Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00848/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00848-4/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Commissioner of Social Security
Defendant
Mohammed Saheed
Plaintiff

Document Text:

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MOHAMMED SAHEED,

Plaintiff,

v.

CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting 

Commissioner of Social Security,

Defendant.

Case No. 1:15-cv-00848-SMS

ORDER AFFIRMING AGENCY’S DENIAL 

OF BENEFITS

Plaintiff Mohammed Saheed seeks review of a final decision of the Commissioner of Social 

Security (“Commissioner”) denying his applications for disability insurance benefits (“DIB”) under 

Title II and for supplemental security income (“SSI”) under Title XVI of the Social Security Act (42 

U.S.C. § 301 et seq.) (“the Act”). The matter is before the Court on the parties’ cross-briefs, which 

were submitted without oral argument to the Magistrate Judge. Following a review of the record and 

applicable law, the Court affirms the decision of the Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”).

I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY AND FACTUAL BACKGROUND1

A. Procedural History

Plaintiff applied for DIB on October 11, 2013, and for SSI on August 28, 2013, alleging 

 

1

 The relevant facts herein are taken from the Administrative Record (“AR”). 

Case 1:15-cv-00848-SMS Document 21 Filed 11/03/16 Page 1 of 19
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

disability beginning on June 15, 2013. The Commissioner denied Plaintiff’s claims on April 8, 

2014, and upon reconsideration on June 4, 2014. AR 110-111, 142-143, 239, 243. Plaintiff then 

requested a hearing before an ALJ. AR 172.

On January 14, 2015, Plaintiff appeared and testified before ALJ Cynthia Floyd. Also at the 

hearing were Plaintiff’s counsel and an impartial vocational expert (“VE”). AR 28. In a written 

decision dated February 6, 2015, the ALJ found Plaintiff not disabled under the Act. AR 22. On 

April 9, 2015, the Appeals Council denied review of the ALJ’s decision, which thus became the 

Commissioner’s final decision, and from which Plaintiff filed a timely complaint. AR1; Doc. 1. 

B. Factual Background

The Court will not recount in detail all the facts of this case, discussing only what is relevant 

to this appeal. 

1. Plaintiff’s Written Testimony

In his first disability report from October 2013, Plaintiff stated the following conditions 

limited his ability to work: arthritis, depression, back injury, lumbar disc bulge, lumbar spinal 

stenosis, high blood pressure, and high cholesterol. AR 288. Six months later, in a second disability 

report, Plaintiff claimed worsening pain beginning in March 2014. AR 351. He could not be active 

due to the pain and side effects of his medications, and struggled with some personal care issues 

such as not knowing when to use the restroom, and forgetting to eat or clean himself. AR 354. 

Plaintiff’s work history for the past fifteen years included work as a newspaper carrier, 

payroll accountant, and truck driver. As a truck driver, a job he maintained from May 2009 to 

August 2013, each day, Plaintiff stood and climbed for one hour each; sat for nine hours; reached 

and handled/grabbed big objects for half an hour each; and wrote, typed or handled small objects for 

one hour. He frequently lifted twenty-five pounds, with fifty pounds at most. AR 324-325. 

Plaintiff completed an Adult Function Report in November 2013. He was, at the time, living 

Case 1:15-cv-00848-SMS Document 21 Filed 11/03/16 Page 2 of 19
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3

with his family. The disc bulge in his back was very severe such that he was “unable to sit, stand, 

walk or lay down” for long periods of time. He was “unable to do anything” because he felt drowsy 

or dizzy most of the time and had “chronic pain all [the] time.” He took sleeping pills as he could 

not sleep at times due to the pain and needed help with personal care. He could not prepare meals or 

do any house and yardwork due to the pain. He did not go outside alone, shop, drive, handle money 

or engage in any hobbies because of the pain and medication side effects. He would only go out to 

appointments at the hospital. He had no problems getting along with others. He could lift one to 

two pounds; squat, bend, stand, walk, sit kneel and climb for a few minutes; and pay attention for 

five to ten minutes. He could only walk for a few steps before needing to rest. He could not handle 

changes in routine or stress well. He used, at “all times” a walker and wheelchair, both of which 

were prescribed by a physician a year ago. Plaintiff’s medications included: Cymbalta, Gabapentin, 

Diclofenac, Ranitidine, Norco, Baclofen, Pravachol, Zolpidem, Ibuprofen, and Enalapril. Except for 

Ranitidine, these medications caused drowsiness and/or dizziness. AR 340-348. 

