Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_08-cv-01975/USCOURTS-casd-3_08-cv-01975-0/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)

---

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

08cv1975 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

STEVEN R. FLOYD,

Plaintiff,

v.

MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner

of Social Security,

Defendant.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Civil No. 08-1975-LAB(WVG)

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION

FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT 

(DOC. # 13) AND

DENYING DEFENDANT’S CROSSMOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

(DOC. # 15)

 STATEMENT OF THE CASE

On February 7, 2006, Steven Floyd (hereinafter “Plaintiff”)

applied for disability insurance benefits and supplemental security

income benefits under Title XVI of the Social Security Act. (Tr. at

125-127.) The Commissioner denied the application both initially

and upon reconsideration. On October 24, 2008, Plaintiff filed this

action pursuant to section 405(g) of the Social Security Act

(“Act”), 42 U.S.C. § 1383(c)(3), to obtain judicial review of a

“final decision” of the Commissioner of the Social Security

Administration (“Commissioner”) denying his claim for Disability

Insurance Benefits and Supplemental Security Income disability

Case 3:08-cv-01975-LAB-WVG Document 20 Filed 04/19/10 Page 1 of 23
 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/ A sexton is an employee or officer of a church who is responsible

for the care and upkeep of church property.

(http://dictionary.reference.com).

2/

Congenital Adrenal Hyperplasia (CAH) refers to a group of disorders

that result from the impaired ability of the adrenal glands to

produce vital steroid hormones (corticosteroids). Fundamentally,

CAH is due to genetic defects (mutations) in the genes controlling

the manufacture of the enzymes necessary to produce the hormones of

the adrenal cortex. (www.webmd.com).

3/ Plaintiff is diagnosed with Addison’s Disease. Addison’s Disease

develops when the adrenal glands, which are above the kidneys, are

not able to make enough of the hormones cortisol, and sometimes

aldosterone. (www.webmd.com).

4/

Hydrocortisone is a steroid hormone used to treat Addison’s Disease.

(www.webmd.com).

5/ Fluorinef is used to treat low glucocorticoid levels caused by

disease of the adrenal gland. (www.webmd.com).

08cv1975 2

benefits under Titles II and XVI of the Act. Defendant filed an

Answer to the Complaint on July 10, 2009. The District Court

referred the matter to this Court for Report and Recommendation

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). On September 18, 2009, plaintiff

filed a Motion for Summary Judgment. On October 21, 2009, defendant

filed a Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment along with an Opposition

to Plaintiff’s Motion. This matter is now before the Court.

 STATEMENT OF FACTS

Plaintiff was born on June 26, 1958. (Tr. at 14, 125.) At

the time of the hearing, Plaintiff was 49 years old. Plaintiff has

past work experience as a sexton1/. (Tr. at 185-186.) 

On June 3, 2005, treating physician Raymond Fink, M.D.,

reported Plaintiff’s diagnosis of congenital adrenal hyperplasia2/

resulting from adrenal insufficiency3/, and that Plaintiff was

treated with Hydrocortisone4/ and Fluorinef5/. (Tr. at 197.) Dr.

Case 3:08-cv-01975-LAB-WVG Document 20 Filed 04/19/10 Page 2 of 23
 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/ Fibromyalgia is a non-life-threatening, chronic disorder of the

muscles and surrounding soft tissue, including ligaments and

tendons. Its main symptoms are muscle pain, fatigue, sleep

disturbances, and tender points at certain parts of the body.

(www.webmd.com).

08cv1975 3

Fink also reviewed medical records from UCSD and noted chronic joint

pain, possibly related to fibromyalgia6/. Dr. Fink based his opinion

on the two office visits in April 2005, and a review of Plaintiff’s

medical records from UCSD. Dr. Fink concluded that the combination

of muscle and joint pain and chronic fatigue made Plaintiff

unemployable. (Id.) He also noted that Plaintiff’s Addison’s

disease was currently under stable control with medication. (Id.)

On August 31, 2006, treating physician Brian First, M.D.,

completed a Physical Residual Functional Capacity Questionnaire.

Dr. First confirmed Plaintiff’s diagnoses of congenital adrenal

hyperplasia resulting from adrenal insufficiency, asthma with

shortness of breath, and osteoporosis secondary due to steroid use.

(Tr. at 263.) Dr. First opined that Plaintiff’s symptoms were

severe enough to frequently interfere with Plaintiff’s concentration, persistence, and pace in performing even simple work tasks.

(Id.) Additionally, Dr. First opined that Plaintiff could lift ten

pounds frequently in a competitive work environment and sit, stand,

or walk for approximately 2 hours. (Id.) Dr. First further opined

that Plaintiff would need to take unscheduled breaks approximately

every 1-2 hours, and would need to rest 20 minutes before returning

to work. Dr. First concluded that Plaintiff could manage a desk job

for 2-4 hours a day. (Tr. at 264.)

