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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

THOMAS CLARK,

Plaintiff,

v.

NANCY A. BERRYHILL,

Defendant.

Case No. 17-cv-00371-JCS 

ORDER ON MOTIONS FOR

SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Re: Dkt. Nos. 16, 19

I. INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff Thomas Clark brought this action seeking judicial review of the final decision of 

the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration (the ―Commissioner‖) denying his 

application for supplemental security income under Title XVI of the Social Security Act. Clark 

argues that the administrative law judge (―ALJ‖) committed reversible error when he improperly 

evaluated: (1) the medical evidence in the record; (2) Clark‘s credibility as well as the credibility 

of Clark‘s mother; (3) Clark‘s residual functional capacity; and (4) Clark‘s severe impairments. 

Pl‘s Mot. (dkt. 16) at 8–22. The parties have filed cross motions for summary judgment pursuant 

to Civil Local Rule 16-5. For the reasons stated below, Clark‘s motion is GRANTED, the 

Commissioner‘s motion is DENIED, and the case is REMANDED for an award of benefits.

1

II. BACKGROUND

A. Procedural History

On September 30, 2012, Clark applied for supplemental security income for alleged 

disability beginning on December 15, 2007. Administrative Record (―AR,‖ dkt. 15) at 167–74. 

Clark‘s claims were initially denied on July 23, 2013, and they were denied upon reconsideration 

 

1

The parties have consented to the jurisdiction of the undersigned magistrate judge for all 

purposes pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

on February 10, 2014. Id. at 94–108, 110–29. Clark filed a written request for a hearing before an 

ALJ on March 20, 2014. Id. at 144. Clark appeared and testified at the hearing before ALJ 

Bradlee S. Welton (―ALJ Welton‖) on May 15, 2015. Id. at 47–92. Clark was represented by 

Kyle Kitson, an attorney. Id. Impartial vocational expert Robert Cottle (―VE Cottle‖) also 

testified at the hearing. Id. On November 5, 2015, ALJ Welton issued an unfavorable decision, 

finding that Clark was not disabled under § 1614(a)(3)(A) of the Social Security Act. Id. at 16–

32. Clark requested review of ALJ Welton‘s decision, which the Social Security Administration 

Appeals Council denied on December 5, 2016, finding ―no reason under [its] rules to review [ALJ 

Welton‘s] decision.‖ Id. at 1–3. Clark filed a complaint on January 24, 2017, seeking judicial 

review by this Court. Complaint (dkt. 1) at 2. Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 16-5, Clark filed a 

motion for summary judgment, and the Commissioner filed a cross-motion for a summary 

judgment. See Pl.‘s Mot.(dkt. 16); Comm‘r‘s Mot. (dkt. 19).

B. Clark’s Background

1. Personal History

Clark was born in Hartford, Connecticut, on March 10, 1965. AR 595. He was raised in 

Livermore, California. Id. Clark was expelled from high school ―for fighting and drug charges.‖ 

Id. He obtained a general equivalency diploma when he was in the California Youth Authority. 

Id. at 980. Clark worked as a mechanic, a carpet layer, a repossessor, and as a roofer. Id. at 556. 

He was incarcerated numerous times for domestic violence, false imprisonment, burglary, rape, 

sexual battery, and other crimes. Id. at 595, 981. He is married, but he is separated from his wife. 

Id. at 595. Clark has three children. Id.

2. Medical History

a. Injuries, Mental Illness, and Substance Abuse

Clark has sustained multiple injuries. He sustained a head injury ―sometime before he was 

10 [years of age] after a fall.‖ Id. at 980. Clark ―reported that he has been in several motorcycle 

accidents over the years and he has sustained multiple broken bone and head injuries.‖ Id. In 

2003, Clark sustained nerve damage when he fell from a roof. Id. at 561. In 2012, Clark suffered 

from a MRSA infection in his right hand after punching a mirror, and needed to have an abscess in 
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

his hand drained. Id. at 602, 638, 654, 657–58. In 2013, he visited ValleyCare Medical Center‘s 

emergency department after accidentally hitting his left shin with a sledgehammer ―while breaking 

down metal.‖ Id. at 613. He also visited the same emergency department in 2013 on a separate 

occasion, reporting sharp pain in his right knee while lifting an engine into his car. Id. at 615. 

