Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00715/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00715-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 864
Nature of Suit: Social Security - SSID Title XVI
Cause of Action: 42:205 Denial Social Security Benefits

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

WENDY L. NUNES,

Plaintiff,

v.

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,

Defendant.

Case No. 1:14-cv-00715-SAB

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF‟S SOCIAL 

SECURITY APPEAL

Plaintiff Wendy L. Nunes (“Plaintiff”) filed this action seeking judicial review of the 

final decision of Defendant Commissioner of Social Security (“Defendant” or “Commissioner”) 

denying Plaintiff‟s application for benefits under the Social Security Act. (ECF No. 1.) All 

parties have consented to the jurisdiction of a United States Magistrate Judge for all purposes. 

(ECF Nos. 5, 6.)

Plaintiff applied for Social Security benefits due to impairments arising from 

fibromyalgia, bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome, lumbosacral degenerative disc disease, and 

obesity. For the reasons set forth below, Plaintiff‟s appeal from the final decision of the 

Commissioner is denied.

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

Case 1:14-cv-00715-SAB Document 13 Filed 04/24/15 Page 1 of 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

2

I.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Plaintiff applied for Supplemental Security Income benefits on July 21, 2010. (AR 124.) 

Plaintiff‟s application was denied on February 22, 2011. (AR 99.) Plaintiff requested a hearing 

on or around September 16, 2011. (AR 108.)

On August 7, 2012, a hearing took place before administrative law judge Joseph P. 

Lisiecki III (“the ALJ”). (AR 68-90.) On August 29, 2012, the ALJ issued a written decision 

finding Plaintiff to be not disabled. (AR 19-30.) Plaintiff requested a review of the ALJ‟s 

decision on or around October 25, 2012. (AR 15.) The Appeals Council denied Plaintiff‟s 

request for review on March 15, 2014. (AR 1-3.)

A. Plaintiff’s Hearing Testimony

Plaintiff was born on July 30, 1961. (AR 70.) Plaintiff stopped working in August 2008. 

(AR 77.) Plaintiff got fired at that time because she could not do her job. (AR 77.) Plaintiff‟s 

pain prevented her from focusing and the company was going through some restructuring at the 

time. (AR 77-78.)

Plaintiff has a hard time sleeping at night because of her pain. (AR 79.) Plaintiff is 

usually still tired and exhausted when she wakes up. (AR 79.) When Plaintiff wakes up, she 

gets dressed and goes downstairs to watch TV and stays indoors. (AR 80.)

Plaintiff stated that she cannot work because the pain interferes with her ability to stand, 

sit, and walk. (AR 82.) When asked how far she could walk, Plaintiff stated that she can walk 

from the couch to the kitchen in her house. (AR 83.) Plaintiff is most comfortable when lying 

on her stomach. (AR 83.) Plaintiff‟s heels hurt when she sits normally. (AR 83.) Generally, the 

majority of Plaintiff‟s pain is in her heels, hands, and knees.

B. Testimony of Medical Expert

Dr. Samuel Landau testified at the hearing before the ALJ as a medical expert. (AR 72.) 

Dr. Landau testified that Plaintiff suffers from chronic pain associated with fibromyalgia, 

bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome, obesity, degenerative disc disease, and primary biliary cirrhosis 

in remission. (AR 73.) Dr. Landau testified that Plaintiff does not meet or equal any Listing. 

Case 1:14-cv-00715-SAB Document 13 Filed 04/24/15 Page 2 of 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

3

(AR 73.) Dr. Landau opined that Plaintiff‟s limitations would be standing, walking, or sitting six 

hours out of eight, lifting and carrying limited to 10 pounds frequently and 20 pounds 

occasionally, occasional stooping and bending, no climbing ladders, working at heights, or 

balancing, no forceful gripping, grasping, or twisting with her hands, and frequent fine 

manipulation and gross manipulation. (AR 74.)

