Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-02009/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-02009-0/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

1

 Michael J. Astrue is now the proper defendant and replaces his predecessor, Jo Anne

B. Barnhart, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 25(d)(1).

WO NN

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

James Beloit, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Michael J. Astrue, Commissioner of Social

Security, 

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 06-2009-PHX-EHC

ORDER

This is an appeal from the decision of the Commissioner of the Social Security

Administration1

 (“SSA” ) to deny James Beloit disability benefits under Title II and

Supplemental Security Income under Title XVI of the Social Security Act. (Tr. 17).

I. INTRODUCTION

The Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ” ) denied Beloit's claim for disability benefits on

June 5, 2006, and the Appeals Council denied review. (Dkts. 1, 10). Pending before the

Court are the parties' Cross-Motions for Summary Judgment. (Dkts. 13, 17). 

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

"The Social Security Administration's disability determination should be upheld unless

it contains legal error or is not supported by substantial evidence.” Orn v. Astrue, 495 F.3d

Case 2:06-cv-02009-EHC Document 22 Filed 03/19/08 Page 1 of 22
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 -

625, 630 (9th Cir. 2007) (citing Stout v. Comm'r, Soc. Sec. Admin., 454 F.3d 1050, 1052

(9th Cir.2006); 42 U.S.C. §§ 405(g), 1383(c)(3)). “Substantial evidence is more than a mere

scintilla but less that a preponderance.” Bayliss v. Barnhart, 427 F.3d 1211, 1214 n. 1 (9th

Cir. 2005) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). “[A] reviewing court must

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

quantum of supporting evidence.” Orn at 630. (internal quotation marks and citations

omitted).

III. FACTS

A. Education and Employment Background

Plaintiff, 45, was born on February 8, 1963. (Tr. 24). He has inconsistently reported

receiving and not receiving special education services and a General Equivalency Diploma

(“GED”) (Tr. 175, 331, 350, 523). He started working at 13 “digging ditches,” and has

worked in the construction industry most of his adult life. (Tr. 394). He completed truck

driving school in 1992 or 1994. (Tr. 160, 175). He had applied for entrance into the military

but “failed the smart test.” (Tr. 393). His relevant employment history includes work as a

journeyman electrician (1996-2003) (Tr. 172), truck driver, and pipe layer. (Tr. 160-64).

B. Physical Condition/Medical Treatment

1. Preliminary rulings

The SSA's denial on April 12, 2004 and reconsideration on February 25, 2005 found

Plaintiff’s physical limitations precluded his return to previous work, but “should not keep

[him] from doing other work which is less demanding.” (Tr. 32-33, 37-38).

2. Prior medical history

In 1994, nine years prior to the injury which prompted the current disability claim, Beloit

had “a cervical diskectomy and fusion at C5-6" after being struck in the back of the head

while on the job as a truck driver. The injury resulted in a 7% permanent, functional

impairment. (Tr. 80, 84). He did not work for two years, and Worker's Compensation

benefits ended in 1996. (Tr. 96). It was assessed he could not do “overhead work,” and

Case 2:06-cv-02009-EHC Document 22 Filed 03/19/08 Page 2 of 22
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 -

should avoid work in the construction trades. (Tr. 80). He never returned to truck driving.

(Tr. 394-95). 

Plaintiff eventually returned to work, and in 2001 suffered another industrial injury to his

left knee which required arthroscopic surgery. (Tr. 57, 403). He reports he was out of work

approximately one year. (Tr. 395). Although not noted by the parties and the ALJ, Worker’s

Compensation documentation indicates the knee injury resulted in a 5% permanent

impairment, (Tr. 77, 79), and medical records show that Plaintiff has a history of multiple

wrist and finger fractures. (Tr. 399).

3. Current injury

On June 10, 2003, Plaintiff suffered his third work-related injury which caused neck,

shoulder, and back impairments, and gave rise to his current claim of entitlement to disability

benefits. (Tr. 56-57). Beloit has consistently described the events at work leading up to the

injury: he felt his neck pop while repeatedly lifting light fixtures, immediately felt a sharp

pain, and then fell to the ground. Cervical spine x-rays taken the same day did not show

signs of acute fracture (Tr. 58) but confirmed his prior fusion surgery at C5-6. (Tr. 236).

4. Treating physicians

a) Dr. Darrin Scherer

Plaintiff was first seen by his treating physician, Dr. Darrin Scherer, on June 16, 2003.

Plaintiff reported the following symptoms: when turning his head, he experienced a “split

second black-out” and then saw spots; he felt “tingly sensations” from his neck to his ankles;

and had been bedridden since the accident. (Tr. 312). Dr. Scherer ordered lumbar spine

x-rays which revealed minor degenerative changes, (Tr. 58), and placed Beloit on “off duty”

status at least until June 23, 2003, when he would re-evaluate Plaintiff's condition. (Tr. 313).

An MRI performed on June 27, 2003, revealed disc desiccations; osteophyte ridgings;

degenerative changes, a 2 mm posterior subluxation; a disc protrusion; a disc bulge; left

neural foraminal narrowing;” and an obliteration of disc space at C5-C6 (as a result of his

prior fusion surgery). (Tr. 58, 268-69).

Case 2:06-cv-02009-EHC Document 22 Filed 03/19/08 Page 3 of 22
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 -

A second MRI, performed on July 21, 2003, was ordered to clarify a potential

abnormality. (Tr. 328). Dr. J. Michael Powers compared the two MRI scans and found that

“[m]ultilevel degenerative changes were seen with no acute abnormality that would relate

to his more recent symptoms.” (Tr. 322).

