Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-4_09-cv-00241/USCOURTS-azd-4_09-cv-00241-0/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 (DIWC)

---

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 

Sandi Leigh Mashburn, 

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

Michael J. Astrue, Commissioner of Social 

Security, 

Defendant. 

No. CV-09-00241-TUC-CRP

ORDER

 Sandi Mashburn suffers from various blood and breathing disorders. She has 

painful blood clots in her legs and lungs. She uses bottled oxygen to help her breathe. 

Ms. Mashburn applied for disability insurance benefits and supplemental security 

income in December 2006, claiming to be disabled as of January 30, 2006. Doc. 14, 

Tr. 44, 97-102. The applications were denied initially and on reconsideration. Tr. 57-63, 

66-72. A hearing before an administrative law judge (“ALJ”) was held on March 13, 

2008. Tr. 21-56. The ALJ issued a written decision on May 3, 2008, finding 

Ms. Mashburn not to be disabled within the meaning of the Social Security Act. 

Tr. 10-18. This decision became the Commissioner’s final decision when the Appeals 

Council denied review. Tr. 1-3. 

Ms. Mashburn then brought this action for judicial review pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 

§ 405(g). Doc. 1. The issues are fully briefed. Docs. 17, 18, 21. Oral argument has not 

been requested. For reasons stated below, the Court will reverse Defendant’s decision 

and remand for an award of benefits. 

Case 4:09-cv-00241-CRP Document 22 Filed 02/03/12 Page 1 of 13
- 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 

I. Standard of Review.

The Court has the “power to enter, upon the pleadings and transcript of record, a 

judgment affirming, modifying, or reversing the decision of the Commissioner of Social 

Security, with or without remanding the cause for a rehearing.” 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). The 

decision denying benefits “should be upheld unless it is based on legal error or is not 

supported by substantial evidence.” Ryan v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 528 F.3d 1194, 1198 

(9th Cir. 2008). In determining whether the decision is supported by substantial 

evidence, the Court “must consider the entire record as a whole and may not affirm 

simply by isolating a ‘specific quantum of supporting evidence.’” Id. (citation omitted). 

II. Discussion. 

Whether a claimant is disabled is determined using a five-step evaluation process. 

To establish disability, the claimant must show she has not worked since the alleged 

disability onset date, she has a severe impairment, and her impairment meets or equals a 

listed impairment or her residual functional capacity (“RFC”) precludes her from 

performing past work. Where this showing is made, the Commissioner must prove that 

the claimant is able to perform other work. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520. 

 Plaintiff has met her burden. She has not worked since January 30, 2006, the 

alleged onset date. Tr. 12, ¶ 2. She has several severe impairments: deep venous 

thrombosis, pulmonary emboli, Hughes syndrome, and chronic obstructive pulmonary 

disease. Tr. 12, ¶ 3. While those impairments do not meet or equal a listed impairment 

(Tr. 12, ¶ 4), they do preclude Plaintiff from performing her past jobs which ranged from 

light semi-skilled work to medium skilled work (Tr. 16, ¶ 6). Plaintiff is not disabled, the 

ALJ found at step five, because she has the RFC to perform sedentary work and certain 

light work that exists in significant numbers in the national economy. Tr. 13-17, ¶¶ 5, 10. 

Plaintiff claims that the ALJ committed several errors. Specifically, Plaintiff 

argues that the ALJ erroneously adopted vocational expert testimony (Doc. 17 at 7-11), 

failed to properly evaluate and weigh medical source opinions (id. at 11-14), failed to 

properly evaluate the credibility of her symptom testimony (id. at 14-15), and erroneously 

Case 4:09-cv-00241-CRP Document 22 Filed 02/03/12 Page 2 of 13
- 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 

rejected the testimony of her husband (id. at 15). Defendant contends that the ALJ did 

not err and his decision is supported by substantial evidence. Doc. 18. The Court 

concludes that the ALJ committed reversible error with respect to the medical opinions 

and the testimony of Plaintiff and her husband. 

A. Medical Opinions.

Dr. Richard Rosenberg is a hematology and oncology physician with Arizona 

Oncology Associates. Tr. 303. Karen LaMaster is Dr. Rosenberg’s medical assistant. 

