Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01687/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01687-7/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Commissioner of Social Security
Defendant
Steven Pierce
Plaintiff

Document Text:

1

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

INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff Steven Pierce (“Plaintiff”) seeks judicial review of a final decision of the 

Commissioner of Social Security (“Commissioner”) denying his application for supplemental security 

income (“SSI”) under Title XVI of the Social Security Act. The matter is currently before the Court 

on the parties’ briefs, which were submitted, without oral argument, to Magistrate Judge Barbara A. 

McAuliffe. 

The Court finds the decision of the Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) to be supported by 

substantial evidence in the record as a whole and based upon proper legal standards. Accordingly, this 

Court affirms the agency’s determination to deny benefits.

///

///

STEVEN PIERCE,

 Plaintiff,

v.

CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting 

Commissioner of Social Security,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:14-cv-01687-BAM

ORDER REGARDING PLAINTIFF’S

SOCIAL SECURITY COMPLAINT

Case 1:14-cv-01687-BAM Document 29 Filed 06/20/16 Page 1 of 14
2

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

FACTS AND PRIOR PROCEEDINGS

On February 22, 2011, Plaintiff protectively filed his application for supplemental security

income. AR 17, 120-26.

1

 Plaintiff alleged that he became disabled on December 1, 2009. AR 120. 

Plaintiff’s application was denied initially and on reconsideration. AR 72-76, 79-81. Subsequently, 

Plaintiff requested a hearing before an Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”). ALJ Timothy S. Snelling

held a hearing on November 8, 2012, and issued an order denying benefits on November 30, 2012. 

AR 17-27. Plaintiff sought review of the ALJ’s decision, which the Appeals Council denied, making 

the ALJ’s decision the Commissioner’s final decision. AR 1-4, 15-16. This appeal followed.

Hearing Testimony

The ALJ held a hearing on November 8, 2012, in Stockton, California. AR 32-58. Plaintiff 

appeared and testified. He was represented by attorney Dennis Evans. AR 34. Impartial Vocational 

Expert (“VE”) Jeff Clark also testified. AR 53.

At the time of the hearing, Plaintiff was 51 years old with an eleventh grade education. AR 38. 

Plaintiff testified that he worked as a care provider from January 2007 through December 2009. AR 

38. In 1998, he also worked providing in-home support service to a friend, the mother of his children. 

He would help cook and assist with bathing and groceries. AR 39-40. In 2002, Plaintiff drove a 

forklift in a warehouse eight hours a day, forty hours a week. AR 41-42. Plaintiff stopped working 

there because the job moved out of town. AR 42-43. In 2010, Plaintiff earned a little over $2,000 

providing in-home support services for a couple of months. AR 43-44. Plaintiff was let go because 

they ran his record and found out that he had a violent crime. AR 44. 

Plaintiff testified that he suffered a gunshot wound in 1999, and the bullet is still lodged near 

his spine in the middle of his back. Plaintiff attributes his chronic back pain to the bullet. AR 45. He 

gets relief from the pain by moving and taking his medications. He takes pharmaceutical strength pain 

killers, but only took ibuprofen before the hearing. If he took Vicodin, then he would be out of it. He 

takes Vicodin four times a day because he needs it. His ibuprofen also is prescription strength at 600 

milligrams. AR 46-47. 

 

1 References to the Administrative Record will be designated as “AR,” followed by the appropriate page number.

Case 1:14-cv-01687-BAM Document 29 Filed 06/20/16 Page 2 of 14
3

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

Plaintiff testified that he has had a walker for over a year. It was prescribed by his primary 

care physician, Dr. Glen Villanueva, and covered by insurance. AR 47. Plaintiff testified that he is 

able to use public transportation. He does not own a car and does not have a valid driver’s license. 

AR 48-49. Plaintiff had a DUI and his license was suspended. If he had a driver’s license and a car, 

he would be able to drive. AR 49.

Plaintiff also testified that he lives with the mother of his children, but his children do not live 

with them. AR 49. With regard to household chores, Plaintiff reported that he cooks, but his daughter 

washes dishes, does laundry, sweeps, mops, vacuums and dusts. Plaintiff does not go to church, but 

visits family or friends. When he hangs out with his friends, they go to the park and talk. AR 50-51. 

Plaintiff has a computer at home. He does not have Facebook, but he works on the computer a 

lot. He gets some of his news and information from the computer. Plaintiff also likes to read and 

watches a lot of TV. AR 51.

