Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_08-cv-01308/USCOURTS-caed-2_08-cv-01308-4/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Commissioner of Social Security
Defendant
Robert Martinez
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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ROBERT MARTINEZ, No. CIV S-08-1308-CMK

Plaintiff, 

vs. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL 

SECURITY,

Defendant.

 /

Plaintiff, who is proceeding with retained counsel, brings this action for judicial

review of a final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). 

Pursuant to the written consent of all parties, this case is before the undersigned as

the presiding judge for all purposes, including entry of final judgment. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). 

Pending before the court are plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment (Doc. 17) and defendant’s

cross-motion for summary judgment (Doc. 20, 21). 

I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Plaintiff applied for social security benefits on March 1, 2005. Plaintiff claims

that his disability began on January 1, 2005. In his application, Plaintiff claims that disability is

caused by a combination of bipolar disease, diabetes, left eye blindness, knee problems and

Case 2:08-cv-01308-CMK Document 22 Filed 03/29/10 Page 1 of 26
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

In his motion, Plaintiff claims additional conditions to include diabetes, major 1

depressive disorder, ADHD, migraine headaches, right knee posttraumatic degenerative disease,

left eye blindness, hypertension, hyperlipidemia, and obesity.

2

arthritis. Plaintiff’s claim was initially denied. Following denial of reconsideration, plaintiff 1

requested an administrative hearing, which was held on December 13, 2007, before

Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) L. Kalei Fong. In a January 16, 2009, decision, the ALJ

concluded that plaintiff is not disabled based on the following findings:

1. The claimant has not engaged in substantial gainful activity since March

11, 2005, the application date (20 CFR 416.920(b) and 416.971 et seq.).

2. The claimant has the following severe combination of impairments: left

eye vision loss, degenerative joint disease of the right knee, non-insulin

dependence diabetes mellitus, ADHD, and mild depression (20 CFR

416.920(c)).

3. The claimant does not have an impairment or combination of impairments

that meets or medically equals one of the listed impairments in 20 CFR

Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1 (20 CFR 416.920(d), 416.925 and

416.926).

4. After careful consideration of the entire record, the undersigned finds that

the claimant has the residual functional capacity to perform light work

except, occasional climbing ramps and ladders, stooping, balancing,

kneeling and crawling; frequent stooping and crouching; no climbing

ladders, ramps, scaffolds, and visual limitation in depth perception and

avoid even moderate exposure to hazards of machinery and heights due to

left eye low vision; and simple repetitive tasks.

5. The claimant is unable to perform any past relevant work (20 CFR

416.965).

6. The claimant was born on May 21, 1977 and is 30 years old, which is

defined as a younger individual age 18-49 (20 CFR 416.963).

7. The claimant has at least a high school education and is able to

communicate in English (20 CFR 416.964).

8. Transferability of job skills is not an issue in this case because the

claimant’s past relevant work is unskilled (20 CFR 416.968).

9. Considering the claimant’s age, education, work experience, and residual

functional capacity, there are jobs that exist in significant numbers in the

national economy that the claimant can perform (20 CFR 416.960(c) and

416.966).

Case 2:08-cv-01308-CMK Document 22 Filed 03/29/10 Page 2 of 26
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

The medical evidence is not at issue in this case and is adequately summarized by 2

Plaintiff. Defendant does not contest the accuracy of Plaintiff’s summary.

3

After the Appeals Council declined review on April 11, 2008, this appeal followed.

Additional background review indicates Plaintiff had previously been found to be

disabled, as of December 1, 1987, due to Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD), that

decision having been rendered on October 28, 1991. Following a Continuing Disability Review

(CDR) in 1999, it was determined his condition had not significantly improved, and that he had

additional injuries from a 1998 automobile accident. A second CDR was conducted and in

February 2004 it was determined he was no longer disabled as of July 2003. In a January 26,

2005, decision, ALJ Antonio Acevedo-Torres found Plaintiff’s medical impairments, noted as

ADHD, right knee and leg, and left eye vision, had improved. The ALJ found he had the residual

functional capacity (RFC) to perform the requirements of light work; he had the ability to

occasionally lift twenty pounds; frequently lift ten pounds, stand, or walk at least six of eight

hours and sit at least six of eight hours, but noted the visual limitations of his left eye. Based on

that RFC, the ALJ found Plaintiff’s disability ceased on July 1, 2003. 

II. SUMMARY OF THE EVIDENCE

The certified administrative record (“CAR”) contains the following medical

evidence as summarized in Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgement.2

Letter Report of Consultative Physician, Jenna Beech, M.D. - May 18, 2005

On May 18, 2005, Mr. Martinez was seen by Dr. Beech for

an internal medicine evaluation. His chief complaints were right

knee pain, headache, and bipolar disorder. TR 260. Mr. Martinez

rated his right knee pain at a 6 out of 10. He stated “it is worse

with standing more than 15 minutes or walking more than a

block.” TR 260. He explained that “it swells and locks up and

occasionally buckles because of weakness, causing him to fall.” 

TR 260. He reported that he gets some pain relief from Tylenol.

TR 260.

Mr. Martinez reported that his headaches were real bad. He

stated that they occurred 2-3 times week and lasted all day. He

stated that they “sapped his energy.” TR 260. He explained that

Case 2:08-cv-01308-CMK Document 22 Filed 03/29/10 Page 3 of 26
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

4

he was only able to see light out of his left eye. He described it as

looking “up from the bottom of the ocean to the sky.” TR 260. 

Mr. Martinez reported that he was unsure how long he had bipolar

disorder but he was diagnosed in October of 2004 after he drove

his truck into a tree. TR 261.

Dr. Beech described Mr. Martinez as obese. He weighed

268 pound and his blood pressure was 130/100. He reported that

he lived with his parents and that he could “do simple cooking and

his laundry.” TR 261.

Upon examination of his left eye, Dr. Beech noted that

there was some periorbital scarring and deformity. She also noted

that his lid was tacked upward and his eye appeared larger. TR

262. Dr. Beech reported that he walked with a limp favoring his

left leg. She stated:

The claimant does have scarring around his right

knee region with some swelling that is 2 cm greater

in circumference than in the left knee. He does have

tenderness to palpation over the entire knee joint as

well as crepitus.

TR 262.

Dr. Beech diagnosed Mr. Martinez with:

1. Right knee pain status post accident and surgery

with tenderness to palpation, crepitus, swelling,

decreased range of motion, and weakness, also

causing him to limp.

2. History of headaches, possibly related to head

trauma.

3. Bipolar disorder with history of psychotic

features

4. Left eye blind secondary to injury.

TR 263.

In Dr. Beech’s opinion, Mr. Martinez could stand/walk for

six hours in an eight hour workday. She reported that he could sit

without limitations. She noted that he could lift/carry 50 pounds

occasionally and 25 pounds frequently. Dr. Beech reported that he

could bend with limitations, but . . . limits for stooping, and/or

crouching occasionally. TR 263. She noted that he had workplace

environmental limitations as he needed to avoid activities requiring

binocular vision because of the blindness in his left eye. TR 263.

