Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-4_07-cv-00681/USCOURTS-azd-4_07-cv-00681-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 863
Nature of Suit: Social Security - DIWC/DIWW (405(g))
Cause of Action: 42:427 Social Security Benefits

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Julie Thompson Molby, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of

Social Security, 

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 07-681-TUC-RCC

ORDER

On May,6, 2009, the Honorable Charles R. Pyle, United States Magistrate Judge, filed

a Report and Recommendation ("Recommendation") in this action (Docket No.20). The

Recommendation advised the Court to deny Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment (

Docket No. 14) and grant Defendant’s Cross Motion for Summary Judgment (Docket No.

16). 

Plaintiff filed several objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and

Recommendation (Docket No.23). Plaintiff contends that the Magistrate Judge erred by

finding that substantial evidence supports the Administrative Law Judge’s (“ALJ”) decision

to reject the treating physician’s opinion. This court disagrees. The Court agrees with the

Magistrate Judge’s recommendation that substantial evidence supports the Administrative

Law Judge’s decision to disregard the treating physician’s opinion. The treating physician’s

decision was based on the plaintiff’s subjective opinion. This does not trigger the deference

that treating physicians receive when the treating physician’s opinion is well supported by

objective medical treatment such as clinical and laboratory diagnostics techniques. This

Case 4:07-cv-00681-RCC Document 26 Filed 08/25/09 Page 1 of 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

- 2 -

Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation that the ALJ reasonably relied

upon Dr. Campbell’s examination finding over Drs. Watson and Goldwasser because unlike

Dr. Weston and Dr. Goldwasser’s opinions that were based on Plaintiff’s statements, Dr.

Campbell’s was based on an objective mental examination and plaintiff’s subjective

interview. See Batson v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 359 F.3d 1190, 1195,(9th Cir. 2004); see also

Tonapetyan v. Halter, 242 F.3d 1144, 1149. (9th Cir. 2001). 

The plaintiff also objects to Magistrate’s Report on the grounds: (1)that the ALJ failed

to give clear and convincing reasons for discounting Plaintiff’s credibility; and (2) that the

ALJ improperly applied the Medical Vocational Guidelines. This Court disagrees with

plaintiff’s objections. See Report 13-16 (finding ALJ’s gave clear and convincing reasons

for discounting Plaintiff’s testimony); see also Report 16-18(discussing the ALJ properly

applied the medical vocational guidelines). 

The Court considers the Recommendation (Docket No.20) to be thorough and wellreasoned. After a thorough and de novo review of the record, and Plaintiff’s objections the

Court will ADOPT the Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Pyle.

DATED this 19th day of August, 2009.

Case 4:07-cv-00681-RCC Document 26 Filed 08/25/09 Page 2 of 2