When asked about his sleep, Plaintiff testified that he could only sleep on his right side because 

of pain. Plaintiff reported that in the last six months or so, he asked a doctor about surgical removal of 

the bullet. He was told that a lot of people have to live with it and the safe thing to do is leave it alone 

because surgery is risky. AR 52-53.

Following Plaintiff’s testimony, the ALJ elicited testimony from the vocational expert (“VE”) 

Jeff Clark. AR 53. The VE testified that Plaintiff’s past work was classified as home attendant and 

warehouse worker. AR 53-54. The ALJ then asked the VE hypothetical questions. In his first 

hypothetical, the ALJ asked the VE to assume an individual restricted to light work with no climbing 

of ladders, ropes or scaffolding and occasional stooping, crouching and kneeling. The VE testified 

that this hypothetical individual would not be able to perform Plaintiff’s past work. AR 54. The ALJ 

asked the VE to further assume that this individual was between 49 and 51 years, with an eleventh 

grade education and Plaintiff’s past work experience. The VE testified that there were no transferable 

skills from Plaintiff’s past work. However, the VE indicated that this individual could perform about 

90 percent of the light jobs listed in the Dictionary of Occupational Titles and about 99.9 percent of 

the sedentary jobs. AR 54-55. If the person were restricted to no more than two hours of walking, 

two hours of standing and three hours of sitting in an eight-hour day, this would eliminate the 

Case 1:14-cv-01687-BAM Document 29 Filed 06/20/16 Page 3 of 14
4

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

occupational job base and the person would not be competitively employable. AR 55. In response to 

questioning from Plaintiff’s counsel, the VE testified that there were no transferrable skills from the 

home attendant position to sedentary jobs. AR 55-56. 

Medical Record

The entire medical record was reviewed by the Court. AR 202-454. The relevant medical 

evidence is summarized here or referenced below as necessary to this Court’s decision. 

On May 26, 2010, Plaintiff complained of chronic back pain and left knee pain. He was 

prescribed 20 Vicodin with no refills. AR 277-78.

On July 15, 2010, Plaintiff sought treatment for chronic upper and lower back pain. He was 

prescribed Naprosyn. AR 227. 

On December 5, 2010, Plaintiff complained of chronic back pain, noting that he had run out of 

pain medication. He was prescribed Vicodin and Ibuprofen. AR 374-77.

On February 3, 2011, Plaintiff complained of middle back pain. He was to continue Naprosyn 

and Baclofen. AR 226. 

On March 1, 2011, Plaintiff sought Emergency Room treatment for his mid-back pain 

secondary to an old gunshot wound. Plaintiff reported that he had chronic rib pain from the injury, but 

it was usually controlled with Naproxen and precautionary movements. Plaintiff now had pain in his 

chest. On physical exam, Plaintiff had a normal gait. AR 241-42. A CT of Plaintiff’s chest identified 

a dominant bullet fragment lodged adjacent to the right main bronchus. AR 242. Plaintiff likely did 

not need emergency removal and there was no surgical intervention. AR 243. The examining 

physician recommended stretching, warm compresses, and continuing Naproxen and Motrin as 

needed. Plaintiff also was prescribed a trial of Flexeril to see if the muscle relaxant helped with pain. 

AR 434-35. 

On April 22, 2011, Plaintiff underwent a physical therapy evaluation for back pain. Plaintiff 

was noted to use a motorized scooter. AR 207. Plaintiff attended physical therapy from April through 

July 2011. AR 207-09.

On May 17, 2011, Plaintiff sought Emergency Room treatment for pain and swelling to his 

right leg/knee. On physical examination, Plaintiff’s right knee had no ligamentous laxity, no effusion 

Case 1:14-cv-01687-BAM Document 29 Filed 06/20/16 Page 4 of 14
5

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

and he had negative Lochman and McMurray tests. A scan of Plaintiff’s knee showed the presence of 

a synovial cyst. Plaintiff was diagnosed with knee sprain and Baker cyst. AR 239. A nurse provided 

an ace wrap, cane and Vicodin. AR 240.

On May 23, 2011, Plaintiff sought Emergency Room treatment for complaints of right knee 

pain. Plaintiff’s gait was steady with a slight limp on right leg. He was prescribed medications. AR 

352-54.

On June 6, 2011, Plaintiff reported riding his bike from Ceres to therapy and was very sore. 