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

Case 2:08-cv-01308-CMK Document 22 Filed 03/29/10 Page 4 of 26
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

5

Letter Report of Consultative Physician, Jeff Gray, M.D. - May 26, 2005

On May 26, 2005, Mr. Martinez was seen by Dr. Gray for a

psychiatric evaluation. Mr. Martinez complained that he was

depressed. TR 268. He reported that when he was 14 years of age

his older brother was killed and he became very depressed. He was

treated with antidepressants until the age of 18. He stated that he

has had chronic knee pain and bad migraine headaches since his

accident in 1998, which caused left eye blindness and required

placement of a metal plate in his face. TR 268. Mr. Martinez

believed that he became gradually depressed thereafter and in

October of 2004 attempted suicide by driving his car into a

telephone pole. He reported that he is currently taking Lexapro at

20 mg. per day and Topamax at 200 mg at bedtime. TR 269. 

Mr. Martinez reported his Activities of Daily Living (ADL)

as washing his clothes, watching television, and playing video

games. He noted that he lived with his parents, and his mother,

father and brother maintained the house. TR 269-270. Dr. Gray

reported that Mr. Martinez had no social life. The majority of his

time was spent with his daughter occasionally or his family at

home. Dr. Gray noted that he had a short attention span and could

only concentrate for about ten minutes before he had to do

something else. TR 270.

Dr. Gray described Mr. Martinez as a male who had

nervous mannerisms. Dr. Gray noted that he looked around the

room, fidgeted and moved frequently in his chair. Dr. Gray stated

that Mr. Martinez had rapid speech and that although he described

himself as mellow, it was inconsistent with his nervous

mannerisms and fidgeting. TR 270. Dr. Gray reported that Mr.

Martinez could only repeat four digits forward and three in reverse.

In his opinion, Mr. Martinez had difficulty concentrating and

retaining information. TR 270.

Dr. Gray diagnosed Mr. Martinez as:

Axis I: Depressive disorder NOS

Axis II: Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD),

combined type.

Axis III: Left eye blindness, migraine headaches, right knee

arthritis, non-insulin dependent diabetes mellitus,

hypertension, and hypercholesterolemia.

Axis IV: Stress - moderate to severe, chronic mental illness,

chronic physical disability, and unemployment.

Axis V: GAF 55.

TR. 271.

/ / /

Case 2:08-cv-01308-CMK Document 22 Filed 03/29/10 Page 5 of 26
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

6

Dr. Gray discussed his opinion of Mr. Martinez prognosis:

The claimant has chronic physical disabilities,

chronic ADHD, and he has developed a significant

depressive disorder, in part secondary to the two

previously mentioned problems. He is currently in

treatment and has improved somewhat. Although,

some of his problems are not likely to get better in

the next 12 months, his depression may improve,

but this is difficult to predict. The claimant’s

ADHD is chronic. He may need additional

treatment for this.

TR 271-272.

In his functional assessment, Dr. Gray noted:

The claimant does have the ability to perform

simple and repetitive tasks, as well as detailed and

complex tasks. The claimant can accept

instructions from supervisors. The claimant may

have some difficulty with coworkers and the public

because of his short attention span and difficulty

attending to one thing for any length of time. The

claimant could perform work activities on a

consistent basis without special supervision.

The claimant can maintain regular attendance in the

workplace and he could complete a normal workday

and workweek; however, depending on the job, he

would have interruptions from this ADHD. The

claimant should be able to deal with stress

encountered in the competitive work environment.

TR 272.

Letter Report of Consultative Psychologist, Craig West, Psy.D. - February 13, 2007

On February 13, 2007, Mr. Martinez was seen by Dr. West

for a psychological evaluation. Mr. Martinez reported that he had

ADHD and other physical problems. TR 202. He also stated that

he had few friends, did not enjoy extracurricular activities, and that

he had a history of aggression towards others. TR 202.

In describing his daily activities, Mr. Martinez reported that

he goes to bed about 10:00 p.m. and typically wakes up at 9:00

a.m. He reported that on a typical day he visits with friends,

watches television, and spends time with his daughter. He stated

that he was unable to complete household chores. TR 203. Mr.

Martinez reported that he was nervous around people he was not

familiar with and felt like he did not belong. He indicated that his

Case 2:08-cv-01308-CMK Document 22 Filed 03/29/10 Page 6 of 26
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

7

ability to relate to others was slightly impaired. TR 204.

It was Dr. West’s opinion, that Mr. Martinez could perform

work-related activities consistently in an eight hour workday. He

felt that Mr. Martinez could perform “very simple, concrete

repetitive tasks.” TR 204. Dr. West opined that Mr. Martinez

might have “mild difficulty interacting with others...due to

irritability or frustration, although it is believed that no special or

additional close supervision would be needed to assist Mr.

Martinez in interacting with others in a work setting.” TR 204.

Mr. Martinez denied a history of suicidal ideations even

though his records indicated he attempted suicide. He also

reported that he occasionally consumed alcohol. TR 205. Dr.

West felt that his ability to relate to others was slightly impaired.

TR 205. Dr. West’s DSM IV diagnosis of Mr. Martinez was:

Axis I: 314.01 Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity

Disorder, Combined Type, per history.

296.36 Major Depressive Disorder,

Recurrent, In Full Remission

Axis II: No Diagnosis

Axis III: Unknown

Axis IV: Financial Difficulty.

Axis V: GAF 70

TR 205.

Letter Report of Consultative Physician, John Tendall, M.D. - March 29, 2007

On March 29, 2007, Mr. Martinez was seen by Dr. Tendall

for an internal medicine evaluation. His chief complaints were

right knee problem, headaches, no vision in left eye, and decreased

concentration. TR 190. Mr. Martinez’s Activities of Daily Living

(ADL’s) included watching television, spending time with his

daughter every other weekend, and talking to his parents with

whom he resided. TR 191. His medications included Glucophage,

Avandia, Glyburide, Tylenol with codeine, and Prevacid. TR 191.

Dr. Tendall described Mr. Martinez as “an odd-appearing

gentleman who walks in actually slightly slowly but fairly easily

with an asymmetric gait.” TR 191. Dr. Tendall noted that he

seemed nervous, grunted occasionally and moved around in his

chair a lot. T R 191. His weight was 256 pounds and his blood

pressure was 145/96. He had no vision in his left eye and had

20/50 in his right with lenses and 20/25 without lenses. TR 191.

Dr. Tendall noted that it was uncomfortable for Mr. Martinez to be

on his right leg. TR 192.

/ / /

Case 2:08-cv-01308-CMK Document 22 Filed 03/29/10 Page 7 of 26
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

8

Dr. Tendall diagnosed Mr. Martinez as:

1. Status post fracture of the right knee and his face.

2. Diabetes, questionable diagnosis of non-insulin

dependent diabetes mellitus versus untreated insulin

dependent.