During Beloit's taxicab ride home after undergoing the second MRI, the cabdriver got into

an accident, went over a curb, and wound up in an apartment complex. (Tr. 56). Plaintiff

received emergency medical treatment the same day. (Tr. 283). The x-rays were negative,

although he complained of exacerbated pain in his neck and back. He was diagnosed with

cervical lumbar strain, given a soft cervical collar, and prescribed Vioxx, Percocet, and

Soma. (Tr. 283). When Plaintiff later described the accident to Dr. Powers in 2004, he said

his head hit the roof of the cab, his teeth shattered, and he blacked out. (Tr. 326). However,

the emergency department report noted that “[h]e did not hit his head” and there was no

mention of shattered teeth or black-outs. (Tr. 282).

On September 22, 2003, Dr. Scherer noted Beloit's ongoing neck pain; increased

numbness/tingling throughout both arms; decreased strength in his hands with resulting

inability to hold cups or cans; confusion; lethargy; and increased blood pressure. (Tr. 311,

314). In October and November of 2003, Dr. Scherer assessed chronic neck pain and

C-spine radiculopathy. (Tr. 315-16). He increased Plaintiff's Vicodin dosage due to

increasing pain, and referred him for a chronic pain evaluation. (Tr. 309, 316). Dr. Scherer

reported Plaintiff's condition was “decompensated” and was not able “to fully resume type

of work performed at time of injury,” but did not know if a permanent functional impairment

had resulted from the industrial injury. (Tr. 319).

b) Dr. C.W. Bryant

On August 13, 2004, Plaintiff was examined by a new treating physician, C.W. Bryant,

M.D., for the first time. Dr. Bryant’s notes are difficult to decipher; Defendant’s

interpretation was that most “system” examination results were within normal limits but there

was “neck tenderness” and “reduced range of motion due to pain.” (Dkt. 18, p. 4; see Tr.

489). The doctor indicated Beloit had a physical or mental incapacity that prevented him

Case 2:06-cv-02009-EHC Document 22 Filed 03/19/08 Page 4 of 22
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

 Viagra was prescribed to Beloit six times from January 5, 2005 to August 31, 2005.

Beloit filled out a low back pain questionnaire in April of 2004 in which he indicated his pain

“prevents any sex life at all.” (Tr. 374).

- 5 -

from performing any substantially gainful employment, but the impairment was not expected

to result in death, nor that it had lasted or was expected to last for a period of not less than

twelve months. (Tr. 417).

On September 14, 2004, one month after he began treating Plaintiff, Dr. Bryant opined

that Beloit's physical abilities were substantially restricted. Notably, the doctor based these

findings on the “patient's word.” (Tr. 419-20). The record reflects monthly visits to Dr.

Bryant from August 13, 2004 to April 26, 2006, but a more recent disability evaluation is not

in the record. Throughout this period of treatment, Plaintiff consistently complained of

severe pain all over. The doctor diagnosed Plaintiff's major problems as degenerative disc

disease, anxiety, depression, and impotency. (Tr. 463). Treatment notes reflecting more than

routine pain medication refills are summarized:

09/14/2004 - Can't see well and is depressed. (Tr. 488). 

09/30/2004 - Neck brace stolen. (Tr. 487). 

10/12/2004 - His ‘teeth are rotting out”and “[r]emains severely depressed.” His phone 

was turned off and he is being evicted from his apartment. (Tr. 486). 

11/11/2004 - Severe neck, bilateral knee pain, has new left knee brace and will be getting 

 new right knee brace. (Tr. 485). 

12/06/2004 - Increased neck pain and continued back pain. Doctor observed he was 

“[v]ery confused about his situation and all of his medications.” (Tr. 484). 

01/05/2005 - Prescribed Viagra2

; increased neck pain, continued back pain. (Tr. 483). 

03/22/2005 - Doctor filled out Federal Student Aid form for Plaintiff. (Tr. 481).

08/31/2005 - Referred for sight conservation consult. (Tr. 475).

10/12/2004 - Referred for Value Options consult. (Tr. 486).

11/29/2005 - Glasses make eyes burn; sore throat, earache; two new drugs. (Tr. 472). 

01/26/2006 - Teeth causing problems; trouble eating. (Tr. 470). 

03/02/2006 - Worse neck pain; not eating well because he lost his food stamps. (Tr. 469).

5. Examining, non-treating physicians

a) Dr. Christopher Yeung

On August 4, 2003, Plaintiff was seen by Dr. Christopher Yeung, an orthopedic surgeon,

who noted Plaintiff was not on any medication, drank “about a 12 pack every three days,”

“smell[ed] of alcohol” during the consultation, and was not in any acute distress. (Tr.

292-94). Dr. Yeung observed that Plaintiff's responses were “over exaggerated.”and that his

Case 2:06-cv-02009-EHC Document 22 Filed 03/19/08 Page 5 of 22
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

- 6 -

pain response was out of proportion to the MRI findings. (Tr. 293-94). Dr. Yeung

recommended pain management, concluding that Plaintiff had “severe pain, which precludes

him from returning to work at this time.” (Tr. 294).

b) Dr. Gerald C. Moczynski

On September 9, 2003, Dr. Gerald C. Moczynski, another orthopedic surgeon, listed the

Plaintiff’s symptoms of constant neck, shoulder and back pain; numbness in his arms and

legs; limited neck and shoulder motion; headaches and dizziness when walking and lying

down. (Tr. 57, 296). The doctor observed that Beloit's “range of motion of his cervical spine

is limited in deflection so that his chin comes within 3 finger breadths of his chest, and that

his “lateral flexion and rotation are limited to 20% of normal motion.” The doctor

recommended continued active treatment, noting his condition was not stationary. (Tr. 59,

298). 

c) Dr. Paul LaPrade

On November 13, 2003, Beloit was evaluated by another neurosurgeon, Dr. Paul LaPrade,

who noted Plaintiff's complaints of constant severe pain, such that he “feels as if he is going

blind in his eyes”; difficulty holding on to anything; frequent falls, intermittent dizziness; and

severe migraines. (Tr. 320-21). Plaintiff explained to the doctor that a few days earlier he

fell, hitting his right hand on the toilet; the doctor observed his hand was wrapped in an ace

bandage. (Tr. 320). Beloit also reported he was a light drinker. (Tr. 320). 

