Plaintiff’s summary judgment motion should be DENIED. 

B. Defendant is Entitled to Summary Judgment 

In addition to Plaintiff’s summary judgment motion, Defendant’s crossmotion for summary judgment is pending before the Court. Defendant argues the 

ALJ properly concluded that Plaintiff’s complaints of total disability were not 

credible based on five criteria: (1) the objective medical evidence; (2) the State 

agency physicians all opined that he was capable of medium exertion work; (3) 

medications and physical activity were effective in controlling his hypertension, 

palpitations, pain, and diabetes; (4) his activities of daily living showed more 

functional ability than alleged; and (5) the observations of an agency claims 

representative. Plaintiff did not file an opposition to the Cross-MSJ and has not 

raised any other argument not already addressed in this Report and 

Recommendation. 

 

4

 For example, Plaintiff’s depression was quickly resolved with medication and 

physical activity, and edema in his ankles was only noted once. (AR 252, 259-61, 

205.) 

Case 3:15-cv-02664-DMS-WVG Document 19 Filed 11/17/16 PageID.<pageID> Page 30 of

 32
31

15-CV-2664-DMS(WVG) 

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

 As discussed extensively above, the ALJ provided these specific reasons for 

its conclusion of Plaintiff’s non-disability, and the record amply supports the ALJ’s 

findings. Moreover, with respect to Plaintiff’s credibility and claims of greater 

disability, the ALJ specifically identified which portions of Plaintiff’s testimony 

were credible and, as discussed above, provided clear and convincing reasons for 

discounting other portions of the testimony. Contrary to Plaintiff’s argument, the 

ALJ properly evaluated, among other things, Plaintiff’s treatment and examination 

records, his participation in daily activities, and his non-compliance with exercise 

recommendations. The Court recommends that Defendant’s Cross-MSJ be 

GRANTED.5

VI. 

CONCLUSION 

 Based on the foregoing, the ALJ did not err in discounting Plaintiff’s 

testimony because he provided specific, clear and convincing reasons which were 

supported by substantial evidence. Accordingly, this Court RECOMMENDS that 

Plaintiff’s MSJ be DENIED and that Defendant’s Cross-MSJ be GRANTED. This 

Report and Recommendation is submitted to the United States District Judge 

assigned to this case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C § 636(b)(1) and Federal 

Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b). 

IT IS ORDERED that no later than December 19, 2016, any party to this 

action may file written objection with the Court and serve a copy on all parties. The 

document shall be captioned “Objections to Report and Recommendation.” 

 

5

 It also should be noted that Plaintiff did not file an opposition to Defendant’s 

summary judgment motion and that such failure may constitute consent to granting 

Defendant’s summary judgment motion or the waiver of arguments in opposition 

thereto. S.D. Cal. Civ. L. R. 7.1(f)(3)(c). 

Case 3:15-cv-02664-DMS-WVG Document 19 Filed 11/17/16 PageID.<pageID> Page 31 of

 32
32

15-CV-2664-DMS(WVG) 

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

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that any reply to the objections shall be filed 

with the court and served on all parties no later than January 9, 2017. The parties 

are advised that failure to file objections within the specific time may waive the 

right to raise those objections on the appeal. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: November 17, 2016 

Case 3:15-cv-02664-DMS-WVG Document 19 Filed 11/17/16 PageID.<pageID> Page 32 of

 32