Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-01453/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-01453-1/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

17-cv-1453-CAB-PCL

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GLORY J. AMBRIZ,

Plaintiff,

v.

NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Acting 

Commissioner of Social Security,

Defendant.

Case No.: 17-cv-1453-CAB-PCL

ORDER: (1) ADOPTING REPORT 

AND RECOMMENDATION [Doc. 

No. 21]; (2) DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION FOR SUMMARY 

JUDGMENT [Doc. No. 14]; (3) 

GRANTING DEFENDANT’S 

MOTION FOR SUMMARY 

JUDGMENT [Doc. No. 18]

On July 18, 2017, Plaintiff Glory J. Ambriz (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint pursuant 

to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) of the Social Security Act requesting judicial review of the final 

decision of the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration (“Commissioner” or 

“Defendant”) regarding the denial of her application for Supplemental Security Income 

(“SSI”). [Doc. No. 1.] On December 7, 2017, Plaintiff filed a motion for summary 

judgment, requesting the Court reverse the Commissioner’s final decision and order the 

payment of SSI, or, alternatively, remand the case for further proceedings. [Doc. No. 14.] 

On January 2, 2018, Defendant filed a cross-motion for summary judgment requesting the 

Court affirm the Commissioner’s final decision. [Doc. No. 18.]

On May 11, 2018, the Honorable Peter C. Lewis, United States Magistrate Judge, 

issued a Report and Recommendation (the “Report”) recommending the Court grant the 

Case 3:17-cv-01453-CAB-PCL Document 24 Filed 07/06/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 9
2

17-cv-1453-CAB-PCL

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

Commissioner’s motion for summary judgment and deny the Plaintiff’s motion for 

summary judgment. [Doc. No. 21.] On June 1, 2018, Plaintiff filed objections to the 

Report. [Doc. No. 23.] As of the date of this order, Defendant has not filed a reply.

After a careful review of the record and de novo review of those portions of the 

Report to which specific objections have been made, and for the reasons set forth below, 

the Court OVERRULES Plaintiff’s objections, ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge’s Report 

in full, DENIES Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and GRANTS Defendant’s 

motion for summary judgment. 

BACKGROUND

On December 10, 2012, Plaintiff filed an application for SSI under Title XIX of the 

Social Security Act. [Administrative Record (“A.R.”) at 192.] In her application Plaintiff 

alleges disability claiming she suffers from several conditions, namely: fibromyalgia, 

chronic fatigue syndrome (“CFS”), dysmenorrhea, xenotropic murine leukemia virus 

(XMRU), mitochondrial myopathy, a weakened immune system, and chronic infections. 

[A.R. at 212]. Plaintiff’s application was denied. [Id. at 92.] 

On August 14, 2013, Plaintiff requested reconsideration of her claim but this request 

was denied. [Id. at 96, 97.] Subsequently, Plaintiff requested and was granted a hearing 

before an Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”). [Id. at 102, 139.]

On January 6, 2016, a hearing was held on Plaintiff’s claim before ALJ Jay E. 

Levine. [Id. at 17, 59-86.] The ALJ found Plaintiff not disabled and denied her application. 

[Id. at 14-26.] Plaintiff exhausted administrative remedies and filed this action on July 18, 

2017. [Doc. No. 1.]

On October 30, 2017, Defendant filed an answer to the complaint and lodged the 

Administrative Record. [Doc. Nos. 11, 12.] On December 7, 2017, Plaintiff filed a motion 

for summary judgment. [Doc. No. 14.] On January 2, 2018, Defendant filed a crossmotion for summary judgment and opposition to Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment. 

[Doc. No. 18.] On January 17, 2018, Plaintiff filed her reply memorandum. [Doc. No. 

Case 3:17-cv-01453-CAB-PCL Document 24 Filed 07/06/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 9
3

17-cv-1453-CAB-PCL

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

20.] On May 11, 2018, Magistrate Judge Lewis issued the Report, recommending that 

Defendant’s motion be granted and Plaintiff’s motion be denied. [Doc. No. 21.] 

LEGAL STANDARDS

An individual may seek judicial review of the Commissioner of Social Security’s 

final agency decision. 42 U.S.C. §§ 405(g), 1383(c)(3). However, the breadth of the review 

is limited. Under 42 U.S.C. section 405(g), courts review the ALJ's decision to determine 

whether substantial evidence supports the ALJ's findings and if they are free of legal error. 

See Smolen v. Chater, 80 F.3d 1273, 1279 (9th Cir.1996); DeLorme v. Sullivan, 924 F.2d 

841, 846 (9th Cir.1991) (ALJ's disability determination must be supported by substantial 

evidence and based on the proper legal standards). The Commissioner’s final decision 

should not be disturbed unless; (1) the ALJ’s finding are based on legal error; or (2) the 

ALJ’s determinations are not supported by substantial evidence in the record as a whole. 