Tr. 39, 303. Dr. Rosenberg and Ms. LaMaster have treated Plaintiff since at least 

February 2006. Tr. 302-34, 395-401. They have opined that Plaintiff’s impairments and 

functional limitations render her disabled. Tr. 402-05. 

Dr. Jeri Hassman, a state-agency physician, examined Plaintiff on March 13, 2007. 

Tr. 279-83. He diagnosed deep venous thrombosis times two (2001 and 2006) and noted 

a history of Hughes syndrome and persistent right calf pain that worsened with standing 

and walking. Tr. 282, 284. With respect to the ability to do work related activities, 

Dr. Hassman opined that Plaintiff has the RFC to perform sedentary work with 

restrictions. Tr. 284-88. 

The ALJ gave no consideration to the opinion of Dr. Rosenberg, gave little weight 

to the opinion of Ms. LaMaster (Tr. 15), and gave controlling weight to that of 

Dr. Hassman (Tr. 14). Plaintiff argues that the ALJ erred in evaluating and weighing the 

medical opinions. Doc. 17 at 11-14. She is correct. 

The sole reason the ALJ gave for adopting the opinion of Dr. Hassman is that 

“it is well-supported by objective findings and is not inconsistent with the other 

substantial evidence[.]” Tr. 14. The ALJ summarizes certain medical records (Tr. 15), 

but does not explain, and it otherwise is not clear to the Court, how those records support 

Dr. Hassman’s opinion. The ALJ references progress notes from Arizona Oncology 

Associates showing treatment for right deep venous thrombosis (Tr. 302-34), emergency 

room records showing treatment for left calf pain (Tr. 347-49), treatment records for right 

knee effusion (Tr. 362-66, 369), and a venous Doppler ultrasound showing chronic deep 

Case 4:09-cv-00241-CRP Document 22 Filed 02/03/12 Page 3 of 13
- 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 

venous occlusive disease (Tr. 371). The ALJ does not discuss the specific work-related 

activities found by Dr. Hassman (Tr. 284-88) or explain how the cited medical records 

support those activities. 

With respect to the assertion that Dr. Hassman’s opinion “is not inconsistent with 

the other substantial evidence” (Tr. 14), Plaintiff notes, correctly, that the opinion clearly 

is inconsistent with those of her treating providers, Dr. Rosenberg and Ms. LaMaster. 

Doc. 17 at 11. 

As Plaintiff’s treating physician, Dr. Rosenberg is “employed to cure and has a 

greater opportunity to know and observe [Plaintiff] as an individual.” McCallister v. 

Sullivan, 888 F.2d 599, 602 (9th Cir. 1989). His opinion regarding the severity and 

limiting effects of Plaintiff’s impairments is therefore entitled to “special weight,” and if 

the ALJ chooses to disregard the opinion, he must “‘set forth specific, legitimate reasons 

for doing so, and this decision itself must be supported by substantial evidence.’” 

Embrey v. Bowen, 849 F.2d 418, 421 (9th Cir. 1988)) (quoting Cotton v. Bowen, 799 F.2d 

1403, 1408 (1986)). 

Based on a diagnosis of deep venous thrombosis, pulmonary embolism, and 

hypoxia, Dr. Rosenberg opined that Plaintiff is totally and permanently disabled. Tr. 405. 

The ALJ completely ignored Dr. Rosenberg’s opinion. This constitutes legal error. See 

20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527, 416.927; Lingenfelter v. Astrue, 504 F.3d 1028, 1037 & n.10 (9th 

Cir. 2007) (the ALJ erred where he only briefly mentioned one treating physician’s 

opinion and ignored another opinion that the claimant was disabled). 

Asserting that there are no medical records showing an examination on the part of 

Dr. Rosenberg, Defendant contends that the ALJ did not error by ignoring the doctor’s 

opinion. Doc. 18 at 16. This contention is without merit for multiple reasons. First, the 

ALJ did not reject Dr. Rosenberg’s opinion for lack of examination records. This Court 

must review the adequacy of the reasons specified by the ALJ, not the post hoc 

contentions of Defendant. See Connett v. Barnhart, 340 F.3d 871, 874 (9th Cir. 2003). 

