Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00563/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00563-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Commissioner of Social Security
Defendant
Kimberly Loring
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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KIMBERLY LORING, 

Plaintiff,

v.

CAROLYN W. COLVIN, 

Acting Commissioner of Social Security,

Defendant.

____________________________________

Case No. 1:15-cv-00563-SKO

ORDER ON PLAINTIFF’S SOCIAL 

SECURITY APPEAL 

(Doc. No. 1)

INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff Kimberly Loring ("Plaintiff") seeks judicial review of a final decision of the 

Commissioner of Social Security (the "Commissioner" or "Defendant") denying her application 

for Supplemental Security Income ("SSI") pursuant to Title XVI of the Social Security Act. 

42 U.S.C. §§ 405(g); 1383. The matter is currently before the Court on the parties' briefs, which 

were submitted, without oral argument, to the Honorable Sheila K. Oberto, United States 

Magistrate Judge.1 

 

1

 The parties consented to the jurisdiction of a U.S. Magistrate Judge. (Docs. 8, 10.)

Case 1:15-cv-00563-SKO Document 18 Filed 04/19/16 Page 1 of 13
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

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

Plaintiff filed an application for SSI on October 25, 2010, alleging disability beginning on 

November 19, 2009, due to lower back pain, high blood pressure, and asthma. (Administrative 

Record ("AR") 194, 215.) 

A. Relevant Evidence

Plaintiff has reported a history of low-back pain and leg pain since 2007. (AR 290-341.) 

In relation to a previous application for benefits, Plaintiff was examined by Abbas Mehdi, M.D., 

on November 9, 2007, for an orthopedic consultation. (AR 290-93.) Dr. Mehdi summarized 

Magnetic Resonance Imaging ("MRI") scans taken of Plaintiff's lumbar spine on July 17, 2007. 

(AR 290.) The scan showed degenerative changes at multiple levels of Plaintiff's lumbar spine, 

"uncovering of the L4-5 disk with facet and ligamentum hypertrophy," and mild foraminal 

stenosis. (AR 290.) Dr. Mehdi noted Plaintiff had some "symptom magnification and poor 

effort," indicated Plaintiff walked "without evidence of a limp," and concluded she could stand 

and/or walk up to six hours in an eight-hour day. (AR 291, 293.)

On January 25, 2011, Plaintiff was seen by Phillip Kim, M.D., for complaints of back pain. 

(AR 350-51.) Plaintiff reported muscle weakness, lower back pain radiating and not starting 

suddenly, and lower back stiffness. (AR 350.) Upon examination, Plaintiff demonstrated 

thoracolumbar tenderness on palpation, but had normal ranges of motion. (AR 350.) Dr. Kim 

assessed lumbar disc degeneration and recommended Plaintiff continue her current medication and 

follow-up in one month. (AR 351.)

On February 15, 2011, Plaintiff was examined by Roger Wagner, M.D. (AR 342-48.) Dr. 

Wagner reviewed Dr. Mehdi's orthopedic evaluation dated November 9, 2007, which included a 

description of Plaintiff's July 2007 MRI. (AR 342.) Plaintiff reported a history of back pain; 

although she was able to walk, she came to the appointment in a wheelchair. (AR 342.) Dr. 

Wagner noted Plaintiff came to the appointment "with a very passive eyes closed affect, kind of 

mildly moaning whenever she moves around." (AR 342-43.) Dr. Wagner indicated it was 

difficult to tell how much of this was "effected verses results of her medication." (AR 343.) 

Plaintiff also reported arm numbness and asthma. (AR 343.) Plaintiff stated she currently lived 

Case 1:15-cv-00563-SKO Document 18 Filed 04/19/16 Page 2 of 13
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 her daughter and her daughter's family; she did some cooking and very little cleaning, as she 

does these slowly enough that her daughter tells her to "get out of the way." (AR 343.) Plaintiff 

also described going shopping and performing her own activities of personal grooming. 

(AR 343.) 

On examination, Dr. Wagner noted Plaintiff sat "very comfortably" through the entire 20 

minutes of history taking; she was able to get up out of her wheelchair to ambulate; she was 

slightly broad based and stiff-legged, but ambulated for about 20 feet without having dyspnea on 

exertion and did not appear unstable. (AR 344.) Plaintiff was able to bend over, take off her 

shoes and socks, and put them back on by herself. (AR 344.) 