3. Multiple psychological problems. With his

grunting and odd physical movements I

question whether he might have Tourette’s

syndrome.

TR 193.

Dr. Tendall noted that he had a lot of psychological

problems and real underlying problems with objective evidence of

the same. In his functional assessment of Mr. Martinez, it was his

opinion that Mr. Martinez could stand and walk for two hours in a

workday and sit for six hours. He noted that he could lift and carry

10 pounds frequently and 20 pounds occasionally. Dr. Tendall felt

that Mr. Martinez had no bending, stooping, crouching or

manipulative limitations. Dr. Tendall also stated that he would

have no relevant visual, communicative, or workplace

environmental limitations. TR 193.

Treatment Records

Colusa Indian Health Clinic

On February 8, 2005, Mr. Martinez was seen for a followup appointment regarding his diabetes. Mr. Martinez stated that he

had not been drinking for a couple of months. He weighed 263

pounds which was a 13 pound increase from his prior visit. The

notes reflected that his diabetes was “fairly well controlled but

could use some improvement.” TR 235.

On February 15, 2005, the record reflected that Mr.

Martinez was seen for follow-up on his lab work. The record

noted that Mr. Martinez had a history of bipolar disease, Ethyl

alcohol (ETOH) abuse and obesity. TR 234. Mr. Martinez

weighed 265 pounds which was a 2 pound increase from his prior

visit. The record reflected that Mr. Martinez’s assessment showed

his diabetes was under “fairly good control,” his bipolar disease

seemed stabilized, there was ETOH abuse, and obesity.” TR 234.

Mr. Martinez was encouraged to exercise, terminate his use of

alcohol, and to gain access to talk therapy. TR 234.

On May 11, 2005, Mr. Martinez was seen for a follow-up

appointment regarding his diabetes. The record reflected that Mr.

Martinez was continuing his psychopathology medications

including Lexapro and Topamax. TR 233. Mr. Martinez blood

pressure was 132/98 and he reported that his weight had increased

Case 2:08-cv-01308-CMK Document 22 Filed 03/29/10 Page 8 of 26
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

9

considerably since his last visit. TR 233. He was also taking

Glucophage and Avandia. He was assessed with 1) Diabetes

Mellitus Type II in need of better control, 2) Obesity, and 3)

History of bipolar disease and attempted suicide. Mr. Martinez

was advised to take and record his blood pressure over the next few

weeks. TR 233.

On July 1, 2005, Mr. Martinez was seen for a follow-up

appointment. The record reflected that his blood pressure was

118/80 and he weighed 266 pounds. He had a random blood sugar

of 299. TR 232. The notes stated that Mr. Martinez’s diabetes was

“in need of better control”. TR 232. He was prescribed Glyburide

as well. TR 232.

On July 7, 2005, Mr. Martinez had a follow-up

appointment. The record reflected that he reported blood sugars in

the mid to high 200’s. He weighed 264 pounds. The notes

reflected that Mr. Martinez’s diabetes was “poorly controlled” and

he had gastroesophageal reflux disease. TR 231.

On July 14, 2005, the record reflected that Mr. Martinez

reported that his blood sugar had ranged from the 220's to the

230’s. The notes stated that Mr. Martinez had an aversion to

needles and preferred not to try insulin. TR 230. His weight was

266 pounds. The record reflected that his diabetes was under poor

control. TR 230.

On July 28, 2005, the record reflected that Mr. Martinez

reported that his blood sugar was consistently under the 180’s. The

record noted a random blood sugar of 201. TR 228. Although Mr.

Martinez denied suicidal or homicidal ideation, his mother had

advised the clinic that he was severely depressed and had made

gestures related to taking his life. TR 228. His weight was 265

pounds. The record reflected that Mr. Martinez had stopped taking

Depakote and Lexapro for depression and bipolar disorder. The

record noted that Mr. Martinez stated that “the medication made

him feel tired, lethargic, and he felt it was counterproductive to his

problem.” TR 228. He had also stopped attending his mental

health sessions. He felt they had not been effective. TR 228.

From August 22, 2005 through September 13, 2007, the

record reflected that Mr. Martinez continued to have problems with

diabetes mellitus type II, hyperlipidemia, bipolar disorder, obesity,

alcohol abuse and gastroesophageal reflux disease. TR 173-179,

219-227.

On August 22, 2005, the record reflected that Mr. Martinez

weighed 264 pounds.

On October 13, 2005, Mr. Martinez complained of right

knee pain that spread to the thigh and then toward the foot. He

Case 2:08-cv-01308-CMK Document 22 Filed 03/29/10 Page 9 of 26
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

10

stated that the pain kept him up at night. He reported that this had

been going on for approximately one month. He weighed 254

pounds and had a random glucose of 161. TR 226. The record

reflected that Mr. Martinez had slight tenderness on the medial

condyle and towards the medial plateau. Dr. James Barrett, M.D.,

noted that the “anterior drawer was minimally positive and there

was slight laxity to the MCL.” TR 226. The record also showed

that there was fairly marked crepitus with extension/flexion. Mr.

Martinez felt that he was okay without his medications for his

bipolar disorder. TR 226. Dr. Barrett assessed “traumatic arthritis

right knee now increasingly symptomatic.” TR 226.

On November 29, 2005, Mr. Martinez weighed 258 pounds

which was an increase of four pounds from the prior visit. TR 225.

He reported that the Vicodin helped to keep the pain under control

and he was less irritable. TR 225. Mr. Martinez had a random

blood glucose of 200. TR 225. His cholesterol level was 219 and

his triglycerides level was 400. TR 225.

On March 28, 2006, the record reflected that Mr. Martinez

complained of pain in his knee. He rated the pain at a 7 out of 10.

His weight was 275 pounds which was 15 pounds up from his prior

visit in November of 2005. He had a random glucose of 80. TR

224. When Dr. Barrett questioned him in regards to exercise, Mr.

Martinez reported that he could walk at a fair pace but his knee

would hurt that evening. TR 224. Mr. Martinez was having

increased dyspepsia. Dr. Barrett noted that he had arthritic changes

in the knee from his previous fracture. TR 224. Mr. Martinez was

assessed with chronic knee pain from a previous injury. He was

prescribed Tylenol with codeine and Voltaren. TR 224.

On May 2, 2006, Mr. Martinez had a follow-up

appointment. He reported that he was drinking again. He stated

that he stopped taking his medication because if he was drinking it

made him sick. He reported that he had been in the emergency

room for increased back pain. He stated that his back would flair

up every six months or so. His weight was 270 pounds and he had

a random blood glucose of 107. The record reflected that his lab

report from April 25, 2006, showed a cholesterol of 238 and

triglycerides of 407. Dr. Barrett increased his Lipitor to 40 mg. TR

223.

On July 19, 2006, Mr. Martinez was seen for emergency

room follow-up. He had some head trauma from a fight with his

brother. The record reflected that he had experienced some blurred

vision as well as headaches. TR 221. His weight was 269 pounds.