C. VE Testimony

Ronald Hatakeyama testified as a vocational expert at the hearing before the ALJ (“the 

VE”). (AR 87.) The ALJ provided the VE with the following first set of hypothetical 

limitations:

 Same education, training, and work experience as Plaintiff;

 Can lift and carry 20 pounds occasionally, 10 pounds frequently;

 Can stand and walk with normal breaks for six hours in an eight hour day;

 Can sit with normal breaks for six hours in an eight hour day;

 Postural limitations “all occasional” but no climbing ladders, ropes, or scaffolds, no 

working with heights or balancing, no forceful gripping, grasping or twisting; and

 Able to do frequent fine manipulation and frequent gross manipulation.

(AR 88.) The VE testified that a person with such hypothetical limitations could perform past 

work at the light level. (AR 88.)

The ALJ provided the VE with a second set of hypothetical limitations which included no 

normal eight hour workdays or forty hour work weeks. (AR 88.) The ALJ testified that such a 

person could not work. (AR 88.)

D. Medical Records

The administrative record in this action includes medical records from Dr. Joe Chen, 

M.D. (AR 204-215, 351-354, 363-367), medical records from Dr. Andre Babajanians, M.D. (AR 

216-222, 355-362), a November 23, 2010 Case Analysis authored by Dr. Sean Neely (AR 223), 

medical records from the Cypress Center for Disease (AR 224-335), a January 20, 2011 

Complete Internal Medicine Evaluation authored by Dr. Carl. E Millner (AR 336-342), a 

February 22, 2011 Physical Residual Functional Capacity Assessment authored by Dr. Sean 

Case 1:14-cv-00715-SAB Document 13 Filed 04/24/15 Page 3 of 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

4

Neely (AR 343-350), medical records from Dr. Scott D. Brunner, M.D. (AR 368-443), a July 13, 

2011 Complete Psychiatric Evaluation authored by Dr. Laja Ibraheem (AR 444-449), a July 27, 

2011 Psychiatric Review Technique authored by Dr. R. Tashjian (AR 450-460), a June 9, 2011 

Case Analysis authored by Dr. C. Friedman (AR 461-462), medical records from Dr. Stephen 

Graham, M.D. (AR 463-466), medical records from Center of Family Medicine (AR 467-827), 

medical records from Gastroenterology Consultants (AR 828-864), medical records from Kern 

Valley Healthcare District (AR 865-875), medical records from Center for Family Medicine 

(876-790), medical records from the Centers for Family Medicine (AR 891-894), and medical 

records from the Cypress Center for Family Medicine (AR 895-928). The medical records will 

be discussed in more detail below as pertinent to the Court‟s analysis.

E. The ALJ’s Findings

The ALJ made the following findings of fact and conclusions of law:

 Plaintiff meets the insured status requirements of the Social Security Act through 

December 31, 2013;

 Plaintiff has not engaged in substantial gainful activity since July 5, 2009, the alleged 

onset date;

 Plaintiff has the following severe impairments: chronic pain blamed on fibromyalgia 

syndrome, bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome, lumbosacral degenerative disc disease 

consistent with age, and obesity;

 Plaintiff does not have an impairment or combination of impairments that meets or 

medically equals the severity of one of the listed impairments in 20 C.F.R. Part 404, 

Subpart P, Appendix 1;

 Plaintiff has the residual functional capacity to perform the following: lift and carry 

twenty pounds occasionally and ten pounds frequently, sit for six hours and stand or walk 

for six hours in an eight-hour work day, postural limitations would be all occasional but 

no ladders, ropes, scaffolds, heights, or balance, and no forceful gripping, grasping, or 

twisting but frequent fine and gross manipulation;

/ / /

Case 1:14-cv-00715-SAB Document 13 Filed 04/24/15 Page 4 of 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

5

 Plaintiff is capable of performing past relevant work as an inventory control manager; 

and

 Plaintiff has not been under a disability, as defined in the Social Security Act, from July 

5, 2009, through the date of the ALJ‟s decision.

(AR 24-30).

II.

LEGAL STANDARDS FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW OF SOCIAL SECURITY 

DETERMINATIONS

An individual may obtain judicial review of any final decision of the Commissioner of 

Social Security regarding entitlement to benefits. 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). The Court “reviews the 

Commissioner‟s final decision for substantial evidence, and the Commissioner‟s decision will be 

disturbed only if it is not supported by substantial evidence or is based on legal error.” Hill v. 