Second, the fact that Dr. Rosenberg treated Plaintiff only “occasionally” (Tr. 39) 

Case 4:09-cv-00241-CRP Document 22 Filed 02/03/12 Page 4 of 13
- 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 

does not preclude a finding that he is an acceptable treating source. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 

404.1502, 416.902 (defining treating source); Benton v. Barnhart, 331 F.3d 1030, 1035 

(9th Cir. 2003) (Section 404.1502’s “language suggests that ‘a few times’ or contact as 

little as twice a year would suffice”). 

Finally, even if Dr. Rosenberg did not qualify as a treating source, the ALJ was 

still required to consider and evaluate his opinion. Opinions from any medical source, 

even on issues reserved to the Commissioner, “must never be ignored.” SSR 96-5p, 1996 

WL 374183, at *3 (July 2, 1996). Instead, the ALJ “is required to evaluate all evidence 

in the case record that may have a bearing on the determination or decision of 

disability[.]” Id.; see 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(d), 416.927(d). The opinion of Dr. 

Rosenberg (Tr. 405) clearly is material to the question whether Plaintiff is disabled. The 

ALJ erred in giving the opinion no consideration. 

Ms. LaMaster opined in a medical work tolerance form that Plaintiff has a less 

than sedentary RFC due to bilateral leg pain, the need to elevate her legs, oxygen 

dependence, and chronic blood clotting. Tr. 402-03. The ALJ rejected this opinion on 

the ground that it “appears to rest at least in part” on an assessment of impairments 

outside Ms. LaMaster’s area of expertise. Tr. 15. The ALJ asserted that it is “not clear” 

that Ms. LaMaster was familiar with the relevant definition of disability and it is 

“possible” that she was referring solely to an inability to perform past work. Id.

But the AJL provides no factual basis for those assumptions. He fails to consider 

Ms. LaMaster’s credentials, her treating relationship with Plaintiff, and her association 

with Dr. Rosenberg. Nor does the ALJ provide a basis for rejecting the specific 

functional limitations found by Ms. LaMaster. Tr. 402-03. 

Because Ms. LaMaster is a physician’s assistant, Defendant asserts, she is not 

an “acceptable medical source.” Doc. 18 at 16. Under the relevant regulations, 

physicians’ assistants are listed among the examples of “medical sources.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 

404.1513(d)(1), 416.913(d)(1). To the extent Ms. LaMaster “was working closely with, 

and under the supervision of, [Dr. Rosenberg], her opinion is to be considered that of an 

Case 4:09-cv-00241-CRP Document 22 Filed 02/03/12 Page 5 of 13
- 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 

‘acceptable medical source.’” Taylor v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin, 659 F.3d 1228, 

1234 (9th Cir. 2011). 

There is no dispute that Ms. LaMaster is Dr. Rosenberg’s medical assistant. 

Plaintiff has testified that Ms. LaMaster works along side Dr. Rosenberg and discusses 

Plaintiff’s condition with him. Tr. 39. Contrary to Defendant’s assertion (Doc. 18 at 16), 

Ms. LaMaster’s opinion is to be considered that of an acceptable medical source. See 

Taylor, 659 F.3d at 1234.1

Dr. Rosenberg and Ms. LaMaster are Plaintiff’s treating medical providers. To 

properly reject their opinions about Plaintiff’s impairments and work-related abilities, the 

ALJ “must do more than offer his own conclusions. He must set forth his own 

interpretations and explain why they, rather than [the treating providers’], are correct.” 

Orn v. Astrue, 495 F.3d 625, 632 (9th Cir. 2007). The ALJ has failed to provide the 

requisite “detailed, reasoned, and legitimate rationales for disregarding [Dr. Rosenberg 

and Ms. LaMaster’s] findings.” Embrey, 849 F.2d at 422. His rejection of their opinions 

was erroneous. 

The ALJ gave weight to the RFC assessment of consulting physician John Spriggs 

(Tr. 290) based solely on his purported “expertise in the evaluation of medical issues in 

disability claims” (Tr. 16). This general finding does not suffice. The ALJ failed to 

provide the requisite “specific and legitimate reasons” for crediting Dr. Spriggs, a nontreating, non-examining doctor, over Plaintiff’s treating providers. Andrews v. Shalala, 

53 F.3d 1035, 1043 (9th Cir. 1995). 

In summary, the ALJ committed legal error in weighing medical opinions, and his 

decision concerning those opinions is not supported by substantial evidence. 

