01 

02

03

04

05

06

07

08

09

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

ORDER

PAGE -1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

DONNICA M. DELAMATER,

Plaintiff,

v.

JO ANNE B. BARNHART, Commissioner

of Social Security,

Defendant.

____________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CASE NO. C06-0538RSM

ORDER ADOPTING IN PART

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

AND AFFIRMING COMMISSIONER

I. INTRODUCTION

This matter comes before the Court on plaintiff’s Objections to the Report and

Recommendation (“R&R”) issued by United States Magistrate Judge Monica J. Benton,

recommending that this Court deny plaintiff’s application for Supplemental Security Income

(“SSI”) under Title XVI of the Social Security Act.

For the reasons set forth below, the Court ADOPTS the R&R to the extent that it finds

that the ALJ properly evaluated the opinions of treating psychiatrist Beth Sandman, M.D., the

plaintiff’s credibility, the lay witness statements, and the ALJ’s burden at Step Five.

The Court DECLINES TO ADOPT the R&R to the extent that it agrees with plaintiff’s

argument that the ALJ did not properly evaluate pertinent medical evidence.

Case 2:06-cv-00538-RSM Document 20 Filed 02/20/07 Page 1 of 5
01 

02

03

04

05

06

07

08

09

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

ORDER

PAGE -2

II. DISCUSSION

A. Background

Judge Benton has set forth the relevant background of this case, as found in Parts I-VI of

the R&R. (Dkt. #15 at 1-4). Accordingly, the Court incorporates those sections in this Order by

reference. To the extent that any additional factual information is relevant to the instant motion,

the Court will include that information in its discussion below.

B. Reports of Treating Mental Health Professionals

Plaintiff argues that the ALJ did not give sufficient reasons for rejecting the reports of

treating mental health professionals, including Ms. Lorena Lewis, MCMSW. Specifically, the

plaintiff questions the ALJ’s treatment of Exhibit 12F, which constitutes three questionnaires

entitled Psychiatric Report, Psychiatric Evaluation, and Interrogatories. All three questionnaires

were filled out and signed in full by Ms. Lewis; the second and third were also signed by Dr.

Sandman. (Dkt. #9 at 207-215). The Court agrees with plaintiff. In discussing plaintiff’s

argument that the ALJ should have considered the social worker’s questionnaire an acceptable

medical source as the product of an interdisciplinary team, the Magistrate Judge found that

plaintiff’s social workers had primary responsibility for her counseling and therefore could not be

considered an agent of Dr. Sandman. (Dkt. #15 at 6) (citing Gomez v. Chater, 74 F.3d 967, 971

(9th Cir. 1996), which found that the nurse in that case was acting as the agent of the doctor.) The

Magistrate Judge also cited Finch v. Apfel, 246 F.3d 673, **1 (9th Cir. 2000), which held that the

ALJ in that case did not err in disregarding the social worker’s report because the social worker

was not the psychiatrist’s agent and because the report did not contain the evaluation or signature

of the psychiatrist. (Dkt. #15 at 6). In this case, however, both Dr. Sandman and the plaintiff’s

social workers are employed by one organization, Seattle Mental Health (SMH). Although the

Magistrate Judge relies on the fact that the plaintiff only saw Dr. Sandman sixteen times from

August 2003 through April 2005, Dr. Sandman’s medical notes and the treatment notes from the

Case 2:06-cv-00538-RSM Document 20 Filed 02/20/07 Page 2 of 5
01 

02

03

04

05

06

07

08

09

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

ORDER

PAGE -3

social workers are part of one file, all of which are located at SMH. Further, Dr. Sandman’s

medical notes state that she consulted with the clinician, which indicates that they were working

together as a team. (Dkt. #9 at 216-310). Finally, Dr. Sandman did co-sign two parts of the

questionnaire at issue, a fact that the ALJ notes in his summary of the Exhibit. (Dkt. #9 at 15).