Clark has reported that he has arthritis, high blood pressure, pain in his back, hip, and shoulder, 

and mobility issues. Id. at 561. He has used a cane with his right hand to help him walk, and he 

was given a temporary accommodation to use a cane while in custody in 2010. Id. at 388, 566, 

601, 699. He has also used a wheelchair, a walker, and a brace on his right knee to assist with 

mobility issues. Id. at 728, 733, 746, 834, 866, 887–88. The record also indicates that Clark is 

hard of hearing in his left ear. Id. at 484, 491.

Clark has a history of mental illness and substance abuse. He has reported that he suffers 

from insomnia, dysphoria, depression, paranoia, auditory and visual hallucinations, and irritability 

in social interactions. Id. at 367–368, 373, 380, 718. Clark has a history of methamphetamine 

use, with periods of abstinence as well as recent relapses. Id. at 367, 370, 382, 385, 705. He has 

reported feelings of paranoia stemming from his years of drug abuse. Id. at 376, 382, 385. 

Progress notes from while Clark was incarcerated indicate that a psychiatrist re-classified him to 

― ̳mental‘ status because of ongoing vulnerability, paranoia, and adjustment difficulties socially.‖ 

Id. at 381. Clark attempted suicide in March 2010. Id. at 350.

The summary below first addresses medical records from Clark‘s various periods of 

incarceration, before turning to records from non-penal medical providers.

b. Prison Medical Records

i. Records from Santa Rita Jail: May 2004–July 2010

In 2004, Clark underwent an x-ray exam for low back pain. Id. at 459. P. Perkins, M.D., 

noted that there was a ―moderate compression fracture of T-8‖ of Clark‘s thoracic spine. Id. 

Physicians‘ orders from Prison Health Services Incorporated in 2005 state that Clark was 

prescribed Percogesic, a painkiller, on numerous occasions. Id. at 423–25. A medical information 

transfer form from San Quentin Prison to the Alameda County Sheriff‘s Office in 2006 states that 

Clark suffered from an umbilical hernia, urinary incontinence, and low back pain. Id. at 408. 
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Records from Alameda County Behavioral Health Care Services‘ Criminal Justice Mental 

Health Care Program in 2006 state that Clark exhibited paranoia that started with his 

methamphetamine use. Id. at 466. Clark indicated that he expected the paranoia to subside when 

he stopped abusing methamphetamine, but the paranoia continued even after he abstained from 

drug use. Id. The report states that Clark‘s ―paranoia has caused him to become reclusive and he 

has lost jobs [because] he doesn‘t show up.‖ Id. It further states that Clark ―tries to avoid contact 

whenever possible.‖ Id. 

A progress note from Alameda County Department of Behavioral Health Care Services 

Mental Health Division in 2006 states that Clark was referred to a psychiatrist due to ―paranoia,‖

and that he reported that he was ―paranoid just as if he has been using meth recently‖ even though 

Clark had been clean for five years. Id. at 385. The medical evaluator indicated that Clark took 

Ditropen for his history of ―incontinence likely due to disc disease of back‖ and that he also took 

Percogesic. Id. The medical evaluator further noted that Clark ―[a]voids others,‖ is 

―hypersensitive to criticism,‖ and that his ―[p]aranoia escalates after seeing known drug addicts.‖ 

Id. The medical evaluator found that Clark was not ―clinically depressed‖ but that Clark had 

―chronic insomnia.‖ Id. The evaluator diagnosed Clark with: (1) ―Psychosis NOS‖

2

; (2) ―R/O3

amphetamine induced psychotic disorder‖; and (3) ―Amphetamine dependence.‖ Id. The 

evaluator prescribed Risperidone 1 mg for Clark‘s ―delusional disorder.‖ Id.

Physicians‘ orders from Santa Rita Jail in 2007 indicate that Clark was allowed to use a 

cane for appointments for court appearances. Id. at 388. E. Mastroianni, RNP, signed an office 

special request that provided Clark with access to a handicap shower in 2008. Id. at 390. 

In a progress note from May 2009, Mcheko Graves-Matthews, M.D., noted that Clark was 

in a wheelchair, but he could ―ambulate minimally with a cane.‖ Id. at 382. In terms of 

 

2

― ̳NOS‘ is a short-form for the diagnosis of  ̳not otherwise specified.‘‖ Wright v. Astrue, 624 F. 

