Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-00793/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-00793-0/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 1

Plaintiff later amended her alleged onset date to January 1, 2006. 

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Roberta A. Sabo, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Michael J. Astrue, Commissioner of the

Social Security Administration, 

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 12-00793-PHX-FJM

ORDER

We have before us plaintiff’s opening brief (doc. 14), defendant’s response brief (doc.

17), and plaintiff’s reply brief (doc. 18).

This case arises from a denial by the Social Security Administration of an application

for a period of disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income filed by

plaintiff on March 24, 2009, alleging disability beginning on January 1, 2003.1 The claims

were denied initially and upon reconsideration. After a hearing on January 20, 2011, the

administrative law judge (ALJ) issued a decision denying benefits. The decision became the

final decision of the Commissioner when the Appeals Council denied plaintiff’s request for

review. Plaintiff then filed this action for judicial review under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). 

A district court may set aside a denial of benefits “only if it is not supported by

Case 2:12-cv-00793-FJM Document 19 Filed 03/08/13 Page 1 of 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

- 2 -

substantial evidence or if it is based on legal error.” Thomas v. Barnhart, 278 F.3d 947, 954

(9th Cir. 2002). Substantial evidence is “relevant evidence which, considering the record as

a whole, a reasonable person might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. Where 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.” Id. (citation omitted). 

The ALJ followed the five-step sequential evaluation process for evaluating disability

claims. He found that plaintiff had severe impairments of degenerative disc disease, history

of brain aneurysm, cognitive disorder, depressive disorder, and anxiety disorder. Tr. 24. He

concluded, however that plaintiff’s allegations of disabling limitations were not fully

credible, and that plaintiff could do a range of unskilled medium work consistent with the

ALJ’s hypothetical to the vocational expert, including small products assembler and apparel

stock checker. Tr. 30. Therefore, the ALJ concluded that plaintiff is not disabled under the

Social Security Act. 

Plaintiff raises one challenge to the ALJ’s decision: Whether the ALJ erred by failing

to address two vocational reports by Dorothy Fune, a vocational consultant. Ms. Fune

concluded that plaintiff was unable to return to her prior work as a bookkeeper, or other

clerical positions, due to poor numeric processing speed and accuracy. Tr. 279-80. She also

concluded that plaintiff’s visual processing speed is too low for any work that required a

standard pace or production to be met. In a post-hearing addendum, Ms. Fune opined that

plaintiff did not have the ability to perform the jobs described by the vocational expert. Tr.

285-87. 

Although the ALJ stated that he considered the “entire record,” he did not discuss Ms.

Fune’s reports in his decision. The Appeals Council considered plaintiff’s argument that this

was error, but declined plaintiff’s request for review. Specifically, the Appeals Council

noted that, not only is Ms. Fune not an acceptable medical source, but she based her

assessment on plaintiff’s subjective reports, which the ALJ found were not fully credible.

Tr. 2.

Vocational consultants like Ms. Fune are considered “other sources,” whose opinions

Case 2:12-cv-00793-FJM Document 19 Filed 03/08/13 Page 2 of 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

- 3 -

may be discounted with germane reasons. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1513(a), (d); Molina v. Astrue,

674 F.3d 1104, 1117 (9th Cir. 2012). Even if the ALJ failed to give germane reasons for

rejecting Ms. Fune’s reports, any error was harmless given that Ms. Fune’s reports were

largely based on plaintiff’s self-assessments. The ALJ provided well supported reasons for

concluding that plaintiff’s allegations are not fully credible.

The ALJ first found that plaintiff’s assertions of disabling mental limitations were

contradicted by brain scan evidence that showed no acute processes, and neurological

examinations which were normal. Tr. 28, 353-54, 357, 362, 385, 394. Moreover, plaintiff’s

complaints of extreme limitations in memory, concentration, persistence, and pace were

inconsistent with Dr. Tromp’s finding that plaintiff had low-average memory, and sustained

concentration and persistence. Tr. 25, 308. Plaintiff’s allegations of disabling physical

limitations were also contradicted by evidence that she had only “mild” degenerative arthritis

in her back, her symptoms improved with treatment, and she engaged in strenuous activities

including lifting heavy plants and hiking. Tr. 25-26, 28, 211-218, 227-34, 248-55, 356, 405.

Her allegations of disabling visual and mental limitations were contradicted by evidence of

her daily activities, including reading, crocheting, paying bills, counting change, managing

her finances, driving and shopping. Tr. 25, 27, 230-31, 251-52, 356, 405. Therefore, the

ALJ’s determination that plaintiff’s subjective complaints are not fully credible is supported

by substantial and specific evidence in the record. Importantly, plaintiff does not contest the

ALJ’s credibility finding. 

Failure to rely on Ms. Fune’s opinion is also harmless in that the opinion is partially

based on the erroneous assumption that plaintiff was unable to return to work after her

surgery in 1999, when in fact plaintiff continued to work as a purchasing clerk for several

years following her surgery and, by her own admission, voluntarily stopped working in

December 2005 in order to help her parents move to New Mexico. Further, Ms. Fune was

also under the mistaken impression that plaintiff had been unable to use a computer after her

surgery, when instead a 2009 medical report indicated that plaintiff had been “typ[ing] on

the computer all day long.” Tr. 351, 276, 279. Finally, Ms. Fune conceded that there were

Case 2:12-cv-00793-FJM Document 19 Filed 03/08/13 Page 3 of 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

- 4 -

entry level jobs that plaintiff could perform but for plaintiff’s self-assessed limitations due

to her back impairment. 

We conclude that any error in the ALJ’s failure to discuss Ms. Fune’s report is

harmless given its inconsistencies with the rest of the record, and because it is largely based

on plaintiff’s subjective complaints, which the ALJ properly discounted. 

IT IS ORDERED AFFIRMING the Commissioner’s decision denying disability

benefits. 

DATED this 7th day of March, 2013.

Case 2:12-cv-00793-FJM Document 19 Filed 03/08/13 Page 4 of 4