Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-01886/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-01886-0/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 

WO 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Penny Lee Martinez, 

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

Carolyn W. Colvin, Acting Commissioner 

of Social Security, 

Defendant.

No. CV-12-01886-PHX-NVW

ORDER 

Plaintiff Penny Lee Martinez seeks review under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) of the final 

decision of the Commissioner of Social Security (“the Commissioner”), which denied her 

disability insurance benefits under sections 216(i) and 223(d) of the Social Security Act. 

Because the decision of the Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) is supported by 

substantial evidence and is not based on legal error, the Commissioner’s decision will be 

affirmed. 

I. BACKGROUND 

A. Factual Background 

Martinez was born in September 1958. She has a high school education, 

completed one year of college, and is able to communicate in English. She worked as a 

data conversion/data entry operator for the United States Post Office for more than 

twelve years. She also has worked as a loan supervisor and a Wal-Mart greeter. 

Martinez believes she is unable to work because of pain in her hands and wrists. 

Case 2:12-cv-01886-NVW Document 21 Filed 10/21/13 Page 1 of 12
- 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 

B. Procedural History 

On March 11, 2008, Martinez applied for disability insurance benefits, alleging 

disability since December 19, 2006. On March 19, 2010, she appeared with her attorney 

and testified at a hearing before the ALJ. A vocational expert also testified. 

On July 23, 2010, the ALJ issued a decision that Martinez was not disabled within 

the meaning of the Social Security Act. The Appeals Council denied Martinez’s request 

for review of the hearing decision, making the ALJ’s decision the Commissioner’s final 

decision. On September 7, 2012, Martinez sought review by this Court. 

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW 

The district court reviews only those issues raised by the party challenging the 

ALJ’s decision. See Lewis v. Apfel, 236 F.3d 503, 517 n.13 (9th Cir. 2001). The court 

may set aside the Commissioner’s disability determination only if the determination is 

not supported by substantial evidence or is based on legal error. Orn v. Astrue, 495 F.3d 

625, 630 (9th Cir. 2007). Substantial evidence is more than a scintilla, less than a 

preponderance, and relevant evidence that a reasonable person might accept as adequate 

to support a conclusion considering the record as a whole. Id. In determining whether 

substantial evidence supports a decision, the court must consider the record as a whole 

and may not affirm simply by isolating a “specific quantum of supporting evidence.” Id. 

As a general rule, “[w]here 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.” Thomas v. Barnhart, 278 F.3d 947, 954 (9th Cir. 2002) (citations omitted). The 

ALJ is responsible for resolving conflicts in medical testimony, determining credibility, 

and resolving ambiguities. Andrews v. Shalala, 53 F.3d 1035, 1039 (9th Cir. 1995). 

III. FIVE-STEP SEQUENTIAL EVALUATION PROCESS 

To determine whether a claimant is disabled for purposes of the Social Security 

Act, the ALJ follows a five-step process. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a). The claimant bears 

Case 2:12-cv-01886-NVW Document 21 Filed 10/21/13 Page 2 of 12
- 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 

the burden of proof on the first four steps, but at step five, the burden shifts to the 

Commissioner. Tackett v. Apfel, 180 F.3d 1094, 1098 (9th Cir. 1999). 

At the first step, the ALJ determines whether the claimant is engaging in 

substantial gainful activity. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(i). If so, the claimant is not 

disabled and the inquiry ends. Id. At step two, the ALJ determines whether the claimant 

has a “severe” medically determinable physical or mental impairment. 

§ 404.1520(a)(4)(ii). If not, the claimant is not disabled and the inquiry ends. Id. At step 

three, the ALJ considers whether the claimant’s impairment or combination of 

impairments meets or medically equals an impairment listed in Appendix 1 to Subpart P 

of 20 C.F.R. Pt. 404. § 404.1520(a)(4)(iii). If so, the claimant is automatically found to 

be disabled. Id. If not, the ALJ proceeds to step four. At step four, the ALJ assesses the 

claimant’s residual functional capacity and determines whether the claimant is still 

capable of performing past relevant work. § 404.1520(a)(4)(iv). If so, the claimant is not 

disabled and the inquiry ends. Id. If not, the ALJ proceeds to the fifth and final step, 

where he determines whether the claimant can perform any other work based on the 

claimant’s residual functional capacity, age, education, and work experience. 

§ 404.1520(a)(4)(v). If so, the claimant is not disabled. Id. If not, the claimant is 

disabled. Id. 