Dr. LaPrade observed that Plaintiff: appeared to be in distress; could not feel a pinprick

in his upper extremities; had only trace reflexes and decreased range of motion in his neck;

felt his eyes were going blind “because of pain”; would not attempt to bend forward to assess

back range of motion; and had a slow gait. (Tr. 320). The doctor found that Beloit

“appear[ed] to be fairly disabled from neck pain, back pain, left shoulder pain,” “could not

lift either arm over his head or even close to that,” and “had numbness and tingling in all four

extremities.” (Tr. 321). Dr. LaPrade added that “[n]one of this is terribly consistent with his

radiographic abnormality in the neck.” (Tr. 321).

Case 2:06-cv-02009-EHC Document 22 Filed 03/19/08 Page 6 of 22
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

 “[A] disorder with no known or detectable organic basis to explain the symptoms.”

(Dkt. 19, p. 4, note 3).

- 7 -

d) Dr. J. Michael Powers

On February 13, 2004, Plaintiff was seen by a neurologist, J. Michael Powers, M.D.

Beloit brought a three-page list of his symptoms, including various severe, pervasive

symptoms of pain, spasms, numbness, dizziness, vision problems, nausea and forgetfulness,

(Tr. 326-27). After the examination Dr. Powers told Plaintiff to get dressed and go to his

office, but after several minutes, he checked on Plaintiff, who was still undressed in th exam

room; Plaintiff said he forgot what the doctor had told him to do. (Tr. 328).

Dr. Powers noted that Plaintiff showed signs of significant functional overlay 3

 (Tr. 322).

He recommended treatment for depression, observing “he is [in] a self perpetuating situation

where his symptoms are progressively worsening associated with his inactivity and escalating

depression.” (Tr. 329-30). 

The doctor did not find any “evidence that [Plaintiff] sustained any primary injuries as the

result of the June 10, 2003 industrial injury,” and believed “that his condition [was]

stationary in that regard.” (Tr. 329). However, Dr. Powers recommended another MRI to

rule out “any additional disk herniation or other soft tissue injury that may have resulted from

the July 21 motor vehicle accident,” especially in light of Beloit's worsening symptoms. (Tr.

329, 322). On March 2, 2004, a third MRI of the cervical spine showed “some interval

change in the structure of the spine” above the previous fusion,” but any symptoms would

not be expected “to produce diffuse pain symptoms throughout the neck, trunk and all

limbs.” (Tr. 323). 

e) Dr. Ali Araghi

Plaintiff was referred to Dr. Araghi on April 2, 2004 at the request of Plaintiff's attorney,

to see whether he would accept Plaintiff as a patient. (Tr. 363, 491). Plaintiff filled out

extensive back and neck pain questionnaires. His answers are summarized:

• His pain is very severe and needs help every day in most aspects of self care.

• Pain prevents him from walking more than 100 yards and sitting more than thirty minutes.

Case 2:06-cv-02009-EHC Document 22 Filed 03/19/08 Page 7 of 22
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

 Lift/carry 50 pounds occasionally and 25 pounds frequently; stand/walk 6 hours in

8-hour workday; sit 6 hours in 8-hour day; Climb/stoop/crawl occasionally; balance

kneel/crouch frequently. (Tr. 425-26).

5

 Residual Functional Capacity (“RFC”) is the most an individual can still do after

considering the effects of physical and/or mental limitations that affect the ability to perform

work-related tasks. 20 CFR 404.1545, 416.945 and Social Security Ruling 96-8p.

- 8 -

• Pain prevents his standing more than ten minutes and lifting more than very light weights.

• Because of pain, he sleeps less than four hours and pain prevents any sex life at all.

• Pain prevents him from traveling except to receive treatment.

• He cannot read as much as he would like due to severe neck pain.

• He has headaches almost all the time, and has a great deal of difficulty with concentration.

• He cannot do any work or drive his car at all.

• He cannot do any recreational activities at all and has no social life because of pain.

(Tr. 374-75). 

Beloit reported occasional urinary incontinence and constipation, and stated he did not

drink alcohol. (Tr. 364, 492). Dr. Araghi wrote: “Sitting, standing, walking, lying down, and

rising from a chair are all worse for him.” (Tr. 363, 491). He diagnosed mild spondylosis,

“left neural foraminal narrowing of C4-C5," and functional overlay. (Tr. 365, 493). He

concluded there was no basis for Beloit's pain referable to the cervical spine and thus no

need for surgery. (Tr. 365, 493). 

f) Dr. Lucia McPhee

On November 8, 2004, Dr. Lucia McPhee, a specialist in Physical Medicine and

Rehabilitation, evaluated Plaintiff at the request of the Arizona Department of Economic

Security (“DES”). (Tr. 422-34). Because Beloit complained of pain in both knees, x-rays

were taken, which were “unremarkable.” (Tr. 424). Dr. McPhee opined that Plaintiff’s

physical limitations allowed for medium exertional-level work (“medium work”).4

(Tr. 425-26).