2. Third Party Adult Function Report

Raziya Saheed, Plaintiff’s wife, completed a Third Party Adult Function Report in November 

2013. Ms. Saheed had known Plaintiff for twenty-one years. She stated that Plaintiff’s injuries 

limited his ability to walk, stand, sit, shop, and work. He could not sleep without sleeping pills, 

needed someone to help with his personal care, and could not sit, stand, and bend for long periods of 

time. He did not prepare meals or do any chores due to the medication side effects. He did not go 

outside due to the pain and because his knees and legs would “lock.” He did not drive as he could 

not sit for very long. He did not handle money as the medications caused him to become confused at 

times. He no longer engaged in hobbies, social activities, and goes to the hospital only. Plaintiff’s 

pain and depression made it difficult for him to get along with others, though he could get along very 

well with authority figures. He could lift one to two pounds, and squat, sit, bend, stand and walk for 

Case 1:15-cv-00848-SMS Document 21 Filed 11/03/16 Page 3 of 19
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

4

less than a few minutes. He could not climb stairs and could walk less than a few feet before 

needing to rest. He could get along with others and follow instructions for less than five minutes 

due to the pain and depression. He could pay attention for only a few minutes and follow spoken 

instructions well enough until he gets drowsy. He could not handle changes in routine or stress well 

and gets depressed very easily. Plaintiff’s pain made him angry easily. He often used a walker and 

wheelchair, which were prescribed a few months ago. Ms. Saheed listed the same medications and 

side effects found in Plaintiff’s Adult Function Report. AR 313-320.

3. Medical Evidence

The bulk of Plaintiff’s medical records came from Fresno Shields Medical Center (FSMC), 

Central Valley Pain Management (CVPM), and Community Regional Medical Center and Clinics 

(CRMCC). Beginning with FSMC, progress notes show Plaintiff made nearly monthly visits from 

January 2011 to November 2013 for complaints of leg pain, back pain, stomach pain, fatigue, and 

body aches. AR 437-447, 399-420. At the same time, from February 2012 to January 2013, 

Plaintiff received pain management treatment from J.R. Grandhe, M.D., at CVPM. AR 379-397.

Records from CRCMC show Plaintiff underwent spinal surgery with Mark Levy, M.D. in 

early December 2013. AR 617. An MRI taken about three weeks later revealed a generally normal 

lumbar vertebrae, though with some mild to moderate spinal canal stenosis and degenerative disease

at the individual disc levels. Impressions of the MRI were: “Minimal degenerative disease and some 

postoperative changes noted at the 5-1 level as discussed above. Some neural foraminal narrowing. 

Some spinal canal stenosis . . . . No discitis. No paravertebral collection seen.” AR 605. Around 

the same time, Plaintiff underwent a whole body bone scan with the following impressions: “[T]wo 

small foci of mild increased bony uptake . . . most likely representing areas of mild facet 

hypertrophic degenerative joint disease.” AR 922. 

Case 1:15-cv-00848-SMS Document 21 Filed 11/03/16 Page 4 of 19
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

5

Additional MRIs were taken in July and August 2014. The July MRI impressions were mild 

degenerative changes with no significant changes from Plaintiff’s December 2013 MRI. AR 852. 

And the August MRI impressions were: mild to moderate central stenosis with facet and ligamentum 

flavum hypertrophy at L3-4; and mild central canal narrowing with facet hypertrophy at L4-5. AR 

838-839. 

In the months after his spinal surgery, Plaintiff continued to report low back and leg pain

(right leg worse than left). AR 690, 707, 787. Dr. Levy recommended facet injections and physical 

therapy. Plaintiff had been receiving epidural steroid injections, which he claims did not help as 

they were infrequent. Based on new x-rays of the lumbar spine, Ian Johnson, M.D., did not 

recommend further surgery. AR 787. 

Frederick K. Comrie, M.D., at LAGS Spine and Sportscare, first treated Plaintiff in January 

2014. Plaintiff received medications and numerous epidural injections to help alleviate the low back 

pain. During visits in April, May and June 2014, Plaintiff complained of constant low back pain 

which radiated to the legs. He reported that with treatment medications, he could engage in 

activities including bathing, dressing, preparing food, and cleaning the house. His home exercise 

routine consisted of “aerobic (walking) for 30 minutes.” He reported mild stress and depression, but 

was able to get undisturbed sleep at night and “awakens rested.” AR 547-556, 568-573, 577-591. In 

September 2014, Dr. Comrie completed a physical medical source statement, a check-the-box and 

fill-in-the blank form. Therein, he found Plaintiff: (1) could not walk any city block without rest or 

severe pain; (2) could sit and stand for five to ten minutes at one time; (3) could sit and stand/walk a 

total of less than two hours in an eight-hour workday; (4) required a job with a sit-stand option and 

permits periods of walking around and multiple unscheduled breaks; (5) did not need a cane or handheld device for occasional standing/walking, but required occasional use of a wheelchair; (6) could 

rarely lift and carry less than ten pounds, twist, crouch/squat and climb stairs; (7) never stoop/bend 

Case 1:15-cv-00848-SMS Document 21 Filed 11/03/16 Page 5 of 19
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

6

and climb ladders; (8) would be off task twenty-five or more percent of a typical workday; (8) was 

incapable of even low stress work; and (9) likely to be absent for four or more days per month due to 

his impairments. AR 562-563. 