On October 13, 2006, Dr. Taylor-Holmes, the State agency

physician, preformed a file review and opined that Plaintiff’s

impairments were non-severe. (Tr. at 256.) 

Case 3:08-cv-01975-LAB-WVG Document 20 Filed 04/19/10 Page 3 of 23
 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/ Dyspnea is defined as an uncomfortable awareness of breathing. It is

a subjective experience involving many factors that modulate the

quality and intensity of its perception. Patients with comparable

degrees of functional lung impairment and disease burden may

describe varying intensities of dyspnea. (www.webmd.com).

8/ Osteoarthritis, also known as degenerative joint disease, occurs

when the cartilage that covers the tops of bones, known as articular

cartilage, degenerates or wears down. This causes swelling, pain,

and sometimes the development of osteophytes (bone spurs) when the

ends of two bones rub together. (www.webmd.com).

9/ Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease, or COPD is a long-term

lung disease that refers to both chronic bronchitis and

emphysema. (www.webmd.com).

08cv1975 4

On April 12, 2007, David Polster, M.D., reported that

Plaintiff had a history of rest and exertional dyspnea7/ and a

persistent cough. (Tr. at 267.) Dr. Polster administered a

pulmonary function test, which found Plaintiff’s static lung volumes

were within normal values, his carbon monoxide single breath

diffusing capacity was mildly reduced, and he had premature airway

closure. (Id.) Additionally, Dr. Polster reported a moderate

expiratory airflow obstructive defect, which was partially reversible. (Id.) 

On June 27, 2007, Dr. First subsequently reported that

Plaintiff complained of left shoulder pain. (Tr. at 281-282.) A

radiology report of Plaintiff’s left shoulder revealed mild

acromioclavicular osteoarthritic8/ changes, with an otherwise

unremarkable study. (Tr. at 282.)

On August 28, 2007, John R. Morse, M.D. provided expert

testimony at the administrative hearing. (Tr. at 47-50.) Dr. Morse

reviewed the evidence and records at the administrative hearing.

(Tr. at 47.) He testified that Plaintiff had two main impairments:

Addison’s disease and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease9/. (Id.)

Case 3:08-cv-01975-LAB-WVG Document 20 Filed 04/19/10 Page 4 of 23
 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

08cv1975 5

Dr. Morse concluded that Plaintiff’s impairments, alone or in

combination, did not meet or medically equal any listing in 20

C.F.R. Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1, Part A. (Tr. at 50.) Dr.

Morse also concluded that Plaintiff retained the residual functional

capacity to: lift and/or carry 50 pounds occasionally and 25 pounds

frequently; stand and/or walk about 6 hours in an 8-hour day; and

sit about 6 hours in an 8-hour day. (Tr. at 51.) Finally, Dr. Morse

concluded Plaintiff must avoid concentrated exposure to extreme

cold, extreme heat, wetness, humidity, fumes, odors, dusts, gases,

and poor ventilation. (Tr. at 52.) 

Vocational expert Mark Remus also testified at the hearing.

(Tr. at 58.) Mr. Remus opined that if Plaintiff was limited to the

functional capacity as recommended by Dr. Morse, Plaintiff could

perform his past relevant work as a sexton/janitor. (Tr. at 58.)

However, Mr. Remus opined that if Plaintiff was limited to the

functional capacity as recommended by Dr. First, Plaintiff would be

unable to perform his past work, and it was very unlikely that he

would be able to sustain other work. (Tr. at 61-62.) 

LEGAL STANDARD

To qualify for disability benefits under the Social Security

Act, an applicant must show that: (1) he or she suffers from a

medically determinable impairment that can be expected to result in

death or that has lasted or can be expected to last for a continuous

period of twelve months or more; and (2) the impairment renders the

applicant incapable of performing the work that the applicant

previously performed and incapable of performing any other substanCase 3:08-cv-01975-LAB-WVG Document 20 Filed 04/19/10 Page 5 of 23
 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

08cv1975 6

tially gainful employment that exists in the national economy. See

42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(2)(A). The claimant’s impairment must result

from “anatomical, physiological, or psychological abnormalities

which are demonstrable by medically acceptable clinical and

laboratory diagnostic techniques.” Drouin v. Sullivan, 966 F.2d

1255, 1257 (9th Cir. 1992).

