Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-akd-3_19-cv-00130/USCOURTS-akd-3_19-cv-00130-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 864
Nature of Suit: Social Security - SSID Title XVI
Cause of Action: 42:405 Review of HHS Decision (SSID)

---

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ALASKA

CYNTHIA T.,

1

 Plaintiff,

 vs.

ANDREW SAUL,

Commissioner of Social Security,

Defendant. Case No. 3:19-cv-00130-SLG

DECISION AND ORDER

On or about August 3, 2016, Cynthia T. filed an application for Supplemental 

Security Income (“SSI”) under Title XVI of the Social Security Act (“the Act”), alleging 

disability beginning January 1, 2012.

2

 Ms. T. has exhausted her administrative remedies 

and filed a Complaint seeking relief from this Court.3 Ms. T.’s opening brief asks the Court

to reverse and remand the agency decision.

4

 The Commissioner filed an Answer and a 

1 Plaintiff’s name is partially redacted in compliance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 

5.2(c)(2)(B) and the recommendation of the Committee on Court Administration and Case 

Management of the Judicial Conference of the United States. See Memorandum, Committee on 

Court Administration and Case Management of the Judicial Conference of the United States (May 

1, 2018), available https://www.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/18-cv-l-suggestion_cacm_0.pdf.

2 Administrative Record (“A.R.”) 13, 142. The application lists August 15, 2016. A.R. 142. 

Pursuant to 20 C.F.R. § 416.335, the ALJ used the August 3, 2016 application date as the date 

Ms. T. became potentially eligible for SSI benefits. A.R. 13. At her April 20, 2018 hearing, Ms. 

T.’s attorney also acknowledged the August 3, 2016 application date as the “operative date.” A.R. 

30.

3 Docket 1 (Cynthia T.’s Compl.).

4 Docket 14 (Cynthia T.’s Br.). The Court granted Ms. T.’s Motion for Extension of Time to File 

Social Security Brief on August 19, 2019. Docket 13.

Case 3:19-cv-00130-SLG Document 17 Filed 02/05/20 Page 1 of 36
Case No. 3:19-cv-00130-SLG, Cynthia T. v. Saul

Decision and Order

Page 2 of 36

brief in opposition to Ms. T.’s opening brief.5 Ms. T. filed a reply brief on September 23, 

2019.

6 Oral argument was not requested and was not necessary to the Court’s decision. 

This Court has jurisdiction to hear an appeal from a final decision of the Commissioner of 

Social Security.7 For the reasons set forth below, Ms. T.’s request for relief will be denied.

I. STANDARD OF REVIEW

A decision by the Commissioner to deny disability benefits will not be overturned 

unless it is either not supported by substantial evidence or is based upon legal error.8 

“Substantial evidence” has been defined by the United States Supreme Court as “such 

relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a 

conclusion.”9 Such evidence must be “more than a mere scintilla,” but may be “less than 

a preponderance.”10 In reviewing the agency’s determination, the Court considers the 

evidence in its entirety, weighing both the evidence that supports and that which detracts

from the administrative law judge (“ALJ”)’s conclusion.11 If the evidence is susceptible to 

5 Docket 10 (Answer); Docket 15 (Defendant’s Br.).

6 Docket 16 (Reply).

7 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).

8 Matney ex rel. Matney v. Sullivan, 981 F.2d 1016, 1019 (9th Cir. 1992) (citing Gonzalez v. 

Sullivan, 914 F.2d 1197, 1200 (9th Cir. 1990)).

9 Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389, 401 (1971) (quoting Consol. Edison Co. v. NLRB, 305 U.S. 

197, 229 (1938)).

10 Perales, 402 U.S. at 401; Sorenson v. Weinberger, 514 F.2d 1112, 1119 n.10 (9th Cir. 1975) 

(per curiam). 

11 Jones v. Heckler, 760 F.2d 993, 995 (9th Cir. 1985).

Case 3:19-cv-00130-SLG Document 17 Filed 02/05/20 Page 2 of 36
Case No. 3:19-cv-00130-SLG, Cynthia T. v. Saul

Decision and Order

Page 3 of 36

more than one rational interpretation, the ALJ’s conclusion must be upheld.12 A reviewing

court may only consider the reasons provided by the ALJ in the disability determination 

and “may not affirm the ALJ on a ground upon which [he] did not rely.”13 An ALJ’s decision 

will not be reversed if it is based on “harmless error,” meaning that the error “is 

inconsequential to the ultimate nondisability determination . . . or that, despite the legal 

error, the agency’s path may reasonably be discerned, even if the agency explains its 

decision with less than ideal clarity.”

14 Finally, the ALJ has a “special duty to fully and 

fairly develop the record and to assure that the claimant’s interests are considered.”

15

 In 

particular, the Ninth Circuit has found that the ALJ’s duty to develop the record increases 

when the claimant is unrepresented or is mentally ill and thus unable to protect her own 

interests.16

II. DETERMINING DISABILITY

The Act provides for the payment of disability insurance to individuals who have 

contributed to the Social Security program and who suffer from a physical or mental 

12 Gallant v. Heckler, 753 F.2d 1450, 1453 (9th Cir. 1984) (citing Rhinehart v. Finch, 438 F.2d 920, 

921 (9th Cir. 1971)).

13 Garrison v. Colvin, 759 F.3d 995, 1010 (9th Cir. 2014). 

14 Brown-Hunter v. Colvin, 806 F.3d 487, 492 (9th Cir. 2015) (internal quotation marks and citations 

omitted).

15 Smolen v. Chater, 80 F.3d 1273,1288 (9th Cir. 1996) (superseded in part by statute on other 

grounds, § 404.1529) (quoting Brown v. Heckler, 713 F.2d 441, 443 (9th Cir. 1983)); see also 

Garcia v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 768 F.3d 925, 930 (9th Cir. 2014).

16 Tonapetyan v. Halter, 242 F.3d 1144, 1150 (9th Cir. 2001).

Case 3:19-cv-00130-SLG Document 17 Filed 02/05/20 Page 3 of 36
Case No. 3:19-cv-00130-SLG, Cynthia T. v. Saul

Decision and Order

Page 4 of 36

disability.17 In addition, SSI may be available to individuals who are age 65 or older, blind, 

or disabled, but who do not have insured status under the Act.18 Disability is defined in 

the Act as follows:

[I]nability 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.19

The Act further provides:

An individual shall be determined to be under a disability only if his physical 

or mental impairment or impairments are 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, regardless of whether such work 

exists in the immediate area in which he lives, or whether a specific job 

vacancy exists for him, or whether he would be hired if he applied for work. 

For purposes of the preceding sentence (with respect to any individual), 

“work which exists in the national economy” means work which exists in 

significant numbers either in the region where such individual lives or in 

several regions of the country.20

The Commissioner has established a five-step process for determining disability 

within the meaning of the Act.21 A claimant bears the burden of proof at steps one through 

four in order to make a prima facie showing of disability.22 If a claimant establishes a 

17 42 U.S.C. § 423(a).

18 42 U.S.C. § 1381a. 

19 42 U.S.C. §§ 423(d)(1)(A), 1382c(a)(3)(A).

20 42 U.S.C. §§ 423(d)(2)(A), 1382c(a)(3)(B). 

21 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4), 416.920(a)(4).

22 Treichler v. Comm’r Soc. Sec. Admin., 775 F.3d 1090, 1096 n.1 (9th Cir. 2014) (quoting Hoopai 

v. Astrue, 499 F.3d 1071, 1074–75 (9th Cir. 2007)); see also Tackett v. Apfel, 180 F.3d 1094, 1098 

Case 3:19-cv-00130-SLG Document 17 Filed 02/05/20 Page 4 of 36
Case No. 3:19-cv-00130-SLG, Cynthia T. v. Saul

Decision and Order

Page 5 of 36

prima facie case, the burden of proof then shifts to the agency at step five.23 The 

Commissioner can meet this burden in two ways: “(a) by the testimony of a vocational 

expert, or (b) by reference to the Medical-Vocational Guidelines at 20 C.F.R. pt. 404, 

subpt. P, app. 2.”24 The steps, and the ALJ’s findings in this case, are as follows:

 Step 1. Determine whether the claimant is involved in “substantial gainful activity.” 

The ALJ concluded that Ms. T. had not engaged in substantial gainful activity since her 

application date of August 3, 2016.