He was assessed with left temporal contusion- resolving and

diabetes mellitus. TR 221. The record reflected that “given his

hgbA1C was slowly creeping up from a controlled 7 to a now 7.5

with his last labs that he will eventually be a candidate for insulin.”

TR 221.

Case 2:08-cv-01308-CMK Document 22 Filed 03/29/10 Page 10 of 26
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

11

On August 24, 2006, Mr. Martinez was seen for follow-up

with his diabetes and hyperlipidemia. The record reflected that Mr.

Martinez was drinking again. He reported that he was binge

drinking and at times drinking every other day. TR 220. He stated

that he continued to have left upper quadrant pain. He reported

that he was not taking his medications regularly consistently

missing his Glyburide and not taking his Lipitor that much. His

weight was 270 pounds and he had a random blood glucose of 314. 

The record noted that his lab work from August 9, 2006, showed a

cholesterol of 315 and triglycerides of 1086. Dr. Barrett advised

Mr. Martinez to get on a regular medication regimen. TR 220.

On October 3, 2006, Mr. Martinez was seen for follow-up

appointment. He reported that the Glucophage bothered his

stomach so he tended to miss taking it. He stated that he was binge

drinking, especially on the weekends. He advised that he had

always been short tempered and had taken Ritalin up to the age of

15. TR 219. His weight was 277 pounds and he had a random

blood glucose of 320. He also complained of right knee pain. TR

219. Dr. Barrett noted that his hyperlipidemia needed

improvement, his obesity was somewhat worse, he had chronic

pain, and problems with alcoholism. TR 219.

On April 26, 2007, the record reflected that Mr. Martinez

complained of knee pain. He felt that it was worsening. He

reported that he had several episodes of knee buckling and falling.

He rated the pain at a 6-7 out of 10. The record reflected the exam

of the right knee showed a possible effusion. TR 179. He weighed

260 pounds and had a random blood glucose of 237. Dr. Barrett

assessed diabetes not to target, chronic knee pain, dyspepsia, and

allergic rhinitis. TR 179.

On April 27, 2007, the record reflected that Mr. Martinez

had an x-ray of the right knee. The impression was “deformity and

posttraumatic changes involving the distal right femur. Early

posttraumatic degenerative disease.” TR 178

On May 17, 2007, the record reflected that Mr. Martinez

complained of knee pain. He rated the pain at a 4 out of 10. The

record noted that his x-ray showed posttraumatic changes as well

as new degenerative arthritic changes. The record reflected that his

lipids were bad with cholesterol of 387 and triglycerides of 1102.

His A1C had increased to 9.7. TR 175. His weight was 263.9 and

he had a random glucose level of 189. Dr. Barrett assessed

“diabetes poor control, posttraumatic arthritis of the right knee, and

severe hyperlipidemia.” TR 175. Mr. Martinez was prescribed

TriCor and his Glucophage prescription was increased to 850. TR

175.

On June 28, 2007, Mr. Martinez was seen for a follow-up

appointment. His weight was 269.5 which was up from his prior

Case 2:08-cv-01308-CMK Document 22 Filed 03/29/10 Page 11 of 26
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

12

visit. His blood pressure was 140/91. The record noted a random

glucose level of 313. Dr. Barrett assessed, hyperlipidemia

somewhat improved, diabetes not to target, hypertension with

exacerbation and chronic knee pain. TR 173.

On August 2, 2007, Mr. Martinez was seen for a follow-up

appointment. He reported that he was feeling more depressed and

stressed because his girlfriend had left him. He stated that he had

been doing a lot of binge eating since he had stopped binge

drinking. The record reflected that he had the occasional beer and

had only been drunk twice over the last month. Mr. Martinez

reported that he refused to go back to Mental Health as all they do

is “pump him up full of drugs.” TR 168. He weighed 263 pounds,

his blood pressure was 143/96, and he had a random blood sugar

level of 254. Dr. Barrett assessed that the hyperlipidemia was

improving, increased ALT, diabetes slightly improved, and

situational anxiety. TR 168.

On September 13, 2007, Mr. Martinez was seen for followup with his diabetes and hyperlipidemia. He weighed 269 pounds

and his blood pressure was 141/94. The record reflected a random

blood glucose of 386. Dr. Barrett assessed diabetes not to goal,

hyperlipidemia in need of improvement, obesity worse,

hypertension not to target, and increased ALT. TR 166.

From February 8, 2005, through September 11, 2007, Mr.

Martinez’s lab reports showed consistently high cholesterol, high

triglycerides, and high glucose levels.

Date Cholesterol [FN1] Triglycerides [FN2] Glucose [FN3]

2/08/05 155 (TR 218)

5/12/05 333 662 193 (TR 216)

8/23/05 248 677 160 (TR 214)

11/21/05 219 400 163 (TR 212)

4/25/06 238 407 126 (TR 210)

8/09/06 315 1096 218 (TR 208)

9/28/06 265 948 218 (TR 206)

5/03/07 387 1102 199 (TR 176)

6/25/07 212 506 256 (TR 174)

7/26/07 199 331 (TR 169)

9/10/07 245 673 (TR 167)

[FN1: The normal range for cholesterol is 125-200.]

[FN2: The normal range for triglycerides is less than 150.]

[FN3: The normal range for glucose is 65-90.]

Colusa County Mental Health Records

On February 8, 2005, the record reflected that Mr. Martinez

weighed 263 pounds. He felt that he did not need a residential

rehabilitation facility for his alcoholism. He stated that he had

Case 2:08-cv-01308-CMK Document 22 Filed 03/29/10 Page 12 of 26
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

13

been sober for two months. The record reflected that he was

diagnosed with a depressive disorder. TR 318.

On March 18, 2005, the record reflected that Mr. Martinez

had a problematic relationship with his mother and reported that he

drank a lot of beer. The record reflected that he presented “as if he

really wants to get his life together this time.” TR 301.

On March 22, 2005, the record reflected that Mr. Martinez

weighed 263 pounds. He reported that his medications were

working and that he felt great. He reported no thoughts of suicide

or anger. The record noted that his sleep pattern was stable with

some occasional periods of reduced sleep. The record reflected a

diagnosis of Depressive disorder NOS. His medications were

Lexapro at 10 mg. and Topamax at 200 mg. TR 317.

(Pl.’s Mot. at 2-11).

Hearing Testimony

The administrative hearing was held on December 13, 2007. Plaintiff’s testimony

at the hearing is summarized below. (CAR 344-63).