Plaintiff was able to stand on her toes and walk on her heels for a "good 10 feet" without 

any significant difficulties, but she did this extremely slowly. Her gait was slightly broad based, 

not favoring either leg, and she appeared fairly stable. (AR 345.) Although Plaintiff presented in 

a wheelchair, she was able to ambulate at the examination. Dr. Wagner noted Plaintiff "was 

unstable enough that perhaps the cane would be necessary. It was unclear that she actually needs 

anything as significant as a wheelchair." (AR 345.) 

As to her lower back pain, Dr. Wagner reported as follows:

The claimant does suffer from some low back pain and has been apparently [] 

prescribed a wheelchair. However, I do not have the outside medical records 

supporting this allegation. She claims that she can only walk approximately 50 

feet. Given her performance here today, that would seem likely to be accurate. 

However, it would be imperative that outside observations of the claimant's actual 

ability to ambulate and move around without the use of a wheelchair be used to 

help evaluate this. Given the evaluation performed approximately three years ago 

as noted in the review of records, it seems that this degree of deterioration of her 

ability to ambulate is quite surprising. Again, I do not have any actual copies of 

any record of imaging studies for the back. The claimant did not seem in any 

imminent danger of falling. Gives me no history of any significant falls. It is 

unclear why fairly soon after the previous evaluation was performed she alleges she 

was given a wheelchair.

(AR 346.) 

Dr. Wagner provided a functional assessment as follows:

This is based only on the performance of the claimant on today's exam. Again, 

outside observations of the claimant's actual ability to ambulate would be extremely 

Case 1:15-cv-00563-SKO Document 18 Filed 04/19/16 Page 3 of 13
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

helpful, particularly given that her performance today is significantly changed from 

the performance only approximately three years ago as documented []in the 

orthopedic consultation performance at Valley Health Resources on November 9, 

2007.

Maximum standing and walking capacity: Based on my evaluation today, up to 

four hours.

Maximum sitting capacity: No limitation.

Assistive device: The claimant comes in using a wheelchair. Again, it would be 

extremely helpful to have the actual documenting of this being medically 

necessary. The claimant did appear to have some difficulty walking and 

ambulating. However, she is on large amounts of pain medication and acts 

somewhat somnolent. To my observation, the claimant likely needs a cane at least.

Maximum lifting and carrying capacity: 20 pounds occasionally and 10 pounds 

frequently.

Postural activities: Based on the claimant's performance today, climbing and 

balancing should not be performed. Otherwise, no limitations.

Manipulative activities: No limitations.

Workplace activities: Based on the claimant's performance walking today, the 

claimant should [not] work around heights or heavy machinery. The claimant 

should not work around extremes of chemicals, dust, fumes, or gasses due to her 

asthma. Otherwise, no limitations.

(AR 347.) 

On February 18, 2011, an x-ray of Plaintiff's lumbar spine showed degenerative disc 

disease, bilateral neural foraminal stenosis, and lateral recess stenosis. (AR 349, 390.)

On February 25, 2011, Plaintiff was seen again by Dr. Kim. (AR 361-62.) Plaintiff 

reported numbness in her legs, but no gait abnormality was observed. (AR 361.) She reported her

medication improved her symptoms, and she was attending physical therapy. (AR 361.) Dr. Kim 

noted Plaintiff was in a wheelchair. (AR 362.) Dr. Kim stated Plaintiff was negative for the 

reverse straight leg raising test, had no tenderness on palpation of her hips, and no abnormalities 

were noted in coordination. (AR 361-62.) Plaintiff was positive for the regular straight leg raising 

test. (AR 362.) Dr. Kim diagnosed Plaintiff with lumbar radiculopathy and prescribed 

medication. (AR 362.)