25

 Step 2. Determine whether the claimant has a medically severe impairment or 

combination of impairments. A severe impairment significantly limits a claimant’s physical 

or mental ability to do basic work activities and does not consider age, education, or work 

experience. The severe impairment or combination of impairments must satisfy the 

twelve-month duration requirement. The ALJ determined that Ms. T. had the following 

severe impairments: iron deficiency anemia; degenerative disc disease of the cervical 

spine status post three surgical procedures; degenerative disc disease of the lumbar 

spine; and pelvic inflammatory disease. The ALJ determined that Ms. T.’s occipital 

neuralgia; cocaine abuse; alcohol use; bi-polar disorder; generalized anxiety disorder;

and possible depression were non-severe impairments.26

(9th Cir. 1999).

23 Treichler, 775 F.3d at 1096 n.1; Tackett, 180 F.3d at 1098 (emphasis in original).

24 Tackett, 180 F.3d at 1101.

25 A.R. 15.

26 A.R. 15–16.

Case 3:19-cv-00130-SLG Document 17 Filed 02/05/20 Page 5 of 36
Case No. 3:19-cv-00130-SLG, Cynthia T. v. Saul

Decision and Order

Page 6 of 36

 Step 3. Determine whether the impairment or combination of impairments meets 

or equals the severity of any of the listed impairments found in 20 C.F.R. pt. 404, subpt. 

P, app.1, precluding substantial gainful activity. If the impairment(s) is(are) the equivalent 

of any of the listed impairments, and meet(s) the duration requirement, the claimant is 

conclusively presumed to be disabled. If not, the evaluation goes on to the fourth 

step. The ALJ determined that Ms. T. did not have an impairment or combination of 

impairments that met or medically equaled the severity of a listed impairment.27

 Before proceeding to step four, a claimant’s residual functional capacity (“RFC”) is 

assessed. Once determined, the RFC is used at both step four and step five. An RFC 

assessment is a determination of what a claimant is able to do on a sustained basis 

despite the limitations from her impairments, including impairments that are not severe.28 

The ALJ concluded that Ms. T. had the RFC to perform light work except that she was 

additionally limited to: occasional stooping, kneeling, crouching, crawling, and climbing 

of ramps or stairs; no climbing of ladders, ropes, or scaffolds; frequent balancing; frequent 

bilateral overhead reaching, handling, fingering, and feeling; avoiding all exposure to 

unprotected heights; and occasional exposure to moving and hazardous machinery.29

 Step 4. Determine whether the claimant is capable of performing past relevant 

work. At this point, the analysis considers whether past relevant work requires the 

27 A.R. 16.

28 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4).

29 A.R. 17.

Case 3:19-cv-00130-SLG Document 17 Filed 02/05/20 Page 6 of 36
Case No. 3:19-cv-00130-SLG, Cynthia T. v. Saul

Decision and Order

Page 7 of 36

performance of work-related activities that are precluded by the claimant’s RFC. If the 

claimant can still do her past relevant work, the claimant is deemed not to be disabled. 

Otherwise, the evaluation process moves to the fifth and final step. The ALJ found that

Ms. T. was capable of performing past relevant work as a personal care attendant.

30

Step 5. Determine whether the claimant is able to perform other work in the 

national economy in view of her age, education, and work experience, and in light of the 

RFC. If so, the claimant is not disabled. If not, the claimant is considered 

disabled. Although the ALJ determined that Ms. T. was capable of past relevant work, he

also determined that in the alternative, there were other jobs existing in the national 

economy that Ms. T. was able to perform, including cleaner/maid and office helper.

31

The ALJ concluded that Ms. T. has not been disabled since August 3, 2016, the 

date of application.

32

III. PROCEDURAL AND FACTUAL BACKGROUND

Ms. T. was born in 1976; she is 43 years old.

33

 She reported last working in 2011

as a waitress.34 Ms. T. reported working as a bingo caller and as a personal care assistant

30 A.R. 20.

31 A.R. 21.

32 Id.

33 A.R. 142.

34 A.R. 51, 163. At the April 20, 2018 hearing before ALJ Hebda, Ms. T. reported last working at 

Golden Corral restaurant “probably about ten years ago.” A.R. 51.

Case 3:19-cv-00130-SLG Document 17 Filed 02/05/20 Page 7 of 36
Case No. 3:19-cv-00130-SLG, Cynthia T. v. Saul

Decision and Order

Page 8 of 36

in the past.

35

 On February 22, 2017, the Social Security Administration (“SSA”) 

determined that Ms. T. was not disabled under the applicable rules.

36

 On March 24, 2017, 

Ms. T. requested a hearing before an ALJ.

37

 On April 20, 2018, Ms. T. appeared and 

testified with representation at a hearing held before ALJ Paul Hebda.

38

 On June 11, 

2018, the ALJ issued an unfavorable ruling.

39

 On April 5, 2019, the Appeals Council

denied Ms. T.’s request for review.

40

 Ms. T. appealed to this Court on May 6, 2019.

41

Medical Records

Although Ms. T.’s medical records date back to 2012, the Court focuses on the

relevant medical records42 after the application date of August 3, 2016.

43

 However, the 

following are relevant records before the application date:

35 A.R. 52, 163. 

36 A.R. 61–74.

37 A.R. 79.

38 A.R. 49–53.

39 A.R. 10–22.

40 A.R. 1–5.

41 Docket 1. 

42 There are multiple duplicate treatment notes in the Court’s record. To the extent possible, the 

Court cites the first treatment note to appear in the medical record. 

43 The ALJ must consider a claimant’s “complete medical history for at least the 12 months 

preceding the month in which [a claimant files her] application” unless there is a reason to develop 

the medical history of an earlier period or the claimant states that her disability began less than 

12 months before filing the application. 20 C.F.R. § 416.912(d) (effective April 20, 2015 to March 

26, 2017). See also A.R. 13.

Case 3:19-cv-00130-SLG Document 17 Filed 02/05/20 Page 8 of 36
Case No. 3:19-cv-00130-SLG, Cynthia T. v. Saul

Decision and Order

Page 9 of 36

On October 26, 2012, Ms. T. saw Roland Torres, M.D., at Alaska Native Medical 

Center Hospital (“ANMC”). She reported severe neck pain with “numbness and tingling 

in her left arm and shoulder.” She reported that the neck pain was episodic, worsening,

and had lasted nearly a year. Ms. T. also reported being involved in a motor vehicle 

accident in October 2011 and another accident four months prior to her appointment with 

Dr. Torres. On physical examination, Dr. Torres observed “[m]oderate posterior cervical 

spine muscle spasm”; mild numbness and weakness in the left upper extremity (4/5); and 

that Ms. T. was alert and oriented; cooperative with an appropriate mood and affect; and 

exhibited normal judgment. Dr. Torres diagnosed Ms. T. with cervical herniated disc; 

cervical paraspinal muscle spasm; stenosis of the cervical spine region; and cervical 

radicular pain.44 On the same date, Ms. T. underwent C4 to C7 anterior cervical 

discectomy and fusion at ANMC.

45

On January 22, 2014, Ms. T. saw Ingrid Carlson, PA, at ANMC. She reported 

increased neck pain. She also reported that after the cervical fusion surgery in 2012 she 

was supposed to go to physical therapy, but she did not do so. On physical examination, 

PA Carlson observed that Ms. T.’s neck was supple; non-tender; and with no carotid bruit, 

no lymphadenopathy, and no thyromegaly. PA Carlson noted that Ms. T. was alert and 

oriented; in no acute distress; and was cooperative. PA Carlson referred Ms. T. to physical 

44 A.R. 2296–2300.

45 A.R. 2290–92.

Case 3:19-cv-00130-SLG Document 17 Filed 02/05/20 Page 9 of 36
Case No. 3:19-cv-00130-SLG, Cynthia T. v. Saul

Decision and Order

Page 10 of 36

therapy.46 At the appointment, Ms. T. tested positive for cocaine metabolite.

47

 X-rays of 

the cervical spine taken on the same date showed “some loosening of the orthopedic 

fixation of the screw plate of the mid to lower cervical spine” and “one or possibly two of 

the screws appear to be backing out.”48

On February 12, 2014, Ms. T. saw William Betts, M.D., at ANMC. She reported an 

“exacerbation of neck pain.” She also reported stable subjective weakness of both hands. 