The Social Security Regulations (“Regulations”) employ a five

step process to determine whether an applicant is disabled under the

Act. If an applicant is found to be “disabled” or “not disabled” at

any step, there is no need to proceed to the subsequent steps. See

Federal Old-Age, Survivors and Disability Insurance (1950-1999), 20

C.F.R. § 404.1520 (1999). The applicant bears the burden of proof

as to the first four steps. Id. If the fifth step is reached, the

burden shifts to the Commissioner. Id.

The five steps are as follows:

Step 1. Is the claimant presently working

in a substantially gainful activity? If so, then the

claimant is “not disabled” within the meaning of the

Social Security Act and is not entitled to disability

insurance benefits. If the claimant is not working in

a substantially gainful activity, then the claimant’s

case cannot be resolved at step one, and the evaluation proceeds to step two.

Step 2. Is the claimant’s impairment

severe? If not, then the claimant is “not disabled”

and is not entitled to disability benefits. If the

claimant’s impairment is severe, then the claimant’s

case cannot be resolved at step two, and the evaluaCase 3:08-cv-01975-LAB-WVG Document 20 Filed 04/19/10 Page 6 of 23
 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

08cv1975 7

tion proceeds to step three.

Step 3. Does the impairment “meet or

equal” one of the list of specific impairments

described in the regulations? If so, the claimant is

“disabled” and therefore entitled to disability

insurance benefits. If the claimant’s impairment

neither meets nor equals one of the impairments listed

in the regulations, then the claimant’s case cannot be

resolved at step three, and the evaluation proceeds to

step four.

Step 4. Is the claimant able to do any

work that he or she has done in the past? If so, then

the claimant is “not disabled’ and is therefore not

entitled to disability insurance benefits. If the

claimant cannot do any work he or she did in the past,

then the claimant’s case cannot be resolved at step

four, and the evaluation proceeds to the fifth and

final step.

Step 5. Is the claimant able to do any

other work? If not, then the claimant is “disabled”

and therefore entitled to disability insurance

benefits. If the claimant is able to do other work,

then the Commissioner must establish that there are a

significant number of jobs in the national economy

that claimant can do. There are two ways for the

Commissioner to meet the burden of showing that there

is other work in “significant numbers” in the national

economy that claimant can do: (1) by the testimony of

Case 3:08-cv-01975-LAB-WVG Document 20 Filed 04/19/10 Page 7 of 23
 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

08cv1975 8

a vocational expert, or (2) by reference to the

Medical-Vocational Guidelines . . . . If the Commissioner meets this burden, the claimant is “not

disabled” and therefore not entitled to disability

insurance benefits. If the Commissioner cannot meet

this burden, then the claimant is “disabled” and

therefore entitled to disability insurance benefits.

Tackett v. Apfel, 180 F.3d 1094, 1098-99 (9th Cir. 1999)(footnotes

and citations omitted). 

Section 405(g) of the Act allows unsuccessful applicants to

seek judicial review of a final agency decision of the Commissioner.

42 U.S.C. § 405(g). The scope of judicial review is limited. The

Commissioner’s denial of benefits “will be disturbed only if it is

not supported by substantial evidence or is based on legal error.”

Brawner v. Sec’y of Health and Human Servs., 839 F.2d 432, 433 (9th

Cir. 1988)(citing Green v. Heckler, 803 F.2d 528, 529 (9th Cir.

1986)). 

Substantial evidence means “more than a mere scintilla” but

less than a preponderance. Sandgathe v. Chater, 108 F.3d 978, 980

(9th Cir. 1997)(citation omitted). “[I]t is such relevant evidence

as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.” Id. (quoting Andrews v. Shalala, 53 F.3d 1035, 1039 (9th

Cir. 1995)). The court must consider the record as a whole,

weighing both the evidence that supports and detracts from the

Commissioner’s conclusions. See Desrosiers v. Sec’y of Health &

Human Servs., 846 F.2d 573, 576 (9th Cir. 1988). If the evidence

supports more than one rational interpretation, the court must

uphold the Administrative Law Judge’s [hereinafter “ALJ”] decision.

Case 3:08-cv-01975-LAB-WVG Document 20 Filed 04/19/10 Page 8 of 23
 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

08cv1975 9

Allen v. Heckler, 749 F.2d 577, 579 (9th Cir. 1984). When the

evidence is inconclusive, “questions of credibility and resolution

of conflicts in the testimony are functions solely of the Secretary.” Sample v. Schweiker, 694 F.2d 639, 642 (9th Cir. 1982).

Even if the reviewing court finds that substantial evidence

supports the administrative law judge’s conclusions, the court must

set aside the decision if the ALJ failed to apply the proper legal

standards in weighing the evidence and reaching his or her decision.

See Benitez v. Califano, 573 F.2d 653, 655 (9th Cir. 1978). Section

405(g) permits a court to enter a judgment affirming, modifying, or

reversing the Commissioner’s decision. 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). The

reviewing court may also remand the matter to the Social Security

Administrator for further proceedings. Id.