Case 1:15-cv-00563-SKO Document 18 Filed 04/19/16 Page 4 of 13
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

On April 25, 2011, Plaintiff was examined by Vincent Wang, M.D., regarding her 

complaints of lower back pain. (AR 389.) Dr. Wang reported Plaintiff had almost full strength in 

her extremities, and her sensations were intact. (AR 390.) Plaintiff used a cane and was unable to 

walk due to her pain complaints. (AR 390.) Dr. Wang concluded a surgical procedure on 

Plaintiff's back was not appropriate at that time because of her complaints of chest pain and 

obesity. (AR 390.) Instead, Dr. Wang recommended a trial of epidural steroid injections, a 

weight loss program, and that Plaintiff stop smoking. (AR 390.) Dr. Wang informed Plaintiff that 

losing weight would help her back pain. (AR 390.) Dr. Wang ordered a flexion/extension x-ray 

of Plaintiff's lumbar spine to determine whether she had additional instability on flexion/extension 

of her lumbar spine. (AR 390.)

Between March 2011 and August 2011, Plaintiff received treatment at Madera Community 

Hospital for lower back and leg pain. (AR 392-426.) Treatment providers prescribed epidural 

steroid injections and medication. (See AR 392-94, 404, 407, 409, 414.) Clinical examination 

notes were fairly unremarkable during this time, and there were notations of intact motor strength, 

full motor strength and normal sensation in lower limbs, and a "normal" musculoskeletal 

examination. In March 2011, Plaintiff underwent a lumbar spine MRI which showed "[m]ild 

multilevel degenerative changes." (AR 365-66.) In April 2011, an x-ray of Plaintiff's spine was 

reviewed by a physician, who suspected no change in Plaintiff's spinal condition with 

flexion/extension. (AR 377.)

Plaintiff received treatment between May and August 2011 at the Darin Camarena Health 

Centers. (AR 427-55.) Plaintiff's examinations were generally unremarkable. For example, Dr. 

Kim reported Plaintiff had no tenderness in her thoracolumbar spine on palpation, and reported 

she had no coordination or sensory abnormalities. In July 2011, Plaintiff reported her back pain 

had improved due to weight loss. (AR 446.)

On May 23, 2011, state agency physician C. De la Rosa, M.D., reviewed Plaintiff's

records. (AR 378-82.) Dr. De la Rosa noted that Dr. Wagner was vague in affirming Plaintiff's 

alleged walking limitations. (AR 382.) Dr. De la Rosa also noted that the objective findings did 

not support radiculopathy, atrophy, or weakness as would be expected in the lower extremities if 

Case 1:15-cv-00563-SKO Document 18 Filed 04/19/16 Page 5 of 13
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

Plaintiff were primarily using a wheelchair as she alleged. (AR 382.) Dr. De la Rosa opined 

Plaintiff could perform a range of medium work. (AR 378-82.)

Plaintiff also received treatment at Community Medical Centers between October 2011 

and January 2013. (AR 563-1087.) Treating providers there prescribed medication and physical 

therapy. (AR 744, 761, 779, 1070.) Plaintiff reported lower back and leg pain, but reported 

improved symptoms such as moderate decreases in pain levels with medication. (AR 615, 623, 

655, 726, 820, 866, 908.)

On December 30, 2011, the Cooperative Disability Investigations ("CDI")2interviewed 

Plaintiff at her residence based on Plaintiff's variable presentations at examinations – i.e., 

sometimes she used a wheelchair, but at other times she was able to walk without an assistive 

device. (AR 246-47.) Plaintiff informed investigators that she walked around her house using the 

walls to support herself and that she used a wheelchair outside of her home. The investigators, 

however, reported Plaintiff "did not use any assistive device nor did she use the walls or furniture 

for support as she walked." (AR 247, 249.) The investigators reported Plaintiff did not have a 

wheelchair ramp in her residence, and that she was required to go up steps at the front entrance of 

her home and to get to her bedroom. (AR 249.)

On January 4, 2012, state agency reviewing physician I. Ocrant, M.D., reviewed Plaintiff's 

records. (AR 465.) Dr. Ocrant noted Plaintiff had undergone a consultative examination with a 

walker, but also the CDI report "clearly show[ed] an assistive device is not used by [Plaintiff] 

outside SSA venues" and that "this is consistent with [Plaintiff's] pattern of malingering." 

(AR 473.) Dr. Ocrant reported that, given Plaintiff's malingering, he did not believe he could give 

weight to the Dr. Wagner's findings. (AR 474.) Dr. Ocrant opined Plaintiff could perform light 

work, which included the ability to stand and/or walk for up to six hours in an eight-hour day. 