Also in September 2014, Brian H. Clague, M.D., completed a similar physical medical 

source statement. He concluded Plaintiff: (1) had emotional conditions—depression and stress—

which contributed to the severity of his symptoms and functional limitations; (2) could not walk any 

city block without rest or severe pain; (3) could sit and stand for five to ten minutes at one time; (4) 

could sit and stand/walk a total of less than two hours in an eight-hour workday; (5) required a job 

with a sit-stand option; (6) needed periods of lying down; (7) needed to walk for one to three 

minutes every ten to twenty minutes; (8) needed to take unscheduled breaks every thirty minutes to 

an hour, lasting one to two hours each time; (9) needed his legs elevated with prolonged sitting; 

(10) required occasional use of a walker or wheelchair; (11) could rarely lift and carry less than ten 

pounds; (12) could never twist, stoop, crouch/squat, and climb stairs and ladders; and (13) had 

significant limitations with reaching, handling and fingering. AR 560-561. On the same day, Dr. 

Clague’s progress notes indicated Plaintiff exhibited an antalgic gait and poor posture, but otherwise 

generally normal physical and neurological results upon examination. AR 823-824. Progress notes 

from the Joint Spine and Pain Treatment Center show Plaintiff’s complaint of lower back pain 

persisted into November 2014. 

With regard to Plaintiff’s mental conditions, James P. Murphy, Ph.D., completed a 

psychological evaluation on February 2014. Plaintiff arrived at the evaluation with a wheelchair, 

which he reported was unprescribed, and stated that “he can walk but the wheelchair ma[de] life 

easier[.]” Plaintiff appeared “overmedicated” and his wife confirmed that “he had taken his pain 

medications twenty minutes” prior. Plaintiff had taken Baclofen, Hydrocortisone, Methadone, 

gabapentin and Cymbalta. He reported being prescribed psychotropic and pain medications. While 

Case 1:15-cv-00848-SMS Document 21 Filed 11/03/16 Page 6 of 19
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

working as an accountant, Plaintiff stole from his employer and was sentenced to jail for six months. 

He was not treated for depression during his time in jail. 

Dr. Murphy observed Plaintiff sit through the hour-long psychiatric interview “without signs 

of discomfort.” Dr. Murphy concluded:

[Plaintiff’s] ability to function in the real world appears to be 

hampered by his physical symptoms not depression. There were no

observed symptoms to support a DSM-IV-TR diagnosis of depression 

but considerable pain behavior was observed. This individual is 

psychologically capable of performing Simple Repetitive Tasks (SRT) 

on a regular basis but not complex tasks.

AR 524-528 (emphasis in original). 

As part of the disability determination, two state agency medical consultants, J. Wright, 

M.D., and A. Nasrabadi, M.D., reviewed Plaintiff’s records. Dr. Wright reviewed Dr. Murphy’s 

evaluation and concluded that evidence supports a light RFC before his back surgery and a return to 

light RFC by December 2014. Dr. Wright noted credibility concerns given the “inconsistent use of 

[an] unprescribed wheelchair” at the consultative examinations. He found Plaintiff: (1) could lift 

and/or carry twenty pounds occasionally and ten pounds frequently; (2) could sit, stand and/or walk 

about six hours in an eight-hour workday; (3) could never climb ladders, ropes or scaffolds but may 

frequently climb ramps and stairs; (4) could occasionally balance, stoop, kneel, crouch and crawl; 

and (5) must avoid concentrated exposure to workplace hazards. Dr. Wright noted that the evidence 

“does not support medical necessity” for an assistive device. AR 105-107. In June 2014, Dr. 

Nasrabadi affirmed the finding of light RFC. AR 139. 

4. Hearing Before Administrative Law Judge

Plaintiff was, at the time of the hearing, living with his wife and daughter. AR 32. He did 

not have a driver’s license because of outstanding tickets. AR 34. He stopped working in 2013 due 

to back pain which traveled to his legs. AR 37. 

Plaintiff testified that despite the surgery in December 2013, his condition had worsened. 