DISCUSSION

I. The ALJ’s Decision

In a written decision dated February 26, 2008, the ALJ

concluded that plaintiff was not disabled as defined under the

Social Security Act, and was therefore not eligible for disability,

disability insurance benefits or supplemental security income. (Tr.

at 21). The ALJ specifically found the following:

1. At the August 28, 2007 administrative hearing, the

court amended the claimant’s alleged disability onset

date to January 30, 2006.

2. The amendment of claimant’s alleged disability onset

date to January 30, 2006 is appropriate in light of

Title XVI eligibility.

3. The claimant has not engaged in substantial gainful

activity since his amended alleged disability onset

Case 3:08-cv-01975-LAB-WVG Document 20 Filed 04/19/10 Page 9 of 23
 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

08cv1975 10

date of January 30, 2006.

4. The claimant suffers from the following medically

determinable severe impairments: Addison’s disease and

chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

5. The claimant’s impairments, alone or in combination,

have not met or equaled the requirements of any listing

in 20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1, Part A

(Listing of Impairments), since his amended alleged

disability onset date.

6. Since January 30, 2006, the claimant has had the

following residual functional capacity: lift and/or

carry 50 pounds occasionally and 25 pounds frequently;

stand and/or walk about six hours and sit about six

hours in an eight hour workday; no postural limitations, and must avoid concentrated exposure to extreme

cold, and extreme heat, wetness, humidity, and fumes,

odors, dusts, gases, and poor ventilation.

7. The claimant’s allegations of disabling pain, symptoms,

and limitation considered pursuant to the law of the

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, Social Security Rulings

96-3p and 96-7p, and pertinent regulations, are not

credible and are rejected for the reasons stated in the

rationale portion of this decision.

8. The claimant has past relevant work history as: [sic]

a sexton.

9. The claimant’s past relevant work as a sexton is not

precluded by the claimant’s residual functional capacity and can be performed by the claimant as actually

Case 3:08-cv-01975-LAB-WVG Document 20 Filed 04/19/10 Page 10 of 23
 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

08cv1975 11

performed or as customarily performed in the national

economy. This is in accordance with the testimony of

the vocational expert. 

10. The claimant was 47 years old on this amended alleged

disability onset date and is currently 49 years of age;

at all relevant times, he is considered a younger

individual.

11. The claimant has a high school education; such education is defined as high school and above.

12. The claimant’s education and training do not permit

direct entry into skilled work.

13. The claimant has no skills acquired from his past

relevant work that are transferable to other Work

[sic].

14. In the alternative, considering the claimant’s age,

education, past relevant work experience, and

extertional residual functional capacity, Medical

Vocational Guideline 203.28 directs a finding of not

disabled.

15. Used as a framework for decision making, MedicalVocational Guideline 203.28, 20 C.F.R., Part 404,

Subpart P, Appendix 2, recommends a finding that a

hypothetical individual of the claimant’s age, education, work experience, and residual functional capacity

is not disabled since the erosion effect of the claimant’s nonexertional limitations on the occupational

base presumed to exist 203.28 [sic] is significant; yet

nevertheless, a significant number of jobs remain in

Case 3:08-cv-01975-LAB-WVG Document 20 Filed 04/19/10 Page 11 of 23
 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

08cv1975 12

the rule’s occupational base.

16. The claimant has been able to perform his past relevant

work as a sexton, as well as perform and sustain jobs

that constitute substantial gainful activity and exist

in significant number in the national or regional

economy since his amended alleged disability onset date

of January 30, 2006. 

17. The claimant has not been under a “disability,” as

defined in the Social Security Act, at any time since

his amended alleged disability onset date of January

30, 2006.

The ALJ reviewed the medical records submitted and considered

the testimony presented. Based on that review, the ALJ rejected the

report submitted by Plaintiff’s treating physician, Dr. First. (Tr.

at 17.) Instead, the ALJ adopted the findings of the non-treating

medical expert, Dr. Morse. (Tr. at 16.) The ALJ also rejected

Plaintiff’s testimony regarding allegations of pain and fatigue due

to steroid use. (Tr. at 18.) A vocational expert also testified

that Plaintiff’s ability to work would depend on which doctor’s

opinion was accepted. (Tr. at 58-61.) 

The vocational expert testified that based on the functional

limitations provided by Dr. Morse, Plaintiff could return to his

past work as a sexton. (Tr. at 58.) However, the vocational expert

also testified that based on the functional limitations provided by

Dr. First, Plaintiff would not be able to return to work. (Tr. at

61.) The ALJ agreed with the vocational expert’s testimony based on

Dr. Morse’s testimony regarding residual functional capacity. (Tr.

at 20.) 