Plaintiff testified that he was thirty years old at the time of the hearing, is a high

school graduate with about a year of college. He had last been incarcerated for a few weeks the

year before due to fines he could not afford to pay. Due to his depression and bipolar disorder,

for which he was unable to get the necessary treatment due to financial and transportation

problems, he fell into drinking as a way of dealing with his problems. He did not consider his

drinking to be that much of a problem, but his doctor told him that it was causing his health to

decline so he stopped drinking several months prior to the hearing. In response to a question

about why he was unable to work, he stated “I don’t think that I’m physically able to due to the

tremendous amount of pain that I’m in. If I’m not heavily medicated then I’m not able to

function.” (CAR 349). His pain includes knee pain and migraine headaches. He also suffers

from mood swings, is not mentally stable, and is unable to function in society, deal with his

emotions or his anger issues. He is not exercising to reduce his weight due to his pain. He stated

“I’m not on my feet very often and I’m not, I can’t sit for long periods of time. I got to, you

know, get up and stretch every now and then. But, as far as doing more than five, 10 minutes

Case 2:08-cv-01308-CMK Document 22 Filed 03/29/10 Page 13 of 26
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

14

walking or anything, it’ll just, I’ll pay for it later. My knee will swell up. I’ll be in a tremendous

amount of pain. I’ll have to double up on my pain killers.” (CAR 350). 

He goes fishing with his friends maybe once a month, if that, but is unable to go

for an all day trip, rather only for maybe an hour at a time. He goes out with his friends every

now and then, he does not confine himself to the house all day. But he does not like to be out in

large crowds or society. “I’m anti-social.” (CAR 350). He is receiving very limited treatment

for his knee due to lack of insurance and lack of local doctors, especially specialists. His

diabetes is out of control. It is hard for him to take care of himself, like diet, because he has to

eat whatever is presented to him and cooked for him by his family. He is living with family for

free, so he doesn’t complain very much about the food. 

The ALJ asked “So why, you don’t think you could at least work some type of job

where you’re not on your knees a lot? Get out and be active?” Plaintiff responded “I’m not

trained to do anything else but what I used to do. . . . manual, physical labor.” (CAR 352). In

addition, he stated “I’m not mentally stable.” (CAR 352). He was not currently seeing anyone

for his mental problems due to financial and transportation difficulties given the doctors are

twenty to thirty miles away. He had seen counselors in the past, but they told him they could not

help him, he is beyond their help, and they did not want to see him anymore. “I irritate them.”

(CAR 353). 

He has had mental problems including ADD since he was a young child. He has

had the mental problems since kindergarten, has been on Ritalin, Cylert, and all the anti-ADD

drugs. His past drinking was binge drinking when it was available. He would drink until he felt

better or passed out. But he stopped drinking in August 2007, when the doctor stressed his

declining health. 

Plaintiff has a drivers licences, and does drive but only when he has to. The only

restriction on his license is his need to wear glasses. He was in an accident in 1998, resulting in

facial fractures. He has been in a tremendous amount of pain since, he is blind out of his left eye,

Case 2:08-cv-01308-CMK Document 22 Filed 03/29/10 Page 14 of 26
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

15

his knee gives out, and he has serious migraine headaches. He is on medication for pain, which

make him drowsy. The medication does help with the pain and his mood. He has cut himself off

from society since he has been unable to see “shrinks” and take anti-social medication or bipolar

medication. People tend to irritate him, he has an attitude about it and he tends to snap, rant, and

get violent. He visits with people maybe twice a month. His daughter stays with him every other

weekend, but his mom has to help out with his daughter because she is a handful and there are

times he can’t deal with her. 

He stated he only tests his blood sugar when he feels sick because he is scared of

needles. He gets an AC1 every six weeks, which is a blood test that shows average sugar levels. 

They are always above normal. His triglycerides levels are also “out of control.” His blood

pressure and cholesterol are also high. 

In August 2007, Plaintiff went to the lake, thirty to forty miles away, with friends

who had a fifth wheel and were able to accommodate him. He went for a couple of days, then

could not stand it anymore and he came home. 

The only doctor he was seeing was Dr. Barrett. He used to see Dr. Barrett in

town, but the clinic closed down so he has to drive twenty miles to see him, each way. He is

seeing Dr. Barrett for diabetic medication. 

He used to visit with friends every day, but it fluctuates. Sometimes his friends

come over and he will hang out with them, sometimes he will ignore them because he wants to

be alone. It depends on his mood. There is no typical day for him. He spends as much time with

his daughter as he can, but only when she is with him, which is every other weekend not every

day. 

III. STANDARD OF REVIEW

The court reviews the Commissioner’s final decision to determine whether it is: 

(1) based on proper legal standards; and (2) supported by substantial evidence in the record as a

whole. See Tackett v. Apfel, 180 F.3d 1094, 1097 (9th Cir. 1999). “Substantial evidence” is

Case 2:08-cv-01308-CMK Document 22 Filed 03/29/10 Page 15 of 26
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

16

more than a mere scintilla, but less than a preponderance. See Saelee v. Chater, 94 F.3d 520, 521

(9th Cir. 1996). It is “such evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a

conclusion.” Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389, 402 (1971). The record as a whole, including

both the evidence that supports and detracts from the Commissioner’s conclusion, must be

considered and weighed. See Howard v. Heckler, 782 F.2d 1484, 1487 (9th Cir. 1986); Jones v.

Heckler, 760 F.2d 993, 995 (9th Cir. 1985). The court may not affirm the Commissioner’s

decision simply by isolating a specific quantum of supporting evidence. See Hammock v.

Bowen, 879 F.2d 498, 501 (9th Cir. 1989). If substantial evidence supports the administrative

findings, or if there is conflicting evidence supporting a particular finding, the finding of the

Commissioner is conclusive. See Sprague v. Bowen, 812 F.2d 1226, 1229-30 (9th Cir. 1987). 

Therefore, where the evidence is susceptible to more than one rational interpretation, one of

which supports the Commissioner’s decision, the decision must be affirmed, see Thomas v.

Barnhart, 278 F.3d 947, 954 (9th Cir. 2002), and may be set aside only if an improper legal

standard was applied in weighing the evidence, see Burkhart v. Bowen, 856 F.2d 1335, 1338 (9th

Cir. 1988). 

IV. DISCUSSION

Plaintiff argues the ALJ erred in two ways: (1) failure to credit Plaintiff’s

testimony and third party statements; and (2) failure to properly assess Plaintiff’s RFC and

utilizing the GRIDS without the testimony of a vocational expert. 

A. CREDIBILITY

Plaintiff argues the ALJ improperly discredited his testimony because he did not

believe the alleged degree of Plaintiff’s pain and functional limitations. In addition he argues the

ALJ improperly discredited his third party statements regarding his abilities. 

1. Plaintiff’s Credibility

The Commissioner determines whether a disability applicant is credible, and the

court defers to the Commissioner’s discretion if the Commissioner used the proper process and

Case 2:08-cv-01308-CMK Document 22 Filed 03/29/10 Page 16 of 26
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

17

provided proper reasons. See Saelee v. Chater, 94 F.3d 520, 522 (9th Cir. 1996). An explicit

credibility finding must be supported by specific, cogent reasons. See Rashad v. Sullivan, 903

F.2d 1229, 1231 (9th Cir. 1990). General findings are insufficient. See Lester v. Chater, 81 F.3d

821, 834 (9th Cir. 1995). Rather, the Commissioner must identify what testimony is not credible

and what evidence undermines the testimony. See id. Moreover, unless there is affirmative

evidence in the record of malingering, the Commissioner’s reasons for rejecting testimony as not

credible must be “clear and convincing.” See Robbins v. Soc. Sec. Admin., 466 F.3d 880, 883

(9th Cir. 2006); see also Carmickle v. Commissioner, 533 F.3d 1155, 1160 (9th Cir. 2008) (citing

Lingenfelter v Astrue, 504 F.3d 1028, 1936 (9th Cir. 2007), and Gregor v. Barnhart, 464 F.3d

968, 972 (9th Cir. 2006)). 