B. Plaintiff’s Testimony. 

A claimant’s subjective complaints, including pain, must be considered when 

 

1

 It is worth noting that under Arizona law, physician supervision is required for all certified physicians’ assistants. AAC § R4-17-305. Defendant does not dispute that Ms. LaMaster is a certified physician’s assistant. See Doc. 17 at 11. Nor does Defendant 

assert that Ms. LaMaster is provided inadequate supervision by Dr. Rosenberg. 

Case 4:09-cv-00241-CRP Document 22 Filed 02/03/12 Page 6 of 13
- 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 

making a disability determination. 20 C.R.F. § 404.1529. “Pain of sufficient severity 

caused by a medically diagnosed ‘anatomical, physiological, or psychological 

abnormality’ may provide the basis for determining that a claimant is disabled.” Light v. 

Soc. Sec. Admin., 119 F.3d 789, 792 (9th Cir. 1997) (quoting 42 U.S.C. ' 423(d)(5)(A)). 

“Once a claimant produces objective medical evidence of an underlying impairment, an 

ALJ may not reject a claimant’s subjective complaints based solely on lack of objective 

medical evidence to fully corroborate the alleged severity of pain.” Moisa v. Barnhart, 

367 F.3d 882, 885 (9th Cir. 2004); see Smolen v. Chater, 80 F.3d 1273, 1282 (9th Cir. 

1996); 20 C.F.R. ' 404.1529(c)(2); SSR 96-7p, 1996 WL 374186, at *1 (July 2, 1996). 

Plaintiff testified that she has constant swelling and pain in her legs. While 

prescribed Percocet helps for an hour or two, she can take the medication only several 

times a day. Tr. 31. She can sit for thirty minutes and stand and walk for a couple 

minutes at a time, but walking makes the swelling and pain worse. Tr. 31-32. She began 

oxygen treatment in February 2006 for shortness of breath and needs oxygen while 

sleeping or doing “anything besides sitting down watching TV.” Tr. 32-33, 41. She must 

elevate her right leg several times a day for at least an hour to prevent blood pooling and 

alleviate pain and numbness. Tr. 40. She spends her day watching television, doing 

crossword puzzles, reading, and sleeping. Tr. 36; see Tr. 164-71. 

The ALJ evaluated Plaintiff’s testimony using the two-step analysis established by 

the Ninth Circuit. See Smolen, 80 F.3d at 1281. Applying the test of Cotton v. Bowen, 

799 F.2d 1403 (9th Cir. 1986), he determined that Plaintiff’s medically determinable 

impairments could reasonably produce her alleged symptoms. Tr. 14. Given this 

conclusion, and because he found no evidence of malingering, the ALJ was required to 

present “specific, clear and convincing reasons” for finding Plaintiff’s testimony not 

credible. Smolen, 80 F.3d at 1281; Taylor, 659 F.3d at 1234. This standard is “the most 

demanding required in Social Security cases.” Moore v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 

278 F.3d 920, 924 (9th Cir. 2002). 

Plaintiff argues that the reasons the ALJ provided for finding her not fully credible 

Case 4:09-cv-00241-CRP Document 22 Filed 02/03/12 Page 7 of 13
- 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 

are neither convincing nor supported by substantial evidence. Doc. 17 at 14-16. The 

Court agrees. 

The ALJ discusses certain medical evidence (Tr. 14), most of which is consistent 

with the impairments found to be severe. The ALJ states that in terms of the “blood clots 

in the right leg which cause pain, the medical evidence shows that [Plaintiff] has a history 

of treatment for DVT of the right lower extremity” and was hospitalized for “acute pain 

in her right lower extremity of three days duration[.]” Tr. 14. The medical evidence 

further shows a “pulmonary embolism on CAT scan,” a history of treatment for 

pulmonary emboli, and prescribed oxygen treatment and anticoagulants Coumadin and 

Lovenox. Id. The ALJ notes that certain studies revealed no deep venous thrombosis, no 

acute deep venous occlusive disease, and no sleep apnea syndrome (id.), but does not 

explain how those findings undermine Plaintiff’s symptom testimony. 