6. Non-examining, non-treating physicians

a) RFC5

 - Medical consultants’ names illegible

An RFC dated April 2, 2004 cites a primary diagnosis of “[c]ervical pain status post

cervical diskectomy and fusion at C5-6 with strong psychosomatic overlay,” and a secondary

diagnosis of “[p]robable narcotics addiction.” (Tr. 352). Physical limitations were more

Case 2:06-cv-02009-EHC Document 22 Filed 03/19/08 Page 8 of 22
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

6

 Lift/carry 20 pounds occasionally and 10 pounds frequently; stand/walk 6 hours in

8-hour workday; sit 6 hours in 8-hour day; Climb ramps/stairs, balance, stoop, kneel, crouch,

and crawl occasionally; Climb ladder/rope/scaffolds - never. 

- 9 -

restricted than medium work.6

 (Tr. 353-56). A second RFC dated December 14, 2005

reflects limitations consistent with medium work. (Tr. 429-31). Both medical consultants

opined that although Plaintiff's symptoms were attributable to medically determinable

impairments, their severity and duration were disproportionate to the expected severity and

duration on the basis of those impairments. (Tr. 357, 433). 

b) Testimony of Medical Expert - Dr. Vincent P. Russo

Dr. Vincent P. Russo, an SSA-appointed orthopedic surgeon and non-examining

physician, reviewed the numerous medical tests, noting that the June 2003 MRI had

displayed degenerative changes, and a subsequent MRI showed even more disk degeneration

and more pronounced flattening of the spinal cord. (Tr. 529). He observed that “there was

some evidence [of] exaggerations, if not malingering.” (Tr. 530). He opined that Beloit has

“a considerable disability.” (Tr. 530). 

Dr. Russo testified Plaintiff's limitations primarily involved neck movement. (Tr. 530).

On cross-examination, Dr. Russo affirmed Dr. Yeung's opinion that Plaintiff's severe pain

precluded work; Dr. LaPrade's account that Beloit was “fairly disabled” due to pain; and Dr.

Powers’ determination that Plaintiff's condition was worsening due to inactivity and

escalating depression. (Tr. 531). Dr. Russo concluded that Plaintiff's pain, described as

moderately severe or worse, is medically reasonable in light of Plaintiff's history and records.

(Tr. 531).

C. Mental Condition

1. Examining physicians

a) Dr. Robert J. Henley

According to a DES-referred psychological evaluation by Robert J. Henley, Ph.D., dated

March 30, 2004, Plaintiff walked independently, but with a slow gait and posture which

suggested physical discomfort. (Tr. 333). As in other medical reports, Plaintiff was described

Case 2:06-cv-02009-EHC Document 22 Filed 03/19/08 Page 9 of 22
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

7

 Global Assessment of Functioning (“GAF”) “represents a clinical evaluation of an

individual’s overall level of functioning.” A score of 80 reflects “transient and expectable

reactions to psychosocial stressors (e.g. difficulty concentrating after family argument); no

more than slight impairment in social, occupational, or school functioning (e.g. temporarily

falling behind in schoolwork).” (Dkt. 19, p. 8, note 6 (citing American Psychiatric

Association, Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV) 32 (1994))).

- 10 -

as having hunched-forward shoulders. (Tr. 333). Beloit denied current or past alcohol or

substance abuse (Tr. 332). Testing revealed a Full Scale IQ Score of 69 (Tr. 333), and his

Diagnostic Impression was as follows:

Axis I Adjustment Disorder with Mixed Anxiety and Depressed Mood

Reported Academic deficits

Axis II Borderline Intellectual Functioning

Axis III Chronic Pain Secondary to Neck Injury

(Tr. 334).

Plaintiff's situational problems at the time were the repossession of his truck, danger of

being evicted from his apartment, and lack of pain medication for lack of funds or insurance.

(Tr. 334). Dr. Henley opined that Plaintiff “likely ha[d] limited marketable job skills aside

from manual labor.”(Tr. 334-35). He also found “[t]he claimant's depression and chronic

pain syndrome would limit his ability to cope with stress and exhibit reliability.” (Tr. 335).

b) Dr. Patricia Crellin

On April 27, 2004, Beloit was referred to Dr. Patricia Crellin, who reviewed his medical

records. She reported Plaintiff used to consumed a six-pack of beer weekly, but had not done

so since he sustained a DUI a year earlier. (Tr. 393). She noted the smell of alcohol on

Plaintiff's breath, but he insisted he had not consumed alcohol, explaining he had not

showered in several days because he falls easily. (Tr. 393). Her diagnosis was as follows:

Axis I Rule out Malingering. Rule out Alcohol Dependence.

Axis II Learning Disability Not Otherwise Specified. Rule out Borderline Intellectual

 Functioning.

Axis III Status-post Cervical Fusion, Neck Pain, Shoulder Pain per Claimant History. 

 Status-post Left Knee Surgery.

Axis IV Financial Difficulties. Lack of Social Supports. Subjective Report of Chronic

 Pain.

Axis V GAF7

 current 80.

(Tr. 406).

Case 2:06-cv-02009-EHC Document 22 Filed 03/19/08 Page 10 of 22
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

8

 Defined as “fair/limited but not precluded” abilities.

9

 Ability defined as “Poor or none.”

- 11 -

Dr. Crellin opined Plaintiff was not depressed and that “[o]ne cannot rule out the

possibility that Mr. Beloit is malingering. There appears to be some secondary gain issues

related to him receiving financial support . . .” (Tr. 408). She indicated that a particularly low

result in a memory test could be interpreted as an example of his exaggeration of symptoms,

and that “[e]ven with significant closed head injuries, people rarely lose learned skills such

as Mr. Beloit describes.” (Tr. 408). Overall, however, she found Beloit to be friendly,

cheerful, and cooperative. (Tr. 396). 

She found there was no psychiatric or psychological impairment related to his June 2003

industrial injury. (Tr. 409-11), observing the only possible limitation in Plaintiff's return to

full-time employment would be his “covert alcohol abuse” and use of narcotic analgesics.