On physical examination, Dr. Betts observed full range of motion in the neck; normal 

motor, sensory, and speech; intact grip strength; 2+ brachioradialis reflexes bilaterally; 

intact sensation; and that Ms. T. was alert and oriented. Dr. Betts noted that Ms. T. 

required surgery “to remove her current instrumentation and refuse the neck at C4-5, C5-

6, and C6-7.”

49

 On the same date, the x-ray of the cervical spine showed “stable partial 

backing out of a screw at C4 and C7.”50

On February 19, 2014, Ms. T. followed up with Laurel Christians, ANP, at ANMC. 

On physical examination, ANP Christians observed that Ms. T. was “[a] bit labile today” 

and had a normal gait and range of motion. ANP Christians noted that Ms. T. had elevated 

blood pressure, but “she left before [ANP Christians] could” address it.51 On the same 

46 A.R. 1677–79.

47 A.R. 1696.

48 A.R. 1672. 

49 A.R. 1115–17.

50 A.R. 1125.

51 A.R. 1644–47.

Case 3:19-cv-00130-SLG Document 17 Filed 02/05/20 Page 10 of 36
Case No. 3:19-cv-00130-SLG, Cynthia T. v. Saul

Decision and Order

Page 11 of 36

date, Ms. T. tested positive for oxycodone, oxymorphone, noroxycodone, nordiazepam, 

temazepam, oxazepam, cocaine metabolites, ethanol quantitation, ethyl glucuronide, and 

ethyl sulfate.52

On March 27, 2014, Ms. T. underwent a two-stage surgical procedure “involving 

(1) removal of the anterior cervical hardware from C4 to C7, anterior cervical fusion at 

C4-5, anterior cervical cage placed, and removal of old anterior cervical cage followed by 

(2) posterior cervical fusion from C4 to T2 with instrumentation, and C4, C5, and C6 

bilateral laminotomy, foraminotomy, and facetectomy without complications.” She was 

discharged from the hospital on March 29, 2014.53

On May 15, 2014, Ms. T. had x-rays of her cervical spine. The x-rays showed 

“posterior cervical spine fusion extending from C4 through T2” and a “grossly normal 

alignment.”54

On September 10, 2014, Ms. T. saw James Parietti, PT, at ANMC. She participated 

in physical therapy for her neck. Ms. T. reported she had no neck pain.55

On January 20, 2015, Ms. T. had a CT scan of her cervical spine. The CT showed 

“postsurgical changes” at C4-T2 “without hardware complication or evidence of 

52 A.R. 1657–59. Ms. T. also tested positive for cocaine metabolites, ETOH, and other drugs not 

prescribed on April 10, 2014 and January 23, 2015. A.R. 1392, 1524. She tested positive for 

cannabinoids and negative for cocaine metabolites and UR alcohol on August 11, 2014. A.R. 

1460. She tested positive for cannabinoids and cocaine metabolites on August 25, 2015. A.R. 

366.

53 A.R. 2316–25.

54 A.R. 1477.

55 A.R. 1433.

Case 3:19-cv-00130-SLG Document 17 Filed 02/05/20 Page 11 of 36
Case No. 3:19-cv-00130-SLG, Cynthia T. v. Saul

Decision and Order

Page 12 of 36

loosening” and “mild to moderate left osseous foraminal narrowing at the left C4-5 level 

and mild at the left C6-7 level.”56

On August 25, 2015, Ms. T. saw Benjamin Garnett, M.D., at the emergency 

department at ANMC. She reported an acute onset of “sharp lower abdominal pelvic 

pain” with fevers, sweats, and chills. Dr. Garnett diagnosed Ms. T. with acute pelvic 

inflammatory disease. He noted also that “no etiology for the patient’s recent drop in 

hemoglobin [was] identified” by a CT scan of the abdomen and pelvis.57 Ms. T. had an 

ultrasound of her pelvis on the same date. The ultrasound report noted that “findings 

could represent a hemorrhagic left ovarian cyst and complex fluid in the pelvis” and “early 

inflammation cannot be excluded.” Ms. T. was hospitalized at ANMC for three days.58

On August 25, 26, 27, and 28, 2015, Ms. T. had psychosocial assessments while 

hospitalized at ANMC. The assessments consistently showed appropriate, calm, 

cooperative behavior; pleasant affect; orientation x4; and independence completing 

activities of daily living.59

On September 16, 2015, Ms. T. saw Stephanie Eklund, M.D., at ANMC. She 

reported decreased pelvic pain. The ultrasound of her pelvis showed “apparent resolution 

of the posterior pelvic complex fluid collection seen previously.” Dr. Eklund noted that 

56 A.R. 1399.

57 A.R. 340–54.

58 A.R. 358–59.

59 A.R. 1846–52.

Case 3:19-cv-00130-SLG Document 17 Filed 02/05/20 Page 12 of 36
Case No. 3:19-cv-00130-SLG, Cynthia T. v. Saul

Decision and Order

Page 13 of 36

“[b]oth the resolution of pain and her [ultrasound] supports improvement” of pelvic 

inflammatory disease.60

On March 31, 2016, Ms. T. saw Mary Cavalier at Behavioral Services Division at 

ANMC. She reported “bad mood swings [and] anxiety.” Ms. Cavalier noted that Ms. T.’s 

primary care provider diagnosed Ms. T. on November 27, 2015 with “mild to no depressive 

symptoms.” Ms. Cavalier referred Ms. T. to a primary care provider to “rule out physical 

causes for symptoms.”61

On June 13, 2016, Ms. T. saw Troy Wolcoff at the Behavioral Health Clinic at 

ANMC. She reported, “I think I have anxiety, my moods are out of control. I am pushing 

people away.” On examination, Mr. Wolcoff observed that Ms. T. was cooperative with an 

appropriate mood and affect; normal judgment; congruent behavior; appropriate thought 

processes; and no abnormal or psychotic thoughts. He diagnosed Ms. T. with generalized 

anxiety disorder and mood changes and a differential diagnosis of “rule out bipolar 

disorder, rule out panic disorder.”62

On June 24, 2016, Ms. T. saw Katharine Andre, M.D., at ANMC. She reported 

diarrhea and vomiting and anxiety. She reported her last cocaine use was “maybe a year 

ago” and reported last drinking alcohol two days before the appointment. On physical 

examination, Dr. Andre observed that Ms. T. was alert and oriented. Dr. Andre diagnosed 

60 A.R. 313–19.

61 A.R. 293.

62 A.R. 278–81.

Case 3:19-cv-00130-SLG Document 17 Filed 02/05/20 Page 13 of 36
Case No. 3:19-cv-00130-SLG, Cynthia T. v. Saul

Decision and Order

Page 14 of 36

Ms. T. with anxiety and “anemia last year, resolved now.” The toxicology screening 

collected at the visit was positive for cocaine metabolites, alcohol, and marijuana.63 On 

the same date, Ms. T. saw Kylie Hendren at the Behavioral Health Center at ANMC. She 

reported agitation and anxiety. Ms. T. reported looking for work “that does not involve 

having to work with a lot of people.” On examination, Ms. Hendren observed that Ms. T. 

was cooperative; agitated; anxious; impulsive; and had appropriate thought processes.64

On July 18, 2016, Ms. T. had a psychiatric assessment with Cindy Campbell, ANP, 

at SouthCentral Foundation Behavioral Services Division. On examination, Ms. T. was 

alert and oriented with fair insight and judgment. Her memory and concentration were 

intact and her appearance was neat, clean, and casually attired. Her mood was labile

and her thought processes were “overall logical and goal directed towards achieving 

help.” There was no evidence of psychosis and she denied suicidal and homicidal 

ideation. Ms. T. was diagnosed with “other specified bipolar and related disorder,” alcohol 

use disorder, and cocaine use disorder. She was prescribed Abilify.65

The following are the more relevant records after the application date of August 3, 

2016:

63 A.R. 261–74.

64 A.R. 275–77. Ms. T. followed up at the Behavioral Health Center at ANMC on June 29, 2016 

and July 8, 2016. A.R. 255–60. On examination at both appointments, Ms. T. was cooperative 

with an anxious mood and affect, agitated behavior, impulsive judgment, and appropriate thought 

process. A.R. 257.