Case 1:15-cv-00848-SMS Document 21 Filed 11/03/16 Page 7 of 19
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

8

The ALJ noted Plaintiff “appear[ed] to be in discomfort” as he kept “standing and sitting down” 

throughout the hearing. Plaintiff explained that prolonged sitting caused back pain at the surgical 

site. He was taking pain medications, including morphine, but did not find them helpful. The 

morphine minimized the pain for two hours at most. He could stand for no more than fifteen 

minutes before getting dizzy, a side effect of the medication. To relieve the pain, he would lie or sit 

down, the former being his most comfortable position. In an eight-hour day, Plaintiff would lie

down for about six hours. He could walk for no more than five minutes before needing a break and

had been using a prescribed walker since June or July of 2014. When asked who prescribed the 

walker, he could not recall. 

Plaintiff could lift less than five pounds. He could not bend over to pick up something. 

Aside from bathing, he relied on his wife for the cooking and everything else. He struggled with 

sleeping at night, getting no more than one to two-hour intervals of sleep. This, in turn, negatively 

affected his mood during the day. When asked if his other medications caused side effects, Plaintiff 

replied, “No.” AR 38-46. 

Jose Chaparro, the VE, testified and classified Plaintiff’s past work to include newspaper 

carrier, accounting clerk, payroll clerk, and tractor trailer truck driver. The VE opined that other 

than the newspaper carrier, the other positions had transferable skills. He then responded to a 

number of hypothetical questions from the ALJ and Plaintiff’s counsel. AR 50-60. 

5. ALJ’s Decision

A claimant is disabled under Titles II and XVI if he is unable to engage in substantial gainful 

activity because of a medically determinable physical or mental impairment that can be expected to 

result in death or has lasted or can be expected to last for a continuous period of no less than twelve

months. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1505(a), 416.905(a). To encourage uniformity in decision making, the 

Case 1:15-cv-00848-SMS Document 21 Filed 11/03/16 Page 8 of 19
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

9

Commissioner has promulgated regulations prescribing a five-step sequential process which an ALJ 

must employ to evaluate an alleged disability.2

In his written decision, the ALJ found that at step one, Plaintiff had not engaged in 

substantial gainful activity since the alleged onset date of June 15, 2013. At step two, Plaintiff had 

the following severe impairments: lumbar degenerative disc disease, degenerative joint disease, 

status post microdiscectomy with no response, bilateral sacroiliac arthropathy, lumbar radiculopathy, 

and arthritis. At step three, Plaintiff did not have an impairment or combination of impairments that 

met or equaled the severity of a listed impairment in 20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1. 

Plaintiff had the RFC to perform light work, except he is limited to: lifting and carrying twenty 

pounds occasionally and ten pounds frequently; standing and walking six hours in an eight-hour 

workday with normal breaks; sitting six hours total in an eight-hour workday; never climbing

ladders, ropes or scaffolds but may frequently climb ramps and stairs; occasionally balance, stoop, 

kneel, crouch and crawl; avoiding concentrated exposure to workplace hazards such as fast moving 

unprotected machinery, working at unprotected heights and traversing uneven terrain; and 

alternating between sitting and standing every twenty minutes for one minute with the option to 

occasionally use an assistive device such as a walker. At step four, Plaintiff was capable of 

performing his past job of accounting clerk, payroll clerk and newspaper carrier. Consequently, the 

ALJ concluded Plaintiff was not disabled as defined under the Act since June 15, 2013 through the 

date of the decision. AR 13-21.

 

2

 “In brief, the ALJ considers whether a claimant is disabled by determining: (1) whether the 

claimant is doing substantial gainful activity; (2) whether the claimant has a severe medically 

determinable physical or mental impairment or combination of impairments that has lasted for more 

than 12 months; (3) whether the impairment meets or equals one of the listings in the regulations; (4) 

whether, given the claimant’s residual functional capacity, the claimant can still do his or her past 

relevant work; and (5) whether the claimant can make an adjustment to other work. The claimant 

bears the burden of proof at steps one through four.” Molina v. Astrue, 674 F.3d 1104, 1110 (9th 

Cir. 2012). 

Case 1:15-cv-00848-SMS Document 21 Filed 11/03/16 Page 9 of 19
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

II. DISCUSSION

A. Legal Standards

This Court reviews the Commissioner’s final decision to determine if the findings are 

supported by substantial evidence. 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). Substantial evidence means “more than a 

mere scintilla” (Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389, 401 (1971)), but “less than a preponderance.” 

Sorenson v. Weinberger, 514 F.2d 1112, 1119 n. 10 (9th Cir. 1975). It is “such relevant evidence as 

a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.” Richardson, 402 U.S. at 401. 

“If the evidence can reasonably support either affirming or reversing a decision, we may not 

substitute our judgment for that of the Commissioner. However, we must consider the entire record 

as a whole, weighing both the evidence that supports and the evidence that detracts from the 

Commissioner’s conclusion, and may not affirm simply by isolating a specific quantum of 

supporting evidence.” Lingenfelter v. Astrue, 504 F.3d 1028, 1035 (9th Cir. 2007) (internal citation 

and quotations omitted). “If the evidence can support either outcome, the Commissioner’s decision 

must be upheld.” Benton v. Barnhart, 331 F.3d 1030, 1035 (9th Cir. 2003); see 42 U.S.C. § 405(g)

(2010). But even if supported by substantial evidence, a decision may be set aside for legal error. 