Supp. 2d 1095, 1103 n.3 (N.D. Cal. 2008). It ―is a category for disorders that include 

symptomatology . . . about which there is inadequate information to make a specific diagnosis or 

about which there is contradictory information, or disorders with psychotic symptoms that do not 

meet the criteria for any Psychotic Disorder.‖ Id. (citing American Pyschiatric Association 

Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders 4th Ed., Section 298.9 (2000)).

3

―R/O‖ is an abbreviation for ―rule out.‖ See Cha Yang v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 488 F. App‘x 

203, 205 (9th Cir. 2012).
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

medications, Dr. Graves-Matthews noted that Clark took ―Naprosyn/Baclofen‖ while incarcerated 

and that Clark took ―Percoset and Oxycontin‖ when released from prison. Id. Dr. GravesMatthews indicated that Clark did not receive medical treatment when outside of prison because 

he did not have medical insurance. Id. Dr. Graves-Matthews noted that Clark complained of 

―paranoia much like when he was using meth[amphetamine]‖ and that Clark ―had this same 

complaint‖ when seen by another doctor in 2006. Id. Dr. Graves-Matthews diagnosed Clark with: 

―I-292.2 Amphetamine-related Disorder, NOS/304.40 Amphetamine Dependence, in long term 

remission II-Def III-Chronic pain.‖ Id. 

Raymond Carlson, a psychiatric social worker, spoke to Clark and also spoke to Dr. 

Graves-Matthews later in May 2009. Id. at 381. According to Carlson, Clark reported that he felt 

worse than he felt at his screening earlier that month. Id. Carlson noted that Clark‘s ―presentation 

continue[d] to be flat, with speech that seem[ed] constricted.‖ Id. Dr. Graves-Matthews 

reclassified Clark to the mental unit, increased Clark‘s dosage of Risperdal, and increased Clark‘s 

dosage of Benadryl. Id.

In June 2009, Clark saw Carlson and Dr. Graves-Mathews. Id. at 380. Clark reported 

having visual hallucinations, namely seeing ―gremlins in [his] cell.‖ Id. Clark further reported 

increased paranoia since he started taking a higher dose of Risperdal, as ―if someone [were] 

behind him.‖ Id. Dr. Graves-Matthews further noted that Clark‘s sleep ―minimally improved.‖ 

Clark saw Carlson and Dr. Graves-Matthews again in July 2009. Id. at 379. Carlson noted 

that ―although [Clark‘s] paranoia persist[ed], his psychotic symptoms ha[d] decreased.‖ Carlson

further noted that Clark‘s ―presentation appears more focused than previously was the case, and 

seems more relaxed.‖ Id. Clark also reported that he continued to experience insomnia. Id. at 

379.

A progress note by Dr. Graves-Matthews in October of 2009 states that Clark was 

―rearrested after 37 days‖ and that he did not have any medications since he was last incarcerated. 

Id. at 376. Dr. Graves-Matthews noted that Clark‘s symptoms ―do[] not sound like akathisia‖4and 

 

4

―Akathisia is  ̳a condition of motor restlessness in which there is a feeling of muscular quivering, 

an urge to move about constantly, and an inability to sit still, a common extrapyramidal side of 
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

that Clark continued to complain of ―paranoid feelings and what he calls  ̳crank critters,‘ i.e., 

shadows and tracers from years of drug abuse.‖ Id. Dr. Graves-Matthews diagnosed Clark with 

―I-292.2 Amphetamine related disorder, NOS/304.40 Amphetamine dependence, in long term 

remission II-Def III-Chronic pain (back/hip). Id. Dr. Graves-Matthews also noted that Clark 

agreed to try Geodon and Benadryl. Id.

In a progress note from November 2009, Dr. Graves-Matthews noted that Clark 

complained of ―irritability and anxiety‖ and ―report[ed] that Zoloft has been effective for this in 

the past.‖ Id. at 374. Dr. Graves-Matthews discontinued Clark‘s prescription of Benadryl, 

continued Clark‘s prescription of Geodon, and restarted Clark‘s prescription of Zoloft. Id.

Dr. Graves-Matthews indicated in an April 2010 progress note that Clark reported that he 

was not experiencing paranoia but complained of depression, and that Clark suffered from chronic

pain ―from several accidents‖ and took the Elavil ―for pain‖ and ―Lisinopril/HCTZ for 

hypertension.‖ Id. Dr. Graves-Matthews diagnosed Clark with: ―I-311 Depressive Disorder, 

NOS/304.4 Amphetamine Dependence, in remission II-Def III HTN/Chronic pain.‖ Id. 