Case 3:08-cv-01975-LAB-WVG Document 20 Filed 04/19/10 Page 12 of 23
 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

 10

 11

 12

 13

 14

 15

 16

 17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 10/ In Cotton v. Bowen, 799 F.2d 1403 (9th Cir. 1986), the court set out

a threshold test for evaluating symptom testimony. 

08cv1975 13

Based on these findings, the ALJ concluded that Plaintiff was

not disabled as defined in the Social Security Act. (Id. at 142.)

II. Analysis

Plaintiff contends that the ALJ erred by (a) rejecting

Plaintiff’s testimony regarding pain and functional limitation; and

(b) rejecting Plaintiff’s treating physician’s opinion of disability

and functional residual capacity.

A. Rejection of Plaintiff’s Testimony

Plaintiff testified at the hearing that he is unable to

perform his past work because he lacked strength and stamina. (Tr.

at 36-37.) Plaintiff testified that his symptoms were caused by

long term steroid use prescribed to treat his Addison’s disease and

his difficultly breathing. (Id.) Additionally, Plaintiff stated

that he has problems with his right heel due to bone spurs which

required casting by a podiatrist in the fall of 2006. (Tr. at 42.)

Plaintiff testified that his right heel was in pain every time he

walked, and that the pain felt “like a knife ... sticking to you.”

(Tr. at 42-43.) Plaintiff estimated that he could only carry ten

pounds and could stand two to three hours during a normal work day.

(Tr. at 43.)

\\

\\

\\

1. Legal Standard

When evaluating a claimant’s subjective symptom testimony,

the ALJ must perform two stages of analysis: the Cotton10/ test and

Case 3:08-cv-01975-LAB-WVG Document 20 Filed 04/19/10 Page 13 of 23
 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

08cv1975 14

an analysis of Plaintiff’s credibility. Smolen v. Chater, 80 F.3d

1273, 1281-82 (9th Cir. 1996). The Cotton test requires the ALJ to

determine whether the claimant has produced objective medical

evidence of an underlying impairment and whether the symptoms

alleged could reasonably be produced by the impairment. Bunnell v.

Sullivan, 947 F.2d 341, 346-47 (9th Cir. 1991). If the claimant

meets the Cotton test, and there is no evidence of malingering, the

ALJ must offer specific, clear and convincing reasons to reject

Plaintiff’s symptom testimony. Dodrill v. Shalala, 12 F.3d 915, 918

(9th Cir. 1993). 

2. Analysis

 The ALJ found that Plaintiff satisfied the Cotton test

because he presented objective medical evidence that could reasonably produce his self-reported symptoms. The ALJ determined that

Plaintiff suffered from chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and

Addison’s disease. (Tr. at 16.) Several doctors diagnosed Plaintiff

with Addison’s Disease. (Tr. at 197, 263.) To treat his adrenal

insufficiency, Plaintiff was prescribed two steroid medications,

Hydrocortisone and Fluorinef. (Tr. at 197.) Dr. First, Plaintiff’s

treating physician, found that there are side effects from Plaintiff’s long term use of steroid medication. (Tr. at 263.) Further,

Dr. First diagnosed Plaintiff with osteoporosis due to steroid use

and asthma. (Id.) Therefore, Plaintiff provided objective medical

evidence of an underlying impairment, that is, his Addison’s disease

and the medicine used for its treatment, asthma, and osteoporosis

due to steroid use. 

Plaintiff met the Cotton test, and the ALJ made no finding

that Plaintiff was malingering, nor did any of the presented

Case 3:08-cv-01975-LAB-WVG Document 20 Filed 04/19/10 Page 14 of 23
 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

08cv1975 15

evidence suggest that he was doing so. Therefore, the ALJ may

reject Plaintiff’s testimony only if he provides clear and convincing reasons. Smolen, 80 F.3d at 1282-84 (citation omitted). Some

factors the ALJ may consider to determine the credibility of

Plaintiff’s testimony include: 1) the claimant’s reputation for

lying, prior inconsistent statements and other testimony from the

plaintiff that appears less candid; 2) unexplained or inadequately

explained failure to seek treatment or follow a prescribed course of

treatment; or 3) claimants daily activities. (Id. at 1284.) The

ALJ’s determination or decision must contain specific reasons for

findings on credibility, supported by evidence in the case record,

and must be sufficiently specific to make clear to the individual

and any subsequent reviewers the weight the adjudicator gave to the

individual’s statements and the reasons for that weight. Thomas v.

Barnhart, 278 F.3d 947, 957 (9th Cir. 1989). 

Here, the ALJ rejected Plaintiff’s testimony for two reasons.

