Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-00443/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-00443-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Carolyn Parks
Plaintiff
Social Security Administration
Defendant

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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Carolyn Parks, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Jo Anne B. Barnhart, Commissioner of

Social Security, 

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. 05-0443-PHX-ROS

OPINION AND ORDER

Pending before the Court are Plaintiff Carolyn Parks' Motion for Summary Judgment

and Defendant Jo Anne B. Barnhart's Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment. Parks seeks a

reversal of the Social Security Administration's denial of her request for disability benefits.

For the following reasons, Defendant's Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment is granted.

BACKGROUND

Carolyn Parks ("Parks") submitted an application for disability insurance benefits on

March 20, 2002. (Tr. 88) That application stated that Parks became unable to work on

January 1, 1999. (Id.) In her Disability Report, Parks stated that she suffered from "chronic

diarrhea & headaches, dizziness & loss of balance, mild stroke, high blood pressure, high

cholesterol, sleep apnea, diabetus [sic] type II, chronic fatigue, [and] depression." (Tr. 95)

Parks alleges that these conditions prevent her from working because she has "to go to the

bathroom as high as 17 times a day with severe cramps" and she is unable to concentrate.

Case 2:05-cv-00443-ROS Document 10 Filed 01/19/06 Page 1 of 9
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

 The record contains evidence that Plaintiff has suffered from "chronic daily

headache migraine for 30 years." (Tr. 367)

- 2 -

(Id.) Park's was insured for disability through December 31, 1999. (Tr. 92) Park's

application was denied initially and upon reconsideration. (Tr. 66-67) Parks then requested

a hearing before an Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ"). (Tr. 78-79) At the hearing before

the ALJ, Parks, a medical expert, and a vocational expert testified. (Tr. 23-61) The ALJ

found Parks not disabled and the Appeals Council declined to review this decision. (Tr. 15-

21, 6-8) Parks then filed this action, seeking a determination that she was disabled prior to

her date last insured. 

At the hearing before the ALJ, Parks was the first to testify. Parks stated that in 1999

she suffered from "severe migraines and back problems" and she underwent two abdominal

surgeries. Since 1999 her health had deteriorated such that she now suffers from chronic

diarrhea, "[h]igh blood pressure, high cholesterol, sleep apnea, fatigue, dizziness and [is] hard

of hearing." (Tr. 32) Parks went on to state that she has to take two naps per day and can

only work around the house for twenty to thirty minutes before she has to stop and rest.

When asked where she has pain Parks replied "Mostly in my head. I have migraines really

bad." (Tr. 34) Parks admitted that she can stand for twenty to thirty minutes without having

to change position, is able to walk "100 feet or so," can lift a gallon of milk, sitting is only

occasionally a problem, she does most of her own shopping, and is currently able to drive.

(Tr. 38-44) When questioned by the ALJ about her symptoms in 1999, Parks stated that

during that period she had suffered from migraines and from various symptoms connected

to her abdominal troubles. But Parks admitted that she had started feeling better a short time

after her abdominal surgeries. (Tr. 46) Parks also admitted that she had suffered from

migraines "for years" but stated they had intensified in recent years.1

 (Tr. 58)

 Doctor Hershel Goren was the next to testify. Dr. Goren testified via telephone. Parks

stipulated to Dr. Goren's qualifications and did not raise any objection to Dr. Goren testifying

via telephone. (Tr. 48) Dr. Goren started by stating that he focused on the period from

Case 2:05-cv-00443-ROS Document 10 Filed 01/19/06 Page 2 of 9
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 -

January 1, 1999 to December 31, 1999. (Id.) Dr. Goren observed that many of Parks'

medical complaints occurred after 1999. (Tr. 48-49) But he did observe that in 1999 Parks

suffered from vertigo, abdominal problems, and had cataract surgery. (Tr. 49) Dr. Goren

concluded that "[f]rom [his] reading of the records [Parks] did not meet or equal any"

disability listing in 1999. (Tr. 49) When asked about the possibility that Parks' later medical

problems may have been occurring in 1999, Dr. Goren stated "it wouldn't surprise [him] at

all" to learn that she was suffering from her current complaints in 1999. Parks' attorney

asked Dr. Goren to assume that Parks was, in fact, suffering from all of her current

complaints in 1999 and to then determine if she was disabled at that time. Dr. Goren stated

that, in his opinion, Parks would not have been disabled. (Tr. 51) Dr. Goren believed that,

in light of the medical records from 1999, the only restrictions on Parks' work would have

been "no climbing ladders, ropes or scaffolds . . . [n]o balancing" and no "exposure to

hazards." (Tr. 49, 56) When asked specifically about Parks' migraines in 1999, Dr. Goren

responded that he did not have information about migraines in 1999. (Tr. 50) When pressed

on this point, Dr. Goren explained that "the impression [he got] from the record [was] that