AR 209. 

On June 21, 2011, Dr. Miguel Hernandez completed a consultative internal medicine 

evaluation. AR 202-05. Plaintiff complained of mid back pain with a history of being status post 

gunshot wound. Plaintiff reported activities of daily living to include dressing and bathing himself. A 

friend helps him dress and do some of the activities that are more difficult, especially those requiring 

reaching down to the ground. On physical examination, Plaintiff was in no apparent distress, but 

walked cautiously and slowly with a cane. He had limited range of motion in the thoracic and lumbar 

spine. Plaintiff also had decent generalized muscle tone throughout both the upper and lower 

extremities bilaterally and his motor strength was 5/5 throughout. On grip strength testing using the 

Jamar Dynamometer, Plaintiff was able to achieve about 40 pounds of pressure bilaterally, but Dr. 

Hernandez questioned Plaintiff’s “sincere intent.” AR 205. Dr. Hernandez opined that Plaintiff could 

stand and walk for up to six hours during an eight-hour workday and sit for up to six-hours in an eighthour workday. Plaintiff’s use of a cane was “fine for some stability, long distances, and over uneven 

terrain.” AR 205. Plaintiff could lift and carry 50 pounds occasionally and 25 pounds frequently. He 

had occasional postural limitations on bending and twisting of the thoracic spine due to the gunshot 

wound. Plaintiff had no manipulative or environmental limitations. AR 205.

On July 7, 2011, a physical therapy treatment summary noted that Plaintiff had an antalgic gait. 

He was discontinued from therapy because he had achieved maximal benefit. AR 209-10. 

In July 2011, Plaintiff requested a prescription for a walker. Plaintiff complained of knee pain 

and reported that it was painful to walk. An orthopedic referral was made and Plaintiff was prescribed 

a front wheel walker. AR 224.

Case 1:14-cv-01687-BAM Document 29 Filed 06/20/16 Page 5 of 14
6

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

On July 25, 2011, Dr. Charles Fina, a state agency physician, opined that Plaintiff was 

objectively not severe enough to be considered disabled. AR 64-67. 

On August 11, 2011, Plaintiff sought Emergency Room treatment for chronic knee pain. On 

physical exam, Plaintiff’s gait was normal. AR 237. Plaintiff was prescribed Naprosyn along with 15 

Vicodin tablets. AR 237-38, 422-23.

X-rays of Plaintiff’s left and right knees on October 24, 2011, showed no acute osseous or joint 

space abnormality. AR 228. 

On September 21, 2011, Plaintiff sought Emergency Room treatment for chronic back pain. 

He reported that Naproxen was providing no relief. On physical exam, Plaintiff’s gait was normal. 

AR 235-36. A CT noted a dominant bullet fragment lodged adjacent to the right main bronchus. AR 

420. 

On October 25, 2011, Plaintiff sought treatment for pain in his upper back and reported that his 

meds were not helping. He was to add Neurontin. AR 223. 

On November 14, 2011, Plaintiff sought a medication refill of Vicodin for his chronic back 

pain. After Plaintiff self-reported that his cane was stolen, an Emergency Room nurse provided 

Plaintiff with a cane. AR 231. However, on physical examination, Plaintiff’s gait was normal. AR 

230. 

A MRI of Plaintiff’s right knee on January 13, 2012, revealed a parrot’s beak tear of the 

posterior horn of the medial meniscus extending into the posterior body, grade IV chondromalacia 

patellae, small joint effusion, and small Baker’s cyst without signs of cyst rupture. AR 326. 

On March 1, 2012, Dr. Stephen Barrien opined that Plaintiff needed arthroscopic partial medial 

meniscectomy and then chondroplasty of his patellofemoral joint. AR 319-20.

On March 8, 2012, Dr. Sharon Keith, a state agency medical consultant, affirmed the nonsevere findings of Dr. Fina dated July 25, 2011. AR 257-260.

On April 13, 2012, Plaintiff underwent arthroscopic surgery on his right knee. Following 

surgery, Plaintiff was to have crutches “for a while.” AR 299. 

On April 15, 2012, Plaintiff sought emergency room treatment for acute knee pain from 

arthroscopy. He was prescribed pain medication and provided with a splint and crutches. AR 341-43. 