If there is objective medical evidence of an underlying impairment, the

Commissioner may not discredit a claimant’s testimony as to the severity of symptoms merely

because they are unsupported by objective medical evidence. See Bunnell v. Sullivan, 947 F.2d

341, 347-48 (9th Cir. 1991) (en banc). As the Ninth Circuit explained in Smolen v. Chater:

The claimant need not produce objective medical evidence of the

[symptom] itself, or the severity thereof. Nor must the claimant produce

objective medical evidence of the causal relationship between the

medically determinable impairment and the symptom. By requiring that

the medical impairment “could reasonably be expected to produce” pain or

another symptom, the Cotton test requires only that the causal relationship

be a reasonable inference, not a medically proven phenomenon. 

80 F.3d 1273, 1282 (9th Cir. 1996) (referring to the test established in Cotton v. Bowen, 799

F.2d 1403 (9th Cir. 1986)). 

The Commissioner may, however, consider the nature of the symptoms alleged,

including aggravating factors, medication, treatment, and functional restrictions. See Bunnell,

947 F.2d at 345-47. In weighing credibility, the Commissioner may also consider: (1) the

claimant’s reputation for truthfulness, prior inconsistent statements, or other inconsistent

testimony; (2) unexplained or inadequately explained failure to seek treatment or to follow a

prescribed course of treatment; (3) the claimant’s daily activities; (4) work records; and (5)

Case 2:08-cv-01308-CMK Document 22 Filed 03/29/10 Page 17 of 26
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

18

physician and third-party testimony about the nature, severity, and effect of symptoms. See

Smolen, 80 F.3d at 1284 (citations omitted). It is also appropriate to consider whether the

claimant cooperated during physical examinations or provided conflicting statements concerning

drug and/or alcohol use. See Thomas v. Barnhart, 278 F.3d 947, 958-59 (9th Cir. 2002). If the

claimant testifies as to symptoms greater than would normally be produced by a given

impairment, the ALJ may disbelieve that testimony provided specific findings are made. See

Carmickle, 533 F.3d at 1161 (citing Swenson v. Sullivan, 876 F.2d 683, 687 (9th Cir. 1989)). 

In this case, as to Plaintiff’s credibility, the ALJ stated:

After considering the evidence of record, the undersigned

finds that the claimant’s medically determinable impairments could

reasonably be expected to produce the alleged symptoms, but that

the claimant’s statements concerning the intensity, persistence and

limiting effects of these symptoms are not entirely credible. 

(CAR 17-18).

In support thereof, the ALJ found:

Although the claimant alleges few activities, as shown in

record and summarized in the B criteria, the claimant’s activities

are wide, including playing computer games, watching television,

socializing with friends and going on fishing trips. Therefore

despite his allegations of symptoms and limitations preventing all

work, the record reflects that he leads a rather active and full life,

as one would expect for a person of his age.

The minimal findings and the very limited and conservative

treatment do not support the extreme limitations alleged by the

claimant. His activities of daily living are generally consistent with

the limitations in the assessed residual functional capacity. 

(CAR 19).

Plaintiff argues the ALJ did not believe the degree of pain and limitations Plaintiff

testified to, which is exactly the type of reasoning the Ninth Circuit has found to be erroneous. 

He argues the ALJ’s decision failed to consider his difficulty in getting along with his family, his

testimony that he did not participate in his hobbies (fishing and sports) anymore, that his

activities were actually quite limited, his testimony that he was antisocial and only occasionally

socialized, and that his ability to sit and watch TV or play computer games on occasion was not

inconsistent with a finding of disability. 

Case 2:08-cv-01308-CMK Document 22 Filed 03/29/10 Page 18 of 26
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

19

Defendant points out that the ALJ also supported his credibility finding based on

Plaintiff’s failure to obtain mental health treatment, that his claims of pain were contradicted by

the recommendations by his treating physician that he walk for 20 minutes a day or ride his bike,

his activities contradicted his pain complaints, he failed to follow prescribed treatment such as

diet, exercise, and limiting alcohol, and he exaggerate his symptoms during his consultative

examination. 

The ALJ set forth specific reasons for finding Plaintiff’s testimony not entirely

credible. As mentioned above, the ALJ found the “B criteria” did not support his claims. As to

the “B criteria” the ALJ found Plaintiff has only mild difficulties and restrictions in his activities

of daily living. The ALJ found Plaintiff is capable of taking care of his personal needs,

participates in activities with his family such as meals and conversations, goes grocery shopping

once a month, clothes shopping when needed, and goes on fishing trips. The ALJ found

moderate difficulties in regards to his concentration, persistence or pace, noting he watches

television and plays computer games, does not take medication for ADHD, is able to drive and

likes to fish. He also notes no episodes of decompensation. (CAR 16). 

The undersigned finds the specific reasons set forth for discrediting Plaintiff’s

testimony are clear and convincing. While the ALJ could have stated the reasons and supporting

findings more concisely, the reasons and supporting findings are in the opinion and supported by

the record. The ALJ supported his credibility determination with specific reasons including

failure to follow recommended treatment, refusing treatment, wide ranging activities of daily

living, and limited and conservative treatment. Such reasons are clear and convincing, and

supported by the record. The court defers to the Commissioner’s discretion, and will not disturb

that finding.

2. Witness Credibility

Plaintiff also argues the ALJ erred by not considering his mother’s statements as

to his daily activities. He argues his mother’s statements support his claims of limited daily

Case 2:08-cv-01308-CMK Document 22 Filed 03/29/10 Page 19 of 26
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

20

activity which the ALJ failed to address. 

In determining whether a claimant is disabled, an ALJ generally must consider lay

witness testimony concerning a claimant's ability to work. See Dodrill v. Shalala, 12 F.3d 915,

919 (9th Cir. 1993); 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1513(d)(4) & (e), 416.913(d)(4) & (e). Indeed, “lay

testimony as to a claimant's symptoms or how an impairment affects ability to work is competent

evidence . . . and therefore cannot be disregarded without comment.” See Nguyen v. Chater, 100

F.3d 1462, 1467 (9th Cir. 1996). Consequently, “[i]f the ALJ wishes to discount the testimony

of lay witnesses, he must give reasons that are germane to each witness.” Dodrill, 12 F.3d at

919. Inconsistency with medical evidence a valid reason for discrediting the testimony of lay

witnesses. See Bayliss v. Barnhart, 427 F.3d 1211, 1218 (9th Cir. 2005). 