Bray v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 554 F.3d 1219, 1222 (9th Cir. 2009). 

Moreover, an ALJ’s error is harmless “when it was clear from the record that [the] error was 

inconsequential to the ultimate nondisability determination.” Robbins v. Soc. Sec. Admin. 466 F.3d 

880, 885 (9th Cir. 2006).

B. Analysis

Plaintiff raises three issues on appeal. He contends the ALJ: (1) improperly rejected the 

opinions of Drs. Comrie and Clague; (2) erred in giving great weight to the opinions of Drs. Wright 

and Nasrabadi; and (3) provided legally insufficient reasons for discrediting Plaintiff’s testimony. 

 

Case 1:15-cv-00848-SMS Document 21 Filed 11/03/16 Page 10 of 19
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

11

1. Drs. Frederick Comrie and Brian H. Clague

In her discussion of Drs. Comrie’s and Clague’s opinions, the ALJ stated in relevant part: 

The undersigned gives the assessments of Drs. Clague and Comrie 

little weight because they are too extreme and exaggerated as to cast 

doubt on their reliability as a whole. In addition, Dr. Clague did not 

have a longitudinal relationship with the claimant and only began 

treating the claimant in September 2014. Furthermore, the opinions 

are inconsistent with the medical evidence of record, particularly 

diagnostic studies that showed mild to moderate abnormalities. 

Moreover, no physician recommended additional surgery and the 

claimant reported activities of daily living that were not consistent 

with a disabled individual.

AR 18. Plaintiff takes issue with all of the ALJ’s expressed reasons, which the Commissioner

asserts are substantially supported by the record. 

Plaintiff contends the ALJ’s reasoning that the opinions of Drs. Comrie and Clague are 

“inconsistent with the medical evidence,” lacks merit. Citing to the December 2013, July 2014 and 

August 2014 MRIs of the lumbar spine, Plaintiff asserts “the ALJ’s characterization of the MRI[]s is 

merely his lay opinion” and therefore improper. Doc. 12, p. 8-9. The record, however, belies 

Plaintiff’s assertion. It is settled that an ALJ may not substitute his own medical judgment for that 

of physician. See Schmidt v. Sullivan, 914 F.2d 117, 118 (7th Cir. 1990) (“But judges, including 

administrative law judges of the Social Security Administration, must be careful not to succumb to 

the temptation to play doctor.”); Kemp v. Bowen, 816 F.2d 1469, 1476 (10th Cir. 1987) (“While the 

ALJ is authorized to make a final decision concerning disability, he can not interpose his own 

‘medical expertise’ over that of a physician, especially when that physician is the regular treating 

doctor for the disability applicant.”) (citations omitted); Ferguson v. Schweiker, 765 F.2d 31, 37 (3d 

Cir. 1985) (“an ALJ is not free to set his own expertise against that of a physician who presents 

competent evidence”); Pietrunti v. Dir., Office of Workers’ Comp. Programs, 119 F.3d 1035, 1042 

(2d Cir. 1997) (“an ALJ cannot arbitrarily substitute his own judgment for competent medical 

evidence”) (internal quotations and citation omitted). That, however, was not the case here. 

Case 1:15-cv-00848-SMS Document 21 Filed 11/03/16 Page 11 of 19
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

12

In concluding the “diagnostic studies . . . showed mild to moderate abnormalities,” the ALJ 

correctly recounted, nearly verbatim, the impressions and/or findings of the attending physician who 

reviewed the December 2013 whole body scan, the December 2013, July 2014 and August 2014 

MRIs. His characterization of the evidence is consistent with the record and not a product of his lay 

opinion. Even Plaintiff’s own summary of the MRIs indicate that the degree of any abnormality was 

generally mild and, at most, moderate. And while pointing out that the ALJ’s account did not 

include two findings from the July 2014 MRI—an annular fissure and flattening of the central

thecal—Plaintiff provides no explanation as to how this undermines the ALJ’s conclusion, given that 

overall impressions of abnormalities were mild to moderate at most. Additionally, there is 

inconsistency within Dr. Clague’s opinions. His progress notes, made on the same day he completed 

the medial source statement, did not support the kind of limitations set forth in the latter. See Rollins 

v. Massanari, 261 F.3d 853, 856 (9th Cir. 2001) (affirming the ALJ’s rejection of a treating 

physician’s opinion which was internally inconsistent and too extreme to be plausible). Plaintiff’s 

contention here is therefore unavailing. 