Case 1:14-cv-01687-BAM Document 29 Filed 06/20/16 Page 6 of 14
7

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

On April 30, 2012, Plaintiff sought follow up treatment regarding his right knee in the 

orthopedic clinic. Dr. Robert Canon, the treating physician, opined that Plaintiff’s range of motion 

was improving and his pain had decreased. Plaintiff was to begin slow, progressive physical therapy 

and “may slowly get rid of the cane, if ... able.” AR 292. Dr. Canon indicated that Plaintiff could not 

work for a period of two months. AR 292.

On May 10, 2012, Plaintiff was evaluated for physical therapy of his right knee. Plaintiff was 

noted to be using an electric scooter. AR 407-08. Plaintiff attended physical therapy twelve times 

between May 10, 2012 and August 14, 2012. During that period, he also had eleven no shows or 

cancellations. AR 408-410, 412. 

On June 29, 2012, Plaintiff reported that he was still having discomfort in his right knee and 

was using a scooter. AR 409. 

On July 17, 2012, Plaintiff sought follow-up treatment for knee and back pain. Plaintiff was to 

continue physical therapy and was prescribed a cane. AR 268-70.

On August 21, 2012, Dr. Glen Villanueva reported that Plaintiff had been his patient since 

January 2009, and had been seen for upper back pain, knee pain and hypertension. Dr. Villanueva 

indicated that Plaintiff had severe right sided knee pain for which he had surgery with Dr. Berrien. 

Plaintiff had been referred to physical therapy and had been compliant with those visits. AR 448. On 

the same date, Plaintiff requested a referral for physical therapy to address his back pain, noting it had 

helped before. AR 451. Plaintiff’s current medications included Naproxen, Ibuprofen and Vicodin. 

AR 453. 

On November 29, 2012, Plaintiff sought follow-up treatment for upper back pain. He was 

prescribed a refill of Ibuprofen. AR 449.

The ALJ’s Decision

Using the Social Security Administration’s five-step sequential evaluation process, the ALJ 

determined that Plaintiff was not disabled. AR 20-27. More particularly, the ALJ found that Plaintiff 

had not engaged in substantial gainful activity since February 22, 2011, his application date. AR 22. 

Further, the ALJ identified a history of gunshot wound in 1999 with residual mid-back pain and 

decreased range of motion, gastroesophageal reflux disease, hypertension, right knee pain status postCase 1:14-cv-01687-BAM Document 29 Filed 06/20/16 Page 7 of 14
8

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

surgery in April 2012, and degenerative joint disease of the left knee as severe impairments. AR 22. 

Nonetheless, the ALJ determined that the severity of Plaintiff’s impairments did not meet or medically 

equal the severity of any of the listed impairments. AR 22.

Based on his review of the entire record, the ALJ determined that Plaintiff retained the residual 

functional capacity (“RFC”) to perform a wide range of light work. Plaintiff could sit about six hours 

in an eight-hour work day, stand and walk about six hours in an eight-hour work day, and lift and 

carry twenty pounds occasionally and ten pounds frequently. He could not climb ladders, rope or 

scaffolding and he could perform no more than occasional stooping, crouching and kneeling. AR 22-

26. The ALJ found that Plaintiff could not perform any past relevant work, but there were other jobs 

in the national economy that Plaintiff could perform. AR 26-27. The ALJ therefore concluded that 

Plaintiff was not disabled under the Social Security Act. AR 27. 

SCOPE OF REVIEW

Congress has provided a limited scope of judicial review of the Commissioner’s decision to 

deny benefits under the Act. In reviewing findings of fact with respect to such determinations, this 

Court must determine whether the decision of the Commissioner is supported by substantial evidence. 

42 U.S.C. § 405(g). Substantial evidence means “more than a mere scintilla,” Richardson v. Perales, 

402 U.S. 389, 402 (1971), but less than a preponderance. Sorenson v. Weinberger, 514 F.2d 1112, 

1119, n. 10 (9th Cir. 1975). It is “such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as 

adequate to support a conclusion.” Richardson, 402 U.S. at 401. The record as a whole must be 

considered, weighing both the evidence that supports and the evidence that detracts from the 

Commission’s conclusion. Jones v. Heckler, 760 F.2d 993, 995 (9th Cir. 1985). In weighing the 

evidence and making findings, the Commissioner must apply the proper legal standards. E.g., 

Burkhart v. Bowen, 856 F.2d 1335, 1338 (9th Cir. 1988). This Court must uphold the Commissioner’s 

determination that the claimant is not disabled if the Commissioner applied the proper legal standards, 

and if the Commissioner’s findings are supported by substantial evidence. See Sanchez v. Sec’y of 

Health and Human Serv., 812 F.2d 509, 510 (9th Cir. 1987).