65 A.R. 388–91.

Case 3:19-cv-00130-SLG Document 17 Filed 02/05/20 Page 14 of 36
Case No. 3:19-cv-00130-SLG, Cynthia T. v. Saul

Decision and Order

Page 15 of 36

On August 15, 2016, Ms. T. saw Katie Ellsworth, RN, at the emergency department 

at ANMC. She reported neck pain that began the previous week after she lifted a grocery 

bag at home. On physical examination, RN Ellsworth observed a stiff, minimally painful 

gait; limited range of motion in the neck due to pain; normal sensory, motor, speech, and 

coordination; a cooperative, appropriate mood and affect; and normal judgment.66 Ms. T. 

had x-rays of the cervical spine. The x-rays showed “extensive surgical changes of the 

neck” and “no interval change,” as the x-rays appeared similar to those after the 2014 

surgery.67

On August 16, 2016, Ms. T. saw ANP Campbell at SouthCentral Foundation, 

Behavioral Services Division. She reported that she felt “happy and calm and not always 

‘mean and upset.’” On examination, ANP Campbell observed that Ms. T. was alert and 

oriented with fair insight and judgment and intact memory and concentration. She 

observed that Ms. T. was neat, clean, causally attired, and arrived on time. ANP Campbell 

noted that Ms. T was “tolerating Abilify with good results.”68

On September 1, 2016, Ms. T. had x-rays of her cervical spine. The x-rays showed 

“stable post surgical changes consistent with fusion of the cervical spine.” Ms. T. also 

had a CT of the cervical spine. The CT showed “some degenerative changes,” but “no 

acute abnormality” and “no change from the prior study.”69

66 A.R. 241–44.

67 A.R. 243, 1299.

68 A.R. 392–93.

69 A.R. 234, 236.

Case 3:19-cv-00130-SLG Document 17 Filed 02/05/20 Page 15 of 36
Case No. 3:19-cv-00130-SLG, Cynthia T. v. Saul

Decision and Order

Page 16 of 36

On September 12, 2016, Ms. T. saw Norman Rokosz, M.D., at ANMC. She 

reported chronic neck pain. Dr. Rokosz noted that Ms. T. did not “report any arm pain or 

numbness when questioned.” On physical examination, Dr. Rokosz observed that Ms. T. 

was pleasant, well-nourished, and in no acute distress. He observed that Ms. T. had “a 

reasonable range of motion” in the neck “except for extension, which [was] limited to 5 

degrees, and right lateral rotation, which [was] 50 degrees.” He noted that the motor and 

sensory exams were intact. Dr. Rokosz also noted that it was “quite unlikely that any 

further surgical intervention would be of benefit,” but he believed that “an MRI [was] 

warranted for a thorough evaluation.”70

On September 16, 2016, Ms. T. saw Starchild Weivoda, D.O., at ANMC, “to have 

forms filled out for disability.” On that day, Ms. T. reported symptoms of cervical 

radiculopathy “with radiation to her shoulders and upper extremities” which “interferes 

with her ability to use her upper extremities without pain for extended periods.” On 

physical examination, Dr. Weivoda observed that Ms.T. was alert and oriented with normal 

sensory, normal motor function, and no focal deficits. Dr. Weivoda diagnosed Ms. T. with 

bipolar disorder, chronic neck pain, and radiculopathy of the cervical spine. Dr. Weivoda 

opined that Ms. T. “may be able to participate in work which does not involve significant 

physical activity” and that is “limited in duration such that it does not cause her pain.”71

70 A.R. 232–33.

71 A.R. 230–31.

Case 3:19-cv-00130-SLG Document 17 Filed 02/05/20 Page 16 of 36
Case No. 3:19-cv-00130-SLG, Cynthia T. v. Saul

Decision and Order

Page 17 of 36

On September 22, 2016, Ms. T. had an MRI of the cervical spine. The MRI showed 

“stable fusion of C4-T2” and the “neural foramina and central canal appear patent at each 

level.”72

On September 27, 2016, Ms. T. saw ANP Campbell at SouthCentral Foundation, 

Behavioral Services Division. She reported, “I thought the medicine was working but then 

I got anxiety again after 2 weeks.” She also reported taking medications as prescribed 

without any side effects. On examination, ANP Campbell observed that Ms. T. was alert 

and oriented with fair insight and judgment; happy mood; logical and goal directed thought 

processes; appropriate associations; and no evidence of psychosis.73

On November 28, 2016, non-examining physician Jay Caldwell, M.D., provided an 

RFC based on his review of the medical record on file. He opined that Ms. T. had the 

following limitations: occasionally lifting and carrying 20 pounds; frequently lifting and 

carrying 10 pounds; standing and/or walking about six hours in an eight-hour workday; 

sitting about six hours in an eight-hour workday; occasionally climbing stairs, ramps, 

ladders, and scaffolds; frequently crouching and crawling; occasionally reaching 

overhead; frequently handling; avoiding concentrated exposure to hazards; avoiding 

moderate exposure to extreme cold, vibration, and fumes, odors, dust, gases, and poor 

ventilation. Dr. Caldwell also opined that there was “a psychiatric overlay in play.”74

72 A.R. 228–29.

73 A.R. 394–95. On October 25, 2016, Ms. T. spoke by telephone with ANP Campbell. She 

reported “restlessness, inability to sit still, feeling anxious.” A.R. 397.

74 A.R. 377–84.

Case 3:19-cv-00130-SLG Document 17 Filed 02/05/20 Page 17 of 36
Case No. 3:19-cv-00130-SLG, Cynthia T. v. Saul

Decision and Order

Page 18 of 36

On December 23, 2016, Ms. T. saw Phillip Weidner, D.O., at ANMC. She was 

diagnosed with occipital neuralgia. Dr. Weidner performed a bilateral occipital nerve 

block.75

On January 31, 2017, Ms. T. saw ANP Campbell at SouthCentral Foundation, 

Behavioral Services Division. She reported, “I think the medicine is working but then my 

brain tells me it is not.” She reported taking medications as prescribed without any side 

effects. ANP Campbell noted that Ms. T. had not been seen in four months and had 

missed several appointments. On examination, ANP Campbell observed that Ms. T. was 

alert and oriented with fair insight and judgment; intact memory and concentration; a 

clean, neat, casually attired appearance; anxious mood; logical and goal directed thought 

processes; appropriate associations; and no evidence of psychosis. ANP Campbell 

diagnosed Ms. T. with “[o]ther specified bipolar and related disorder”; moderate alcohol 

use disorder; and mild cocaine use disorder.76

On February 21, 2017, reviewing physician Ron Feigin, M.D., opined that Ms. T.’s 

understanding and memory were “[n]ot significantly limited.” He opined that Ms. T.’s

sustained concentration and persistence were moderately limited in some areas such as 

carrying out detailed instructions, working in coordination with or in proximity to others 

without being distracted by them, and maintaining regular attendance. Dr. Feigin also 

opined that Ms. T.’s social interactions and ability to adapt were moderately limited. He 

75 A.R. 463–64.

76 A.R. 399–400.

Case 3:19-cv-00130-SLG Document 17 Filed 02/05/20 Page 18 of 36
Case No. 3:19-cv-00130-SLG, Cynthia T. v. Saul

Decision and Order

Page 19 of 36

noted that Ms. T. “does have some mood and anxiety issues; however, she is still capable 

of performing simple, repetitive work tasks in an environment where she has little to no 

contact with co-workers and the general public. She has shown significant improvement, 

especially when she avails herself of the treatment that has thus far, in her own words, 

been beneficial.”77

On March 6, 2017, Ms. T. followed up with ANP Campbell. She reported, “You 

know when you asked me before if I was hearing voices? Well I kind of do.” On physical 

examination, ANP Campbell observed that Ms. T. was alert and oriented with fair insight 

and judgment; intact memory and concentration; a clean, neat, casually attired 

appearance; anxious mood; logical and goal directed thought processes; appropriate 

associations; and no evidence of psychosis. ANP Campbell encouraged Ms. T. to resume 

weekly counseling sessions, but Ms. T. declined.78

On April 24, 2017, Ms. T. saw Thai Verzone, PA, at the emergency department at 

ANMC. She reported lumbar back pain after she slipped and fell on the ice. On physical 

examination, PA Verzone observed that Ms. T. had diffuse, moderate tenderness in the 

lumbar back and a negative straight leg raise. PA Verzone observed that Ms. T. was 

alert, oriented, cooperative, with normal judgment, and an appropriate mood and affect. 