Plaintiff next contends the ALJ ignored contrary evidence in discounting the opinions of Dr. 

Comrie and Clague. He essentially accuses the ALJ of cherry-picking the evidence. Indeed, his 

Adult Function Report states he could not prepare meals or do any house and yardwork due to the 

pain. But Plaintiff ignores the statements he made to Dr. Comrie in April, May and June 2014—that 

with treatment medications he could bathe, dress, prepare food, clean the house, and exercised by 

walking for thirty minutes. And where it is the ALJ’s job to weigh conflicting evidence, Plaintiff 

has not shown why the ALJ could not find that Plaintiff’s statements to Dr. Comrie, made months 

after the Adult Function Report, undermined the finding that Plaintiff could rarely and/or never 

engage in postural activities, as opined by Drs. Comrie and Clague. See Key v. Heckler, 754 F.2d 

1545, 1550 (9th Cir. 1985) (“the ALJ has the power to weigh conflicting evidence”). Moreover, this 

Case 1:15-cv-00848-SMS Document 21 Filed 11/03/16 Page 12 of 19
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

13

is only one of multiple reasons the ALJ expressed and the Court has already found that the ALJ’s 

reasoning concerning inconsistencies with the medical record is supported by substantial evidence. 

See Jordan v. Colvin, 603 F. App’x 611 (9th Cir. 2015) (“Even if some of the ALJ’s reasons for 

discounting their opinions were not valid, any error was harmless in light of the valid reasons the 

ALJ provided.”) (citation omitted).3 

Plaintiff’s other contentions also suffer from the same fate. That is, even if he could 

convincingly show, which he has not, that no merit lies with the ALJ’s other reasons—the 

physicians’ opinions were too extreme and exaggerated, no physician recommended additional 

surgery, and no longitudinal relationship between Plaintiff and Dr. Clague—they are not the ALJ’s 

only asserted reasons. The ALJ therefore did not improperly reject the opinions of Drs. Comrie and 

Clague.

2. Drs. J. Wright and A. Nasrabadi

Plaintiff contends the ALJ erred in giving great weight to the opinions of Drs. Wright and 

Nasrabadi, both of whom were nonexamining physicians. He asserts their opinions are unsupported 

by substantial evidence because despite their conclusions, which were made “only months” after 

Plaintiff’s back surgery, he was on pain medication and required injections to alleviate the ongoing 

pain. Additionally, Plaintiff contests the physicians’ questioning of his credibility based on the use 

of an unprescribed wheelchair. Doc. 12, pp. 12-13. The Commissioner avers the record supports the 

opinions of Drs. Wright and Nasrabadi with regard to the wheelchair. Doc. 19, p. 13. 

As discussed, Dr. Wright opined Plaintiff should be at the light RFC level by December 

2014, one year after his back surgery. Dr. Nasrabadi agreed. Additionally, Dr. Wright was

concerned about Plaintiff’s use of an unprescribed wheelchair and concluded there was no medical 

 

3

 This unpublished decision is citable under Rule 32.1 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. 

See also 9th Cir. R. 36–3(b).

Case 1:15-cv-00848-SMS Document 21 Filed 11/03/16 Page 13 of 19
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

14

need for one. After correctly recounting the physicians’ opinions, the ALJ stated in pertinent part: 

The undersigned gives the State agency physical assessments great 

weight because they are consistent with the medical evidence as a 

whole. For example, diagnostic studies showed merely mild to 

moderate abnormalities. In addition, physical examinations showed 

some decreased ranges of motion of the lumbar spine and positive 

straight leg raising tests, but reflexes, sensation, and motor strength 

were generally normal. However, the undersigned finds it appropriate 

to include environmental restrictions and allow the claimant to 

alternate between sitting and standing because of mild to moderate 

stenosis demonstrated by diagnostic images. In addition, occasional 

use of a walker is appropriate since the physical examinations 

occasional showed an abnormal gait.

AR 18-19 (emphasis added). 

As an initial matter, Drs. Wright and Nasrabadi opined that Plaintiff would have a light RFC 

approximately one year, not just a few months, after his surgery. But more importantly, it would be

error for the ALJ to find that the opinions of Drs. Wright and Nasrabadi were unsupported simply 

because they were made four and six months after Plaintiff’s back surgery, when the record in fact

supports their opinions. Brumfield v. Astrue, 281 F. App’x 681, 683 (9th Cir. 2008) (“Reports of a 

non-examining advisor may serve as substantial evidence when they are supported by other evidence 

in the record and are consistent with it.”) (citation omitted). That Plaintiff continued to experience 

pain which required medications and injections does not, without more, undermine the physicians’ 

opinions. 