Clark returned to prison in July 2010. At his initial screening, the clinician noted that 

Clark was ―eager to continue [his] med[ication] for depression and [auditory hallucinations] 

(critical voices).‖ Id. at 790. The clinician found that Clark had a Global Assessment of 

Functioning (―GAF‖) score of 49. Id. Later that month, Dr. Graves-Matthews saw Clark and 

noted that Clark complained of insomnia and dysphoria. Id. at 788. Dr. Graves-Matthews 

diagnosed Clark with: ―I-311 Depressive Disorder, NOS/304.4 Amphetamine Dependence, in 

remission II-Def III-HTN/Chronic pain.‖ Id.

ii. Records from San Quentin State Prison: August 2010

In August 2010, Doreen Leighton, M.D., completed Clark‘s chronic care intake report at 

San Quentin State Prison. Id. at 677. Dr. Leighton‘s examination notes indicate that Clark 

―walk[ed] with a limp on the right and appear[ed] to be in significant pain.‖ Id. at 678. Dr. 

Leighton also observed that Clark was using a cane during the exam and that Clark was ―more 

 

effect of neuroleptic drugs.‘‖ Tagger v. Astrue, 536 F. Supp. 2d 1170, 1174 n.9 (C.D. Cal. 2008) 

(quoting Dorland’s Illustrated Medical Dictionary, 42 (29th ed. 2000)).
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

comfortable sitting‖ down. Id. Dr. Leighton did not perform a ―full neurologic examination.‖ Id. 

Her plan for Clark included that he: (1) continue his medication for hypertension, namely 

Lisinopril; (2) receive a ground floor bunk as well as ―a shower with workers‖ so as to ameliorate 

his chronic pain and mobility disorder; and (3) continue his psychiatric mediations, including 

while on parole. Id.

G. Jeffers, M.D., saw Clark in August 2010. Id. at 713. Dr. Jeffers noted that Clark was 

not in any apparent distress and that he was alert and cooperative. Id. Dr. Jeffers further noted 

that Clark presented with a ―[s]light dysphoric mood and affect.‖ Id. Dr. Jeffers also found that 

Clark‘s ―memory and cognition‖ were ―within normal limits.‖ Id. On Axis I,

5 Dr. Jeffers 

diagnosed Clark with ―R/O Major depression with psychotic features.‖ Id. For Axis II, Dr. 

Jeffers deferred diagnosis. Id. For Axis III, Dr. Jeffers diagnosed Clark with ―HTN left sided 

numbness.‖ Id. For Axis IV, Dr. Jeffers noted incarceration. Id. For Axis V, Dr. Jeffers 

concluded that Clark had a GAF of 50. Id.

iii. Records from Santa Rita Jail: May 2011–February 2015

At Santa Rita Jail, Clark saw Carlson in May 2011 and ―report[ed] spells of uncontrollable 

crying, plus lapses of consciousness, anxiety, attacks with difficulty breathing, and anger triggered 

from the crying bouts.‖ Id. at 785. He further reported having been incarcerated for two weeks 

 

5

The court in Nguyen v. Astrue explained physicians‘ diagnoses based on this system as follows:

The American Psychiatric Association‘s Multiaxial Assessment is 

set forth in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Psychiatric 

Disorders, (―DSM-IV‖) (4th Ed. 2005), at pp. 23–37:

Axis I: Clinical Disorders

Other Conditions That May Be a Focus of Clinical Attention

Axis II: Personality Disorders

Mental Retardation

Axis III: Medical Conditions

Axis IV: Psychosocial and Environmental Problems

Axis V: Global Assessment of Functioning (―GAF‖).

The GAF Scale ―[c]onsider[s] psychological, social, and 

occupational functioning on a hypothetical continuum of mental 

health-illness.‖ Id. at 34.