The x-rays of Ms. T.’s lumbar spine showed “mild/moderate lumbar spondylosis of the L2-

77 A.R. 68–71.

78 A.R. 2342–43. On March 16, 2017, March 21, 2017, and April 24, 2017, a staff member at 

SouthCentral Foundation Behavioral Services Division attempted to schedule future 

appointments for Ms. T. with ANP Campbell. A.R. 2345–47. On April 28, 2017, Ms. T. requested 

to pick up records of her sessions with ANP Campbell. A.R. 2348.

Case 3:19-cv-00130-SLG Document 17 Filed 02/05/20 Page 19 of 36
Case No. 3:19-cv-00130-SLG, Cynthia T. v. Saul

Decision and Order

Page 20 of 36

3 and L3-4 levels,” but otherwise alignment was anatomic with no fracture or 

subluxation.79 Also on April 24, 2017, Ms. T. saw Dr. Weidner at ANMC. She reported 

that the nerve block in December 2016 “was not particularly effective with her neck pain, 

and she [has] not had any injuries since that time.” She also reported that she had not 

had “any new treatment for her neck pain since the last time [Dr. Weidner] saw her, or 

any medication changes.” On physical examination, Dr. Weidner observed that Ms. T. 

was alert and oriented with no tenderness in the cervical spine; had a normal gait; normal 

thoracic spine range of motion; decreased cervical spine range of motion; and strength 

5/5 bilaterally in the upper extremities. Dr. Weidner noted, “I do not think this represents 

occipital neuralgia” and “I think this represents something more consistent with failed neck 

(back) syndrome.” Dr. Weidner suggested using gabapentin and/or amitriptyline and a 

TENS unit.80

On May 5, 2017, Ms. T. saw Starchild Weivoda, D.O., at AMNC. She reported 

chronic neck pain for five years and “persistent left buttock pain” after the fall on the ice. 

On physical examination, Ms. T. had high blood pressure, was alert and oriented, and in 

no acute distress. Dr. Weivoda referred Ms. T. to physical therapy, increased her 

prescription for gabapentin, and refilled her prescription for naproxen 500 mg.81

79 A.R. 449–53.

80 A.R. 454–59. On December 23, 2016, Dr. Weidner had earlier diagnosed Ms. T. with occipital 

neuralgia and performed a bilateral occipital nerve block. A.R. 463–64.

81 A.R. 447–48.

Case 3:19-cv-00130-SLG Document 17 Filed 02/05/20 Page 20 of 36
Case No. 3:19-cv-00130-SLG, Cynthia T. v. Saul

Decision and Order

Page 21 of 36

On May 16, 2017, Ms. T. had x-rays of the cervical spine. The x-rays showed 

“stable fusion of C4 through T2.”82

On June 5, 2017, Ms. T. saw Dan Korn, M.D., at the emergency department at 

ANMC. She reported lower abdominal pain. On physical examination, Dr. Korn observed 

that Ms. T. was alert and oriented; in no acute distress; and with normal sensory, motor, 

and speech. He observed a soft, non-distended abdomen with moderate tenderness with 

no rebound and no guarding. He noted that the CT scan of the abdomen and pelvis 

showed no evidence of acute diverticulitis and no acute inflammation or large ovarian 

cyst. She was discharged home on the same day.83

On June 23, 2017, Ms. T. attended a physical therapy session with Susan Ryznar, 

MPT, OCS. She reported ongoing cervical spine pain/discomfort. On physical 

examination, MPT Ryznar observed “posture dysfunction, scapular stab [and] RTC 

strength deficits, guarded-protected postures adding to pain symptoms, and pain affecting 

function.” MPT Ryznar recommended 6-10 weeks of physical therapy and “was 

‘pleasantly’ surprised with [Ms. T.’s] symptom reduction.” MPT Ryznar opined that Ms. T. 

was “a good candidate for skilled PT and presents with no barriers to rehab[ilitation].” 

However, there are no more physical therapy records in the medical record.84

82 A.R. 446.

83 A.R. 429–441.

84 A.R. 442–445.

Case 3:19-cv-00130-SLG Document 17 Filed 02/05/20 Page 21 of 36
Case No. 3:19-cv-00130-SLG, Cynthia T. v. Saul

Decision and Order

Page 22 of 36

On November 26, 2017, Ms. T. saw Leah Bramer, PA-C, at the emergency 

department at ANMC. She reported lower back pain for the past month. PA Bramer noted 

that Ms. T. denied bowel or bladder dysfunction, numbness, fever, chills, weakness, 

fatigue, nausea, vomiting, hematuria, vaginal discharge, and/or abdominal pain. On 

physical examination, PA Bramer observed that Ms. T. was alert, in no acute distress, with 

a supple neck and no tenderness, a normal gait, was cooperative, and had an appropriate 

mood and affect. The x-rays taken at the visit showed “mild degenerative change[s] but 

no acute osseous findings.” Ms. T. was discharged the same day.85

On December 1, 2017, Ms. T. saw Sarah Dobbs, M.D., at ANMC. She reported 

low back pain. Dr. Dobbs noted that Ms. T. had a “backache – no red flag symptoms.” 

Dr. Dobbs referred Ms. T. to physical therapy “to help with core strengthening exercises.”86

On February 23, 2018, Ms. T. saw Brian Boden, PA-C, at the emergency 

department at ANMC. She reported one week of dizziness and nausea. PA Boden noted 

that Ms. T. had a history of iron deficiency anemia and that her current reported symptoms 

were similar to previous episodes of anemia. He also noted that she “continues to get 

placed on iron supplement and her symptoms improved. She then [gets] taken off, and 

returns.” Ms. T. reported no back pain, muscle pain, joint pain; and no anxiety or 

depression. On physical examination, Ms. T. had low blood pressure and was alert and 

oriented with normal motor, speech, and coordination. PA Boden assessed Ms. T. with 

85 A.R. 420–28.

86 A.R. 417–19.

Case 3:19-cv-00130-SLG Document 17 Filed 02/05/20 Page 22 of 36
Case No. 3:19-cv-00130-SLG, Cynthia T. v. Saul

Decision and Order

Page 23 of 36

iron deficiency anemia and prescribed an iron supplement and stool softener. He later 

noted that Ms. T.’s anemia condition had improved and was stable. Ms. T. was discharged 

the same day and instructed to follow up with her primary provider within two to four weeks

and return to the emergency department if her symptoms worsened.87

Hearing Testimony on April 20, 2018

Ms. T. attended a hearing before ALJ Hebda on April 20, 2018 with representation.

She testified that she first started experiencing back pain in 2010. She testified that she 

was always in pain, lived with her mother, and couldn’t “really function with everyday life 

like most people can.” She testified that she could sit for about a half-hour. She indicated 

that she feels like “Grand Central Station” when she is in public and that she was “dizzy 

a lot.” She noted that she “just hear[s] a lot of mixed voices, and I don’t want to be around 

that, so I’m constantly staying home, I avoid public, people.” Ms. T. indicated that her 

periods made her “really weak [ ] and dizzy.” She reported last working at Golden Corral 

“probably about ten years ago.” Ms. T. testified that she worked as a personal care 

attendant for her aunt in 2004.

88

 

Jack LeBeau, M.D., testified as the medical expert. Based on his review of the 

record, Dr. LeBeau indicated that Ms. T.’s primary physical problems were iron deficiency 

anemia, neck pain after multiple surgeries, lumbar disease without impingement, tailbone 

fracture, occipital neuralgia, pelvic inflammatory disease, tobacco-dependence, and 

87 A.R. 410–16. There appear to be no records of Ms. T. returning to the emergency department 

at ANMC or following up with her primary care provider regarding anemia after February 2018.

