Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-00719/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-00719-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 864
Nature of Suit: Social Security - SSID Title XVI
Cause of Action: 42:427 Social Security Benenfits

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KAREN B. WEISS, Civil

No.

12cv0719-CAB (WMc)

Plaintiff,

ORDER: (1) ADOPTING REPORT

AND RECOMMENDATION [Doc.

No. 21]; (2) DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION FOR SUMMARY

JUDGMENT [Doc. No. 17];

GRANTING DEFENDANT’S

MOTION FOR SUMMARY

JUDGMENT [Doc. No. 20]

v.

MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of

Social Security Administration,

Defendant.

Pending before the Court is the Report and Recommendation (R&R) of Magistrate

Judge William McCurine, Jr., filed on November 7, 2012, recommending that the court

grant Defendant Michael Astrue’s motion for summary judgment and deny Plaintiff

Karen Weiss’ motion for summary judgment. [Doc. No. 21.] On November 21, 2012,

Plaintiff filed objections to the R&R. [Doc. No. 22.] Defendant did not file a reply. 

Having considered the parties’ arguments and for the reasons stated herein, the Court

finds the Magistrate Judge conducted a well-reasoned and thorough analysis, and

ADOPTS the R&R.

I. BACKGROUND

Plaintiff was born on November 11, 1962 and has past relevant work as a general

duty nurse, a private nurse, and an office nurse. On November 25, 2008, she filed an

1 12cv0719

Case 3:12-cv-00719-CAB-WMC Document 23 Filed 08/19/13 Page 1 of 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

application for disability benefits, alleging disability beginning June 3, 2003. Plaintiff

alleges she has debilitating back pain, stomach problems, diabetes, and emotional issues. 

On June 23, 2010, Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Joseph D. Schloss held a

hearing to consider Plaintiff’s application for disability benefits. The ALJ considered

Plaintiff’s medical records, Plaintiff’s testimony, and testimony of Arthur Lorber, M.D.,

and impartial medical expert, and Sandra M. Fioretti, an impartial vocational expert. On

August 17, 2010, the ALJ issued a decision, finding that Plaintiff was not disabled under

the Social Security Act. On January 25, 2012, the ALJ’s decision became the

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

review. On March 26, 2012, Plaintiff filed a complaint for judicial review in this Court. 

On July 26, 2012, Defendant filed an answer to the complaint and the Administrative

Record (TR). [Doc. Nos. 12, 13.] On August 30, 2012, Plaintiff filed a motion for

summary judgment. [Doc. No. 17.] On October 5, 2012, Defendant filed a cross-motion

for summary judgment. [Doc. No. 20.] On November 7, 2012, Magistrate Judge

McCurine issued the present R&R, recommending that Defendant’s motion be granted

and Plaintiff’s motion be denied. 

II. LEGAL STANDARDS

The Social Security Act entitles a claimant to disability benefits if he is unable 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. §§ 416(i), 423(d)(1)(A). To qualify for benefits, the impairment must result from

“anatomical, physiological, or psychological abnormalities which are demonstrable by

medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques.” 42 U.S.C. §

423(d)(3); Gallant v. Heckler, 753 F.2d 1450, 1452 (9th Cir. 1984). Further, the

impairment must be of “such severity that he is not only unable to do his previous work

but cannot, considering his age, education, and work experience, engage in any other

kind of substantial gainful work which exists in the national economy.” 42 U.S.C. §

2 12cv0719

Case 3:12-cv-00719-CAB-WMC Document 23 Filed 08/19/13 Page 2 of 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

423(d)(2)(A). 

An individual may seek judicial review of the Commissioner of Social Security’s

final agency decision. 42 U.S.C. §§ 405(g), 1383(c)(3). However, the scope of review is

limited. A court may not overturn the Commissioner’s final action unless (1) the ALJ’s

findings of fact are not supported by substantial evidence, or (2) the ALJ failed to apply

the proper legal standards. See Flaten v. Secretary of Health and Human Svcs., 44 F.3d

1453, 1457 (9th Cir. 1995). 

“Substantial evidence” means evidence a reasonable person might accept as

adequate to support the ALJ’s conclusion, considering the record as a whole. See

Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389, 401 (1971); Thomas v. Barnhart, 278 F.3d 947,

954 (9th Cir. 2002). The Court must consider both the evidence that supports and

detracts from the Commissioner’s conclusions. See Mayes v. Massanari, 276 F.3d 453,

459 (9th Cir. 2001); Desrosiers v. Sec’y of Health and Human Servs., 846 F.2d 573, 576

(9th Cir. 1988).

Even if substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s findings, a court must set the

decision aside if the ALJ failed to apply the proper legal standards in weighing the

evidence and reaching a decision. See Benitez v. Califano, 573 F.2d 653, 655 (9th Cir.