(Tr. 410). However, because he reported he had not used narcotic analgesics for the previous

three months and claimed he stopped drinking alcohol altogether, Dr. Crellin found Plaintiff

was capable of returning to his past relevant work as a truck driver. (Tr. 410). 

c) Dr. Robert Narvaiz

Per a DES referral, on January 17, 2005 Dr. Robert Narvaiz examined Plaintiff and

diagnosed the following:

Axis I Panic Attack Disorder, Major Depression with Psychotic Features.

Axis II Rule out Borderline IQ.

(Tr. 438). 

Plaintiff's relevant mental abilities were all characterized by Dr. Narvaiz as either

“Moderately limited”8

 or “Markedly limited”9 (Tr. 439-42). Plaintiff reported that for the last

seven months he had abstained from alcohol consumption but could not recall any of his past

employment. (Tr. 436). Dr. Narvaiz opined that Beloit had the ability to manage his own

Case 2:06-cv-02009-EHC Document 22 Filed 03/19/08 Page 11 of 22
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

10 Examples he listed were: carrying out detailed instructions; working extended

periods of time; working in proximity to others; working without interruptions; interacting

with the public; requesting simple assistance; getting along with coworkers; and tolerating

criticism from supervisors. (Tr. 438).

11 Defined as a “[d]isturbance of mood, accompanied by a full or partial manic or

depressive syndrome . . . ” (Tr. 341).

12 Defined as “significantly subaverage general intellectual functioning with deficits

in adaptive functioning initially manifested during the developmental period.” (Tr. 342).

13 Defined as reaching a point when the “anxiety [i]s the predominant disturbance or

anxiety experienced in the attempt to master symptoms.” (Tr. 343).

- 12 -

money, but that he “may” have difficulties with job functioning10 due to his anxiety and

depression. (Tr. 438). 

2. Non-examining physicians

a) Jane George, Ph.D.

Jane George, Ph.D., on April 3, 2004 found Plaintiff suffers from an affective/adjustment

disorder,11 mental retardation,12 and an anxiety-related/adjustment disorder.13 (Tr. 338-343).

She opined that Plaintiff could complete tasks parallel to truck driving, maintain satisfactory

concentration, and be productive.

b) Larry F. Waldman, Ph. D.

One month later, Consultant Larry F. Waldman, Ph. D. opined that Plaintiff had mental

retardation and substance addiction disorders. (Tr. 447). He found Beloit was mildly to

moderately restricted in social functioning and maintaining concentration. (Tr. 457). He also

opined that Plaintiff was not credible. (Tr. 461).

D. Testimony/Statements of Plaintiff

On October 27, 2003, Plaintiff filled out a form for the DES in which he indicated he has

a pounding headache all the time, gets dizzy and falls, occasionally loses his sight, has

difficulty picking up a cup of coffee, and has massive pain. (Tr. 178-79).

On April 18, 2006, Plaintiff testified at the ALJ hearing that he wears a knee brace all the

time on his left knee. (Tr. 518). He was told that because of the left knee surgery, the extra

Case 2:06-cv-02009-EHC Document 22 Filed 03/19/08 Page 12 of 22
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

14 On a scale of 1-10, 10 being the highest level of pain. (Tr. 518).

15 The records indicate that Dr. Bryant prescribed three of the four medications (Tr.

519-20); nowhere does it show in his treatment notes that he prescribed Cyclobenzapine, nor

that he had diagnosed Plaintiff with schizophrenia.

16 It appears, however, that Dr. Bryant did refer him for a mental health counseling

consult at Value Options on October 12, 2004. (Tr. 486).

- 13 -

weight on the right knee would eventually cause right knee pain which he now experiences.

(Tr. 517). His pain is constant and ranges from 5 to 8 with medication.14 (Tr. 518). At the

time of the hearing, Beloit was using Oxycodone and Ibuprofen 800 for pain. (Tr. 519).

Plaintiff was also taking Alprozalan and Cyclobenzapine, one for anxiety and depression,

the other for schizophrenia. (Tr. 519).15 He testified he had not undergone any mental health

counseling, nor had he been referred for counseling by his doctor.16 Beloit does not believe

counseling would help him because his depression is due to his physical disabilities. (Tr.

520).

Beloit testified he has been depressed since his injury on June 10, 2003. He feels he is

going crazy because he cannot work or do anything. (Tr. 520-21). He doesn’t want to do

anything, is usually irritable, cannot concentrate, and is forgetful. (Tr. 521). He feels

worthless. (Tr. 521). 

Plaintiff can stand for 15 minutes after which his legs start to throb and then numbness

sets in. Walking one block causes him to fall down. (Tr. 524). He lives in a second floor

apartment and testified it was “[v]ery, very hard” for him. At the time of the hearing, he had

been waiting 18 months for a first floor apartment to open up for him. (Tr. 524).

Plaintiff testified he can sit for 20 minutes, lift five to six pounds without pain, and seven

to eight pounds but not repetitively. (Tr. 524-25). Due to numbness, grasping and gripping

are difficult; he drops things “[a]ll the time.” (Tr. 525).

It is very difficult for Plaintiff to stoop, bend, or kneel. (Tr. 526). His sister helps with

housecleaning, a friend takes him shopping, and he “[v]ery rarely” visits others. (Tr. 526).

Case 2:06-cv-02009-EHC Document 22 Filed 03/19/08 Page 13 of 22
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

- 14 -

His sister and brother-in-law drove Beloit and his father in a large-cab Toyota truck to Rocky

Point a few weeks before the ALJ hearing, and he explained that it was a very painful

endeavor. (Tr. 527, 536). 