88 A.R. 49–53.

Case 3:19-cv-00130-SLG Document 17 Filed 02/05/20 Page 23 of 36
Case No. 3:19-cv-00130-SLG, Cynthia T. v. Saul

Decision and Order

Page 24 of 36

abuse of marijuana and cocaine. Dr. LeBeau opined that Ms. T. did not meet or equal a 

listing for her cervical spine because “when you really get down to the nuts and bolts, if 

you’re going to meet or equal, you’ve got to have radiculopathy. . . and I don’t think she 

has that.” He opined that Ms. T.’s anemia was “intermittently symptomatic.” He noted 

that Ms. T.’s chronic pain syndrome of the neck and low back pain syndrome were 

“controlled, and you don’t have to set her on narcotics.” Dr. LeBeau opined “on the 

assumption that she has a normal hemoglobin,” that Ms. T. should be able to lift and carry 

10 pounds frequently and 11 to 20 pounds occasionally; sit for six hours in a full workday 

with a lumbar chair; stand three hours in a workday; walk one hour in a workday; reach 

overhead frequently; handle, finger, and feel frequently; never climb ladders or scaffolds; 

climb stairs and ramps occasionally; balance frequently; stoop, kneel, crouch, and crawl 

occasionally; never work at unprotected heights; and work with moving mechanical parts 

occasionally. Based on Ms. T.’s counsel’s question regarding low hemoglobin, Dr. 

LeBeau responded that Ms. T.’s daily activities would be affected due to depression and 

“physiological things that are going on,” including shortness of breath, dizziness, 

clumsiness, and weakness/lack of endurance. He noted, “from a physician’s angle, this 

is a problem to be solved.” Dr. LeBeau testified, “put it this way, if we just would get her 

blood fixed, she’d be very, very good, and then you concentrate maybe on a better 

situation as far as getting your pain under control if the rest of her metabolism is 

favorable.”89

89

 A.R. 33–44.

Case 3:19-cv-00130-SLG Document 17 Filed 02/05/20 Page 24 of 36
Case No. 3:19-cv-00130-SLG, Cynthia T. v. Saul

Decision and Order

Page 25 of 36

Colette Valette, Ph.D., testified as the psychological medical expert. Based on her 

review of the record, Dr. Valette noted diagnoses in the record of cocaine and alcohol 

abuse; bipolar, unspecified; and generalized anxiety disorder. She opined that Ms. T.’s 

bipolar disorder did not meet or equal a listing. Dr. Valette testified that Ms. T.’s substance 

abuse did not interfere with her functioning and her “anxiety and labile affect” were not 

considered an impairment on an ongoing basis. She noted Ms. T. had a single diagnosis 

of generalized anxiety disorder that was not supported.90 Dr. Valette also noted the 

records indicated that Ms. T. attended only four appointments for psychological treatment 

and had no psychiatric hospitalizations.91 

William Weiss testified as the vocational expert. Based on the ALJ’s first 

hypothetical,

92 he opined that Ms. T. could perform her past work. VE Weiss also testified 

that there were other jobs an individual the same age, education, and work experience 

90 A.R. 44–49.

91 The entire medical record before the Court shows Ms. T. attended more than four appointments 

for psychological treatment. See A.R. 1846–52, 255–60, 275–81, 293, 388–91, 392–95, 399–

400, 2342–43. However, after the August 3, 2016 application date, Ms. T. attended four 

appointments with ANP Campbell. A fifth contact in October 2016 was a phone contact. Docket 

15 at 12; see also A.R. 392–95, 397, 399–400, 2342–43.

92 The ALJ’s first hypothetical was as follows: 

I have an individual of the claimant’s age, education, and past work experience, 

who would be able to perform light level work as defined by the Social Security 

Administration, but we’re going to have the following limitations. 

As far as climbing of ramps and stairs, stooping, kneeling, crouching, and crawling, 

those would all be at the occasional level. I would have only frequent balancing, 

no climbing of ladders, ropes, or scaffolding, no exposure to unprotected heights, 

and only occasional exposure to moving and hazardous machinery. Manipulative 

limitations would be overhead reaching bilaterally, would be at the frequent level, 

as would handling, fingering, and feeling. A.R. 56.

Case 3:19-cv-00130-SLG Document 17 Filed 02/05/20 Page 25 of 36
Case No. 3:19-cv-00130-SLG, Cynthia T. v. Saul

Decision and Order

Page 26 of 36

as Ms. T. could perform, including cleaner maid and office helper. Based on the ALJ’s 

second hypothetical,

93 VE Weiss opined that the “junior maid” position would be excluded, 

but not the “attendant” or office helper jobs. VE Weiss testified that if the hypothetical 

individual could only handle and finger infrequently, manual tasks “could be a problem.”

94

Ms. T.’s Function Reports

Ms. T. completed an undated function report.

95

 She reported, “it hurts to stand or 

sit to[o] long” and that she “can’t even lay right to sleep.” She also reported that her 

“anxiety make[s] it to where at times I don’t want to leave the house or even my room.” 

She stated, it “hurts to put clothes over my head and bent over”; “to bend or shave or 

shampoo”; and she “can’t lift [her] hands over [her] head for too long.” Ms. T. reported 

that she could prepare her own meals and that her mother helped her with household 

chores. She indicated that she was able to pay bills, count change, handle a savings 

account, and use a checkbook/money orders, but that her mother did the shopping. She 

indicated she spent time with others on the computer and at family functions. Ms. T. 

reported that her conditions affected lifting, squatting, bending, standing, reaching, 

walking, sitting, kneeling, talking, stair-climbing, completing tasks, concentration, 

93 The ALJ’s second hypothetical was as follows:

Let me ask you to continue with the same hypothetical individual, and with the prior 

residual functional capacity, but, say I would add a sit/stand option, which would 

allow the individual to alternate sitting or standing positions throughout the day 

without going off task. A.R. 57.

94 A.R. 54–59.

95 The Court Transcript Index shows a date of August 30, 2016 for the function report. Docket 11-

2 at 1.

Case 3:19-cv-00130-SLG Document 17 Filed 02/05/20 Page 26 of 36
Case No. 3:19-cv-00130-SLG, Cynthia T. v. Saul

Decision and Order

Page 27 of 36

understanding, following instructions, using hands, and getting along with others. She 

remarked that “[h]aving bi-polar make[s] me angry all the time then happy. It goes back 

and forth daily” and “anxiety keeps me from leaving the house a lot.”96

On October 2, 2016, Kent R., a friend, completed a function report on Ms. T.’s 

behalf. He reported that he had known Ms. T. for 20 years and spent time with Ms. T. on 

a daily basis. He indicated that dressing, bathing, caring for her hair, and shaving hurt 

Ms. T.’s neck. Mr. R. also reported that Ms. T. could prepare simple food and that her 

mother helped Ms. T. with household chores. He indicated that Ms. T.’s conditions 

affected lifting, squatting, bending, standing, reaching, walking, sitting, kneeling, talking, 

hearing, stair climbing, seeing, memory, completing tasks, concentration, understanding, 

following instructions, using hands, and getting along with others. Mr. R. noted that Ms. 

T.’s back and neck bothered her and her “bipolar/anxiety stops her from being around 

people.” He also reported, “I have witnessed extreme mood changes from day to day, 

happy one minute then angry the next minute. Sleeping is a real issue, due to surgeries 

on her neck. Her anxiety when it comes to groups or crowded areas with many people 

has gotten worse.”97

IV. DISCUSSION

Ms. T. is represented by counsel. In her opening brief, Ms. T. alleges that the ALJ’s 

decision is not supported by substantial evidence because: (1) the RFC did not account 

96 A.R. 187–94.

97 A.R. 178–86.

Case 3:19-cv-00130-SLG Document 17 Filed 02/05/20 Page 27 of 36
Case No. 3:19-cv-00130-SLG, Cynthia T. v. Saul

Decision and Order

Page 28 of 36

for anemia; (2) the ALJ failed to “fully and fairly develop the record with respect to the 

adverse vocational functional impact of anemia”; and (3) the ALJ found no limitations due 

to mental impairments.98 The Commissioner disputes Ms. T.’s assertions.99 The Court 

addresses each of Ms. T.’s assertions in turn:

A. The RFC Assessment

Ms. T. alleges in her brief that the ALJ’s RFC “intentionally ignored anemia” and 

the ALJ erred by relying on Dr. LeBeau’s opinion because it “explicitly factors out 

anemia.”100 The Commissioner asserts that Dr. LeBeau’s opinion and independent 

medical evidence “indicated [Ms. T.]’s anemia was controllable with treatment and 

therefore not disabling for the purpose of benefits.”101 Ms. T. also asserts that the “final 

agency decision is not supported by substantial evidence and is the product of reversible 

errors of law because it found no limitations due to mental impairments, which adversely 

affected Ms. Toliver’s RFC formulation.”102 The Commissioner contends that “[w]here the 

ALJ relied on both the opinion of Dr. Valette and other medical evidence showing that 

[Ms. T.]’s mental impairments did not warrant RFC limitations, substantial evidence 

supported the ALJ’s decision not to include mental limitations in the RFC.”