At step one, the ALJ found that Martinez meets the insured status requirements of 

the Social Security Act through December 31, 2011, and that she has not engaged in 

substantial gainful activity since December 19, 2006. At step two, the ALJ found that 

Martinez has the following severe impairments: carpal tunnel syndrome, 

hypothyroidism, diabetes, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Martinez does not 

claim to be unable to work because of hypothyroidism, diabetes, or chronic obstructive 

pulmonary disease. 

Case 2:12-cv-01886-NVW Document 21 Filed 10/21/13 Page 3 of 12
- 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 

At step three, the ALJ determined that Martinez does not have an impairment or 

combination of impairments that meets or medically equals an impairment listed in 

Appendix 1 to Subpart P of 20 C.F.R. Pt. 404. 

At step four, the ALJ found that Martinez: 

has the residual functional capacity to perform sedentary 

work as defined in 20 CFR 404.1567(a). The claimant can 

lift and carry 10 pounds occasionally and 5 pounds frequently 

and can sit, stand and walk 6 hours in an 8-hour workday. 

The claimant can occasionally climb ramps and stairs and is 

unable to climb ladders, ropes and scaffolds. The claimant 

can frequently balance, stoop and kneel and can occasionally 

crawl. The claimant must avoid concentrated exposure to 

fumes, odors, dust, gases and poor ventilation and hazards 

such as moving machinery and unprotected heights. 

The ALJ further found that Martinez is unable to perform any of her past relevant work. 

At step five, the ALJ concluded that, considering Martinez’s age, education, work 

experience, and residual functional capacity, she has acquired work skills from past 

relevant work that are transferable to other occupations with jobs existing in significant 

numbers in the national economy. 

IV. ANALYSIS 

Martinez contends the ALJ erred by failing to recognize that her primary symptom 

pain was not “caused by carpel tunnel syndrome, but by left and right CMC joint 

osteoarthritis diagnosed by Dr. Burgess (TR. 189), alternatively diagnosed by Dr. 

Campbell as bilateral TMC synovitis or basal joint arthrosis (TR. 230).”1

 (Doc. 17 at 14.) 

As a result, she contends, the ALJ erred by finding her capable of occasional handling 

and fingering with the hands bilaterally and by finding her subjective symptom testimony 

not fully credible. Finally, she contends that the ALJ erred by determining that she had 

skills from past work she could transfer to the occupation of information clerk. 

 1

 “CMC” refers to carpometacarpal. “TMC” refers to trapeziometacarpal. 

Case 2:12-cv-01886-NVW Document 21 Filed 10/21/13 Page 4 of 12
- 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 

A. The ALJ Did Not Err in Interpreting Medical Source Evidence, and 

the ALJ’s Determination that Martinez Is Capable of Occasional 

Handling and Fingering with the Hands Bilaterally Is Supported by 

Substantial Evidence. 

Generally, an ALJ should give more weight to the opinion of a treating physician 

than to the opinions of non-treating physicians. Lester v. Chater, 81 F.3d 821, 830 (9th 

Cir. 1995). A treating physician’s opinion is afforded great weight because such 

physicians are “employed to cure and [have] a greater opportunity to observe and know 

the patient as an individual.” Sprague v. Bowen, 812 F.2d 1226, 1230 (9th Cir. 1987). 

Moreover, Social Security Rules expressly require a treating source’s opinion on an issue 

of a claimant’s impairment be given controlling weight if it is well-supported by 

medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent 

with the other substantial evidence in the record. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2). 

The record includes treatment notes from May 16, 2007, through March 5, 2008, 

by Kraig M. Burgess, D.O., a specialist in upper extremity and hand surgery. On May 

16, 2007, Dr. Burgess noted that Martinez is right hand dominant. Based on his motor 

sensory examination, x-ray examination, and review of a previous EMG, Dr. Burgess 

summarized his impressions as left CMC joint osteoarthritis, right de Quervain’s 

tendinitis, left mild carpal tunnel syndrome, and right bicipital tendinosis. He 

administered injections of Kenalog and Marcaine into the left CMC joint and right first 

dorsal compartment. Martinez also was fitted with a splint for her left hand to be used 

during the day and was instructed to continue using her nighttime splints for control of 

her carpal tunnel symptoms. Dr. Burgess prescribed an anti-inflammatory medication 

and occupational therapy. 

