Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-3_15-cv-08033/USCOURTS-azd-3_15-cv-08033-0/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 (SSID)

---

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

WO 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Kathryn Wait, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Carolyn W. Colvin, Acting Commissioner 

of Social Security, 

Defendant. 

No. CV-15-08033-PCT-NVW 

ORDER 

Plaintiff Kathryn Wait seeks review under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) of the final decision 

of the Commissioner of Social Security (“the Commissioner”), which denied her 

disability insurance benefits under sections 216(i) and 223(d) of the Social Security Act. 

Because the decision of the Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) is supported by 

substantial evidence and is not based on legal error, the Commissioner’s decision will be 

affirmed. 

I. BACKGROUND 

A. Factual Background 

Plaintiff was born in March 1958. She has a college degree and worked in several 

skilled jobs, involving light to sedentary work. On August 13, 2008, Plaintiff suffered a 

back injury while working as a dormitory supervisor. She has not worked since 

September 28, 2010. In October 2010, she had lumbar fusion surgery, but she continues 

Case 3:15-cv-08033-NVW Document 19 Filed 01/26/16 Page 1 of 8
- 2 - 

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 

to have chronic back pain. In April 2012, Plaintiff had a left knee replacement, which 

improved her knee pain. 

B. Procedural History 

On August 23, 2011, Plaintiff applied for disability insurance benefits alleging 

disability beginning September 28, 2010. On October 8, 2013, she appeared with her 

attorney and testified at a video hearing before the ALJ. A vocational expert also 

testified. On October 18, 2013, the ALJ issued a decision that Plaintiff was not disabled 

within the meaning of the Social Security Act. The Appeals Council denied Plaintiff’s 

request for review of the hearing decision, making the ALJ’s decision the 

Commissioner’s final decision. On March 11, 2015, Plaintiff sought review by this 

Court. 

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW 

The district court reviews only those issues raised by the party challenging the 

ALJ’s decision. See Lewis v. Apfel, 236 F.3d 503, 517 n.13 (9th Cir. 2001). The court 

may set aside the Commissioner’s disability determination only if the determination is 

not supported by substantial evidence or is based on legal error. Orn v. Astrue, 495 F.3d 

625, 630 (9th Cir. 2007). Substantial evidence is more than a scintilla, less than a 

preponderance, and relevant evidence that a reasonable person might accept as adequate 

to support a conclusion considering the record as a whole. Id. As a general rule, 

“[w]here the evidence is susceptible to more than one rational interpretation, one of 

which supports the ALJ’s decision, the ALJ’s conclusion must be upheld.” Thomas v. 

Barnhart, 278 F.3d 947, 954 (9th Cir. 2002) (citations omitted); accord Molina v. Astrue, 

674 F.3d 1104, 1111 (9th Cir. 2012) (“Even when the evidence is susceptible to more 

than one rational interpretation, we must uphold the ALJ’s findings if they are supported 

by inferences reasonably drawn from the record.”). 

III. FIVE-STEP SEQUENTIAL EVALUATION PROCESS 

To determine whether a claimant is disabled for purposes of the Social Security 

Act, the ALJ follows a five-step process. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a). The claimant bears 

Case 3:15-cv-08033-NVW Document 19 Filed 01/26/16 Page 2 of 8
- 3 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

the burden of proof on the first four steps, but the burden shifts to the Commissioner at 

step five. Tackett v. Apfel, 180 F.3d 1094, 1098 (9th Cir. 1999). 

At the first step, the ALJ determines whether the claimant is engaging in 

substantial gainful activity. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(i). If so, the claimant is not 

disabled and the inquiry ends. Id. At step two, the ALJ determines whether the claimant 

has a “severe” medically determinable physical or mental impairment. 

§ 404.1520(a)(4)(ii). If not, the claimant is not disabled and the inquiry ends. Id. At step 

three, the ALJ considers whether the claimant’s impairment or combination of 

impairments meets or medically equals an impairment listed in Appendix 1 to Subpart P 

of 20 C.F.R. Pt. 404. § 404.1520(a)(4)(iii). If so, the claimant is automatically found to 

be disabled. Id. If not, the ALJ proceeds to step four. At step four, the ALJ assesses the 

claimant’s residual functional capacity and determines whether the claimant is still 

capable of performing past relevant work. § 404.1520(a)(4)(iv). If so, the claimant is not 

disabled and the inquiry ends. Id. If not, the ALJ proceeds to the fifth and final step, 

where he determines whether the claimant can perform any other work based on the 

claimant’s residual functional capacity, age, education, and work experience. 

§ 404.1520(a)(4)(v). If so, the claimant is not disabled. Id. If not, the claimant is 

disabled. Id. 