///

///

Case 1:14-cv-01687-BAM Document 29 Filed 06/20/16 Page 8 of 14
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

REVIEW

In order to qualify for benefits, a claimant must establish that he or she is unable to engage in 

substantial gainful activity due to a medically determinable physical or mental impairment which has 

lasted or can be expected to last for a continuous period of not less than twelve months. 42 U.S.C. § 

1382c(a)(3)(A). A claimant must show that he or she has a physical or mental impairment of such 

severity that he or she is not only unable to do his or her previous work, but cannot, considering his or 

her age, education, and work experience, engage in any other kind of substantial gainful work which 

exists in the national economy. Quang Van Han v. Bowen, 882 F.2d 1453, 1456 (9th Cir. 1989). The 

burden is on the claimant to establish disability. Terry v. Sullivan, 903 F.2d 1273, 1275 (9th Cir. 

1990).

In his opening brief, Plaintiff contends that the ALJ erred by (1) failing to provide legally 

sufficient reasons for rejecting the limitations requiring an assistive device and (2) failing to provide 

legally sufficient reasons for finding Plaintiff not fully credible. 

DISCUSSION2

1. Assistive Device

SSR 96-9p provides that “[t]o find that a hand-held assistive device is medically required, there 

must be medical documentation establishing the need for a hand-held assistive device to aid in 

walking or standing, and describing the circumstances for which it is needed (i.e., whether all the time, 

periodically, or only in certain situations; distance and terrain; and any other relevant information). 

The adjudicator must always consider the particular facts of a case.” SSR 96-9p, 1996 WL 374185, at 

*7; see also Flores v. Colvin, No. 1:14-cv-02096-SKO, 2016 WL 2743228, at *14 (E.D. Cal. May 11, 

2016) (discussing SSR 96-9p). 

Here, Plaintiff argues that the ALJ improperly rejected record evidence that Plaintiff was 

prescribed a cane by his treating doctor. Doc. 17 at pp. 8-9. Although the Commissioner contends 

that the record does not adequately demonstrate that a physician prescribed Plaintiff a cane, there is 

 

2

The parties are advised that this Court has carefully reviewed and considered all of the briefs, including 

arguments, points and authorities, declarations, and/or exhibits. Any omission of a reference to any specific argument or 

brief is not to be construed that the Court did not consider the argument or brief.

Case 1:14-cv-01687-BAM Document 29 Filed 06/20/16 Page 9 of 14
10

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

record evidence that Plaintiff was prescribed a front wheel walker on July 17, 2011, and a cane in July 

2012. AR 268 AR 224. 

Nonetheless, as argued by the Commissioner, the record is devoid of evidence that a cane was 

medically necessary, and the record supports the ALJ’s determination that Plaintiff did not need a 

walker or cane for ambulation. AR 24. At the most basic level, there is no treating physician opinion 

indicating that a cane or walker was medically necessary. Further, the ALJ considered that after 

Plaintiff requested a walker in July 2011, medical records from August, September and November 

2011 showed that Plaintiff walked with a normal gait. AR 24, 230, 235-36, 237. The ALJ reasonably 

concluded that this contradictory evidence “strongly suggest[ed] that the claimant did not require the 

use of an assistive device.” AR 23. The ALJ’s findings will be upheld if supported by inferences 

reasonably drawn from the record. See Batson v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 359 F.3d 1190, 1193

(9th Cir. 2004) 

Plaintiff argues that the ALJ erred by citing isolated instances of improvement, noting that 

Plaintiff’s knee impairment later became severe enough to require surgery in April 2012. Doc. 21 at p. 

10. In this instance, the ALJ acknowledged the worsening of Plaintiff’s right knee symptoms and 

subsequent surgery. AR 24. However, the record supports the ALJ’s determination that following 

surgery, Plaintiff’s knee symptoms “significantly improved by August 2012.” AR 24. As noted by 

the ALJ, a follow-up examination on April 30, 2012, revealed improved range of motion and 

decreased pain. AR 24, 292. By July 11, 2012, Plaintiff reported that he was “doing good” with no 

complaints. AR 409. Although Plaintiff was prescribed a cane on July 17, 2012, by August 2012 his 

only complaint was of back pain. AR 268, 412, 449, 452-54. 