With regard to the use of a wheelchair, the Court finds Plaintiff’s position perplexing. As 

evident in her decision, the ALJ did not blindly adopt the physicians’ opinions. She found additional 

restrictions appropriate and included occasional use of an assistive device as part of Plaintiff’s 

ultimate RFC. The ALJ therefore did not adopt the opinion that no assistive device was needed. To 

the extent that Plaintiff takes issue with the physicians’ concern about his credibility based on the 

use of a wheelchair, the record shows their concern was not unfounded given the inconsistencies. 

Specifically, Plaintiff reported using a wheelchair at all times in his Adult Function Report, but his 

Case 1:15-cv-00848-SMS Document 21 Filed 11/03/16 Page 14 of 19
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

15

wife stated he used it often, and Plaintiff himself later told Dr. Murphy that “he can walk but the 

wheelchair ma[de] life easier.” Plaintiff also reported in his Adult Function Report that the 

wheelchair was prescribed a year ago, but later told Dr. Murphy that the wheelchair was not 

prescribed, and told the ALJ at the hearing he had been using a prescribed walker since June or July 

2014. 

3. Plaintiff’s Credibility

Plaintiff contends the ALJ erred in his credibility findings by failing to provide clear and 

convincing reasons for discrediting Plaintiff. Doc. 12, pp. 13-17. The Commissioner avers the ALJ 

properly found Plaintiff partially credible and that substantial evidence supports her findings. Doc.

19, pp. 12-15. 

As set forth under the Act, a claimant’s statements about pain or other symptoms will not 

alone establish disability. Id. at § 416.929 (2011). “An ALJ engages in a two-step analysis to 

determine whether a claimant’s testimony regarding subjective pain or symptoms is credible. First, 

the ALJ must determine whether the claimant has presented objective medical evidence of an 

underlying impairment which could reasonably be expected to produce the pain or other symptoms 

alleged.” Garrison v. Colvin, 759 F.3d 995, 1014 (9th Cir. 2014) (quotations omitted). “If the 

claimant satisfies the first step of this analysis, and there is no evidence of malingering, the ALJ can 

reject the claimant’s testimony about the severity of her symptoms only by offering specific, clear 

and convincing reasons for doing so. Id. at 1014-15; Robbins v. Soc. Sec. Admin., 466 F.3d 880, 883 

(9th Cir.2006) (“[U]nless an ALJ makes a finding of malingering based on affirmative evidence 

thereof, he or she may only find an applicant not credible by making specific findings as to 

credibility and stating clear and convincing reasons for each.”).

A finding that a claimant’s testimony is not credible must be 

sufficiently specific to allow a reviewing court to conclude the 

adjudicator rejected the claimant’s testimony on permissible grounds 

and did not arbitrarily discredit a claimant’s testimony regarding pain. 

Case 1:15-cv-00848-SMS Document 21 Filed 11/03/16 Page 15 of 19
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

16

General findings are insufficient; rather, the ALJ must identify what 

testimony is not credible and what evidence undermines the claimant’s 

complaints.

Brown-Hunter v. Colvin, 806 F.3d 487, 493 (9th Cir. 2015) (internal quotations and citations 

omitted); SSR 96-7p (ALJ’s decision “must be sufficiently specific to make clear to the individual 

and to any subsequent reviewers the weight the adjudicator gave to the individual’s statements and 

reasons for that weight.”). 

“The ALJ must state specifically which symptom testimony is not credible and what facts in 

the record lead to that conclusion.” Smolen v. Chater, 80 F.3d 1273, 1284 (9th Cir. 1996) (citation 

omitted). Factors an ALJ may consider include: “(1) ordinary techniques of credibility evaluation, 

such as the claimant’s reputation for lying, prior inconsistent statements concerning the symptoms, 

and other testimony by the claimant that appears less than candid; (2) unexplained or inadequately 

explained failure to seek treatment or to follow a prescribed course of treatment; and (3) the 

claimant’s daily activities.” Id.. The ALJ must also give consideration to the factors enumerated in 

SSR 96-7p.4 

 

4

Social Security Ruling 96-7p states, in relevant part:

In recognition of the fact that an individual’s symptoms can sometimes suggest a 

greater level of severity of impairment than can be shown by the objective medical 

evidence alone, 20 CFR 404.1529(c) and 416.929(c) describe the kinds of evidence, 

including the factors below, that the adjudicator must consider in addition to the 

objective medical evidence when assessing the credibility of an individual’s 

statements:

1. The individual’s daily activities; 

2. The location, duration, frequency, and intensity of the individual’s 

pain or other symptoms; 

3. Factors that precipitate and aggravate the symptoms; 

4. The type, dosage, effectiveness, and side effects of any medication the 

individual takes or has taken to alleviate pain or other symptoms; 

5. Treatment, other than medication, the individual receives or has 

received for relief of pain or other symptoms; 

Case 1:15-cv-00848-SMS Document 21 Filed 11/03/16 Page 16 of 19
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

17

Because no evidence suggests Plaintiff was malingering, the ALJ was required to provide 

specific, clear and convincing reasons for rejecting the statements about pain. Here, the ALJ 

concluded:

As for the claimant’s credibility, the [ALJ] finds that the allegations 

were partially credible but not to the extent alleged. The claimant 

described daily activities that are not limited to the extent one would 

expect, given the complaints of disabling symptoms and limitations. 