Astrue, 698 F.3d 1153, 1158 (9th Cir. 2012). “Substantial evidence” means more than a 

scintilla, but less than a preponderance. Smolen v. Chater, 80 F.3d 1273, 1279 (9th Cir. 1996) 

(internal quotations and citations omitted). “Substantial evidence is „such relevant evidence as a 

reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.‟” Id. (quoting Richardson v. 

Perales, 402 U.S. 389, 401 (1971)). “[A] reviewing court must consider the entire record as a 

whole and may not affirm simply by isolating a specific quantum of supporting evidence.” Hill, 

698 F.3d at 1159 (quoting Robbins v. Soc. Sec. Admin., 466 F.3d 880, 882 (9th Cir. 2006)). 

However, it is not this Court‟s function to second guess the ALJ‟s conclusions and substitute the 

Court‟s judgment for the ALJ‟s. See Burch v. Barnhart, 400 F.3d 676, 679 (9th Cir. 2005) 

(“Where evidence is susceptible to more than one rational interpretation, it is the ALJ‟s 

conclusion that must be upheld.”)

III.

DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS

A. The ALJ Did Not Err In Assessing Dr. Ibraheem’s Medical Opinion

Plaintiff argues that the ALJ erred in rejecting the medical opinion of Dr. Laja Ibraheem 

and adopting the opinion of Dr. Tashjian. Dr. Ibraheem was a non-treating, examining physician 

Case 1:14-cv-00715-SAB Document 13 Filed 04/24/15 Page 5 of 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

6

and Dr. Tashjian was a non-treating, non-examining physician.

“Cases in this circuit distinguish among the opinions of three types of physicians: (1) 

those who treat the claimant (treating physicians); (2) those who examine but do not treat the 

claimant (examining physicians); and (3) those who neither examine nor treat the claimant 

(nonexamining physicians).” Lester v. Chater, 81 F.3d 821, 830 (9th Cir. 1995). “As a general 

rule, more weight should be given to the opinion of a treating source than to the opinion of 

doctors who do not treat the claimant.” Id. (citing Winans v. Bowen, 853 F.2d 643, 647 (9th Cir. 

1987)); see also Hiler v. Astrue, 687 F.3d 1208, 1212 (9th Cir. 2012) (“...generally a treating 

physician‟s opinion carries the most weight of the various types of physician testimony.”) “The 

opinion of an examining physician is, in turn, entitled to greater weight than the opinion of a 

nonexamining physician.” Id. (citing Pitzer v. Sullivan, 908 F.2d 502, 506 (9th Cir. 1990); 

Gallant v. Heckler, 753 F.2d 1450 (9th Cir. 1984))

“The opinion of an examining physician is ... entitled to greater weight than the opinion 

of a nonexamining physician.” Lester, 81 F.3d at 830 (citing Pitzer v. Sullivan, 908 F.2d 502, 

506 (9th Cir. 1990); Gallant v. Heckler, 753 F.2d 1450 (9th Cir. 1984)). “[T]he Commissioner 

must provide „clear and convincing‟ reasons for rejecting the uncontradicted opinion of an 

examining physician.” Id. (citing Pitzer, 908 F.2d at 506). “[T]he opinion of an examining 

doctor, even if contradicted by another doctor, can only be rejected for specific and legitimate 

reasons that are supported by substantial evidence in the record.” Id. at 830-31 (citing Andrews 

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

Dr. Laja Ibraheem authored a Complete Psychiatric Evaluation dated July 13, 2011. (AR 

446-449.) With respect to Plaintiff‟s “Functional Assessment,” Dr. Ibraheem wrote:

Based on the examination conducted on the above date I believe 

that the patient would be able to focus attention adequately and 

follow one- and two-part instructions. She would have zero to 

minimal difficulty being able to remember and complete simple 

tasks, tolerate the stress inherent in the work environment, 

maintain regular attendance, and work without supervision. She 

would have zero to minimal difficulty being able to interact with 

supervisors, co-workers, and/or the general public.

(AR 449.)