Plaintiff also argues that the ALJ failed to provide legally sufficient reasons for rejecting Dr. 

Hernandez’s opinion, rendered in June 2011, that Plaintiff needed an assistive device. As the 

Commissioner points out, Dr. Hernandez did not expressly opine that Plaintiff’s use of an assistive 

device was medically necessary. Instead, Dr. Hernandez noted that Plaintiff was using a cane and that 

it was “fine for some stability, long distances, and over uneven terrain.” AR 205 (emphasis added). 

Dr. Hernandez’s statement is neither an unambiguous medical opinion that Plaintiff needed a cane for 

stability, long distances or uneven terrain, nor a concrete statement of any functional limitations. See 

Case 1:14-cv-01687-BAM Document 29 Filed 06/20/16 Page 10 of 14
11

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

Rounds v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 807 F.3d 996, 1006 (9th Cir. 2015) (“An ALJ may rationally rely on 

specific imperatives regarding a claimant’s limitations, rather than recommendations.”). 

Moreover, the ALJ properly discounted Dr. Hernandez’s opinion regarding the use of an 

assistive device. First, the ALJ gave Dr. Hernandez’s opinion regarding the use of cane reduced 

weight because it was “inconsistent with treatment notes showing the claimant walked with a normal 

gait despite allegations that he required a walker or cane.” AR 25. An ALJ properly may discount a 

physician’s opinion that is unsupported by the record or by objective medical findings. See Batson, 

359 F.3d at 1195. As discussed above, the ALJ considered medical evidence in the time period shortly 

after Dr. Hernandez’s consultative evaluation demonstrating that Plaintiff walked with a normal gait. 

AR 24, 230, 235-36, 237. 

Second, the ALJ gave significant weight to that portion of Dr. Hernandez’s opinion indicating

that Plaintiff could stand and walk up to six hours in an eight-hour workday. AR 25. As written, Dr. 

Hernandez’s opinion does not state or suggest that Plaintiff required a cane to stand and walk up to six 

hours in an eight-hour-day. As the ALJ recognized, there were inconsistencies within Dr. 

Hernandez’s opinion, and this was a specific and legitimate reason for rejecting any medical need for a 

cane. See, e.g., Valentine v. Comm’r Soc. Sec. Admin., 574 F.3d 685, 692-93 (9th Cir. 2009) 

(contradiction in physician’s opinion was a specific and legitimate reason for rejecting the opinion); 20 

C.F.R. § 416.929(c)(4) (“We will consider whether there are any inconsistencies in the evidence and 

the extent to which there are any conflicts between your statements and the rest of the evidence.”).

For these reasons, the Court concludes that the ALJ’s determination that Plaintiff did not require 

the use of an assistive device for ambulation is supported by substantial evidence and free of legal 

error. 

2. Credibility

In deciding whether to admit a claimant’s subjective complaints of pain, the ALJ must engage 

in a two-step analysis. Batson, 359 F.3d at 1196. First, the claimant must produce objective medical 

evidence of his impairment that could reasonably be expected to produce some degree of the symptom 

or pain alleged. Id. If the claimant satisfies the first step and there is no evidence of malingering, the 

ALJ may reject the claimant’s testimony regarding the severity of his symptoms only if he makes 

Case 1:14-cv-01687-BAM Document 29 Filed 06/20/16 Page 11 of 14
12

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

specific findings and provides clear and convincing reasons for doing so. Id. The ALJ must “state 

which testimony is not credible and what evidence suggests the complaints are not credible.” Mersman 

v. Halter, 161 F.Supp.2d 1078, 1086 (N.D. Cal. 2001) (“The lack of specific, clear, and convincing 

reasons why Plaintiff’s testimony is not credible renders it impossible for [the] Court to determine 

whether the ALJ’s conclusion is supported by substantial evidence.”). Factors an ALJ may consider 

include: (1) the applicant’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; and (3) the applicant’s daily activities. Smolen v. Chater, 80 

F.3d 1273, 1284 (9th Cir. 1996).

At the first step of the analysis, the ALJ found that Plaintiff’s “medically determinable 

impairments could reasonably be expected to cause the alleged symptoms.” AR 24. At the second

step, however, the ALJ found that Plaintiff’s statements about the intensity, persistence and limiting 

effects of his symptoms were not entirely credible. In so doing, the ALJ provided clear and 

convincing reasons for finding Plaintiff not fully credible. AR 24. 