[Parks'] treating physicians [were] not impressed with the severity or the frequency of the

headache." (Tr. 52)

The next witness was Linda W. Heiland, a vocational expert. Ms. Heiland was asked

her opinion regarding two hypothetical situations. First, whether Parks would have been able

to perform any of her past relevant work in light of the restrictions mentioned by Dr. Goren.

Ms. Heiland stated that "[a]ll of [Parks'] past relevant jobs would be available." (Tr. 56)

Next, Ms. Heiland was asked regarding work possibilities if an "individual were to miss four

or more days of work per month." Ms. Heiland agreed with the ALJ's opinion that "no work

[would be] available for that special accommodation." (Tr. 56) Parks' counsel asked Ms.

Heiland about the impact of Parks' migraines. If Parks' testimony was "taken as fully

credible" then the migraines "would effectively rule out all work." (Tr. 57) Also, Ms.

Heiland agreed that if Parks needed "a half-hour nap in the morning and half-hour nap in the

afternoon in addition to lunch break," she would not be employable. 

Case 2:05-cv-00443-ROS Document 10 Filed 01/19/06 Page 3 of 9
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 -

In his written decision, the ALJ recounted the following findings regarding Parks'

health. In February 1999 Parks complained to her doctor of dizziness. (Tr. 328) In June

1999 Parks underwent two surgeries for abdominal pain and nausea. On July 8, 1999, one

of Parks' doctor observed in a post-operative checkup that Parks was "doing well." (Tr. 175)

Parks was also evaluated in June 1999 due to complaints regarding dizziness. Parks reported

that the dizziness would last "from three hours to a day and may happen about five out of

seven days a week." (Tr. 180) The doctor chose to change her prescriptions in an attempt

to alleviate the dizziness. (Id.) Parks was next seen on September 20, 1999 due to five days

of abdominal pain. She was provided with medication and told to followup in seven days.

(Tr. 178) On October 11, 1999, Parks went to the doctor due to pain on her left side. Her

condition started after she traveled "back and forth to San Francisco within 10 days and she

was the driver on both trips." (Tr. 472) She was provided with two prescriptions and told

to follow-up. (Id.) On October 21, 1999 Parks was seen again for pain in both sides of her

back after she lifted a heavy laundry basket. She was diagnosed with a lumbar sprain. (Tr.

470) Parks also underwent cataract surgery in October 1999. Parks' treating physician wrote

a letter on October 28, 2003 summarizing the state of Parks' health in 1999. The physician

stated that "[Parks] has had continuous abdominal pain, diarrhea, fatigue, depression, and

anxiety since her multiple hospitalizations in 1999" and that the "episodes of Gastric pain

throughout the year of 1999 . . . prevented her from working." (Tr. 422) 

After considering this medical history, as well as the testimony of Dr. Goren and Ms.

Heiland, the ALJ concluded that "the record supports a conclusion that [Parks could] perform

work . . . through December 31, 1999. No treating or examining physician . . . provided

evidence that the claimant was unable to perform substantial gainful activity for any period

of 12 continuous months, because of any impairment or combination of impairments." (Tr.

19) The ALJ adopted the opinion of Dr. Goren that Parks had not been disabled. Also, the

ALJ found Parks' "subjective complaints that she is unable to work are not fully accepted to

the extent alleged. Her complaints and alleged limitations are out of proportion to the

evidence during the period in question. Her testimony was more applicable to the period

Case 2:05-cv-00443-ROS Document 10 Filed 01/19/06 Page 4 of 9
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 -

after the date she was last insured for benefits and many of her impairments were not

documented at all during [1999]." (Tr. 19) Accordingly, the ALJ found that during 1999

Parks could perform her previous work and that she was not entitled to disability benefits.

(Tr. 19) 

ANALYSIS

The Court reviews the denial of benefits under a deferential standard of review. A

"decision to deny benefits will be disturbed only if it is not supported by substantial evidence

or it is based on legal error." Magallanes v. Bowen, 881 F.2d 747, 750 (9th Cir. 1989)

(quotations omitted). "Substantial evidence means more than a mere scintilla, but less than

a preponderance. It means such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as

adequate to support a conclusion.” Id. (quotations omitted). Where the evidence presented

to the ALJ "is susceptible to more than one rational interpretation, it is the ALJ's conclusion

that must be upheld." Burch v. Barnhart, 400 F.3d 676, 679 (9th Cir. 2005). The ALJ is also

"responsible for determining credibility and resolving conflicts in medical testimony."