First, the ALJ found that Plaintiff’s own testimony conflicted with

his self-report of pain and functional limitation. (Tr. at 17-18.)

The ALJ stated that “the overall evidence suggests that claimant has

the ability to care for himself and maintain his mother’s home” and

“performance of the claimant’s daily activities as described is not

inconsistent with the performance of many basic work activities.”

(Tr. at 18.) Second, the ALJ noted that Plaintiff could “drive,

help his mother prepare meals, vacuum, and feed the dogs, cat and

fish.” (Tr. at 18.) 

However, Plaintiff’s self-reported functional limitation of

lifting less than ten pounds and standing only one to two hours is

entirely consistent with Plaintiff’s self reported activities, which

Case 3:08-cv-01975-LAB-WVG Document 20 Filed 04/19/10 Page 15 of 23
 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

08cv1975 16

include driving, preparing meals, occasional vacuuming, and feeding

the dogs, cat, and fish. (Tr. at 43.) Plaintiff’s ability to

complete these simple activities does not amount to clear and

convincing evidence that the Plaintiff’s testimony regarding his

fatigue and functional limitation is not credible. It is not

reasonable for the ALJ to construe this testimony, absent any other

evidence, as contrary to Plaintiff’s self-reported pain, fatigue and

functional limitation. 

Defendant cites Orteza v. Shalala, 50 F.3d 748, 750 (9th Cir.

1995), to support the rejection of Plaintiff’s testimony based on

daily activity. However, Orteza is factually distinguishable from

this case. In Orteza, the treating physician was “quite emphatic in

his report about the lack of objective evidence to support the

claimant's complaints of pain and weakness.” Id. at 750. The ALJ

in Orteza noted that the claimant suffered no side effects from the

prescription drugs he takes, and that the claimant had not required

prescription pain medication. Id. Here, Plaintiff’s treating

physician, Dr. First, supports Plaintiff’s self-reported functional

limitation. Unlike the treating physician in Orteza who found no

objective evidence of the claimant’s pain, here, Dr. First supports

Plaintiff’s self-report of fatigue and lack of stamina. Dr. First

specifically noted these symptoms are due to long term steroid use.

(Tr. at 263.) Additionally, Plaintiff suffers bone spurs which are

reasonably related to his long term use of prescription steroids.

(Id.) Plaintiff presented the ALJ with objective evidence of pain,

supported by his physician’s testimony, and it was not reasonable

for the ALJ to reject Plaintiff’s testimony. Therefore, the ALJ

failed to provide a clear and convincing reason for rejecting

Case 3:08-cv-01975-LAB-WVG Document 20 Filed 04/19/10 Page 16 of 23
 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

08cv1975 17

Plaintiff’s testimony of self-reported pain and functional limitation. 

 Defendant argues that the ALJ properly rejected Plaintiff’s

testimony due to his poor work history. The ALJ found that since

1992, Plaintiff’s work history shows that he has held only one job

for three months prior to the alleged disability onset date in 2006.

The ALJ noted that Plaintiff’s prior work history “raises a question

as to whether the claimant’s continuing unemployment is actually due

to medical impairments.” (Tr. at 18.) Defendant cites Thomas v. 

Barnhart, 278 F.3d at 958-959, to support prior work history as a 

reason to discredit Plaintiff’s testimony. However, Thomas is

factually distinguishable from the current dispute. In Thomas, the

ALJ gave clear and convincing reasons for discounting the claimant’s

testimony. In addition to finding that the claimant had an “extremely poor work history,” the ALJ also found no objective medical

evidence to support the claimant’s descriptions of her pain and

limitations, and the claimant had “not been a reliable historian,

presenting conflicting information about her drug and alcohol

abuse.’” Id. at 959-60. Here, the ALJ relied solely Plaintiff’s

spotty prior work history to discredit him. However, Plaintiff’s

work history, without any other evidence establishing, or even

suggesting, lack of credibility, is insufficient to support a

determination that Plaintiff’s self-report of pain and limitation

is not credible. Unlike the volume of conflicting evidence presented

in Thomas, here, the ALJ’s credibility determination is unsupported.

Therefore, the ALJ did not present clear and convincing reasons to

reject Plaintiff’s testimony.