(AR 466-69.) 

 

2 The CDI is a unit established jointly by the Social Security Administration and the Office of the Inspector General to 

investigate disability claims under Title II and Title XVI that state disability examiners believe are suspicious. "The 

CDI program's primary mission is to obtain evidence that can resolve questions of fraud before benefits are ever paid." 

See http://oig.ssa.gov/cooperative-disability-investigations-cdi.

Case 1:15-cv-00563-SKO Document 18 Filed 04/19/16 Page 6 of 13
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

B. Administrative Proceedings

The Commissioner denied Plaintiff's application initially and again on reconsideration; 

consequently, Plaintiff requested a hearing before an Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ"). (AR 81-

90, 95-107, 110-14, 122-24.) A hearing was held on July 11, 2013, before an ALJ. (AR 38-63.) 

On September 5, 2013, the ALJ issued a decision finding Plaintiff not disabled from 

October 25, 2010, through the date of decision. (AR 21-32.) Specifically, the ALJ found that 

Plaintiff (1) had not engaged in substantial gainful activity since her application date of October 

25, 2010 (AR 23); (2) Plaintiff had severe impairments: degenerative disc disease; obesity; 

depressive disorder; anxiety disorder; diabetes mellitus; and fibromyalgia (AR 23); (3) did not 

have an impairment or combination of impairments that met or medically equaled one of the listed 

impairments in 20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1 (AR 24); and (4) had the residual 

functional capacity ("RFC")

3

to perform a range of light work, could lift 20 pounds, sit, stand, and 

walk for a total of six hours each in an eight-hour work day with regular breaks; can occasionally 

balance, stoop, kneel, crouch, crawl, and climb ramps and stairs; cannot climb ladders, ropes, or 

scaffolds; and is limited to performing simple, repetitive tasks. (AR 25.) The ALJ found that 

Plaintiff had no past relevant work, but could perform jobs that exist in significant numbers in the 

national economy. The ALJ concluded Plaintiff was not disabled as defined by the Social 

Security Act at any time from October 25, 2010, through the date of decision. (AR 32.) 

Plaintiff sought review by the Appeals Council on September 19, 2013. (AR 15-17.) The 

Appeals Council denied Plaintiff's request for review on February 10, 2015. (AR 1-6.) Therefore, 

the ALJ's decision became the final decision of the Commissioner. 20 C.F.R. § 416.1481.

 

3 RFC is an assessment of an individual’s ability to do sustained work-related physical and mental activities in a work 

setting on a regular and continuing basis of 8 hours a day, for 5 days a week, or an equivalent work schedule. Social 

Security Ruling 96-8p. The RFC assessment considers only functional limitations and restrictions that result from an 

individual’s medically determinable impairment or combination of impairments. Id. "In determining a claimant's 

RFC, an ALJ must consider all relevant evidence in the record including, inter alia, medical records, lay evidence, and 

'the effects of symptoms, including pain, that are reasonably attributed to a medically determinable impairment.'" 

Robbins v. Soc. Sec. Admin., 466 F.3d 880, 883 (9th Cir. 2006).

Case 1:15-cv-00563-SKO Document 18 Filed 04/19/16 Page 7 of 13
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

C. Plaintiff's Argument on Appeal

On April 11, 2015, Plaintiff filed a complaint before this Court seeking review of the 

ALJ’s decision. Plaintiff argues the ALJ failed to properly consider Dr. Wagner's opinion, and the 

disability decision was not predicated on substantial evidence.

SCOPE OF REVIEW

The ALJ's decision denying benefits "will be disturbed only if that decision is not 

supported by substantial evidence or it is based upon legal error." Tidwell v. Apfel, 161 F.3d 599, 

601 (9th Cir. 1999). In reviewing the Commissioner's decision, the Court may not substitute its 

judgment for that of the Commissioner. Macri v. Chater, 93 F.3d 540, 543 (9th Cir. 1996). 