Case 1:14-cv-00715-SAB Document 13 Filed 04/24/15 Page 6 of 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

7

Dr. R. Tashjian authored a Psychiatric Review Technique dated July 27, 2011. (AR 450-

460.) Dr. Tashjian indicated that Plaintiff suffered “mild” limitation in the categories of 

“Activities of Daily Living,” “Maintaining Social Functioning,” and “Maintaining 

Concentration, Persistence, or Pace.” (AR 458.) In the “Consultant‟s Notes,” Dr. Tashjian wrote 

that “CLMT REPORTS PROBLEMS WITH CONCENTRATION AND MEMORY BUT 

RLATES[SIC] THIS TO PAIN; NO PSYCH TX.” (AR 460.)

With respect to Plaintiff‟s concentration, the ALJ provided the following assessment:

The third functional area is concentration, persistence or pace. In 

this area, the claimant has mild limitations. While there are 

complaints of trouble with concentration and memory and 

completing tasks, these are due to pain; and Dr. Ibraheem reported 

that the claimant‟s memory and concentration were intact (Exhibits 

6E/10; 11F/3, 5). Accordingly, the evidence supports only mild 

restrictions in concentration, persistence, or pace.

(AR 26.)

Plaintiff argues that the ALJ‟s assessment of Dr. Ibraheem‟s opinion “casts a layer of 

confusion as to whether he accepted or rejected the limitations assessed by Dr. Ibraheem.” 

Specifically, Plaintiff points to the following excerpt from the ALJ‟s written opinion:

... Dr. Ibraheem concluded that the claimant would be able to focus 

attention adequately and follow one- and two-step instructions and 

would have zero to minimal difficulty being able to remember and 

complete and simple tasks but did not specifically address her 

abilities regarding more detailed or complex work (Exhibit 11F/6). 

Because “zero to minimal difficulty” performing simple tasks is 

less than helpful in determining the capacity to perform even 

slightly more complex work, I give little weight to the consultative 

examiner‟s ambiguous assessment.

(AR 26.)

The Court agrees with the ALJ‟s assessment that Dr. Ibraheem‟s opinion was somewhat 

ambiguous. Read literally, Dr. Ibraheem did not identify any limitations with respect to 

Plaintiff‟s ability to perform complex tasks. Dr. Ibraheem did state that Plaintiff would have 

“zero to minimal” difficulty with respect to simple tasks. Dr. Ibraheem did not state that Plaintiff 

could not perform more complex tasks. In other words, Dr. Ibraheem did not state that Plaintiff 

could only perform simple tasks.

/ / /

Case 1:14-cv-00715-SAB Document 13 Filed 04/24/15 Page 7 of 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

8

The Court acknowledges that Dr. Ibraheem‟s written opinion could be interpreted to 

imply some limitation with complex tasks. Reading between the lines, one could infer that Dr. 

Ibraheem‟s opinion that Plaintiff would have “zero to minimal difficulty” with simple tasks 

suggests a greater than “zero to minimal difficulty” with more complex tasks. However, it is this 

Court‟s function to affirm the ALJ‟s decision if it is supported by substantial evidence, and if the 

evidence is susceptible to more than one rational interpretation, it is the ALJ‟s conclusion that 

must be upheld. Burch v. Barnhart, 400 F.3d 676, 679 (9th Cir. 2005). Dr. Ibraheem‟s report is 

susceptible to more than one rational interpretation. On one hand, the ALJ interpreted the report 

as not specifying any limitations in Plaintiff‟s concentration and ability to perform complex 

tasks. On the other hand, Plaintiff interprets the report as implying a limitation in performing 

complex tasks. The Court‟s function is not to substitute its own interpretation of the evidence in 

favor of the ALJ‟s. Accordingly, the Court finds that the ALJ did not err in the assessment of 

Dr. Ibraheem‟s opinions.

IV.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Based upon the foregoing, the Court finds that the ALJ‟s decision was supported by 

substantial evidence.

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff‟s appeal from the administrative decision of the Commissioner is 

DENIED;

2. JUDGMENT is entered in favor of Defendant Commissioner of Social Security 

and against Plaintiff Wendy L. Nunes; and

3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to CLOSED this action.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 24, 2015 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-00715-SAB Document 13 Filed 04/24/15 Page 8 of 8