T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3. 1 NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T TERI A LEX A N D ER, P la in tif

f - A p p e lla n t, v. C OMMI S S I ON E R OF S OC I AL S E C UR I T Y, D ef

endant- A pp el l ee . N o. 09- 35089 D . C . N o . 3 : 0 7 - c v - 0 0 9 7 3 - MO ME MOR AN DU M *

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt

f orthe D i s tr i c tof

O r e gon M i c ha e l W . M os m a n, D i s tr i c tJudge , P r e s i di ng A r gue d a nd S ubm i tt e d D e c e m be r10, 2009

P ort l a nd, O r e gon B efo re: F A R R IS , D . W . N E L S O N an dB E R Z O N , C i rcu i tJu d g es. T er i A l exander appeal s the di stri ctcourt ’ s a ff i rm ance of the C om m i ss i on er of S oc i a l S e c ur i ty ’ s de ni a l of S oc i a l S e c ur i tyD i s abi l i tyI ns ur a nc e B e ne f i t s a nd 

# FI LED APR07 2 010 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS2

part i al deni al of S up pl em ent al S ec uri ty I ncom e di sabi l i ty benef i t s und erT i t l es II a n dX V I o f

th e So c i a l Se c u r i tyA c t . W e a f f i rm. 1. W e r e

j e c tA l e xa nde r ’ s a r gum e nttha tA L JK i ng f a i l e d t o c om pl yw i th Judge H o g a n ’s r e m a n do r d e r . Ju d g e H o g a n h e ldth a t th e A L Jd idn o t a rtic u la te “s p e c if ic a nd l e gi t i m a t e r e a s ons ” f orr e j e c t i ng the opi ni ons of

A l e xa nde r ’ s tr e a t i ng phy s i c i a ns a s t o A l e xa nde r ’ s f unc t i ona l l i m i t a t i ons a nd di r e c t e d the A L Jt o de ve l op th e r e c o r df

u rth e rin th is r e s p e c t. [ E R 661] A L JK in g w a s a ls o in s tru c te dto c ons i de rw he the rA l e xa nde r ’ s drug- s e e ki ng be ha vi or“ i s s i m pl yam a tt e rof addi ct i on and a t endency t o acc ordi ng l y e xagg er at e pai n o r i s c on si st entw i th h er pai n t es t i m on y. ” [ E R 664] T he A L J c om pl i ed w i th thi s orderby consi deri ng new l y devel op ed m edi ca l evi dence on rem and, i ncl ud i ng D r. K auder’ s psy chol og i ca l as se ss m entthat A l exander w as “ exaggerat i ng and/ or fabri ca t i ng . . . sy m pt om at ol og y. ” [ E R 707, 632] T h e A L J d iscu ss ed D r. K au d er ’s fin d in g s in d etail, in clu d in g A lex an d er ’s

“ stri ki ng ” and “ di ff

i cul tt o rec on ci l e” di sc re panci es i n cog ni t i ve t es t i ng that sugg es t ed “ sub-op t i m al ef fortor em bel l i shm ent . ” [ E R 706- 07] T h e A L Jp r o p e r ly r e l i e d on D r . K aude r ’ s c l i ni c a l obs e rva t i ons , w hi c h pr ovi de a“ c l e a ra nd c o n v in c in g r e a s o n [ ]” f

o rr e je c tin g A le x a n d e r ’s s u b je c tiv e p a in te s tim o n y . See Ca rm ic kle v . C o m m ’ r, So c . Se c . A dm in ., 5 3 3 F .3 d1 1 5 5 , 1 1 6 0 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 8 ) .3

T he A L J w as no t , ho w ever , ent i t l ed t o con sul tthe D i agno st i c and S t at i st i ca l M a nua l of

M e nt a l D i s or de r s a nd c onc l ude tha tD r . K aude r ’ s m e di c a l f i ndi ngs s a t i s f i e d the c l i ni c a l de f

i ni t i on of “ m a l i nge r i ng. ” N ors houl d the A L Jha ve cr edi t ed the anon ym ou s r eportre ce i ved b y am edi ca l prov i der f rom a c al l er cl ai m i ng thatA l exander w as “ do i ng qu i t e w el l and h as been se l l i ng her m edi ca t i on s. ” [ E R 821] T hi s unc orr obor a t e d, a nony m ous , a nd uns w orn s t a t e m e nt di d n ot“ beari nd i ci a of r el i abi l i ty, ” aprer equi si t e f or the adm i ss i bi l i ty of hears ay d e c la r a tio n s in a d m in is tr a tiv e p r o c e e d in g s . Calhoun v . B ai lar , 626 F . 2d 145, 149 (9th C i r. 19 80 ). A s the other r ea sons for di sc re di t i ng A l exander’ s t es t i m on y have a strong basi s i n the re cord, ho w ever , “ the A L J’ s dec i si on re m ai ns l egal l y val i d. ” Se e Ca rm ic kle , 533 F . 3d a t1162. 2, T he r e c or d s upport s the A L J ’ s c onc l us i on tha tA l e xa nde r ’ s drug- s e e ki ng behavi or w as evi dence of “ a t endency t o exagg er at e pai n. ” A l exander m i sl ed p r o v id e r s b yr e p o rtin g h e rp r e s c r ip tio n s s to le n o rlo s t. [ E R 302, 576, 610] S he r e p e a te d lyv is ite dth e e m e r g e n c yr o o m a t tw o d if f e r e n t h o s p ita ls s e e k in g n a r c o tic m edi ca t i on s, despi t e the fa ctthather drug con tra ctw i th h erpri m ary physi ci an p r o h ib ite dh e rf