The ALJ, however, need not discuss all evidence presented. See Vincent on

Behalf of Vincent v. Heckler, 739 F.2d 1393, 1394-95 (9th Cir. 1984). Rather, he must explain

why “significant probative evidence has been rejected.” Id. (citing Cotter v. Harris, 642 F.2d 700,

706 (3d Cir.1981). As to lay witness testimony, if that testimony is controverted by the medical

evidence, then the ALJ does not err by ignoring it. See Vincent, 739 F.2d at 1395. If, however,

lay witness testimony is consistent with the medical evidence, then the ALJ must consider and

comment upon it. See Stout v. Commissioner, 454 F.3d 1050, 1053-54 (9th Cir. 2006). 

Here, the ALJ did consider and comment on some of Plaintiff’s mother’s

statements. He specifically stated “[a]lthough his mother reports that he has never outgrown his

hyperactivity, there is little evidence contained in the record to show that he has ADHD which

would prevent work activity.” While the ALJ did not comment on all of Plaintiff’s mother’s

statements, he was not required to do so. Plaintiff argues his mother indicated he does not handle

stress very well, his behavior is very bad, he has problems with social activities, his concentration

is bad, he does not get along with authority figures, he is limited in his mobility, and has

difficulty getting along with people, and that the ALJ’s failure to consider this evidence was

erroneous.

Case 2:08-cv-01308-CMK Document 22 Filed 03/29/10 Page 20 of 26
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

21

The ALJ’s failure to remark on all of these statements is erroneous only if they are

probative and are not contradicted by the record. Most of these statement are contradicted, and

the ALJ’s failure to address them was therefore not erroneous. Specifically, the ALJ found the

2007 internal medicine consultative examination was within normal limits, Plaintiff exaggerated

his symptoms, and the physician found him capable of standing and walking for two hours,

sitting for six hours, lifting and carrying ten pounds frequently and twenty pounds occasionally

with no limitations in bending, stooping or crouching. (CAR 19). This is in addition to his

treating physician’s recommendation that he walk or ride his bike on a daily basis. As to his

ability to get along with others and his ability to concentrate, the ALJ noted the 2007

psychological consultative examination was also within normal limits, and Plaintiff was assessed

with the ability to perform simple, repetitive tasks, with only a sight impairment in his ability to

relate to others. 

As the statements from Plaintiff’s mother were largely contradicted by the

medical evidence in the record, the undersigned finds no error in the ALJ failure to address all of

Plaintiff’s mother’s statements specifically.

B. RESIDUAL FUNCTIONAL CAPACITY

Plaintiff also argues the ALJ erred in assessing his RFC, utilizing the GRIDS, and

not securing the testimony of a vocational expert (VE). 

1. ASSESSMENT

Plaintiff first argues the ALJ erred in assessing his RFC. The ALJ acknowledged

that the previous decision denying Plaintiff benefits “found that the claimant had the residual

functional capacity to perform a wide range of light work . . . .” (CAR 18). In addition, the ALJ

stated:

The current record contains essentially the same clinical

findings as those in the prior record. Although a new impairment

of diabetes was diagnosed, the evidence shows that the claimant’s

treatment is basically the same. He has not been referred to any

specialist or physical therapy nor has he been treated at the

Case 2:08-cv-01308-CMK Document 22 Filed 03/29/10 Page 21 of 26
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

22

emergency room, required any hospitalization, nor has surgery

been recommended since the prior decision. The claimant’s

medications remain virtually the same, with the exception of

diabetes medication, and there is no evidence of any significant

change in his disorders. The claimant’s diabetes imposes no

functional limitation outside of that contained in the established

residual functional capacity. 

. . . 

As for the opinion evidence, there are no treating source

opinions. Disability Determination Service sources and Dr.

Tendall assessed limitations more consistent with the ability to

perform sedentary work. However, as noted above, the clinical

findings in the record, and the treatment received by the claimant

are essentially the same [as] contained in the record at the time of

the prior decision. Thus, the residual functional capacity from the

prior decision will be adopted. It is also noted that the current

sources assessed that in addition to simple repetitive tasks, the

claimant was also capable of performing complex tasks with

minimal public contact. Regarding the minimal public contact

limitations, the current record contains no evidence that the

claimant has more than a mild limitation in dealing with people,

and therefore this limitation is rejected. As far as the ability to

perform complex tasks, there is no change from the time of the

prior decision that warrants this change, and this too is rejected.

Thus based on the minimal clinical findings, the

conservative intermittent treatment, and the claimant’s wide 

variety of activities, it is found that the record strongly supports a

conclusion that he can perform a wide range of light work. 

(CAR 19-20)

This resulted in a finding that Plaintiff has the

residual functional capacity to perform light work except,

occasional climbing ramps and ladders, stooping, balancing,

kneeling and crawling; frequent stooping and crouching; no

climbing ladders, ramps, scaffolds, and visual limitation in depth

perception and avoid even moderate exposure to hazards of

machinery and heights due to left eye low vision; and simple

repetitive tasks. (CAR 16-17).

Plaintiff argues the ALJ erred in his RFC determination. Specifically, Plaintiff

states the ALJ erred in rejecting the limitations set forth by Dr. Tendall and the Social Security

doctors, Plaintiff’s impairments and treatment are not the same as those prior to the January 2005

decision, there have been additional clinical findings since the prior decision, and his obesity has

worsened.

To the extent Plaintiff is arguing the ALJ erred in his treatment of the medical

Case 2:08-cv-01308-CMK Document 22 Filed 03/29/10 Page 22 of 26
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

23

opinions, that argument is not fully developed. However, the undersigned notes that where there

are conflicting consultative medical opinions based on independent clinical findings in the

record, such as here, the Commissioner may resolve the conflict. See Andrews v. Shalala, 53

F.3d 1035, 1041 (9th Cir. 1995). The court finds no error in the ALJ’s treatment of the medical

opinions in the record. To the extent the ALJ rejected the more restrictive opinion of Dr. Tendall

in favor of another consultative medical opinion, that decision is not erroneous in that the ALJ

had the ability to resolve the conflicting medical opinions. The ALJ noted that in addition to Dr.

Tendall’s consultative examination, Dr. Beech conducted an examination wherein Plaintiff was

assessed with the ability to stand and walk six hours, sit without limitation, and lift and carry

twenty-five pounds frequently and fifty pounds occasionally. (CAR 18). 

As to the ALJ’s treatment of Plaintiff’s ability to interact with others, the ALJ

discussed both Dr. Gray and Dr. West’s opinion that Plaintiff is minimally impaired in his ability

to relate to others. As the impairment was determined by both consultating physicians as only a

mild or minimal impairment, the ALJ rejected that as a limitation. This decision was not

erroneous.