1978). But if the evidence supports more than one rational interpretation, the court must

uphold the ALJ’s decision. Allen v. Heckler, 749 F.2d 577, 579 (9th Cir. 1989). 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) set forth the

duties of the district court in connection with a Magistrate Judge’s report and

recommendation. The district court “must make a de novo determination of those

portions of the report . . . to which objection is made,” and “may accept, reject, or

modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate.” 

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(c); see also United States v. Remsing, 874 F.2d 614, 617 (9th Cir.

1989). 

III. ANALYSIS

Plaintiff objects on two grounds to the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation to

3 12cv0719

Case 3:12-cv-00719-CAB-WMC Document 23 Filed 08/19/13 Page 3 of 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

grant Defendant’s motion and deny Plaintiff’s motion. Plaintiff argues that the ALJ

failed to articulate specific and legitimate reasons for rejecting the opinions of Dr.

Jackson and Dr. Grossman. 

1. Dr. Jackson.

Plaintiff argues that the ALJ failed to heed the opinions of Dr. Jackson and failed

to articulate any reasons for doing so. [Doc. No. 22 at 4.] In her objections, Plaintiff

admits that while the ALJ had no obligation to translate the word “prolonged” into the

language of Social Security, the ALJ is not free to ignore such opinions either. [Doc. No.

22 at 3.] However, as noted by the Magistrate Judge, the ALJ did not completely reject

Dr. Jackson’s opinions. Rather, he afforded some weight to the opinion, even though

Dr. Jackson’s opinion was rendered in the workers’ compensation context, which does

not define disability in the same manner as Social Security. [Doc. No. 21 at 9.]

Moreover, the ALJ did articulate the reasons why he was giving greater weight to

Dr. Lorber’s opinion: “The time restraints and the limitations pertaining to the lower

extremities described by Dr. Lorber are appropriate given the claimant’s radiculopathy,

her weight, and her symptoms associated with the diabetes mellitus.” [TR at 30.]

“Whether substantial evidence supports a finding is determined from the record as a

whole, with the court weighing both the evidence that supports and the evidence that

detracts from the ALJ’s conclusion.” Mayes v. Massanari, 276 F.3d 453, 459 (9th Cir.

2001)(internal citation omitted)(emphasis added). On review the court must make a

determination “from the record as a whole.” Id. Here, the record shows that the ALJ

provided legitimate reasons supported by substantial evidence in the record to afford

some weight to the opinion of Dr. Jackson. Therefore, Plaintiff’s objection is rejected.

2. Dr. Grossman.

Plaintiff argues that the ALJ rejected the opinions of Dr. Grossman, an examining

physician, in favor of the opinions of the two non-examining physicians, without

articulating specific and legitimate reasons. [Doc. No. 22 at 4.] However, as correctly

noted by the Magistrate Judge [Doc. No. 21 at 10-11], the ALJ did articulate why he

4 12cv0719

Case 3:12-cv-00719-CAB-WMC Document 23 Filed 08/19/13 Page 4 of 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

gave limited weight to the report of Dr. Grossman:

Dr. Brian Grossman, a qualified medical examiner for workers’

compensation purposes, made the following functional capacity assessment:

the claimant can lift and carry 20 pounds occasionally and 10 pounds

frequently; she can stand and/or walk for less than four hours in an 8-hour

workday; she can sit for less than four hours in an 8-hour workday; she can

push and pull no more than 20 pounds; she cannot climb; and she can

occasionally balance, stoop, kneel, crouch, crawl, and twist (Exhibit 6F, pp.

405-406). This capacity exceeds those described by the medical expert and

the State agent. For reasons discussed above, this capacity is excessive. 

Therefore, less weight is given the opinion of Dr. Grossman.

TR 31.

Moreover, the ALJ referred to specific evidence in the record when he explained

the weight he gave to the various opinions: “The time restraints and the limitations

pertaining to the lower extremities described by Dr. Lorber are appropriate given the

claimant’s radiculopathy, her weight, and her symptoms associated with the diabetes

mellitus.” [TR at 30.] Thus, the record shows that he ALJ properly applied less weight

to the opinion of Dr. Grossman for specific and legitimate reasons supported by

substantial evidence. Mayer, 276 F.3d at 459. Therefore, Plaintiff’s objection is rejected.

IV. CONCLUSION

Accordingly, for the aforementioned reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation is ADOPTED;

2. Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment is DENIED;

3. Defendant’s motion for summary judgment is GRANTED;

4. The Clerk of the Court shall TERMINATE this case.

DATED: August 19, 2013

CATHY ANN BENCIVENGO

United States District Judge

5 12cv0719

Case 3:12-cv-00719-CAB-WMC Document 23 Filed 08/19/13 Page 5 of 5