103

98 Docket 14 at 14–23.

99 Docket 15 at 4–14.

100 Docket 14 at 14.

101 Docket 15 at 4–5.

102 Docket 14 at 19.

103 Docket 15 at 11.

Case 3:19-cv-00130-SLG Document 17 Filed 02/05/20 Page 28 of 36
Case No. 3:19-cv-00130-SLG, Cynthia T. v. Saul

Decision and Order

Page 29 of 36

1. Legal Standard

A court should affirm an ALJ’s determination of a claimant’s RFC “if the ALJ applied 

the proper legal standard and his decision is supported by substantial evidence.”104 In 

assessing an RFC, the ALJ “must consider limitations and restrictions imposed by all of 

an individual’s impairments, even those that are not ‘severe.’”105 It is “proper for an ALJ 

to limit a hypothetical to those impairments that are supported by substantial evidence in 

the record.”106 And, courts have held that “[c]onsideration of ‘the limiting effects of all 

impairments’ does not necessarily require the inclusion of every impairment into the final 

RFC if the record indicates the non-severe impairment does not cause a significant

limitation in the plaintiff’s ability to work.”107 However, “an RFC that fails to take into 

account a claimant’s limitations is defective.”108

104 Bayliss v. Barnhart, 427 F.3d 1211, 1217 (9th Cir. 2005) (citing Morgan v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. 

Admin., 169 F.3d 595, 599 (9th Cir. 1999)).

105 See SSR 96-08p, available at 1996 WL 374184 at *5; 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1545(a)(2), 

416.945(a)(2) (“We will consider all of your medically determinable impairments of which we are 

aware, including your medically determinable impairments that are not ‘severe.’”). See also Bray 

v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 554 F.3d 1219, 1224 (9th Cir. 2009) (“SSRs do not carry the ‘force 

of law,’ but they are binding on ALJs nonetheless.”).

106 Osenbrock v. Apfel, 240 F.3d 1157, 1165 (9th Cir. 2001) (citing Magallanes v. Bowen, 881 F.2d 

747, 756-57 (9th Cir. 1989) (“the ALJ was free to accept . . . that the claimant’s depression was 

mild and would not significantly interfere with the performance of work related activities.”)).

107 See Medlock v. Colvin, No. 15-cv-9609-KK, 2016 WL 6137399, at *5 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 20, 2016) 

(emphases omitted); Sisco v. Colvin, No. 13-cv-01817-LHK, 2014 WL 2859187, at *8 (N.D. Cal. 

June 20, 2014); Burch v. Barnhart, 400 F.3d 676, 684 (9th Cir. 2005) (finding ALJ’s decision not

to include plaintiff’s obesity impairment in the RFC determination was proper).

108 Valentine v. Comm’r Soc. Sec. Admin., 574 F.3d 685, 690 (9th Cir. 2009).

Case 3:19-cv-00130-SLG Document 17 Filed 02/05/20 Page 29 of 36
Case No. 3:19-cv-00130-SLG, Cynthia T. v. Saul

Decision and Order

Page 30 of 36

2. Anemia and the RFC Assessment

In his decision, the ALJ discussed Ms. T.’s history of iron deficiency anemia and 

noted specifically that hospital records from February 2018 showed that Ms. T.’s 

symptoms resolved with supplement medication and “despite her complaints of dizziness 

at that time, she was objectively observed to ambulate with a steady gait”; had normal 

musculoskeletal range of motion and no signs of swelling or tenderness; normal motor 

behavior; and normal coordination.109 In June 2016, Dr. Andre diagnosed Ms. T. with 

“anemia last year, resolved now.”110 

Additionally, the ALJ considered medical expert Dr. LeBeau’s testimony and 

generally gave great weight to Dr. LeBeau’s specific functional limitations.111 Despite Ms. 

T.’s argument to the contrary, Dr. LeBeau acknowledged Ms. T.’s anemia and her 

associated symptoms “going back to at least 2015” and discussed Ms. T.’s hemoglobin 

level at her February 2018 hospitalization.112 Dr. LeBeau then initially provided an RFC 

based on the assumption that Ms. T. had a normal hemoglobin level. He concluded that 

Ms. T.’s anemia was controllable and not a limitation; it “just needs to be sorted out.”113 

109 A.R. 17, 19, 410–16.

110 A.R. 261–74.

111 A.R. 19. See also Thomas v. Barnhart, 278 F.3d 947, 957 (9th Cir. 2002) (The opinion of a 

non-treating or non-examining physician may serve as substantial evidence when the opinion is 

consistent with independent clinical findings or other evidence in the record).

112 A.R. 34, 37, 264, 413. Ms. T. argues that “the agency sought to limit the evidence to on and 

after the 2016 application, which is erroneous.” Docket 14 at 17.

113 A.R. 34, 38. Wellington v. Berryhill, 878 F.3d 867, 876 (9th Cir. 2017) (citing 20 C.F.R. §§ 

404.1520a(c)(1), 416.920a(c)(1) (“Evidence of medical treatment successfully relieving 

symptoms can undermine a claim of disability.”); Warre ex rel. E.T. IV v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. 

Case 3:19-cv-00130-SLG Document 17 Filed 02/05/20 Page 30 of 36
Case No. 3:19-cv-00130-SLG, Cynthia T. v. Saul

Decision and Order

Page 31 of 36

But Dr. LeBeau then testified, “I said allow for a full hemoglobin, but once in a while it isn’t 

so full, and her symptom is dizziness when she gets anemic.” He then opined that Ms. T. 

should never climb ladders or scaffolds and only occasionally climb stairs or ramps due 

to pain and “the possibility to intermittently being dizzy from anemia.”114 Accordingly, 

contrary to Ms. T.’s arguments to this Court, Dr. LeBeau did factor in the anemia to some 

degree in his RFC assessment.

The ALJ took anemia into account in formulating the RFC. Specifically, he 

concluded that Ms. T. could perform light work with limitations, including no climbing of 

ladders or scaffolds and occasional climbing of stairs and ramps.115

For the foregoing reasons, the ALJ sufficiently addressed Ms. T.’s functional 

limitations due to anemia and the RFC in this regard was supported by substantial 

evidence in the record, including Dr. LeBeau’s testimony.

3. Mental Impairments and the RFC

The ALJ discussed Ms. T.’s mental impairments at both Step 2 and 3 of the 

analysis. The ALJ reviewed the treatment records that showed Ms. T.’s mental health 

symptoms were treated with medications.116 The ALJ concluded that Ms. T. “does not 

Admin., 439 F.3d 1001, 1006 (9th Cir. 2006) (“Impairments that can be controlled effectively with 

medication are not disabling for the purpose of determining eligibility for SSI benefits.”).

114 A.R. 39. Dr. LeBeau explained, ”I said allow for a full hemoglobin, but once in a while it isn’t 

full, and her sympton is dizziness when she gets anmeic. So I would certainly just say never on 

[ladders or scaffolds].”

115 A.R. 17.

116 A.R. 16, 392–95. See Wellington v. Berryhill, 878 F.3d 867, 876 (9th Cir. 2017) (citing 20 C.F.R. 

§§ 404.1520a(c)(1), 416.920a(c)(1) (“Evidence of medical treatment successfully relieving 

symptoms can undermine a claim of disability.”); Warre ex rel. E.T. IV v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. 

Case 3:19-cv-00130-SLG Document 17 Filed 02/05/20 Page 31 of 36
Case No. 3:19-cv-00130-SLG, Cynthia T. v. Saul

Decision and Order

Page 32 of 36

have a mental health impairment that causes her any significant functional limitations on 

her ability to perform basic mental work activities.”117 As a result, the RFC does not 

include any mental health limitations. Ms. T. asserts these determinations are not 

supported by substantial evidence in the record. 

In making these mental health determinations, the ALJ also gave great weight to 

testifying expert Dr. Valette’s opinion that Ms. T. had no severe mental health 

impairments.118 Ms. T. argues that the ALJ erred by relying on Dr. Valette’s opinion, in 

part because Dr. Valette only referenced four of Ms. T.’s psychological appointments.

119

 

The Court disagrees. In referencing only four psychology sessions, Dr. Valette’s 

testimony was consistent with the instructions of the ALJ that she focus her testimony on 

the time period after August 3, 2016.