On July 11, 2007, Dr. Burgess opined that Martinez’s carpal tunnel condition was 

stable with the conservative treatment and splint immobilization. On August 8, 2007, Dr. 

Burgess recorded his impressions as right wrist de Quervain’s tendinitis post cortisone 

Case 2:12-cv-01886-NVW Document 21 Filed 10/21/13 Page 5 of 12
- 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 

injection with improvement, left CMC joint osteoarthritis status post cortisone injection 

with some improvement, right CMC osteoarthritis, right bicipital tendinitis, and mild left 

median neuropathy by neurodiagnostic evaluation. On August 29, 2007, Dr. Burgess 

recorded his impressions as right wrist de Quervain’s tendinitis post cortisone injection, 

left CMC joint osteoarthritis status post cortisone injection, right thumb CMC arthrosis, 

right bicipital tendinosis, and mild left median neuropathy by neurodiagnostic evaluation. 

He observed “some mild crepitation over the bilateral CMC joints” and “signs of 

weakness to grip and pinch strength.” 

On September 10, 2007, Jacquelynn Paul, MS, an exercise physiologist, 

performed a functional capacity evaluation prescribed by Dr. Burgess. Martinez’s grip 

and pinch strengths for both upper extremities were significantly below the normal range 

for her age and gender. She exhibited pain behaviors during occasional keyboarding at a 

below competitive performance level. During the frequent keyboarding protocol, 

Martinez reported increased discomfort in both wrists, and her blood pressure increased 

to 160/70. After a ten minute rest, her blood pressure did not decrease, and she was not 

asked to attempt the constant keyboarding protocol. 

On October 17, 2007, Dr. Burgess saw Martinez and noted that her physical 

examination was essentially unchanged. He had anticipated reviewing her functional 

capacity evaluation, but noted she was unable to complete it due to an increase in her 

blood pressure. Dr. Burgess explained to Martinez that he did not have any further 

treatment to offer and did not feel that a carpal tunnel release would provide her with any 

significant or lasting pain resolution. 

On November 9, 2007, Dr. Burgess recorded his impressions as mild left median 

and sensory entrapment neuropathy, negative right neurodiagnostic evidence of carpal 

tunnel syndrome, left CMC joint osteoarthritis, right thumb CMC arthrosis, and mild 

diffuse upper extremity tendinopathy. He noted that “[s]he has weakness bilaterally to 

Case 2:12-cv-01886-NVW Document 21 Filed 10/21/13 Page 6 of 12
- 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 

the thenar musculature, though this could be effort related.” Dr. Burgess also noted that 

he had explained to Martinez that he “will not be the physician to grant her permanent 

disability.” 

On November 30, 2007, Dr. Peter Campbell, M.D., a hand surgery consultant, 

performed an independent medical examination of Martinez. He reported: 

Currently she does not have clinical signs or symptoms of 

carpal tunnel syndrome, but does show clinical evidence of 

basal joint pain. This pain has increased during the past year 

while she has not been working and this most likely 

represents basal joint synovitis, but would be unrelated to any 

work activity and is more likely attributable to the natural 

aging process. Basal joint synovitis/arthrosis is the most 

common arthritide affecting the female hand. 

(Doc. 10-8 at 47, TR. 230.) 

On March 5, 2008, Dr. Burgess diagnosed Martinez as having left and right CMC 

joint osteoarthritis Stage 1. He explained: “Carpometacarpal joint osteoarthritis is a 

progressive and degenerative condition.” Dr. Burgess opined: 

I do feel that vocational rehabilitation is realistic and that she 

may be able to obtain some form of gainful employment in 

the future, should it not include some of the repetitive 

overuse, which she has performed for so many years. . . . 

Her permanent restrictions should include no repetitive 

overuse of the bilateral upper extremities. 

(Doc. 10-8 at 6, TR. 189.) 

Martinez contends: “The ALJ did not have to do anything but read Ms. Paul’s 

report carefully, read the records from Dr. Burgess and Dr. Campbell, and correlate 

diagnoses reflecting anatomical abnormalities of both thumbs, corroboration of attendant 

pain symptoms by multiple physicians, and the [functional capacity evaluation] results.” 

(Doc. 17 at 15.) But none of those sources indicated that Martinez was incapable of 

doing any work. The ALJ expressly gave the opinions of her treating physicians 

Case 2:12-cv-01886-NVW Document 21 Filed 10/21/13 Page 7 of 12
- 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 

“substantial weight as they are consistent with the evidence that the claimant is limited in 

her ability to engage in frequent handling and fingering and is unable to return to her past 

work.” The ALJ noted that Dr. Campbell had observed in November 2007 that Martinez 

had a full range of motion in her elbow, wrists, and fingers, and there was clinical 

evidence of basal joint pain, but not carpal tunnel syndrome. The ALJ also stated that Dr. 