Beloit testified he sustained a DUI conviction when he was approximately 18 years old

and has not consumed alcohol in three to four years. (Tr. 534-35). He does not use a cane

or walker. (Tr. 535).

E. Testimony of Vocational Expert

Vocational expert (“VE”) Sandra Richter testified that:

• Plaintiff’s prior position as a pipe layer is heavy, semi-skilled work; his prior position as

an electrician is medium, skilled work; and his prior position as a truck driver is medium,

semi-skilled work.

• If Plaintiff had medium level exertional limitations, coupled with psychological

limitations, such as a limited capacity to deal with work stresses, maintain attention and

concentration, and demonstrate reliability, there would be no work availability. 

(Tr. 538-43).

F. Third Party Statement

Plaintiff's friend, Timothy Scott Lerma, completed a Function Report on August 26, 2004.

(Tr. 143-51). Lerma had known Beloit eight years, and had been assisting his friend by

visiting him, taking him on errands, and helping with paperwork and bills. Plaintiff used to

work and enjoyed the outdoors. Since his injury, he usually stays at home, doesn't like being

in public, and is in too much pain to work. Plaintiff occasionally needs help using the toilet,

usually wears the same clothes, and cannot drive. He is depressed, has poor memory, and

is “paranoid of authority.” (Tr. 148-49). Beloit can only walk 20 to 30 minutes before

requiring a five to 10 minute break to ease the pain. Lastly, Plaintiff “breaks down

emotionally” under stress, gets anxiety attacks, and uses a cane and knee braces. (Tr. 149).

G. ALJ’s Findings

The ALJ concluded that Beloit “has the ability to ambulate effectively and perform fine

and gross movements.” (Tr. 19). He found that, with the exception of prescribed medication,

Beloit had “not undergone any continuing treatment modality for a chronic pain syndrome,”

Case 2:06-cv-02009-EHC Document 22 Filed 03/19/08 Page 14 of 22
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

17 The recommendation of returning to work as a truck driver, given Plaintiff’s limited

experience fourteen years ago and uncontroverted testimony that he worked only a few

months before injuring his neck and never returned to the job, is questionable. Moreover,

the initial SSA decision, as well as the subsequent reconsideration, both indicate Plaintiff

could not return to his past relevant work but could only do “simple” work that required only

light exertion.(Tr. 32-33, 37-38).

- 15 -

and observed he does not use any ambulatory devices, can take public transportation, and

lives independently. (Tr. 23).

He found that “claimant’s allegations of a complete inability to work are not wholly

accepted” based on the complete record. (Tr. 24). He concluded the Plaintiff’s RFC includes

medium work (although he must avoid overhead reaching and repetitive neck movements),

and is thus capable of returning to his past relevant work as a truck driver.17 (Tr. 23). The

ALJ also found that Beloit’s mental impairments result in mild restrictions, which do not

further limit his ability to perform work-related activities. (Tr. 20, 24).

The ALJ concluded that Plaintiff was not disabled as defined in the Social Security Act

and Regulations. (Tr. 24-25). 

IV. ANALYSIS

Plaintiff argues that the ALJ improperly rejected the opinions of the treating physicians;

did not cite the opinion of the testifying medical expert; found Plaintiff's psychological

problems were severe but did not evaluate all the relevant evidence; and failed to properly

assess Plaintiff's IQ score in evaluating his disability. (Dkt. 14).

When evaluating a claim for a Period of Disability and Disability Insurance Benefits, the

claimant has the burden of establishing disability. A disability is defined as the “inability to

engage in any substantial gainful activity by reason of any medically determinable physical

or mental impairment which can be expected to result in death or which has lasted or can be

expected to last for a continuous period of not less than 12 months.” 42 U.S.C. §

423(d)(1)(A). 

Case 2:06-cv-02009-EHC Document 22 Filed 03/19/08 Page 15 of 22
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

- 16 -

The ALJ must engage in a five-step evaluation pursuant to 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520 and

416.920 to determine whether the claimant is disabled. In the first four steps of the analysis

the claimant has the burden of demonstrating: 

(1) that the claimant has not engaged in substantial gainful activity since filing for

benefits; 

(2) that the claimant's alleged impairment is sufficiently severe to limit ability to work; 

(3) that, if a severe impairment is found, it is included in the Listing of Impairments and

meets the duration requirement; and if not,

(4) that, after considering all impairments in combination and determining the claimant's

Residual Functional Capacity (“RFC”), the claimant can no longer perform past relevant

work. 

Finally, if the claimant establishes Step 3 or Step 4, the burden shifts to the Social

Security Administration to demonstrate; 

(5) that the claimant is not disabled and can still engage in some type of substantial gainful

activity that exists in significant numbers in the national economy. 

See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1560(c)(2).

The ALJ found that Plaintiff met Steps 1 and 2. (Tr. 24). The ALJ found he did not meet

Step 3, in that his impairments, while severe, did not meet those on the Listing of

Impairments. (Tr. 21).

Proceeding to Step 4, the ALJ found Plaintiff suffered severe impairments medically equal

in severity as those on the Listing of Impairments:

1. History of knee disorder (stable)

2. Neck and back disorders

3. Complaints of shoulder pain

4. Borderline intellectual functioning

5. Affective disorder (mild)

6. History of alcohol disorder

(Tr. 24). Because the ALJ found that Plaintiff was capable of returning to his past relevant

work as a truck driver despite these impairments, he did not proceed to Step 5.