120

 Further, Dr. Valette’s testimony also includes 

specific references to treatment notes from 2012 through 2018.121 Even if Dr. Valette’s 

appointment count was incorrect, it was not clear error for Dr. Valette to note Ms. T.’s 

Admin., 439 F.3d 1001, 1006 (9th Cir. 2006) (“Impairments that can be controlled effectively with 

medication are not disabling for the purpose of determining eligibility for SSI benefits.”).

117 A.R. 16.

118 A.R. 16, 44–48. 

119 Ms. T. argues that Dr. Valette’s “opinion is defective because she admittedly did not review 

more than four encounters....” Docket 14 at 20. The entire medical record before the Court 

shows Ms. T. attended more than four appointments for psychological treatment. See A.R. 1846–

52, 255–60, 275–81, 293, 388–91, 392–95, 399–400, 2342–43. However, as the Commissioner 

points out in his brief, during the time period after the August 3, 2016 application date, Ms. T. 

attended a total of four appointments with ANP Campbell. A fifth contact in October 2016 was a 

phone contact. Docket 15 at 12; see also A.R. 392–95, 397, 399–400, 2342–43.

120 A.R. 30, 33.

121 A.R. 47, 48 (multiple references to the record before the ALJ at the April 2018 hearing).

Case 3:19-cv-00130-SLG Document 17 Filed 02/05/20 Page 32 of 36
Case No. 3:19-cv-00130-SLG, Cynthia T. v. Saul

Decision and Order

Page 33 of 36

relatively few psychology appointments in a period of almost two years between the date 

of application in August 2016 and the date of the ALJ decision in June 2018. 

The record also shows that Ms. T. did not seek treatment for her mental 

impairments after March 6, 2017.122 And, although Ms. T. reported, “[h]aving bi-polar 

make[s] me angry all the time then happy. It goes back and forth daily” and that “anxiety 

keeps me from leaving the house a lot,” the ALJ pointed to treatment notes consistently 

indicating Ms. T. had “overall logical and goal-directed thought processes” and “fair 

judgment and insight, no suicidal ideation, and no signs of delusions or psychosis.”123 

Further, the ALJ specifically noted in the decision that “the following residual functional 

capacity assessment reflects the degree of limitation the undersigned has found in the 

‘paragraph B’ mental functional analysis” in Steps 2 and 3.124 In making his RFC 

determination, the ALJ took into account those limitations for which there was support in 

122 A.R. 2342–43. On March 16, 2017, March 21, 2017, and April 24, 2017, a staff member at 

SouthCentral Foundation Behavioral Services Division attempted to schedule future 

appointments for Ms. T. with ANP Campbell. A.R. 2345–47. On April 28, 2017, Ms. T. requested 

to pick up records of her sessions with ANP Campbell. A.R. 2348.

123 A.R. 16, 194, 392–95, 399–400, 449–53, 2342–43. 

124 In the ALJ stated:

The limitations identified in the ‘paragraph B’ criteria are not a residual functional 

capacity assessment but are used to rate the severity of mental impairments at 

steps 2 and 3 of the sequential evaluation process. The mental residual functional 

capacity assessment used at steps 4 and 5 of the sequential evaluation process 

requires a more detailed assessment by itemizing various functions contained in 

the broad categories found in paragraph B of the adult mental disorders listings in 

12.00 of the Listing of Impairments (SSR 96-8p). Therefore, the following residual 

functional capacity assessment reflects the degree of limitation the undersigned 

has found in the ‘paragraph B’ mental function analysis. A.R. 16.

Case 3:19-cv-00130-SLG Document 17 Filed 02/05/20 Page 33 of 36
Case No. 3:19-cv-00130-SLG, Cynthia T. v. Saul

Decision and Order

Page 34 of 36

the record.125 Thus, the ALJ did not err in concluding there were no limitations in the RFC 

due to mental impairments. The RFC was supported by substantial evidence and free 

from legal error.

B. Development of the Record

Ms. T. asserts that the ALJ failed to fully and fairly develop the record because “the 

ALJ should have brought the inquiry back to the evidence of record by requiring [Dr. 

LeBeau] to factor anemia into his opinion.” She also alleges that the ALJ failed to fully 

and fairly develop the record “with respect to depression as a symptom of anemia.”126 In 

response, the Commissioner contends that the “record before the ALJ was neither 

ambiguous nor inadequate to allow for proper evaluation of [Ms. T.]’s anemia.”127 

The ALJ has an “independent duty to fully and fairly develop the record and to 

assure that the claimant’s interests are considered.”128 An “ALJ’s duty to develop the 

record further is triggered only when there is ambiguous evidence or when the record is 

125 Bayliss, 427 F.3d at 1217 (“Dr. Freeman’s opinion was not supported by clinical evidence and 

was based on Bayliss’s subjective complaints.”). Ms. T.’s citation to Ghanim v. Colvin, 763 F. 3d 

1154, 1161–62 (9th Cir. 2014), seems misplaced in the context of her argument that courts 

“respect the ability of mental health professionals to assess and evaluate subjective symptoms, 

and to describe them in medical diagnostic and therapeutic terms.” Docket 14 at 22. The 

paragraph in Ghanim cited by Ms. T. does not address a mental health professional’s ability to 

assess subjective symptoms. Instead, it addresses occasional improvement of depression 

symptoms as not inconsistent with disability. Ghanim, 763 F. at 1161–62.

126 Docket 14 at 17–18.

127 Docket 15 at 8.

128 Tonapetyan v. Halter, 242 F.3d 1144, 1150 (9th Cir. 2001) (internal citations and quotations 

omitted).

Case 3:19-cv-00130-SLG Document 17 Filed 02/05/20 Page 34 of 36
Case No. 3:19-cv-00130-SLG, Cynthia T. v. Saul

Decision and Order

Page 35 of 36

inadequate to allow for proper evaluation of the evidence.”129 Further, “[a]n ALJ is 

required to recontact a doctor only if the doctor’s report is ambiguous or insufficient for 

the ALJ to make a disability determination.”130 Here, the ALJ considered and discussed 

Ms. T.’s history of iron deficiency anemia and gave great weight to Dr. LeBeau’s 

testimony.131 He included Dr. LeBeau’s recommended limitations to the RFC for Ms. T.’s 

occasional bouts of dizziness due to anemia, including no climbing of ladders and 

scaffolds and occasional climbing of stairs and ramps.132 The ALJ did not address Dr. 

LeBeau’s testimony connecting depression and anemia, but Dr. LeBeau testified that Ms. 

T.’s anemia was only intermittent.

133

 Ms. T.’s treating physicians diagnosed her with only 

“mild to no depressive symptoms” and Ms. T.’s mental impairments, including depression, 

were discussed by the ALJ in his decision.134 Ms. T.’s counsel was given the opportunity 

to question Dr. LeBeau at the April 2018 hearing and the attorney did ask questions 

regarding Ms. T.’s anemia.

135

 

For the foregoing reasons, the ALJ adequately developed the record regarding Ms. 

129 McLeod v. Astrue, 640 F.3d 881, 885 (9th Cir. 2011) (internal citations omitted).

130 Bayliss, 427 F.3d at 1217 (9th Cir. 2005); 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1512(e), 416.912(e).

131 A.R. 18–19, 39, 41–44.

132 A.R. 17.

133 A.R. 37, 39.

134 A.R. 16–17. See also A.R. 410 (“no depression”) and A.R. 537 (“mild to no depressive 

symptoms”).

135 A.R. 41–44.

Case 3:19-cv-00130-SLG Document 17 Filed 02/05/20 Page 35 of 36
Case No. 3:19-cv-00130-SLG, Cynthia T. v. Saul

Decision and Order

Page 36 of 36

T.’s depression; the ALJ did not have duty to recontact Dr. LeBeau.

V. ORDER

The Court, having carefully reviewed the administrative record, finds that the ALJ’s 

determinations are free from legal error and supported by substantial evidence in the 

record as a whole. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Ms. T.’s request for relief at Docket 

14 is DENIED as set forth herein and the Commissioner’s final decision is AFFIRMED.

The Clerk of Court is directed to enter a final judgment accordingly.

DATED this 5

th day of February, 2020 at Anchorage, Alaska.

/s/ Sharon L. Gleason____________

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:19-cv-00130-SLG Document 17 Filed 02/05/20 Page 36 of 36