Initially, the ALJ properly determined that the medical record did not support Plaintiff’s 

allegations that he required a cane or walker for ambulation. An ALJ is entitled to consider whether 

there is a lack of medical evidence to corroborate a claimant’s alleged symptoms so long as it is not 

the only reason for discounting a claimant’s credibility. Burch v. Barnhart, 400 F.3d 676, 680–81 (9th 

Cir. 2005); Batson, 359 F.3d at 1196-97 (ALJ properly relied on objective medical evidence and 

medical opinions in determining credibility). As discussed above, the ALJ considered treatment notes 

indicating Plaintiff was able to walk with a normal gait. AR 24. The ALJ also considered record 

evidence that Plaintiff’s right knee symptoms improved with surgery. AR 25. Further, there were no 

medical opinions from Plaintiff’s treating physicians indicating that a cane was medically necessary. 

Similarly, the ALJ properly determined that the medical record did not support Plaintiff’s 

allegations of disabling bilateral knee pain. AR 25. In addition to considering improvement to 

Plaintiff’s right knee following surgery, the ALJ also considered image studies of Plaintiff’s left knee 

that were unremarkable. AR 25, 228. 

Case 1:14-cv-01687-BAM Document 29 Filed 06/20/16 Page 12 of 14
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

Additionally, the ALJ properly considered that treatment for Plaintiff’s allegedly disabling 

back impairment had been essentially routine and conservative in nature. AR 25. Evidence of 

conservative treatment is sufficient to discount a claimant’s testimony regarding the severity of an 

impairment. See Tommasetti v. Astrue, 533 F.3d 1035, 1040 (9th Cir. 2008) (response to conservative 

treatment, which included physical therapy and use the anti-inflammatory medication, a TENS unit 

and lumbosacral corset, undermined claimant’s reports regarding disabling nature of pain); Parra v. 

Astrue, 481 F.3d 742, 750-51 (9th Cir. 2007). Here, the record reflects that Plaintiff’s back pain 

generally was treated conservatively with medication and physical therapy (AR 207-10 (physical 

therapy), 223 (treatment with Neurontin and Vicodin), 226 (treatment with Baclofen), 227 (Naprosyn), 

230-31 (treatment with Vicodin), 235-38 (treatment with Naproxen and Vicodin), 243 (Baclofen and 

Vicodin), 284 (Ibuprofen), 334 (Neurontin), 356 (Vicodin), 434-35 (Naproxen and Motrin), 449 

(Ibuprofen)). Although some courts have found that treatment with Vicodin cannot be considered

conservative, see, e.g., Baylis v. Colvin, 2016 WL 3031776, *5 (C.D. Cal. May 25, 2016), Cortes v. 

Colvin, 2016 WL 1192638, *4 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 28, 2016), the Court declines to follow those cases 

given that Plaintiff also was being treated for intermittent knee pain and there is no medical evidence 

of any side effects from the medication. Medina v. Colvin, 2016 WL 633857, *5 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 17, 

2016) (declining to follow cases finding treatment with Vicodin not to be conservative when nothing 

in the record indicted that plaintiff had any side effects from the drugs); Lott v. Colvin, 2015 WL 

1738430, *8 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 10, 2015) (treatment with Vicodin likened to conservative or routine care 

given that plaintiff had not alleged that the medication side effects incapacitated her); Medel v. Colvin, 

2014 WL 6065898, *8 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 13, 2014) (ALJ permissibly discounted plaintiff’s credibility 

based on conservative treatment where treatment records showed that since alleged disability onset 

date, plaintiff was prescribed only Vicodin and Tylenol for his allegedly debilitating low-back pain). 

While Plaintiff argues, in part, that his treatment was not conservative because surgeons felt the risks 

of surgery outweighed the benefit, this is not supported by the record. Rather, the evidence cited by 

Plaintiff indicates that he likely did not need emergency surgery to remove the bullet fragment from an 

old gunshot wound. AR 428-29. 

///

Case 1:14-cv-01687-BAM Document 29 Filed 06/20/16 Page 13 of 14
14

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

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 is based on proper legal standards. Accordingly, this 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 W. Colvin, 

Acting Commissioner of Social Security, and against Plaintiff Steven Pierce.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 19, 2016 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-01687-BAM Document 29 Filed 06/20/16 Page 14 of 14