No. CIV S-07-1372 (EFB), 2009 WL 747321, at *4 n.9 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 20, 2009). See also 

Salazar v. Colvin, No. C-11-03840 (RMW), 2014 WL 3728453, at *4 n.5 (N.D. Cal. July 28, 

2014) (explaining in detail the ―five axes in the DSM Diagnostic system‖ and how they ―each 

relat[e] to a different aspect of a mental disorder‖).
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

and that he was without medication for two weeks before that time. Id. Later in May, Clark saw 

Jennifer Chaffin, M.D., who found that Clark suffered from depression and anxiety. Id. at 780. 

In a progress note from June 2011, Dr. Chaffin noted that Clark reported mild anxiety and 

that he was experiencing symptoms of lethargy and fatigue. Id. at 778. Dr. Chaffin found that he 

was ―somewhat dysphoric‖ concerning ―his case.‖ Id. Dr. Chaffin continued to prescribe all of 

Clark‘s medications, with the exception of Risperdal. Id. Later in June, Bonnie Cook, MFT, saw 

Clark. Id. at 777. Clark reported that ―he ha[d] been feeling on edge, having nightmares, 

insomnia, and  ̳can‘t have people behind him.‘‖ Id. Clark further reported that ―his mood ha[d] 

worsened.‖ Id. at 777. Cook concluded that Clark‘s mood ―appeared slightly more flat than 

usual‖ but that he was ―calm and cooperative.‖ Id.

In July 2011, Clark saw Dr. Chaffin and reported that he was having problems sleeping 

and had been paranoid, and that ―he can‘t stand having people behind him.‖ Id. at 776. Dr. 

Chaffin found that Clark‘s mood and affect were ―anxious.‖ Id. Just over two weeks later, Cook 

noted that Clark reported ―a new symptom,‖ namely a ―feeling like bugs [were] crawling in his 

skin.‖ Id. at 775. Cook found that Clark‘s affect was ―depressed with controlled irritability.‖ Id. 

Two days later, Clark reported to Dr. Chaffin that he was experiencing insomnia and restlessness. 

Id. at 774. Dr. Chaffin noted that Clark was ―on edge‖ but also indicated that this could be 

attributed more to anxiety than paranoia, as Clark‘s prescriptions for ―antipsychotics have really 

helped.‖ Id. 

A progress note from August 2011 indicates that Clark reported ―ongoing anxiety,‖

―paranoia,‖ and being ―on-edge,‖ as well as urinary hesitancy. Id. at 773. Dr. Chaffin noted that 

Clark‘s reported ― ̳paranoia‘ [did] not appear delusional in nature.‖ Id. Rather, Dr. Chaffin found 

that Clark‘s symptoms appeared to more closely resemble ―social anxiety.‖ Id. Dr. Chaffin 

discontinued Clark‘s prescription of Trileptal and also ordered that Clark wean himself off of 

Remeron. Id. Five days later, Cook noted that Clark‘s mood had improved, although he was still 

experiencing paranoia, urinary hesitancy, and insomnia. Id. at 771.

In September 2011, Clark reported to Dr. Chaffin that he was still anxious but was ―better 

overall.‖ Id. at 770. He further reported that his symptoms of akathisia had decreased, but he was 
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

still having trouble sleeping. Id. Later in September, Clark reported at a follow up visit that he 

was ―still not sleeping well‖ but that ―his mood [was] pretty stable.‖ Id. at 769.

At a follow up appointment in October 2011, Clark reported that he was still having 

difficulty sleeping due to anxiety. Id. at 767. In a progress note from November 2011, Dr. 

Chaffin noted that Clark ―[o]verall appear[ed] to be at ease‖ despite a mix of life stressors. Id. at 

764. Clark reported that he ―ha[d] been sleeping  ̳like a baby.‘‖ Id. At a follow up later that 

month, however, Clark reported ―worsened‖ symptoms of insomnia, anxiety, and depression due 

to increased ―family stressors.‖ Id. at 763. Dr. Chaffin noted that Clark‘s affect was 

―dysphoric/worried‖ and that his mood was ―not good.‖ Id.

In December 2011, Clark ―report[ed] bouts of uncontrollable crying‖ and that he was 

having trouble sleeping. Id. at 760. Clark also indicated that ―he didn‘t notice a difference‖ when 

he stopped taking Depakote for two days and asked to discontinue that drug. Id. Dr. Chaffin 

replaced Clark‘s prescription for Depakote with Lamictal. Id. At a follow up later that month, 

Clark reported no improvement on Lamictal concerning his insomnia and anxiety. Id. at 759. 