See Schneider v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin, 223 F.3d 968, 973 (9th Cir. 2000). 

The reviewing court must follow three important rules when analyzing an ALJ’s 

decision. Brown-Hunter v. Colvin, 806 F.3d 487, 492 (9th Cir. 2015). First, the court 

“leave[s] it to the ALJ to determine credibility, resolve conflicts in testimony, and resolve 

ambiguities in the record.” Treichler v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin, 775 F.3d 1090, 1098 

(9th Cir. 2014). Second, the court should “disturb the Commissioner’s decision to deny 

benefits only if it is not supported by substantial evidence or is based on legal error.” Id. 

(internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Substantial evidence means such relevant 

evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. Valentine 

v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 574 F.3d 685, 690 (9th Cir. 2009). 

In determining if substantial evidence exists, courts must review the record as a 

whole and consider adverse as well as supporting evidence. See Robbins v. Soc. Sec. 

Admin., 466 F.3d 880, 882 (9th Cir.2006). Where evidence can reasonably be construed 

to support more than one rational interpretation, the ALJ's decision must be upheld. See 

Batson v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 359 F.3d 1190, 1193 (9th Cir. 2004). This includes 

deferring to the ALJ’s credibility determinations and resolutions of evidentiary conflicts. 

Case 3:17-cv-01453-CAB-PCL Document 24 Filed 07/06/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 9
4

17-cv-1453-CAB-PCL

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

Lewis v. Apfel, 236 F.3d 503, 509 (9th Cir. 2001). “However, a reviewing court must 

consider the entire record as a whole and may not affirm simply by isolating a ‘specific 

quantum of supporting evidence.’” Robbins, 466 F.3d at 882 (quoting Hammock v. Bowen, 

879 F.2d 498, 501 (9th Cir.1989)); Orn v. Astrue, 495 F.3d 625, 630 (9th Cir.2007). Third, 

the court must uphold an ALJ’s decision, even when the ALJ commits legal error if that 

error is harmless. Treichler, 775 F.3d at 1099.

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

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

636(b). The district judge must “make a de novo determination of those portions of the 

report . . . to which objection is made,” and “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in 

part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). 

The district court need not review de novo those portions of a report and recommendation 

to which neither party objects. See Wang v. Masaitis, 416 F.3d 992, 1000 n. 13 (9th Cir. 

2005); U.S. v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121-22 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc). Objections 

must be written and specific. See, e.g., Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). It is well-settled that a 

district court may adopt those portions of a magistrate judge's report to which no specific 

objection is made, provided they are not clearly erroneous. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 

149 (1985). “Numerous courts have held that a general objection to the entirety of a 

Magistrate Judge’s [report and recommendation] has the same effect as a failure to object.” 

Alcantara v. McEwen, No. 12-cv-401-IEG(DHB), 2013 WL 4517861, at *1 (S.D. Cal. 

Aug. 15, 2013) (citing cases).

DISCUSSION

Plaintiff objects to the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation to grant Defendant’s 

motion for summary judgment and deny Plaintiff’s motion. First, Plaintiff argues that the 

ALJ failed to articulate clear and convincing reasons for rejecting Plaintiff’s symptom and 

limitation testimony. Second, Plaintiff argues that she satisfied the burden of 

demonstrating the presence of an impairment that could cause the symptoms and 

limitations of fatigue.

Case 3:17-cv-01453-CAB-PCL Document 24 Filed 07/06/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 9
5

17-cv-1453-CAB-PCL

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

An ALJ engages in a two-step analysis in determining whether a claimant’s 

testimony regarding subjective pain or symptoms is credible. Molina v. Astrue, 674 F.3d 

1104. 1112 (9th Cir. 2012). “First, the ALJ must determine whether the claimant has 

presented objective medical evidence of an underlying impairment which would 

reasonably be expected to produce pain.” Garrison v. Colvin, 759 F.3d 995, 1014 (9th 

Cir. 2014). Second, “[i]f the claimant satisfies the first step of the analysis and there is 

no evidence of malingering, ‘the ALJ can reject the claimant’s testimony about the severity 

of her symptoms only by offering specific, clear and convincing reasons for doing so.’” 

Id. This requires the ALJ identify which testimony is not credible and what evidence 

undermines the claimant’s complaints. Lester v. Chater, 81 F.3d 821, 834 (9th Cir. 1995). 