Instead, the Court must determine whether the Commissioner applied the proper legal standards 

and whether substantial evidence exists in the record to support the Commissioner's findings. See

Lewis v. Astrue, 498 F.3d 909, 911 (9th Cir. 2007). "Substantial evidence is more than a mere 

scintilla but less than a preponderance." Ryan v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 528 F.3d 1194, 1198 (9th 

Cir. 2008). "Substantial evidence" means "such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might 

accept as adequate to support a conclusion." Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389, 401 (1971) 

(quoting Consol. Edison Co. of N.Y. v. NLRB, 305 U.S. 197, 229 (1938)). The Court "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) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).

APPLICABLE LAW

An individual is considered disabled for purposes of disability benefits if he or she is 

unable to engage in any substantial, gainful activity by reason of any medically determinable 

physical or mental impairment that can be expected to result in death or that has lasted, or can be 

expected to last, for a continuous period of not less than twelve months. 42 U.S.C. 

§§ 423(d)(1)(A), 1382c(a)(3)(A); see also Barnhart v. Thomas, 540 U.S. 20, 23 (2003). The 

impairment or impairments must result from anatomical, physiological, or psychological 

abnormalities that are demonstrable by medically accepted clinical and laboratory diagnostic 

Case 1:15-cv-00563-SKO Document 18 Filed 04/19/16 Page 8 of 13
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

techniques and must be of such severity that the claimant is not only unable to do her previous 

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

of substantial, gainful work that exists in the national economy. 42 U.S.C. §§ 423(d)(2)-(3), 

1382c(a)(3)(B), (D).

The regulations provide that the ALJ must undertake a specific five-step sequential 

analysis in the process of evaluating a disability. In the First Step, the ALJ must determine 

whether the claimant is currently engaged in substantial gainful activity. 20 C.F.R. §§ 

404.1520(b), 416.920(b). If not, in the Second Step, the ALJ must determine whether the claimant 

has a severe impairment or a combination of impairments significantly limiting her from 

performing basic work activities. Id. §§ 404.1520(c), 416.920(c). If so, in the Third Step, the ALJ 

must determine whether the claimant has a severe impairment or combination of impairments that 

meets or equals the requirements of the Listing of Impairments ("Listing"), 20 C.F.R. 404, 

Subpart P, App. 1. Id. §§ 404.1520(d), 416.920(d). If not, in the Fourth Step, the ALJ must 

determine whether the claimant has sufficient residual functional capacity despite the impairment 

or various limitations to perform her past work. Id. §§ 404.1520(f), 416.920(f). If not, in the Fifth 

Step, the burden shifts to the Commissioner to show that the claimant can perform other work that 

exists in significant numbers in the national economy. Id. §§ 404.1520(g), 416.920(g). If a 

claimant is found to be disabled or not disabled at any step in the sequence, there is no need to 

consider subsequent steps. Tackett v. Apfel, 180 F.3d 1094, 1098-99 (9th Cir. 1999); 20 C.F.R. §§ 

404.1520, 416.920.

DISCUSSION

Plaintiff argues the ALJ wrongfully rejected Dr. Wagner's opinion that Plaintiff had 

significant limitation in her ability to stand and walk: the ALJ impermissibly discounted Dr. 

Wagner's opinion in this regard in favor of Dr. Ocrant, a non-examining physician. Plaintiff 

maintains Dr. Ocrant's contradictory opinion is not a legally sufficient basis to reject the opinion 

of Dr. Wagner who examined Plaintiff. Plaintiff further argues the error was prejudicial because a 

VE testified that a person with the limitations opined by Dr. Wagner could perform only sedentary 

Case 1:15-cv-00563-SKO Document 18 Filed 04/19/16 Page 9 of 13
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

work, and under the Medical-Vocational Grids, Plaintiff is disabled when limited to sedentary 

work. 

The Commissioner argues the ALJ properly gave more weight to Dr. Ocrant's opinion 

regarding Plaintiff's ability to stand and/or walk than to that of Dr. Wagner because Dr. Wagner's 

assessment was internally inconsistent and undermined by the subsequent CDI report. The 

Commissioner maintains the ALJ's evaluation of Dr. Wagner's assessment was based on a 

reasonable interpretation of the evidence and should be upheld.