3. Conclusion

Case 3:08-cv-01975-LAB-WVG Document 20 Filed 04/19/10 Page 17 of 23
 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

08cv1975 18

The ALJ improperly rejected Plaintiff’s testimony regarding

his pain, fatigue and functional limitations. Plaintiff’s ability

to complete simple daily activities is insufficient evidence to

conclude that Plaintiff’s testimony regarding his fatigue and

functional limitation is not credible. Further, Plaintiff’s limited

prior work history, without any other evidence establishing lack of

credibility, is insufficient to determine that Plaintiff’s selfreport of pain and limitation were not credible. Where the ALJ

improperly rejects the claimant’s testimony regarding his limitations, and the claimant would be disabled if his testimony were

credited, “we will not remand solely to allow the ALJ to make

specific findings regarding that testimony.” Varney v. Sec’y of

Health and Human Services, 859 F.2d 1396, 1401 (9th Cir. 1995). The

ALJ failed to state clear and convincing reasons for rejecting

Plaintiff’s self-reported pain and functional limitations. Therefore, Plaintiff’s testimony should be accepted as credible.

B. Treating Physician's Opinion

Plaintiff argues that the ALJ failed to accord adequate

weight to, and explain his rejection of, the opinions of Dr. First,

Plaintiff’s treating physician. (Pl.’s Motion at 6.) Additionally,

Plaintiff argues that the ALJ failed to state what records Dr. First

did not take into consideration when Dr. First offered his medical

opinion. Id. Defendant argues the ALJ considered Dr. First's

opinion and found that it contradicted the opinions and findings

provided by the substantial evidence in the record. (Def.’s CrossMotion at 6.) 

1. Legal Standard

Ninth Circuit case law distinguishes among the opinions of

Case 3:08-cv-01975-LAB-WVG Document 20 Filed 04/19/10 Page 18 of 23
 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

08cv1975 19

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. 1996). Generally, more weight is given to the

opinion of a treating physician. Id., [citing Winans v. Bowen, 853

F.2d 643, 647 (9th Cir. 1987)]. Medical opinions of a claimant’s

treating physicians are entitled to special weight and, if the ALJ

disregards those opinions, “he must set forth specific legitimate

reasons for doing so, and this decision must itself be based on

substantial evidence.” Embrey v. Bowen, 849 F.2d 418, 421 (9th Cir.

1988), citing Cotton, 799 F.2d at 1408.

A treating physician’s medical opinion as to the nature and

severity of an individual’s impairment must be given controlling

weight if that opinion is well-supported and not inconsistent with

the other substantial evidence in the record. Edlund v. Massanari,

253 F.3d 1152, 1157 (9th Cir. 2001).

2. Analysis

 The ALJ rejected Dr. First’s opinion because Dr. First “did

not adequately consider the entire record, including objective

findings of other physicians, as well as claimant’s statements

regarding his activities of daily living. The objective evidence

in the record does not support the level of severity that Dr. First

assigns.” (Tr. at 17.) Specifically, the ALJ considered Plaintiff’s

treating physician, Dr. Fink’s finding that Plaintiff’s Addison’s

disease was under control and Dr. Morse’s findings that Plaintiff’s

chest x-rays were clear. (Tr. at 18.) The ALJ found these opinions

to be contrary to each other. (Id.) Consequently, the ALJ adopted

Case 3:08-cv-01975-LAB-WVG Document 20 Filed 04/19/10 Page 19 of 23
 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

08cv1975 20

the findings of the medical expert Dr. Morse, a non-examining

physician who reported that Plaintiff was capable of work. 

More weight is afforded to the opinion of a doctor who has

examined a claimant than to a doctor who has not. 20 C.F.R. §

404.1527(d)(1). Here, Dr. First, Plaintiff’s treating physician,

reported that Plaintiff was diagnosed with Addison’s disease, chronic

fatigue, asthma, and osteoporosis secondary due to steroid use. The

ALJ noted that Dr. Fink, an additional examining physician, reported

that Plaintiff’s Addison’s disease was under control with medication.

The ALJ considered this to conflict with Dr. First’s diagnosis. (Tr.

at 17.) However, Dr. Fink’s opinion does not conflict with Dr.

First’s report of Plaintiff’s diagnosis of Addison’s disease. Dr.

First never opined that Plaintiff’s Addison’s disease was not under

control, rather he opined that Plaintiff suffered debilitating

fatigue and osteoporosis due to steroid medication used to treat the

disease. (Tr. at 263.) 

Additionally, the ALJ notes that although Dr. First diagnosed

Plaintiff with asthma, yet Plaintiff’s chest x-rays were clear. (Tr.

at 17.) Further, Dr. Polster, an examining physician, administered

a pulmonary function test and reported a moderate expiratory airflow

obstructive defect, which was partially reversible. (Tr. at 267.)

Contrary to what the ALJ found, Dr. Polster’s objective medical

finding is not inconsistent with Dr. First’s diagnosis of asthma.

The ALJ failed to provide specific, legitimate reasons supported by

substantial evidence in the record for rejecting the treating

physician’s opinion. The treating doctor’s opinion is not contrary

to the substantial evidence in the record. Therefore, Dr. First’s

opinion should have been accepted.