Campbell opined that the pain may “be unrelated to any work activity and is more likely 

attributable to the natural aging process.” Further, the ALJ stated that Dr. Campbell 

reported that no permanent work restrictions were required. 

Regardless of whether Martinez has carpal tunnel syndrome, left and right CMC 

joint osteoarthritis, bilateral TMC synovitis, and/or basal joint arthrosis, none of her 

treating physicians opined that she is incapable of occasional handling and fingering with 

the hands bilaterally, only that overuse should be avoided. Thus, the ALJ did not err in 

finding Martinez capable of occasional handling and fingering with the hands bilaterally. 

B. The ALJ Did Not Err in Evaluating Martinez’s Credibility. 

In evaluating the credibility of a claimant’s testimony regarding subjective pain or 

other symptoms, the ALJ is required to engage in a two-step analysis: (1) determine 

whether the claimant presented objective medical evidence of an impairment that could 

reasonably be expected to produce some degree of the pain or other symptoms alleged; 

and, if so with no evidence of malingering, (2) reject the claimant’s testimony about the 

severity of the symptoms only by giving specific, clear, and convincing reasons for the 

rejection. Vasquez v. Astrue, 572 F.3d 586, 591 (9th Cir. 2009). 

First, the ALJ found that Martinez’s medically determinable impairments could 

reasonably be expected to cause the alleged symptoms. Second, the ALJ found 

Martinez’s statements regarding the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of the 

symptoms not credible to the extent they are inconsistent with the ALJ’s residual 

functional capacity assessment. 

Case 2:12-cv-01886-NVW Document 21 Filed 10/21/13 Page 8 of 12
- 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 

At the administrative hearing, the ALJ asked Martinez why she believed she was 

unable to work. She responded: “Due to the overwhelming pain that I get in my hands 

that I cannot seem to control. I think it is more arthritis than it is carpal tunnel, but it does 

cause me to have to take considerable amount of medicine to control the pain.” (Doc. 

10-3 at 44.) 

The ALJ gave the following specific, clear, and convincing reasons for finding 

Martinez’s symptom testimony only partially credible: (1) the medical evidence 

indicates Martinez’s carpal tunnel syndrome restricts her to occasional handling and 

fingering, but does not prevent all work; (2) the treatment Martinez has received has been 

routine and/or conservative; and (3) Martinez reported that hydrocodone and ibuprofen 

partially alleviated her symptoms. Therefore, the ALJ did not err in finding Martinez’s 

statements regarding the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of the symptoms not 

credible to the extent they are inconsistent with the ALJ’s residual functional capacity 

assessment. 

C. Substantial Evidence Supports Finding that Martinez’s Skills Acquired 

from Past Relevant Work Are Transferable to Other Occupations with 

Jobs Existing in Significant Numbers in the National Economy. 

1. Legal Standard 

At step five, after having determined that Martinez’s disabilities prevent her from 

doing her past relevant work, the ALJ was required to decide whether Martinez’s 

impairments prevent her from performing other work that exists in the national economy, 

considering his residual functional capacity together with the “vocational factors” of age, 

education, and work experience. Social Security Policy Ruling (“SSR”) 00-4p (12/4/00). 

Work is considered as existing in the national economy when both (1) its requirements 

can be met by the claimant with his or her physical or mental abilities and vocational 

qualifications, and (2) it exists in significant numbers either in the region where the 

claimant lives or in several other regions of the country. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1566(a), (b). 

Case 2:12-cv-01886-NVW Document 21 Filed 10/21/13 Page 9 of 12
- 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 

The Commissioner will take administrative notice of reliable job information from 

various governmental and other publications, but relies primarily on the Dictionary of 

Occupational Titles (“DOT”), published by the Department of Labor and its companion 

publication, the Selected Characteristics of Occupations Defined in the Revised 

Dictionary of Occupational Titles. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1566(d); SSR 00-4p. The 

Commissioner also may, but is not required to, use the services of a vocational expert or 

other specialist to determine whether a claimant’s work skills can be used in other work 

and the specific occupations in which they can be used. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1566(e). “An 

ALJ may take administrative notice of any reliable job information, including 

information provided by a [vocational expert].” Bayliss v. Barnhart, 427 F.3d 1211, 

1218 (9th Cir. 2005). 