The ALJ assessed Dr. Wagner's opinion as follows:

I gave significant weight, but not great weight[,] to the opinions of the internal 

medicine consultative examiner, Dr. Wagner (Ex. B3F). Dr. Wagner also opined 

the claimant was limited to a light range of work. However, he also assessed the 

claimant was limited to standing/walking four hours in a workday and would have 

no limitations on sitting. These determinations in themselves are contradictory 

because Dr. Wagner assessed more restrictive stand/walk limitations due to the 

claimant's back impair[ment], but then assessed essentially no limitations in sitting, 

which would also affect the back. I gave greater reliance to the State agency 

consultant opinion on reconsideration because it considered the treatment records 

over a longitudinal period rather than making the determinations based on a onetime examination.

(AR 30.)

The ALJ gave significant, but not great weight, to Dr. Wagner's opinion regarding 

Plaintiff's ability to stand and walk because it was inconsistent. Specifically, the ALJ noted Dr. 

Wagner had imposed restrictive standing and walking limitations based on Plaintiff's lower back 

condition and pain, but did not assess any sitting limitations, which the ALJ believed would also 

implicate Plaintiff's lower back. This is a reasonable interpretation of Dr. Wagner's opinion. 

(AR 342, 344.) Dr. Wagner questioned the degree of limitation Plaintiff was experiencing in her 

ability to walk, given her evaluation in 2007. (AR 346 ("Given the evaluation performed 

approximately three years ago as noted in the review of records, it seems that this degree of 

deterioration of her ability to ambulate is quite surprising.).) Yet Dr. Wagner still opined a fairly 

restrictive limitation in Plaintiff's ability to walk and/or stand, but simultaneously assessed no 

limitation in her ability to sit, which Plaintiff also claimed was affected by her back pain. In this 

manner, Dr. Wagner's opinion about Plaintiff's ability to walk and/or stand is not well supported 

Case 1:15-cv-00563-SKO Document 18 Filed 04/19/16 Page 10 of 13
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

and appears facially inconsistent with the lack of a corresponding sitting limitation. See Young v. 

Heckler, 803 F.2d 963, 968 (9th Cir. 1986) (per curiam) (treating doctor's conclusory opinion that 

claimant was disabled was properly rejected by ALJ when it was internally inconsistent and not 

consistent with doctor’s medical reports). This was a legally sufficient basis to give this portion of 

Dr. Wagner's opinion less weight and to refuse to adopt it as part of the RFC. 

Importantly, the ALJ also noted Dr. Ocrant's opinion was more convincing as to Plaintiff's 

ability to stand and walk because it was based on a review of Plaintiff's longitudinal records, not a 

one-time examination. Although an examining physician is normally entitled to more deference 

than a non-examining physician, see Andrews v. Shalala, 53 F.3d 1035, 1041 (9th Cir. 1995),

there were specific and legitimate reasons to discount Dr. Wagner's opinion in this case. In his 

February 2011 examination report, Dr. Wagner specifically noted his skepticism about Plaintiff's 

examination presentation with regard to her ability to walk and stand, and reported he did not have 

any access to Plaintiff's prior MRI other than Dr. Mehdi's description of the 2007 MRI findings to 

determine whether her presentation was accurate or supportable. (AR 346 ("I do not have the 

outside medical records supporting this allegation [of low back pain]."); AR 346 ("Again, I do not 

have any actual copies of any record of imaging studies for the back . . . It is unclear why fairly 

soon after the previous evaluation was performed she alleges she was given a wheelchair.").) In 

finalizing his functional assessment opinion, Dr. Wagner was very equivocal about the 

examination results:

This [functional assessment] is based only on the performance of the 

claimant on today's exam. Again, outside observations of the claimant's actual 

ability to ambulate would be extremely helpful, particularly given that her 

performance today is significantly changed from the performance only 

approximately three years ago as documented [in] the orthopedic consultation 

performed at Valley Health Resources on November 9, 2007. 

(AR 347.)