Once a claimant has presented medical evidence of an underlying impairment, as 

Plaintiff has done in this case, “the ALJ may not discredit the claimant’s testimony 

regarding subjective pain and other symptoms merely because the symptoms, as opposed 

to the impairments, are unsupported by objective medical evidence.” Perez v. Astrue, 

No. CV 09-4600-MLG, 2010 WL 1051128, at *4 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 18, 2010); see Robbins 

v. Soc. Sec. Admin., 466 F.3d 880, 884 (9th Cir. 2006). The ALJ himself recognizes that 

the credibility determination was necessary because Plaintiff’s “statements about the 

intensity, persistence, or functionally limiting effects of pain or other symptoms are not 

substantiated by objective medical evidence[.]” Tr. 13; see SSR 96-7p, at *2. In short, 

the ALJ’s discussion of medical evidence does not constitute a clear and convincing 

reason for discrediting Plaintiff’s symptom testimony.2

 The ALJ found Plaintiff not credible on the ground that she has “described daily 

activities which are not limited to the extent one would expect, given the complaints of 

 

2

 For reasons stated above, the ALJ erred to the extent he discredited Plaintiff’s 

testimony based on the opinion of Dr. Hassman. See Tr. 14, 279-83. 

Case 4:09-cv-00241-CRP Document 22 Filed 02/03/12 Page 8 of 13
- 9 - 

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 

disabling symptoms and limitations.” Tr. 15. The ALJ states that Plaintiff is able to 

drive, shop, prepare meals, do household chores, care for her personal needs, care for her 

dogs, and handle the finances. Tr. 14-16. But the ALJ ignores the limited nature of those 

activities. 

 Plaintiff can drive vehicles with automatic transmissions, but not those with a 

manual stick-shift. Tr. 167. It takes Plaintiff a long time to shop and she uses an electric 

cart when she is able to go shopping. Because it hurts her leg too much to stand at the 

stove and make a “real meal,” Plaintiff makes only “quick, easy meals,” such as toast, 

cereal, sandwiches, and microwave dishes. Tr. 34, 165-66. Her friends come over once 

or twice a week to help with the housecleaning. Tr. 34. Plaintiff does some “light 

cleaning” and a couple loads of laundry each week, but it takes her all day to complete 

those chores. Tr. 166. She does not make her bed, vacuum, or do yard work or other 

chores that require standing or walking for more than five minutes. Tr. 34, 166, 171. She 

is able to dress and do her hair, but she must take baths instead of showers. Tr. 165. She 

is no longer able to walk her dogs. Id. With respect to the finances, Plaintiff made clear 

that due to her alleged disability she has no money to handle. Tr. 168. 

 “Several courts, including [this Circuit], have recognized that disability claimants 

should not be penalized for attempting to lead normal lives in the face of their 

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

Stated differently, the mere fact that a claimant engages in normal daily activities “does 

not in any way detract from her credibility as to her overall disability. One does not need 

to be ‘utterly incapacitated’ in order to be disabled.” Vertigan v. Halter, 260 F.3d 1044, 

1050 (9th Cir. 2001) (quoting Fair, 885 F.2d at 603). An ALJ may consider a claimant’s 

activities in assessing credibility, but “[t]his line of reasoning clearly has its limits[.]” 

Fair, 885 F.2d at 603. Because “many home activities are not easily transferrable to what 

might be the more grueling environment of the workplace,” an ALJ may reject symptom 

testimony based on activities only where the ALJ makes a “specific finding” that they 

Case 4:09-cv-00241-CRP Document 22 Filed 02/03/12 Page 9 of 13
- 10 - 

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 

“are transferrable to the work setting” and form a “substantial part” of the claimant’s day. 

Id. (emphasis in original). 

 The ALJ has not met his burden. He fails to account for the limited nature of 

Plaintiff’s daily activities. He notes (Tr. 15) that Plaintiff visits with others, plays bingo 

watches television, does crossword puzzles, and reads (Tr. 35-36, 168), but fails to 

explain how those activities translate into an ability to perform regularly in the 

workplace. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1572(c) (hobbies generally are not to be considered 

substantial gainful activity). 

 Nor does the ALJ properly evaluate Plaintiff’s statements concerning her ability to 

lift, squat, kneel, and climb. Tr. 16. Plaintiff qualified those abilities by making clear 

that she can lift things under 20 pounds but not carry them, can squat and kneel for only a 

few seconds, and can climb a few stairs. Tr. 169. 