While the Magistrate Judge notes that the ALJ rejected the Psychiatric Report because it

was signed by Ms. Lewis alone, a non-acceptable medical source, in fact the ALJ rejected all three

of the questionnaires. (Dkt. #9 at 19). The ALJ does not state that the Psychiatric Report alone

is rejected because it is signed only by Ms. Lewis, rather he improperly rejects all three

questionnaires finding that they are completed by a non-acceptable medical source to which he

gives no weight because they provide little explanation of the basis for the opinions that they

contain. (Dkt #9 at 19). However, the two latter questionnaires were in fact co-signed by Dr.

Sandman, and should have been considered acceptable medical evidence.

However, even if all three questionnaires were considered acceptable medical evidence,

they would only serve to reinforce the ALJ’s decision that Dr. Sandman’s opinion was

unsupported by clinical findings. The Court finds that the questionnaires are contradictory to

themselves and other medical evidence of record. For example, the first questionnaire states that

the patient’s symptoms have improved since treatment started and that she is compliant with

medication, in contrast to her testimony and other medical opinions of record. (Dkt. #9 at 207).

The first questionnaire also provides little explanation for the basis of the opinions given by

checkmark. For example, although Ms. Lewis opines that the patient’s medical conditions has or

can be expected to last at least twelve months, the explanation accompanying this opinion is that

“mental disorders are chronic in nature,” a general statement which does not speak to the specific

symptoms and illness experienced by the plaintiff. (Dkt. #9 at 208). In another example, although

Ms. Lewis has indicated that the patient’s condition has resulted in repeated episodes of

decompensation, she fails to provide any examples of such episodes. (Dkt. #9 at 209). The

second and third questionnaires provide no explanation at all as to the basis of the opinions given

Case 2:06-cv-00538-RSM Document 20 Filed 02/20/07 Page 3 of 5
01 

02

03

04

05

06

07

08

09

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

ORDER

PAGE -4

by checkmark.

Therefore, the Court finds that, although the questionnaires prepared by Ms. Lewis and

signed by Dr. Sandman are acceptable medical evidence, they are contradictory and unsupported

by the other medical evidence of record.

C. Plaintiff’s Credibility

Plaintiff argues also that the ALJ failed to give clear and convincing reasons for rejecting

her testimony. Although plaintiff questions the Magistrate Judge’s apparent agreement with her

argument that some of the reasons the ALJ gave for rejecting her testimony were not supported

by substantial evidence, in fact, the Magistrate Judge correctly found that the ALJ did properly

evaluate plaintiff’s statements as not entirely credible. The Magistrate Judge cites the ALJ’s

explanations regarding plaintiff’s reports of relatively serious problems as incongruous with the

mild and moderate objective findings of treating and examining physicians, as well as the plaintiff’s

daily and social activities. She also cites plaintiff’s apparent reluctance to take medication, and

the plaintiff’s view of work, all items that can undermine plaintiff’s credibility. (Dkt. #9 at 9-10).

Thus, the Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge that the ALJ did properly evaluate plaintiff’s

statements as not entirely credible.

III. CONCLUSION

The Court has reviewed the entire record, including the Administrative Record, the

memoranda of the parties, and the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge

Monica J. Benton. It is therefore ORDERED:

(1) The Court adopts the Report and Recommendation to the extent that it finds that

the ALJ properly evaluated the opinions of treating psychiatrist Beth Sandman,

M.D., the plaintiff’s credibility, the lay witness statements, and the ALJ’s burden

at Step Five;

(2) For the reasons set forth above, the Court declines to adopt the portion of the

Case 2:06-cv-00538-RSM Document 20 Filed 02/20/07 Page 4 of 5
01 

02

03

04

05

06

07

08

09

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

ORDER

PAGE -5

Report and Recommendation that finds that the ALJ properly evaluated pertinent

medical evidence;

(3) The Court AFFIRMS the decision of the Commissioner of Social Security; and

(4) The Court shall direct copies of this order to all counsel of record and to 

Magistrate Judge Benton.

DATED this _16_ day of February, 2007.

A

RICARDO S. MARTINEZ

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Case 2:06-cv-00538-RSM Document 20 Filed 02/20/07 Page 5 of 5