In January 2012, Dr. Ocrant, reviewed Plaintiff's records including Dr. Wagner's 

assessment, new MRI and x-ray results, and the CDI investigation results that severely undercut 

Dr. Wagner's opinion regarding Plaintiff's ability to walk and stand. In reviewing these additional 

records, Dr. Ocrant noted Plaintiff did not use an assistive device outside "SSA venues," and that 

Case 1:15-cv-00563-SKO Document 18 Filed 04/19/16 Page 11 of 13
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

she showed a persistent pattern of malingering. (AR 473.) Based on Plaintiff's "objectively 

verifiable pathology" as evidenced by recent MRI and x-ray results, Dr. Ocrant opined Plaintiff 

was able to perform light work with some postural limitations, which includes standing and 

walking about six hours in an eight-hour workday. (AR 474.)

Although Dr. Ocrant was a non-examining physician, he had additional records and 

information to which Dr. Wagner did not have access. An ALJ may rely on the opinion of a nonexamining, non-treating physician to discredit an examining physician only when the nonexamining physician's opinion is supported by and consistent with the other evidence in the 

record. Morgan v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 169 F.3d 595, 600 (9th Cir. 1999). The objective 

evidence supporting Dr. Ocrant's opinion was obtained after Plaintiff was examined by Dr. 

Wagner, and bears significantly on Plaintiff's alleged lower back pain and her ability to walk or 

stand as a result. Specifically, a March 2011 MRI of Plaintiff's lumbar spine (AR 365-66) showed

only mild degenerative changes, and an April 2011 x-ray (AR 406) was generally consistent with 

the MRI findings. These objective findings were not a significant departure or worsening of 

Plaintiff's July 2007 MRI findings noted by Dr. Mehdi. (AR 290-93.) Consistently, Dr. Mehdi, 

like Dr. Ocrant, opined Plaintiff could perform six hours of standing and/or walking in an eighthour day. (AR 293.) 

In addition, Dr. Wagner noted other medical records or objective clinical findings beyond 

Dr. Mehdi's examination report would have aided in supporting Dr. Wagner's opinion, particularly 

as it related to Plaintiff's ability to stand and walk, given the extreme changes Plaintiff alleged

since Dr. Mehdi's examination. Dr. Ocrant's opinion was predicated on a review of additional 

records Dr. Wagner expressly indicated would have been helpful in formulating an opinion on 

Plaintiff's ability to walk and stand. This additional and supporting evidence was a proper basis 

for the ALJ to give more weight to Dr. Ocrant's opinion as to Plaintiff's ability to walk and stand. 

Morgan, 169 F.3d at 600.

Finally, Dr. Wagner did not have the benefit of the CDI investigation results, which 

showed Plaintiff did not need an assistive device to ambulate as she claimed during the course of 

her compensation examination with Dr. Wagner. This bears directly on Dr. Wagner's opinion 

Case 1:15-cv-00563-SKO Document 18 Filed 04/19/16 Page 12 of 13
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

regarding Plaintiff's ability to walk and/or stand. Specifically, in December 2011, CDI 

investigators went to Plaintiff's home, and Plaintiff greeted them at the door without an assistive 

device; it was observed she did not use the wall to support herself as she told investigators. 

(AR 246, 249.) This confirmed Dr. Wagner's skepticism about Plaintiff's February 2011 

examination performance. (AR 346 ("[Plaintiff] has apparently been prescribed a wheelchair. 

However, I do not have the outside medical records supporting this allegation . . . it would be 

imperative that outside observations of the claimant's actual ability to ambulate and move around 

without the use of a wheelchair be used to help evaluate this.").)

In sum, Dr. Ocrant's opinion was predicated on the consideration of additional objective 

testing results and the CDI investigation results showing Plaintiff's exaggeration and malingering 

pertaining to her use of an assistive device. Dr. Ocrant's opinion is supported by and consistent 

with other evidence in the record and constitutes substantial evidence. As such, the ALJ did not 

err in crediting it over the opinion of Dr. Wagner as to Plaintiff's ability to walk and/or stand. 

Morgan, 169 F.3d at 600. 

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, the Court finds that the ALJ’s decision is supported by substantial 

evidence in the record as a whole and based on proper legal standards. Accordingly, the Court 

DENIES Plaintiff’s appeal from the administrative decision of the Commissioner of Social 

Security. The Clerk of this Court is DIRECTED to enter judgment in favor of Defendant Carolyn 

Colvin, Acting Commissioner of Social Security and against Plaintiff.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 19, 2016 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-00563-SKO Document 18 Filed 04/19/16 Page 13 of 13