In addition, as Defendant correctly points out and the ALJ discussed, the prior

finding that Plaintiff is not disabled as of July 1, 2003, invokes a presumption of continuing nondisability. The burden is on Plaintiff to rebut this presumption by showing a change in

circumstances. See Chavez v. Bowen, 844 F.2d 691 (9th Cir. 1988). In this case, the changed

circumstances included a new impairment not previously addressed, diabetes. However, the ALJ

found the new impairment did not have any limitations on his abilities. In addition, Plaintiff

argues his obesity has gotten worse. However, he does not argue, nor is there any medical

support for the idea that his obesity has impaired his ability to work. Plaintiff fails to meet his

burden in showing his circumstances have changed since the previous denial. The findings by

the ALJ are supported by substantial evidence in the record and are not erroneous.

/ / /

Case 2:08-cv-01308-CMK Document 22 Filed 03/29/10 Page 23 of 26
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

Exertional capabilities are the primary strength activities of sitting, standing, 3

walking, lifting, carrying, pushing, or pulling and are generally defined in terms of ability to

perform sedentary, light, medium, heavy, or very heavy work. See 20 C.F.R., Part 404, Subpart

P, Appendix 2, § 200.00(a). “Sedentary work” involves lifting no more than 10 pounds at a time

and occasionally lifting or carrying articles like docket files, ledgers, and small tools. See 20

C.F.R. §§ 404.1567(a) and 416.967(a). “Light work” involves lifting no more than 20 pounds at

a time with frequent lifting or carrying of objects weighing up to 10 pounds. See 20 C.F.R. §§

404.1567(b) and 416.967(b). “Medium work” involves lifting no more than 50 pounds at a time

with frequent lifting or carrying of objects weighing up to 25 pounds. See 20 C.F.R. §§

404.1567(c) and 416.967(c). “Heavy work” involves lifting no more than 100 pounds at a time

with frequent lifting or carrying of objects weighing up to 50 pounds. See 20 C.F.R. §§

404.1567(d) and 416.967(d). “Very heavy work” involves lifting objects weighing more than

100 pounds at a time with frequent lifting or carrying of objects weighing 50 pounds or more. 

See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1567(e) and 416.967(e).

Non-exertional activities include mental, sensory, postural, manipulative, and

environmental matters which do not directly affect the primary strength activities. See 20 C.F.R.,

Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 2, § 200.00(e). 

24

2. GRIDS vs. VOCATIONAL EXPERT

Finally, Plaintiff argues the ALJ erred in utilizing the GRIDS instead of the

testimony of a vocational expert due to his non-exertional limitations.

The Medical-Vocational Guidelines (“Grids”) provide a uniform conclusion about

disability for various combinations of age, education, previous work experience, and residual

functional capacity. The Grids allow the Commissioner to streamline the administrative process

and encourage uniform treatment of claims based on the number of jobs in the national economy

for any given category of residual functioning capacity. See Heckler v. Campbell, 461 U.S. 458,

460-62 (1983) (discussing creation and purpose of the Grids). 

The Commissioner may apply the Grids in lieu of taking the testimony of a

vocational expert only when the Grids accurately and completely describe the claimant’s abilities

and limitations. See Jones v. Heckler, 760 F.2d 993, 998 (9th Cir. 1985); see also Heckler v.

Campbell, 461 U.S. 458, 462 n.5 (1983). Thus, the Commissioner generally may not rely on the

Grids if a claimant suffers from non-exertional limitations because the Grids are based on

exertional strength factors only. See 20 C.F.R., Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 2, § 200.00(b). 3

“If a claimant has an impairment that limits his or her ability to work without directly affecting

Case 2:08-cv-01308-CMK Document 22 Filed 03/29/10 Page 24 of 26
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

25

his or her strength, the claimant is said to have non-exertional . . . limitations that are not covered

by the Grids.” Penny v. Sullivan, 2 F.3d 953, 958 (9th Cir. 1993) (citing 20 C.F.R., Part 404,

Subpart P, Appendix 2, § 200.00(d), (e)). The Commissioner may, however, rely on the Grids

even when a claimant has combined exertional and non-exertional limitations, if the nonexertional limitations do not impact the claimant’s exertional capabilities. See Bates v. Sullivan,

894 F.2d 1059, 1063 (9th Cir. 1990); Polny v. Bowen, 864 F.2d 661, 663-64 (9th Cir. 1988).

In cases where the Grids are not fully applicable, the ALJ may meet his burden

under step five of the sequential analysis by propounding to a vocational expert hypothetical

questions based on medical assumptions, supported by substantial evidence, that reflect all the

plaintiff’s limitations. See Roberts v. Shalala, 66 F.3d 179, 184 (9th Cir. 1995). Specifically,

where the Grids are inapplicable because plaintiff has sufficient non-exertional limitations, the

ALJ is required to obtain vocational expert testimony. See Burkhart v. Bowen, 587 F.2d 1335,

1341 (9th Cir. 1988). 

Here, as discussed above, the ALJ found Plaintiff had no significant nonexertional limitations. Plaintiff reasserts his argument that the ALJ findings were contrary to the

evidence. However, the court finds the ALJ’s findings are supported by the record. 

The ALJ found Plaintiff capable of performing light work, with limitations in his

ability to stoop, balance, kneel, crawl, climb, and see, plus only simple repetitive tasks. The ALJ

utilized the Grids based on this RFC, plus considering Plaintiff’s age, education, and work

experience. In so doing, the ALJ noted that “the additional limitations have little or no effect on

the occupational base of unskilled light work.” (CAR 21). The ALJ noted that: 

Unskilled work involves little or no judgment to do simple duties

that can be learned on the job in a short period of time. . . . In

addition, unskilled jobs ordinarily involve dealing primarily with

objects, rather than with data or people, and they generally provide

substantial vocational opportunity for persons with only mental

impairments who retain the capacity to meet the intellectual and

emotional demands of unskilled work on a sustained basis.” 

(CAR 21). 

Case 2:08-cv-01308-CMK Document 22 Filed 03/29/10 Page 25 of 26
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

26

Plaintiff continues to argue that he has limitations over and above those the ALJ

determined, including walk/stand limitations, postural limitations, impaired ability to

concentrate, and impaired ability to get along with people. He also appears to argue a limitation

in his ability to sit for a time without getting up and standing or walking, as required for even

sedentary work. A review of the medical opinions fails to show where any medical opinion

indicated a significant limitation in his ability to sit. Even Dr. Tendall opined that Plaintiff was

able to stand and walk for two hours in an eight-hour day, and sit for six hours in an eight-hour

day. The undersigned has already found the ALJ did not err in his determination that Plaintiff

has no substantial non-exertional limitations. As use of a vocational expert is only required

where there exits substantial non-exertional limitations, the ALJ did not err in utilizing the Grids

instead of relying on the testimony of a vocational expert. 

V. CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, the court concludes that the Commissioner’s final

decision is based on substantial evidence and proper legal analysis. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY

ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment (Doc. 17) is denied;

2. Defendant’s cross-motion for summary judgment (Doc. 20, 21) is granted;

and

3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to enter judgment and close this file.

DATED: March 26, 2010

______________________________________

CRAIG M. KELLISON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:08-cv-01308-CMK Document 22 Filed 03/29/10 Page 26 of 26