Case 3:08-cv-01975-LAB-WVG Document 20 Filed 04/19/10 Page 20 of 23
 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

08cv1975 21

C. Vocational Expert’s Opinion

As discussed in previous the section, there is substantial

evidence in the record to support the restrictions reported by Dr.

First. The vocational expert opined that a person with restrictions

reported by Dr. First, which included no lifting over ten pounds, and

20 minute breaks every 1-2 hours, could not perform the full range

of medium, light or sedentary work. (Tr at 61-62.) The vocational

expert opined that under the functional limitations provided by Dr.

First, Plaintiff would be unable to return to work. (Id.)

Here, the ALJ committed legal error when he improperly

discredited Plaintiff’s subjective symptom testimony, and the

testimony of two of Plaintiff’s treating physicians. Therefore, the

hypothetical question presented to the vocational expert should have

been based on the functional limitations offered by treating

physician Dr. First. The vocational expert testified that if

Plaintiff had a functional limitation offered by Dr. First, Plaintiff

would unlikely be able to sustain work because of his functional

limitation. (Tr. at 61-62.) Therefore, it is clear from the record

that the ALJ would be required to find Plaintiff disabled if he had

properly credited Dr. First and Dr. Fink’s opinions. 

D. Relief

It is clear from a review of the record that substantial

evidence does not support the ALJ’s findings. To the contrary,

substantial evidence supports the opposite conclusion. The AJL

discounted the opinions of two of Plaintiff’s treating physicians and

the testimony of the Plaintiff himself. (Tr. at 17-18.) Instead,

the ALJ credited the opinion of one doctor who did not examine

Plaintiff. Two of Plaintiff’s doctors, Dr. First and Dr. Fink, found

Case 3:08-cv-01975-LAB-WVG Document 20 Filed 04/19/10 Page 21 of 23
 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

08cv1975 22

that Plaintiff’s muscle and joint pain, and chronic fatigue limited

his functional abilities. (Tr. at 197, 280.) These physicians’

opinions are supported by Plaintiff’s own testimony of pain and

fatigue. (Tr. at 41.) 

Crediting evidence and remanding for an award of benefits is

appropriate where:

(1) the ALJ has failed to provide legally sufficient

reasons for rejecting such evidence,

(2) there are no outstanding issues that must be

resolved before a determination of disability can be

made and 

(3) it is clear from the record that the ALJ would be

required to find the claimant disabled were such

evidence credited. 

Harman v. Apfel, 211 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2000)(quoting Smolen, 80 F.3d 1292). 

Plaintiff seeks reversal of the ALJ's decision and an award

of benefits. Section 405(g) permits a court to enter a judgment

affirming, modifying, or reversing the Commissioner’s decision. 42

U.S.C. § 405(g). The reviewing court may also remand the matter to

the Social Security Administrator for further proceedings. Id. Upon

finding legal error, it is within the court's discretion whether to

remand the case or simply to award benefits. Winans v. Bowen, 853

F.2d 643, 647 (9th Cir. 1988).

As previously noted, the five-step analysis requires a

claimant to demonstrate he is unable to perform his past relevant

work. See Gomez v. Chater 74 F.3d 967,970 (9th Cir. 1996). If the

claimant meets his burden, the burden shifts to the commissioner to

show there are other jobs in the national economy the claimant can

perform. Id. The ALJ's finding that Plaintiff could perform other

work based on the guidelines, and the incomplete hypothetical

question put forth to the vocational expert in the final step of the

analysis, was error. Accordingly, this Court finds Plaintiff is

Case 3:08-cv-01975-LAB-WVG Document 20 Filed 04/19/10 Page 22 of 23
 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

08cv1975 23

disabled and recommends the ALJ's decision be reversed and Plaintiff

be awarded benefits.

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION

For the reasons set forth above, in considering the record as

a whole, this Court RECOMMENDS that the District Court GRANT

Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment and award benefits to him.

Further, the Court RECOMMENDS that the District Court DENY Defendant’s Cross Motion for Summary Judgment.

This Report and Recommendation of the undersigned Magistrate

Judge is submitted to the United States District Judge assigned to

this case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 

On or before May 19, 2010, any party may file written

objections with the Court and serve a copy on all parties. The

document should be captioned “Objections to Report and Recommendation.” 

Any reply to the objections shall be filed and served on or

before June 18, 2010. The parties are advised that failure to file

objections within the specified time may waive the right to raise

those objections on appeal of the Court’s order. See Turner v.

Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d

1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

DATED: April 19, 2010

 Hon. William V. Gallo

 U.S. Magistrate Judge

Case 3:08-cv-01975-LAB-WVG Document 20 Filed 04/19/10 Page 23 of 23