A. Opinions of Treating Physicians

“By rule, the Social Security Administration favors the opinion of a treating physician

over non-treating physicians.” See Orn v. Astrue, 495 F.3d 625, 631 (9th Cir. 2007) (citing

C.F.R. § 404.1527). The Administration has explained that an ALJ’s finding that a treating

source medical opinion is not well-supported by medically acceptable evidence or is

Case 2:06-cv-02009-EHC Document 22 Filed 03/19/08 Page 16 of 22
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 18 The other two physicians named by Plaintiff are examining doctors and will be

addressed in part IV, section B, infra.

- 17 -

inconsistent with substantial evidence in the record means only that the opinion is not entitled

to controlling weight, not that the opinion should be rejected. See Orn, 495 F.3d at 632

(citing § 404.1527). Treating source medical opinions are still entitled to deference and, in

many cases, will be entitled to the greatest weight and should be adopted, even if it does not

meet the test for controlling weight.” Orn, 495 F.3d at 632; see also Murray v. Heckler, 722

F.2d 499, 502 (9th Cir. 1983) (“If the ALJ wishes to disregard the opinion of the treating

physician, he or she must make findings setting forth specific, legitimate reasons for doing

so that are based on substantial evidence in the record.”). 

Plaintiff offers the names of four doctors as treating physicians whose opinions allegedly

were not assigned adequate weight by the ALJ. (Dkt. 14, pp. 4-5). Although the ALJ only

referenced Dr. Bryant in his decision, Beloit has had two treating doctors, Drs. Scherer and

Bryant.18 Dr. Scherer treated Beloit from June 2003 until February 2004, approximately

seven months. Dr. Scherer’s treatment was of short duration and began right after the

accident. During that early period, he found Plaintiff could not return to his previous work

and that it was too early to discern the severity and duration of his impairments. (Tr. 303-20).

Dr. Bryant took over in August of 2004 and the record reflects treatment notes until April

2006, approximately 20 months. The ALJ “accord[ed] no persuasive weight to [his

September 2004] statement since Dr. Bryant indicated it was completed based on the

claimant’s word as to his alleged restrictions.” (Tr. 22). The ALJ found that “the objective

findings contained in the records of Dr. Bryant do not support such extreme limitations.” (Tr.

22). 

The law in the Ninth Circuit is clear that the ALJ must defer to the treating doctor’s

opinion, even if controverted by another doctor, unless the ALJ makes findings setting forth

specific, legitimate reasons for rejecting it that are based on substantial evidence in the

record. See Lester v. Chater, 81 F.3d 821, 830-31 (9th Cir. 1995). Here, the ALJ did not

state that Dr. Bryant’s opinion was contradicted, only that the limitations assessed by Dr.

Case 2:06-cv-02009-EHC Document 22 Filed 03/19/08 Page 17 of 22
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 19 Arguably Dr. Scherer’s opinions were rejected since the ALJ did not address his

opinions or treatment notes in his decision.

- 18 -

Bryant were not supported by his treatment notes. Under these circumstances, Dr. Bryant’s

opinion was entitled to deference. Furthermore, the ALJ did not set forth specific, legitimate

reasons, supported by substantial evidence in the record, for rejecting the opinions of Dr.

Bryant and Dr. Scherer.19 To the contrary, the ALJ’s reasoning was cursory. 

B. Opinions of Examining Physicians

Plaintiff argues that the ALJ ignored the opinions of Drs. Yeung and LaPrade altogether.

(Dkt. 14, p. 5). However, the ALJ devoted a full paragraph to Dr. Yeung’s opinions, and

although minimal, he addressed Dr. LaPrade’s in a sentence. (Tr. 21).

The ALJ focused on Dr. Yeung’s observation that Plaintiff's responses were “over

exaggerated.” (Tr. 293, 21), and that Beloit's pain response was out of proportion to the MRI

findings. (Tr. 294, 21). However, Dr. Yeung had also suggested pain management and

concluded that Plaintiff had “severe pain, which precludes him from returning to work at this

time,” (Tr. 294). Similarly, the ALJ referred to Dr. LaPrade’s notation of inconsistency

between Plaintiff’s symptoms and the radiographic abnormality in his neck but did not refer

to the doctor’s finding that Beloit “appear[ed] to be fairly disabled from neck pain, back pain,

[and] left shoulder pain.” (Tr. 321, 21).

Additionally, the ALJ relied on Dr. Powers’ accounts of functional overlay, absence of

discrete cervical radiculopathy, nerve root and spinal cord compressions, and Beloit’s

stationary condition with respect to the June 2003 industrial injury. (Tr. 22). The doctor had

also noted he was in “a self perpetuating situation where his symptoms are progressively

worsening associated with his inactivity and escalating depression.” (Tr. 330). 

Although the ALJ discussed Dr. Araghi’s opinion of functional overlay (Tr. 22), he did

not mention Dr. Moczynski’s evaluation that Plaintiff’s condition was not stationary and

required continued active care. (Tr. 58-59). 

 

Case 2:06-cv-02009-EHC Document 22 Filed 03/19/08 Page 18 of 22
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

- 19 -

C. Opinions of the Medical Expert

The ALJ noted that Plaintiff “essentially could perform some regular work activity” based

on the testimony of Dr. Russo, the SSA’s medical expert, (Tr. 19). However, a fair

consideration of the record does not support this conclusion. First, Dr. Russo testified that

Beloit could sit for one to two hours at a time, walk/stand for 30 minutes to an hour, but with

neck motion restricted, all within a six to eight hour day. (Tr. 530). Second, in a

questionnaire completed before the hearing, Dr. Russo indicated that the problems with

Plaintiff’s low back and previous knee injury would not interfere with “medium level” work

(Tr. 461); however, this does not include symptoms related to his neck fusion. In fact, Dr.

Russo testified that Plaintiff's limitations primarily involved neck movement, stating he “has

definite arthritis of the neck.” (Tr. 462, 530). 