The ALJ may consider inconsistencies either in the claimant’s testimony or between 

the testimony and the claimant’s conduct. See Turner v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin, 613 

F.3d 1217, 1224-25 (9th Cir. 2010). The ALJ is required to consider a claimant’s daily 

activities and may reasonably discount a claimant’s subjective complaints where the 

claimant engaged in activities inconsistent with the alleged symptoms. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 

404.1529(c)(3), 416.927(c)(3); Molina, 674 F.3d at 1113. Where, as here, a Plaintiff has 

provided evidence of an underlying impairment, the ALJ may “reject the claimant’s 

testimony about the severity of h[is] symptoms only by offering specific, clear and 

convincing reasons for doing so." Brown-Hunter, 806 F.3d at 493 (9th Cir. 2015) (quoting 

Lingenfelter v. Astrue, 504 F.3d 1028, 1036 (9th Cir. 2007).

a. Fibromyalgia, CFS and dysmenorrhea claims

No party has challenged the ALJ’s finding that Plaintiff suffers from the sever 

impairments of fibromyalgia, history of CFS and history of dysmenorrhea. Therefore, for 

these conditions the Court will focus on the second step of the analysis, namely, whether 

the ALJ offered “clear and convincing reasons” for rejecting claimant’s testimony. 

Garrison v. Colvin, 759 F.3d 995, 1014-1015 (9th Cir. 2014). As Magistrate Judge Lewis 

noted, because these complaints cannot be supported by medical findings, “the ALJ’s 

Case 3:17-cv-01453-CAB-PCL Document 24 Filed 07/06/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 5 of 9
6

17-cv-1453-CAB-PCL

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

determination of Plaintiff’s credibility is crucial to determining whether Plaintiff is entitled 

to benefits.” [Doc. No. 21:13-14.] 

Upon review of the ALJ’s decision, Magistrate Judge Lewis concluded that:

[t]he ALJ properly considered Plaintiff’s inconsistent statements and 

inconsistencies between her statements and the medical record when assessing 

her credibility. The ALJ provided clear and convincing reasons for finding 

Plaintiff’s testimony to be not credible. (AR at 23.)

[Doc. No. 21 at 16:14-17.] 

In regards to these conditions, Plaintiff makes general objections to the Report, and 

requests that it be rejected in its entirety, but does not identify the specific portions to which 

she takes issue. [See generally Doc. No. 23.] Plaintiff then proceeds to cite to portions of 

the administrative record that set forth a particular difficulty or physical ailment she has 

experienced without tying them to any specific impairment.

But, as Magistrate Judge Lewis explained the ALJ noted the numerous medical 

professionals’ observations that Plaintiff’s overall ability to function and complete day to 

day tasks was not impaired by her conditions. [See generally Doc. No. 21 at 11-15.] 

Plaintiff reported to these individuals that she was able to open jars, write legibly, turn door 

knobs, reach overhead, reach her back pocket, put on socks, climb stairs, walk long 

distances, and function independently. [Doc. No. 21 at 11; A.R. at 24; 632-654.] 

Magistrate Judge Lewis also noted the ALJ’s reliance on a March 3, 2015 gynecological 

exam performed on Plaintiff which had been recorded as “unremarkable.” [Doc. No. 21 at 

13.] Judge Lewis found this examination “especially significant” because it was a part of 

Plaintiff’s new patient exam and “nowhere in the record did [her] new gynecologist record 

Plaintiff’s diagnosis of dysmenorrhea.” [Id. at 14.] Yet, at the hearing before the ALJ, 

Plaintiff provided testimony inconsistent with the information that she had reported to her 

medical providers. [A.R. 35-53.] Furthermore, Plaintiff’s suggestion that the ALJ ignored 

the evidence she supplied regarding her fatigue, is not borne out by a review of his decision. 

The ALJ rejected the State agency medical consultants’ and third-party consultative 

Case 3:17-cv-01453-CAB-PCL Document 24 Filed 07/06/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 6 of 9
7

17-cv-1453-CAB-PCL

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

examiner’s opinions that Plaintiff was capable of medium work because they were 

“[in]consistent with the claimant’s chronic pain and fatigue, as documented extensively in 

the overall record.” [A.R. at 25.] In sum, Magistrate Judge Lewis found, and this Court 

agrees, that the ALJ provided a clear and convincing reason for finding Plaintiff’s 

testimony to be not credibly, namely the inconsistencies between her statements and the 

medical records. 

In accordance with the above, Plaintiff’s objection that the Report incorrectly

concluded that the ALJ offered specific, clear and convincing reasons for rejecting 

Plaintiff’s testimony is rejected. Additionally, finding the general objections Plaintiff 

makes to the Report as a whole insufficient, the Court finds no clear error in the remaining 

portions of the R&R not specifically objected to by Plaintiff. See generally Doc. No. 21. 