r o m s e e k in g n a r c o tic m e d ic a tio n s e ls e w h e r e . [ E R 439, 424, 468] A le x a n d e r ’s “c o n s is te n t f a il[ u r e ] to f

o llo w ” h e rn a r c o tic c o n tr a c t le dD r . L in d e n to “f ir e ” A le x a n d e ra s ap a tie n t. [ E R 485] H ernextm edi ca l prov i der, D r. S chul t z,C ontr a ryt o A l e xa nde r ’ s c ont e nt i on, the A L Jw a s notbound byhe rpr e vi ous 1 w i l l i ng ness t o “ [g] i v[e] the cl ai m antthe benefi tof the do ub t ” and “ as sum e[ ] that she has fi brom ya l gi a. ” [ E R 57] T he e a r l i e rA L Jde c i s i on ne ve rbe c a m e “ f i na l a nd b in d in g ” d u e to A le x a n d e r ’s ap p e a l a n dJu d g e H o g a n ’s r e m a n do r d e r . C f . Cha vez v. B ow en , 84 4 F . 2d 69 1, 69 2 (9th C i r. 19 88 ). 4 c o n c lu d e dth a t it w a s “d if f ic u lt to k n o w if

th e r e is u n d e r ly in g p a in s y n d r o m e w ith [A l exander’ s a l l eged fi brom ya l gi a] ” and becam e “ un w i l l i ng t o p rogres s her narc ot i cs any m ore. ” [ E R 517] D r . K aude r ’ s c l i ni c a l obs e rva t i ons of s y m pt om f ab r ic a tio n , a s w e ll a s A le x a n d e r ’s ab ilityf r e q u e n tlyto r id e ab ic y c le a n dw a lk d esp i t e h er cl ai m o f t o t al d i sab i l i ty [E R 72 7], supp ortthe A L J’ s f i nd i ng that A l exander’ s drug-se eki ng behavi or i s c on si st entw i th and i nd i ca t i ve of a t endency to ex ag g er ate p ain , ev en if th e A L J d idn o t sp ec ifically re fe r to Ju d g e H o g an ’s m a n d a te in r e a c h in g th a t c o n c lu s io n . See E d lu n d v. M a ssa n a ri , 253 F . 3d 1152, 1157 ( 9th C i r . 2001) ( hol di ng tha tthe l i ke l i hood tha tc l a i m a ntw a s e xa gge r a t i ng co m p lain ts o f p h ys ical p ain to “fee dh is V aliu m ad d icti o n ” s u p p o rted th e A L J’s d e c is io n to r e

je c t h is te s tim o n y ) . 3. T he A L J di d n oterr i n d i sr egar di ng A l exander’ s a l l eged fi brom ya l gi a a s di sabl i ng . W hi l e the A L J overl oo ked the fa ctthatD r. E m ori had d i agno se d

1 f ib r o m y a lg iab ya s s e s s in g te n d e rn e s s in a t le a s t e le v e n o f e ig h te e n lo c a tio n s , se e R o l l i n s v. M

a ssa n a ri , 26 1 F . 3d 85 3, 85 5 (9th C i r. 20 01 ), D r. E m ori di agno se d f ib r o m y a lg iain 1 9 8 9 , s e v e n y e a r s b e f o r e A le x a n d e r ’s a lle g e do n s e t d a te . [ E R 550]5

I n th e in te r im , A le x a n d e rw a s ab le to w o rk . [ E R 397 ] M or e ove r , the A L Jf ound tha tA l e xa nde r ’ s t e nde nc yt o e xa gge r a t e he rs y m pt om s unde rm i ne d the va l i di tyof a n yd ia g n o s e s th a t r e lie de x c lu s iv e lyo n h e rs e lf - r e p o rte dp a in . See T

on ap et yan v. H al ter , 242 F . 3d 1144, 1149 ( 9th C i r . 2001) ( uphol di ng the A L J ’ s r e j e c t i on of phy s i c i a ns ’ opi ni ons tha tw e r e e nt i r e l yba s e d on “ s ubj e c t i ve c om pl a i nt s a nd on te s tin g w ith in [ th e c la im a n t’s ] c o n tr o l.” ) . T he A L Ja l s o pr ope r l yr e j e c t e d A l e xa nde r ’ s c ont e nt i on tha the rm i gr a i ne headaches const i tut ed a s ever e i m pai rm ent . A l exander re po rt ed thatnew m edi ca t i on s had “ gi ven h ersi gn i fi cantheadache r el i ef . ” [ E R 634, 702 ] See W a rre v . C o m m 'rSo c . Se c . A dm in ., 4 3 9 F .3 d1 0 0 1 , 1 0 0 6 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 6 ) ( “I m p a irm e n ts th atcan b e co n tro l l edeffecti v el y w i th m ed i cat i o n are n o td i sab l i n g fo r th e p u rp o se of de t e rm i ni ng e l i gi bi l i tyf orS S I be ne f

i t s . ” ) . W e ha ve c ons i de r e d a l l of A le x a n d e r ’s o th e ra r g u m e n ts a n df in dth e m w ith o u t m e r it. AF F I RME D.