Magallanes, 881 F.2d at 750. In this case, Parks argues that the ALJ committed legal error

by not giving adequate weight to Parks' treating physician's testimony. Parks also believes

that Dr. Goren's testimony was so flawed that it was error for the ALJ to rely on it.

According to Parks, once Dr. Goren's testimony is disregarded, it is clear that substantial

evidence does not support the ALJ's conclusion. Finally, Parks argues that allowing a

medical expert to testify telephonically violated her due process rights. Each of Parks'

arguments are addressed below.

A. Proper Weight to Parks' Physician 

 To prevail on her claim for disability benefits, Parks had to "show that [her] current

disability has existed continuously since some time on or before the date that [her] insured

status lapsed." Flaten v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 44 F.3d 1453, 1458 (9th Cir.

1995). The parties agree that Parks was insured for disability through December 31, 1999.

Therefore, Parks is not entitled to benefits if she is unable to work due to ailments with an

onset date later than December 31, 1999. Id. Parks submitted a 2003 letter from her treating

Case 2:05-cv-00443-ROS Document 10 Filed 01/19/06 Page 5 of 9
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 -

physician stating that her current ailments could be traced back to 1999 and that Parks'

gastric pain during 1999 prevented her from working. Because this letter came from Parks'

treating physician, Parks' believes it should have been given more weight by the ALJ. 

Parks is correct that a court must "afford greater weight to a treating physician's

opinion." Magallanes, 881 F.2d at 751. The treating physician has a "greater opportunity

to know and observe the patient as an individual." Sprague v. Bowen, 812 F.2d 1226, 1230

(9th Cir. 1987). "The treating physician's opinion is not, however, necessarily conclusive as

to either a physical condition or the ultimate issue of disability." Magallanes, 881 at 751.

To reject the opinion of a treating physician, the ALJ must "make findings setting forth

specific, legitimate reasons for doing so that are based on substantial evidence in the record."

Id. (quotations omitted). This burden is met when the ALJ sets "out a detailed and thorough

summary of the facts and conflicting clinical evidence, stat[es] his interpretation thereof, and

mak[es] findings." Id. (quoting Cotton v. Bowen, 799 F.2d 1403, 1408 (9th Cir.1986). The

ALJ met these requirements. 

In his written opinion, the ALJ provided a detailed summary of the facts as well as the

conflicting opinions of Parks' treating physician and Dr. Goren. The ALJ specifically found

that the treating physician's claim that Parks was disabled in 1999 was not supported by the

physician's "objective findings" elsewhere in the record. (Tr. 19) Specifically, there was no

indication in the record that Plaintiff had suffered from a disabling condition for twelve

months. Because the ALJ found that the treating physician's opinion was not supported by

the evidence presented, the ALJ concluded that there was no evidence, from the treating

physician or any other source, that Parks had been "unable to perform substantial gainful

activity for any period of 12 continuous months." (Id.) The ALJ also observed that Parks

alleged limitations were "out of proportion to the evidence." Specifically, there was no

evidence that Parks "was required to take extensive naps" during 1999, no evidence of

significant side-effects from medication during 1999, and Plaintiff was able to drive to

California during 1999. See Bunnell v. Sullivan, 947 F.2d 341, 346 (9th Cir. 1991)

(observing that an ALJ "may discredit the claimant's allegations based on inconsistencies in

Case 2:05-cv-00443-ROS Document 10 Filed 01/19/06 Page 6 of 9
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

The ALJ also could have rejected the treating physician's opinion as a conclusory

retrospective opinion. See Johnson v. Shalala, 60 F.3d 1428, 1432 (9th Cir. 1995) (affirming

ALJ rejection of treating physician's retrospective opinion).

- 7 -

the testimony or on relevant character evidence"). The ALJ fulfilled his duty when rejecting

a treating physician's opinion to state his interpretation of the facts and make relevant

findings. Accordingly, the ALJ did not err by rejecting the treating physician's opinion.2

B. Substantial Evidence

Parks' second argument is that Dr. Goren's testimony was inconsistent with the record,

indicating that he did not conduct a fair and complete review of the record. Parks believes

that due to inconsistencies between the record and Dr. Goren's testimony, "the ALJ should

have given [Dr. Goren's] testimony no weight." (Motion for Summary Judgment at 9) This

argument overstates the conflict between the record and Dr. Goren's testimony.