Whether skills acquired from past work can be used to meet the requirements of 

skilled or semi-skilled work activities of other jobs or kinds of work depends on the 

similarity of occupationally significant work activities among different jobs. 20 C.F.R. 

§ 404.1568(d)(1). Transferability is most probable and meaningful among jobs in which 

(1) the same or lesser degree of skill is required, (2) the same or similar tools and 

machines are used, and (3) the same or similar raw materials, products, processes, or 

services are involved. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1568(d)(2). But a complete similarity of all three 

factors is not necessary for transferability. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1568(d)(3). 

Martinez contends that the ALJ’s conclusion that Martinez is not disabled because 

she has acquired work skills from past relevant work that are transferable to another 

occupation, such as information clerk, is not supported by substantial evidence. Marilyn 

Kinnier, a vocational expert for the Social Security Administration, identified Martinez’s 

previous jobs as data conversion/data entry operator for the Post Office, information clerk 

(Wal-Mart greeter), and loan department supervisor. After determining that Martinez 

could not perform her past relevant work, the ALJ asked Kinnier whether a hypothetical 

Case 2:12-cv-01886-NVW Document 21 Filed 10/21/13 Page 10 of 12
- 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 

person of Martinez’s age, education, work experience, and residual functional capacity 

for a reduced range of sedentary work with only occasional fingering and handling, could 

perform other work that exists in significant numbers. Kinnier testified that such a 

person could work as an information clerk, using verbal and keyboarding skills she had 

learned in past relevant work as a data entry operator. An information clerk, DOT 

237.367-022, answers inquiries from persons entering an establishment, such as a 

shopping mall, library, or office. Martinez contends that she does not have skills 

transferable to an information clerk job because Kinnier identified only keyboarding and 

computer skills as transferable from past relevant work, Martinez’s functional capacity 

evaluation showed her keyboarding skills below a competitive level, and the DOT 

description of information clerk does not include keyboarding or computer skills. But 

Kinnier was not limited to information included in the DOT. From her field 

experience—and common experience—she reasonably could have observed that 

answering inquiries from the public in a shopping mall, library, or office often involves 

using a computer to obtain phone numbers, directories, and maps/diagrams and would not 

require repetitive keyboarding at a competitive level. Therefore, the ALJ did not err in 

finding Martinez had acquired work skills from past relevant work that are transferable to 

other occupations, such as information clerk. 

Moreover, on the alleged disability onset date, Martinez was 48 years old, which is 

defined as a younger person (age 45-49). See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1563(c). If a claimant is 

under age 50, age is generally considered to not affect the claimant’s ability to adjust to 

other work, but in some circumstances, persons age 45-49 are considered more limited in 

their ability to adjust to other work than persons who have not attained age 45. Id. Those 

circumstances are when the claimant (1) is limited to sedentary work, (2) is unskilled or 

has no transferable skills, (3) has no past relevant work or is unable to perform past 

relevant work, and (4) is either illiterate or unable to communicate in English. 20 C.F.R. 

Case 2:12-cv-01886-NVW Document 21 Filed 10/21/13 Page 11 of 12
- 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 

Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 2, Rule 201.17. Because Martinez is able to communicate 

in English, is not illiterate, and was 48 years old on the alleged disability onset date, she 

is not considered limited in her ability to adjust to other work. Thus, even if substantial 

evidence did not support the ALJ’s finding that Martinez has acquired work skills from 

past relevant work that are transferable to other occupations, such as information clerk, 

any such error would be harmless. Because of her younger age and ability to 

communicate in English, the ALJ could have found Martinez capable of performing 

unskilled sedentary work without finding she had any transferable work skills. See Social 

Security Ruling 82-41, 1982 WL 31389 at *848 (“When the table rules in Appendix 2 are 

applicable to a case, transferability will be decisive in the conclusion of ‘disabled’ or ‘not 

disabled’ in only a relatively few instances because, even if it is determined that there are 

no transferable skills, a finding of ‘not disabled’ may be based on the ability to do 

unskilled work.”). 

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the final decision of the Commissioner of 

Social Security is affirmed. The Clerk shall enter judgment accordingly and shall 

terminate this case. 

Dated this 21st day of October, 2013. 

Case 2:12-cv-01886-NVW Document 21 Filed 10/21/13 Page 12 of 12