At step one, the ALJ found that Plaintiff meets the insured status requirements of 

the Social Security Act through December 31, 2015, and that she has not engaged in 

substantial gainful activity since September 28, 2010. At step two, the ALJ found that 

Plaintiff has the following severe impairments: status post fusion at L3-L5, status post 

left knee replacement, and lumbar radiculopathy. At step three, the ALJ determined that 

Plaintiff does not have an impairment or combination of impairments that meets or 

medically equals an impairment listed in 20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1. 

At step four, the ALJ found that Plaintiff: 

has the residual functional capacity to perform sedentary work as defined in 

20 CFR 404.1567(a) except that the claimant can never climb ladders, 

Case 3:15-cv-08033-NVW Document 19 Filed 01/26/16 Page 3 of 8
- 4 - 

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 

ropes or scaffolds. She can occasionally climb ramps or stairs and can 

occasionally balance, stoop, crouch, kneel and crawl. She should avoid 

concentrated exposure to extreme cold, extreme heat, wetness or humidity, 

excessive noise, excessive vibration, hazardous machinery and unprotected 

heights. 

“Sedentary work involves lifting no more than 10 pounds at a time and occasionally 

lifting or carrying articles like docket files, ledgers, and small tools. Although a 

sedentary job is defined as one which involves sitting, a certain amount of walking and 

standing is often necessary in carrying out job duties. Jobs are sedentary if walking and 

standing are required occasionally and other sedentary criteria are met.” 20 C.F.R. 

§ 404.1567(a). The ALJ further found that Plaintiff is capable of performing past 

relevant work as a case manager and dorm supervisor. 

IV. ANALYSIS 

A. The Opinions of Drs. Ring and Handal Do Not Require a Sit/Stand 

Option. 

1. Legal Standard 

A residual functional capacity finding involves a detailed assessment of how a 

claimant’s medical impairments affect her ability to work. In determining a claimant’s 

residual functional capacity, the ALJ “must consider all relevant evidence in the record, 

including, inter alia, medical records, lay evidence, and ‘the effects of all symptoms, 

including pain, that are reasonably attributed to a medically determinable impairment.’” 

Robbins v. SSA, 466 F.3d 880, 883 (9th Cir. 2006). In deciding the weight to give any 

medical opinion, the ALJ considers not only whether the source has a treating or 

examining relationship with the claimant, but also whether the treatment or examination 

is related to the alleged disability, the length of the relationship, frequency of 

examination, supporting evidence provided by the source, and medical specialization of 

the source. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c). The Commissioner considers opinion evidence 

along with other evidence regarding the nature and severity of a claimant’s impairments 

and a claimant’s residual functional capacity. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(d). 

Case 3:15-cv-08033-NVW Document 19 Filed 01/26/16 Page 4 of 8
- 5 - 

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. Record Evidence 

Plaintiff contends the ALJ erred by saying he “assigned significant weight” to the 

opinions of examining physician Dr. Joseph Ring and state agency reviewing physician 

Dr. Kathleen Handal without including a sit/stand option in the residual functional 

capacity assessment. The ALJ stated that both Drs. Ring and Handal opined that Plaintiff 

could perform sedentary work1

 and these opinions were assigned great weight and 

supported by the objective medical evidence. 

Dr. Ring examined Plaintiff on December 3, 2011. He reported that Plaintiff 

drove herself to the examination and was able to do all of her activities of daily living at 

home except for vacuuming. He noted that Plaintiff reported that her lumbar fusion 

surgery dramatically improved the pain going down her right leg, but she continued to 

have significant back pain. Plaintiff also reported that if she sat for more than 5 to 10 

minutes, her back pain would become very severe. Dr. Ring observed that Plaintiff 

changed positions very often during the examination and seemed to have pain whenever 

she sat or stood in one position for more than five or six minutes. He opined that Plaintiff 

“could do approximately five hours intermittently during the day of standing and walking 

as long as she changes positions every 10 to 15 minutes.” Dr. Ring further opined that 

Plaintiff “has no specific limitations in the duration of sitting, but she has to get up and 

change positions every 10 to 15 minutes at a minimum because of significant lower back 

pain.” Although he said she must “get up,” Dr. Ring did not opine that Plaintiff must 

alternate sitting and standing, and he expressly did not limit the length of time Plaintiff 

can sit. 

On December 23, 2011, Dr. Handal reviewed Dr. Ring’s medical source statement 

and other medical evidence. She summarized Dr. Ring’s opinion as limiting Plaintiff’s 

walking and standing to 5 hours intermittently in an 8-hour day with changes in position 

 1

 A job may be considered “sedentary” if it involves sitting with occasional 

walking and standing. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1567(a). 