Parks believes Dr. Goren's testimony regarding her migraines was inconsistent with

her medical records. Parks points to four medical records referencing Parks

headaches/migraines in 1999. A medical record from March 30, 1999 included a diagnosis

of headaches. (Tr. 196) The record does not indicate what, if any, treatment plan was

recommended at that time. Other records from June 1999 indicate a diagnosis of migraine

headaches, but those records also indicate that Parks' migraines were "currently stable with

approximately one headache every one to two weeks." At that time Parks was apparently

treating her headaches with "good success." (Tr. 136) 

When initially asked by the ALJ to describe Parks' medical impairments Dr. Goren

stated that he had "no notes from 1999 about [headache.]" (Tr. 48) When Parks' attorney

asked about migraine headaches Dr. Goren responded that "I don't have information about

migraine in 1999." (Tr. 50) Parks believes these statements show that Dr. Goren did not

adequately review her record. But later statements by Dr. Goren show that he was aware of

the relevant medical records. 

Case 2:05-cv-00443-ROS Document 10 Filed 01/19/06 Page 7 of 9
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 -

Dr. Goren stated in his testimony that in 1999 Parks "[u]ndoubtedly . . . had spine

pain, had headache, had carpal tunnel syndrome. Undoubtedly." But Dr. Goren's reading

of the record led him to believe "that [Parks'] treating physicians [were] not impressed with

the severity or the frequency of the headache or the spine pain." Dr. Goren believed that

more would have appeared in the record if Parks had actually suffered from headaches "with

the frequency and/or severity that she described in testimony." Viewing the entire transcript

of Dr. Goren's testimony, therefore, it is clear that he was aware of Parks' complaints in 1999

regarding her migraines; he simply believed that there would have been more evidence if the

migraines were as debilitating as Plaintiff claimed.

Parks also cites Dr. Goren's failure to accurately assess the impact of her abdominal

surgeries coupled with her other medical complaints in 1999 as evidence of his

misunderstanding of the record. But Dr. Goren's testimony made clear that he was aware of

Parks' various complaints in 1999. (Tr. 48-49, discussing vertigo, surgeries, and cataracts)

There is ample evidence in the record that Dr. Goren's opinion was based on a full review

and understanding of Parks' medical history. Therefore, it was not error for the ALJ to rely

on Dr. Goren's testimony.

C. Due Process

Parks' final argument is that the ALJ infringed on her due process rights by allowing

Dr. Goren to testify via telephone. According to Parks, Dr. Goren should be considered an

"adversary" and "her due process rights were violated by not being able to see her 'accuser'

or validate [that] the voice on the phone [was], in fact, the voice of a medical expert."

(Motion at 10) At the hearing, neither Parks nor her attorney objected to the ALJ allowing

Dr. Goren to appear telephonically. In fact, rather than objecting to the telephonic testimony,

Parks' attorney chose to stipulate to Dr. Goren's qualifications. (Tr. 48) Parks cites no case

law or other authority in support of her due process argument. Thus, the exact basis for her

argument is unclear. Parks may be asserting that the Sixth Amendment mandates she be

"confronted with the witnesses against [her]." The Tenth Circuit, however, has held that

because the Sixth Amendment applies only to criminal proceedings, testimony via telephone

Case 2:05-cv-00443-ROS Document 10 Filed 01/19/06 Page 8 of 9
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

 Tenth Cir. R. 36.3 (allowing citation of unpublished dispositions). 

- 9 -

at an administrative hearing does "not transgress Sixth Amendment prescriptions regarding

confrontation of witnesses." Peretti v. Nat'l Transp. Safety Bd. F.A.A., 999 F.2d 548 (10th

Cir. 1993) (unpublished disposition).3

 The Court agrees with this conclusion that there is no

Sixth Amendment violation when an ALJ allows testimony via telephone. Alternatively,

Parks may be asserting a general due process right to confrontation of all adverse witnesses.

The Court is unaware of any authority supporting such a right. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 43(a)

(allowing for testimony via telephone in certain circumstances). Parks' argument regarding

due process is rejected. 

Accordingly, 

IT IS ORDERED that Parks' Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 4) is DENIED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant's Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment

(Doc. 7) is GRANTED.

 DATED this 17th day of January, 2006.

Case 2:05-cv-00443-ROS Document 10 Filed 01/19/06 Page 9 of 9