 The ALJ failed to provide a convincing reason for concluding that Plaintiff’s 

activities render her symptom testimony not credible. See Lewis v. Apfel, 236 F.3d 503, 

517 (9th Cir. 2001) (the claimant’s limited activities did not constitute convincing 

evidence that he could function regularly in a work setting); Benecke v Barnhart, 379 

F.3d 587, 594 (9th Cir. 2004) (rejecting the ALJ’s credibility finding where it was based 

in large part on the claimant’s ability to carry out certain routine tasks); Orn v. Astrue, 

495 F.3d 625, 639 (9th Cir. 2007) (the ALJ erred where the claimant’s activities did not 

contradict his symptom testimony and failed to meet the threshold for transferable work 

skills). 

 The Court recognizes that questions of credibility are the province of the 

Commissioner. See Valentine v. Comm’r Soc. Sec. Admin., 574 F.3d 685, 693 (9th Cir. 

2009). Absent evidence of malingering, however, “‘the Commissioner’s reasons for 

rejecting the claimant’s testimony must be clear and convincing.’” Id. (citation omitted).

Considering the entire record as a whole and in the proper context, see Ryan, 528 F.3d 

at 1198, the Court concludes that the reasons the ALJ provided for finding Plaintiff not 

Case 4:09-cv-00241-CRP Document 22 Filed 02/03/12 Page 10 of 13
- 11 - 

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 

credible are neither convincing nor supported by substantial evidence. 

 Defendant asserts that Plaintiff is able to perform “significant” activities. Doc. 18 

at 18. This assertion is belied not only by the record as a whole, but also by Defendant’s 

own brief. Defendant recognizes that Plaintiff prepares “simple” meals and does 

“limited” housecleaning and shopping. Id. at 18-19. Watching television, doing 

crossword puzzles, playing bingo, and reading are not reasonably construed as 

“significant” activities that are transferrable to the workplace. 

 Plaintiff stated that she still travels and camps for “short times only” (Tr. 168), but 

the ALJ did not cite those activities as a reason for rejecting Plaintiff’s testimony. The 

Court “cannot affirm the decision of an agency on a ground the agency did not invoke in 

making its decision.” Pinto v. Massanari, 249 F.3d 840, 847 (9th Cir. 2001). The ALJ, 

not this Court, “is required to provide reasons for rejecting [symptom] testimony.” Stout 

v. Comm’r, Soc. Sec. Admin., 454 F.3d 1050, 1054 (9th Cir. 2006). 

 Defendant notes that Plaintiff has lived alone since her husband passed away on 

May 6, 2007. Doc. 18 at 19. Defendant, however, presents no argument or legal 

authority showing that living alone renders a claimant not credible or not disabled. 

 Finally, Defendant claims that Plaintiff was noncompliant with treatment. Id. The 

ALJ, however, did not assert this as reason for finding Plaintiff incredible. Nor did the 

ALJ specifically discredit Plaintiff’s symptom testimony on the ground that she smoked 

cigarettes and occasionally drinks alcohol. Tr. 13. 

 In summary, the ALJ committed legal error in finding Plaintiff’s symptom 

testimony is not credible. 

C. Lay Witness Testimony.

Bryan Mashburn, now deceased, completed a functional capacity report in January 

2007. Tr. 175-82. At the time, he had known Plaintiff for four years. Tr. 175. 

Consistent with his wife’s testimony, Mr. Mashburn stated, among other things, that 

Plaintiff prepares only sandwiches and other quick meals, no longer can take showers, 

Case 4:09-cv-00241-CRP Document 22 Filed 02/03/12 Page 11 of 13
- 12 - 

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 

does laundry twice a week while mostly sitting down, and shops for small items while 

using an electric cart. Tr. 176-78. Mr. Mashburn further stated that Plaintiff experiences 

pain and is limited in her ability to stand, squat, climb, walk, and lift. Tr. 180-82. 

The ALJ commented on Mr. Mashburn’s testimony only by noting that “he works 

and is not with the claimant ‘all the time.’” Tr. 14. Mr. Mashburn actually stated that he 

was with Plaintiff “all the time except when at work.” Tr. 175. Before his passing, Mr. 

Mashburn lived with Plaintiff and saw her every day. Tr. 164, 175. 