Case 3:15-cv-08033-NVW Document 19 Filed 01/26/16 Page 5 of 8
- 6 - 

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 

every 10-15 minutes and imposing no sitting limitations. Dr. Handal gave Dr. Ring’s 

opinion “great weight.” Dr. Handal opined that Plaintiff could stand and/or walk with 

normal breaks for a total of 5 hours and sit with normal breaks for about 6 hours in an 

8-hour workday. 

The ALJ did not mischaracterize Drs. Ring and Handal’s opinions. Neither Dr. 

Ring nor Dr. Handal opined that Plaintiff required a sit/stand option. Both opined that 

Plaintiff had no limitation in duration of sitting. Both opined that she needed to be able 

to change positions while standing and walking. Neither opined that Plaintiff could 

perform sedentary work only if she were permitted to stand at certain intervals. 

Therefore, it was not error for the ALJ’s residual functional capacity assessment to 

not include a sit/stand option limitation. 

B. Plaintiff Did Not Prove She Cannot Perform Past Relevant Work. 

At step four, Plaintiff had the burden of showing she can no longer perform her 

past relevant work. Pinto v. Massanari, 249 F.3d 840, 844 (9th Cir. 2001). The ALJ 

may conclude a claimant can perform past relevant work by finding she is able to 

perform the actual functional demands and duties of a particular past relevant job or she 

is able to perform the functional demands and duties of the occupation as generally 

required by employers throughout the national economy. Id. at 845. Thus, at step four, 

Plaintiff had the burden to prove she cannot perform her prior relevant work as actually 

performed and as generally performed in the national economy. Carmickle v. Comm’r, 

Soc. Sec. Admin., 533 F.3d 1155, 1166 (9th Cir. 2008). 

The ALJ may assess a claimant’s past relevant work as actually performed by 

considering a properly completed vocational expert’s report and/or the claimant’s own 

testimony. Pinto, 249 F.3d at 845. The Dictionary of Occupational Titles usually is the 

best source for how a job is generally performed. Id. 

Plaintiff described her job as a case manager as assisting families and individuals 

who were dependent on drugs and/or alcohol to overcome their addiction, obtain 

employment, and reunite with their families. She reported that her job required using a 

Case 3:15-cv-08033-NVW Document 19 Filed 01/26/16 Page 6 of 8
- 7 - 

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 

computer and technical knowledge and skills and it included writing and completing 

reports. She said that as a case manager she walked no more than 1 hour per day, stood 

no more than 1 hour per day, and sat 6 or more hours per day. She said the heaviest 

weight she lifted was less than 10 pounds, and the weight she frequently lifted was less 

than 10 pounds. She did not say that during her work as a case manager she was required 

to sit without changing positions. 

Plaintiff said as a dormitory supervisor she supervised an average of 5 dormitory 

employees per shift and she oversaw the safety and confinement of dormitory student 

residents. She used a computer and wrote and completed reports. She said that as a 

dormitory supervisor she walked 2 hours per day, stood 3 hours per day, and sat 4 hours 

per day. She did not say that during her work as a dormitory supervisor she was required 

to sit without changing positions. 

At the administrative hearing, the vocational expert classified both the dormitory 

supervisor and the case manager positions as skilled sedentary for which Plaintiff had 

acquired the requisite skill levels. In response to a hypothetical posed by the ALJ, the 

vocational expert testified that an individual who could sit for 6 of 8 hours in a workday 

and stand and walk 5 of 8 hours in a workday would be able to perform all of Plaintiff’s 

past relevant jobs. The vocational expert testified that an individual could perform the 

dorm supervisor and case manager jobs even if she were restricted to sedentary work with 

the use of a handheld assistive device for ambulation and balance. The vocational expert 

testified that her testimony was consistent with the Dictionary of Occupational Titles and 

her training, education, and experience in the field. Thus, substantial evidence supported 

the ALJ’s finding that Plaintiff is capable of performing past relevant work as a case 

manager and a dormitory supervisor. 

As found above, it was not error for the ALJ’s residual functional capacity 

assessment to not include a sit/stand option limitation. Therefore, the vocational expert’s 

testimony regarding a hypothetical individual restricted to sedentary work with a sit/stand 

option is irrelevant. 

Case 3:15-cv-08033-NVW Document 19 Filed 01/26/16 Page 7 of 8
- 8 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the final decision of the Commissioner of 

Social Security is affirmed. The Clerk shall enter judgment accordingly and shall 

terminate this case. 

 Dated this 25th day of January, 2016. 

Neil V. Wake

United States District Judge

Case 3:15-cv-08033-NVW Document 19 Filed 01/26/16 Page 8 of 8