Accordingly, those portions of the Report —which include Judge Lewis' findings with 

respect to the ALJ’s determination of the fibromyalgia, CFS, and dysmenorrhea claims —

are hereby ADOPTED. See, e.g., Alcantara, 2013 WL 4517861 at *1 (“Numerous courts 

have held that a general objection to the entirety of a Magistrate Judge's R&R has the same 

effect as a failure to object.”).

b. XMRV virus

The majority of Plaintiff’s objections focus on her XMRV diagnosis and ALJ 

Levine’s limited discussion of the diagnosis in his decision. [See generally Doc. No. 21.] 

Plaintiff objects: 

[t]he R&R states that Ambriz did not establish XMRV as a medically 

determinable severe impairment... . The ALJ found that Ambriz has a 

medically determinable impairment of chronic fatigue syndrome. AR 19, ¶ 2. 

Ambriz satisfied the burden of demonstrating the presence of an impairment 

that could cause the symptoms and limitations of fatigue. Social Security 

Ruling 16-3p.

Doc. No. 23 at 2. Plaintiff then proceeds to spend the next two pages making scattershot 

citations to the record that essentially regurgitates the summary of statements and 

Case 3:17-cv-01453-CAB-PCL Document 24 Filed 07/06/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 7 of 9
8

17-cv-1453-CAB-PCL

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

testimony section of Plaintiff’s summary judgment motion [compare Doc. No. 14-1 at 6:4-

7:13 with Doc. No. 23 2:24-4:6] before Plaintiff concludes:

The ALJ agreed that Ambriz complained of fatigue pain and sore throat. [] 

Dr. Oster linked the complaints of fatigue to the XMRV diagnosis. AR 258, 

259. Dr. Oster discouraged further testing for XMRV because of the lack of 

treatment options. AR 263. Dr. To included the symptoms of fatigue in the 

discussions/diagnosis. AR 312.

The court should find that the ALJ failed to articulate clear and convincing 

reasons for rejecting Ambriz’s symptom and limitation testimony and reverse.

Doc. No. 23 at 4. 

As Magistrate Judge Lewis pointed out, Plaintiff still bears the burden of showing 

that XMRV is a severe impairment. Bray v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 554 F.3d 1219, 

1222 (9th Cir. 2009). But Plaintiff’s objections suffer from the same fate as the motion 

itself, namely “Plaintiff fails to point to a place in the record where a medical report states 

how exactly this [XMRV] diagnosis affects Plaintiff. Although Plaintiff herself claims the 

XMRV causes her to have a weakened immune system, there is no medical professional 

noting this effect, or any other effects of the XMRV has on Plaintiff.” [Doc. No. 21 at 18.] 

For example, the February 9, 2015, progress note detailing Plaintiff’s visit to the offices of 

Dr. Abel Toledo, MD, includes the notation that Plaintiff had reported being “told in the 

past that she has a retrovirus XMRV which apparently has been associated in chronic 

fatigue syndrome.” [A.R. 452] Yet no other information is provided regarding this 

condition, the symptoms related to it or a treatment plan for this condition. Similarly, the 

April 7, 2015 medical record of Plaintiff’s visit to Mahmood Pazirandeh, M.D., includes 

an entry regarding Plaintiff being diagnosed with a “rare” type of disease similar to HIV, 

with no present treatment,” provides a review of symptoms along with information 

regarding Plaintiff’s current disabilities and an assessment/plan, but aside from this initial 

mentioning of XMRV, XMRV does not appear anywhere else in the visit note. [Id. at 577-

581.]

Case 3:17-cv-01453-CAB-PCL Document 24 Filed 07/06/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 8 of 9
9

17-cv-1453-CAB-PCL

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

As a consequence, the Court finds Magistrate Judge Lewis correctly determined that 

Plaintiff has not presented evidence that demonstrates any of Plaintiff’s symptoms were 

caused or exacerbated by her XMRV or show how Plaintiff was otherwise affected by that 

specific disease. In fact the evidence cited by Plaintiff is composed primarily of statements 

she herself provided that could be applied across the board to all of her complaints. 

Accordingly, the Court OVERRULES Plaintiff’s objections to the Report that she 

satisfied the burden of demonstrating that XMRV constitutes a severe impairment and 

linked this diagnosis to the any specific symptoms or limitations.

CONCLUSION

The Court has conducted a de novo review of the Report and finds it to be thorough, 

complete, and an accurate analysis of the legal issues presented in the motion for summary 

judgment. Therefore, the Court: (1) adopts the Report [Doc. No. 21] in full; (2) rejects 

Plaintiff’s objections [Doc. No. 23]; (3) denies Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment 

[Doc. No. 14]; and (4) grants Defendant’s motion for summary judgment [Doc. No. 18]. 

It is SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 6, 2018

Case 3:17-cv-01453-CAB-PCL Document 24 Filed 07/06/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 9 of 9