The claimant reported he could bathe and dress himself, as well as 

prepare meals, and clean the house. 

The claimant’s credibility is further undermined by the diagnostic and 

other objective medical evidence, which failed to show a physiological 

basis for the extreme pain and limitation alleged. The diagnostic 

showed mild to moderate abnormalities. In addition, the claimant has 

no history of psychiatric hospitalizations, no history of suicide 

attempts, no history of outpatient treatment, no history of 

psychotherapy, and no history of psychosis or manic episodes. Further 

weakening the claimant’s credibility was the obvious overmedication 

during the psychological medical examination. 

AR 19. She did not state with specificity which symptom testimony she found not credible. This 

was error. But under the circumstances, the error was harmless. 

Elsewhere in her decision, the ALJ recounted Plaintiff’s allegations that he could not work 

“due to . . . low back pain, arthritis, depression, back injury, high blood pressure, and high 

cholesterol, as well as lumbar spine disc bulges, spinal canal stenosis, and disc height loss.” She 

recounted his Adult Function Report, wherein he reported being able to “walk only a few steps, lift 

one to two pounds, and pay attention for a mere five to ten minutes,” and needed a “walker or 

wheelchair to ambulate.” AR 16. The ALJ therefore recognized Plaintiff’s alleged symptoms and 

her subsequent discussion reflects the reasons why she found him not entirely credible. 

 

6. Any measures other than treatment the individual uses or has used to 

relieve pain or other symptoms (e.g., lying flat on his or her back, 

standing for 15 to 20 minutes every hour, or sleeping on a board); and 

7. Any other factors concerning the individual’s functional limitations 

and restrictions due to pain or other symptoms.

Case 1:15-cv-00848-SMS Document 21 Filed 11/03/16 Page 17 of 19
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

18

The ALJ essentially set forth four reasons which cast doubt on Plaintiff’s credibility: (1) his 

activities of daily living, (2) the diagnostic results and objective medical evidence, (3) no history of 

psychiatric problems, and (4) the fact that he was overmedicated during the psychological evaluation 

with Dr. Murphy. Most of the ALJ’s reasons here find substantial support in the record and are

specific, clear and convincing. First, as discussed, Plaintiff’s most recent statements about his daily 

activities included telling Dr. Comrie that with treatment medication Plaintiff could bathe, dress 

himself, prepare food, and cleaning the house; and engage in aerobic exercise involving walking for 

30 minutes. Second, the diagnostic studies showed abnormalities which were generally mild to 

moderate. Third, Dr. Murphy found Plaintiff’s symptoms did not support a diagnosis of depression. 

He also found Plaintiff had no discomfort sitting through the hour-long psychiatric interview. 

Collectively viewed, these evidence betray the claims of one who could walk for only a few steps, 

lift no more than two pounds at a time, and pay attention for no more than ten minutes at a time. See 

Ghanim v. Colvin, 763 F.3d 1154, 1163 (9th Cir. 2014) (“When evidence reasonably supports either 

confirming or reversing the ALJ’s decision, we may not substitute our judgment for that of the 

ALJ.”) (quotations and citation omitted). Plaintiff has not pointed to objective medical evidence 

which supports the degree of limitations alleged. 

Thus, while the Court is unpersuaded by one of the ALJ’s reasons—that a lack of psychiatry 

problems translates to a lack of credibility—it is satisfied that the ALJ has articulated other specific, 

clear and convincing reasons for finding Plaintiff only partially credible. See Carmickle v. Comm’r, 

Soc. Sec. Admin., 533 F.3d 1155, 1162 (9th Cir. 2008) (explaining that even if an ALJ’s reason(s) for 

finding adverse credibility is invalid, such error is harmless if the other remaining reasons are 

adequately supported by substantial evidence). 

III. CONCLUSION

Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s appeal from the administrative decision of the 

Case 1:15-cv-00848-SMS Document 21 Filed 11/03/16 Page 18 of 19
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

19

Commissioner of Social Security. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to enter judgment in favor of 

the Commissioner and against Plaintiff, Mohammed Saheed.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 26, 2016 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-00848-SMS Document 21 Filed 11/03/16 Page 19 of 19