This Circuit has made clear that “testimony from lay witnesses who see the 

claimant every day is of particular value.” Smolen, 80 F.3d at 972. Indeed, because 

testimony from spouses and other family members may provide insight into the severity 

of the impairments and how they affect the claimant’s ability to function, see SSR 06-

03p, 2006 WL 2329939, at *2 (Aug. 9, 2006), such testimony constitutes “‘competent 

evidence’” and therefore cannot be disregarded without comment. Stout, 454 F.3d at 

1053 (citation omitted); see 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1513(d)(4), 404.1545(a)(3). If the ALJ 

wishes to discount the testimony of lay witnesses, he must give legitimate reasons that 

are germane to each witness. See id.; Taylor, 659 F.3d at 1234. 

The fact that Mr. Mashburn worked outside the home is not a legitimate reason for 

discounting his testimony concerning Plaintiff’s symptoms and functional limitations. 

Plaintiff’s husband, “though not a vocational or medical expert, was not disqualified from 

rendering an opinion as to how [his wife’s] condition affects [her] ability to perform basic 

work activities.” Bruce v. Astrue, 557 F.3d 1113, 1116 (9th Cir. 2009). The Court 

concludes that the ALJ erred in rejecting the testimony of Mr. Mashburn. See Smolen, 80 

F.3d at 972. 

III. Remedy.

 The decision to remand for further development of the record or for an award 

benefits is within the discretion of the Court. 42 U.S.C. § 405(g); see Harman v. Apfel, 

211 F.3d 1172, 1173-74 (9th Cir. 2000). This Circuit has held that evidence is to be 

credited as true, and the action remanded for an award of benefits, where the ALJ has 

Case 4:09-cv-00241-CRP Document 22 Filed 02/03/12 Page 12 of 13
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 

fa

re

cl

th

1

cl

fu

p

L

an

re

C

4

th

G

ad

ailed to pro

emains that

lear from th

he rejected 

400 (9th Ci

After 

lear that P

unctional li

erforming a

LaMaster’s 

nd Mr. Mas

equired to 

Court will ex

95 F.3d at 6

hat the ALJ

Given this ru

doption of v

IT IS

1. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

Dated

ovide legall

t must be re

he record th

evidence cr

ir. 1988). 

applying t

Plaintiff is 

mitations fo

all work. T

opinion is 

shburn, and

find Plaint

xercise its d

640 (reman

J would be 

uling, the C

vocational e

S ORDERE

Plaintiff’s

Defendan

The case 

The Clerk

d this 2nd da

ly sufficien

esolved bef

hat the ALJ

redited as t

the credit-a

disabled. 

found by M

Tr. 51-52. D

consistent 

d the record

tiff disabled

discretion a

nding for an

required to

Court need n

expert testim

ED:

s motion fo

nt’s decision

is remande

k is directed

ay of Februa

- 13

nt reasons f

fore a determ

J would be

true. See, e

as-true rule

 The imp

Ms. LaMaste

Defendant 

with that o

d as a whole

d as of the

and remand

n award of b

o determine

not address

mony.

r summary 

n denying b

d for an aw

d enter judg

ary, 2012. 

3 - 

for rejectin

mination of

e required to

e.g., Varney

e to the im

partial voca

er, if accept

does not di

of Dr. Rose

e. Because

e alleged on

d the case fo

benefits wh

e the claima

s Plaintiff’s

judgment (

benefits is re

ward of bene

gment accor

ng evidence

f disability 

o find the c

y v. Sec’y of

mproperly re

ational exp

ted, would p

isagree with

enberg, the 

e it is clear 

nset date (s

or an award

here it was “

ant disabled

s arguments

(Doc. 17) is

eversed. 

efits. 

rdingly. 

e, no outsta

can be ma

claimant dis

f HHS, 859

ejected evi

pert testifie

preclude Pl

h this concl

testimony 

that the AL

see Tr. 403

d of benefit

“‘clear from

d’”) (citatio

s concernin

s granted. 

anding issue

de, and it i

sabled were

9 F.2d 1396

idence, it i

ed that the

laintiff from

lusion. Ms

of Plaintif

LJ would be

3, 405), the

ts. See Orn

m the record

on omitted)

g the ALJ’

e

s

e

6, 

s

e

m

s. 

ff 

e

e

n, 

d

). 

s

Case 4:09-cv-00241-CRP Document 22 Filed 02/03/12 Page 13 of 13