 The ALJ did not note that Dr. Russo had affirmed Dr. Yeung's opinion that Plaintiff's

severe pain precluded work; Dr. LaPrade's account that Beloit was “fairly disabled” due to

pain; Dr. Powers’ determination that Plaintiff's condition was worsening due to inactivity and

escalating depression; and finally, Dr. Russo’s conclusion that Plaintiff's pain, described as

moderately severe or worse, was medically reasonable in light of Plaintiff's history and

records. (Tr. 531).

Commission regulations state in part “that [r]egardless of its source, we will evaluate

every medical opinion we receive.’” Robinson v. Barnhart, 469 F.Supp.2d 793, 798 (D. Ariz.

2007) (citations omitted). The ALJ excluded Dr. Moczynski’s and Dr. Scherer’s evaluations

in his decision, and “selectively focused on aspects of the medical opinion[s] suggesting nondisability” in those that he did consider. See Robinson, 469 F.Supp.2d at 797.

D. Plaintiff's Mental Impairment

The ALJ “d[id] not accord substantial persuasive weight to the opinions of Dr. Henley.”

(Tr. 19-20). He found Dr. Henley’s opinions that Beloit’s limited ability to deal with work

stresses and maintain attention/concentration were inconsistent with his observations that

Plaintiff “was alert and oriented times four, and had no attention or concentration deficits.”

(Tr. 19). The ALJ also observed that Dr. Henley’s opinion that Plaintiff could follow simple

Case 2:06-cv-02009-EHC Document 22 Filed 03/19/08 Page 19 of 22
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 -

instructions was inconsistent with his history of work as a commercial electrician for over

six years. (Tr. 19-20). 

In contrast, the ALJ found Dr. Crellin’s opinions persuasive because her report was

comprehensive. (Tr. 20). He relied on her findings that Beloit “did not have any symptoms

of depression,” that “there was a marked discrepancy between the claimant’s reported poor

memory and his ability to actually remember things indicating exaggeration or malingering,”

that “there was a significant functional overlay or functional embellishment to the claimant’s

presentation,” and that “there appeared to be some secondary gain issues relating to the

claimant’s Workers’ Compensation and personal injury cases.” (Tr. 20).

The ALJ rejected the opinion of Dr. Narvaiz, noting that, unlike Dr. Crellin, Dr. Narvaiz’

psychological evaluation was “cursory.” (Tr. 20). He observed that Dr. Narvaiz’ opinions

were “based largely on the claimant’s reported symptoms and subjective answers to

psychological questions,” which were suspect in light of Dr. Crellin’s opinion that Plaintiff

embellishes his responses. (Tr. 20). This conclusion, however, is misleading. Dr. Narvaiz

had access to and referred to Dr. Crellin’s extensive report; thus, his opinions were based on

much more than Plaintiff’s self-reported symptoms. Dr. Narvaiz diagnosed Beloit with Panic

Attack Disorder and Major Depression with Psychotic Features, which gives additional

credence to Dr. Henley’s diagnosis of Adjustment Disorder with Mixed Anxiety and

Depressed Mood.

F. Plaintiff’s Credibility

“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.” Robinson, 469 F.Supp.2d at 798 (quoting Light v. Soc. Sec. Admin., 119 F.3d 789,

792 (9th Cir. 1997) (inner quotations and citations omitted). “Moreover, 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.” Robinson, 469 F.Supp.2d at 798 (quoting Moisa

v. Barnhart, 367 F.3d 882, 885 (9th Cir. 2004) (inner quotations, citations, and alteration

Case 2:06-cv-02009-EHC Document 22 Filed 03/19/08 Page 20 of 22
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

- 21 -

omitted). Furthermore, “unless the ALJ makes a finding of malingering based on affirmative

evidence thereof, he or she may only find the claimant not credible by making specific

findings as to credibility and stating clear and convincing reasons for each. Robinson, 469

F.Supp.2d at 798 (quoting Robbins v. Soc. Sec. Admin., 466 F.3d 880, 883, (9th Cir. 2006)

(inner quotations and citation omitted).

The ALJ pointed out the following inconsistencies in Plaintiff’s statements and testimony:

• He reported to the SSA that he earned a GED but later testified to the contrary. (Tr. 18).

• He visited Rocky Point a few weeks before the hearing. (Tr. 18).

• He contradicted himself several times regarding his alcohol consumption. (Tr. 23).

• He showed signs of exaggeration upon physical examinations. (Tr. 23).

The ALJ thus concluded that Plaintiff was not “fully credible” with regard to the severity and

extent of his limitations. (Tr. 23).

It is undisputed that Plaintiff has several severe impairments. Because the ALJ did not

make a finding of malingering, to find Beloit not credible requires specific findings as to

credibility and clear and convincing reasons for each. Plaintiff has made some inconsistent

statements which arguably impact upon his credibility. However, the ALJ has not met the

clear and convincing standard to support an adverse credibility finding. Given the complete

record before the Court, Plaintiff’s credibility does not support denial of his claim. 

VI. CONCLUSION

The Court has reviewed the Commissioner’s final decision under a substantial evidence

standard and finds that the decision denying benefits is not supported by substantial evidence.

Specifically, the ALJ made an unsupported credibility determination, gave little weight to

the opinions of Plaintiff’s treating physicians, and did not adequately assess the entire record

as a whole.

Accordingly, 

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. 13) is granted.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant's Cross Motion for Summary Judgment

(Dkt. 17) is denied.

 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the case is remanded for an award of benefits.

Case 2:06-cv-02009-EHC Document 22 Filed 03/19/08 Page 21 of 22
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

- 22 -

DATED this 18th day of March, 2008.

Case 2:06-cv-02009-EHC Document 22 Filed 03/19/08 Page 22 of 22