Clark further reported that he was ―accidentally [given] a Zyprexa, which helped him sleep.‖ Id. 

Dr. Chaffin discontinued Clark‘s prescription for Depakote and prescribed Clark Zyprexa ―for 

mood/sleep augmentation.‖ Id.

In January 2012, after additional changes to his medication, Clark reported that he was 

feeling ―pretty good.‖ Id. at 756, 758. He further reported that his sleep was ―somewhat 

improved but could be better.‖ Id. Dr. Chaffin noted that she ―explained the process‖ of how 

Clark will get medications upon his release the following month, which ameliorated Clark‘s 

nervousness. Id. In late January 2012, Clark saw Cook and remarked that he was scheduled to be 

released on February 10, 2012, explaining that he ―took a deal for 5 years [of] probation w[ith] 

time served so he could get out [and] see his parents who are in the hospital.‖ Id. at 755. In early 

February 2012, Dr. Chaffin wrote prescriptions for Clark‘s medication upon his release. Id. 

Clark was out of custody for two months and was re-incarcerated after he violated a 

restraining order. Id. at 750. Sharmaine Roberts, a psychiatric social worker, conducted Clark‘s 

initial screening on May 7, 2012. Id. at 752. Clark reported compliance with his medications 
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

while he was released from prison. Id. Cook noted at a subsequent medical examination the 

following week that Clark was ―very irritable‖ and ―impatient‖ but that he was ―in control.‖ Id. at 

750. The following day, Dr. Chaffin saw Clark, and Clark reported that ―he was getting treatment 

at Axis [Community Health] while out of custody,‖ including getting his prescriptions refilled. Id.

at 748. Clark nevertheless reported that he had been without medications for over a week, he was 

having trouble sleeping, he was having ―difficulty in the community,‖ and he was having trouble 

remembering his appointments. Id.

Clark returned to jail in January 2014. Jonathan Oakes, LMFT, a behavioral health 

clinician, noted at an initial screening that Clark was ―very upset‖ and ―crying‖ because he was 

separated from his dog and his wife. Id. at 716. Clark reported that he had not been on 

medications since he was last incarcerated. Id. Oakes indicated that Clark was in the infirmary 

due to his use of a brace. Id. Oakes provisionally diagnosed Clark as ―311 Depressive D/O NOS‖ 

and as having ―300 Anxiety D/O NOS,‖ with a GAF of 50. Id. Three days later, Sarah Ulloa, 

MFT, noted that Clark was in a wheelchair, although he sometimes used a cane or a brace. Id. at 

718. Ulloa found that Clark was a ―poor historian.‖ Id. Clark reported that he was experiencing 

auditory hallucinations, which he described ―as a man‘s voice yelling at him, calling him no 

good.‖ Id. Ulloa referred him to a doctor for a medical evaluation. Id. at 719. That same day, 

Dr. Graves-Matthews determined that because Clark was ―a fall risk and will be traveling‖ for 

court appearances, he would restart Clark on his medications at lower doses. Id. at 720. Dr. 

Chaffin restarted Clark‘s full medication regimen the following day. Id. at 721–22. 

Jose Aramburo, M.D., noted that Clark refused to have an x-ray of his right knee to assess 

Clark‘s need for a knee brace. Id. at 891–92, 910, 947. Clark had an x-ray of his lumbar spine, 

however, and Michael Maiman, M.D., indicated that there was ―satisfactory alignment and 

mineralization.‖ Id. at 929. Dr. Maiman further noted that there was ―[n]o evidence of

spondylosis or spondylolisthesis‖ and that the ―[d]isc spaces appear normal.‖ Id. Moreover, Dr. 

Maiman indicated that there was ―[n]o evidence of fracture.‖ Id. Dr. Maiman‘s impression was 

―[t]ransitional S1 lumbosacral vertebra, which may be symptomatic.‖ Id. 

In February 2014, Ulloa saw Clark and noted that he was ―wheelchair bound,‖ although 
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Clark also reported that he ―could do limited walking with a walker.‖ Id. at 728. Ulloa further 

noted that Clark ―presented as depressed with a flat affect‖ and that Clark was ―cooperative during 

the interview.‖ Id. While Clark‘s speech was ―slow,‖ Ulloa found that he ―appear[ed] to be 

proactive in seeking treatment for his current situation.‖ Id. Later that month, Clark was ―unable 

to ambulate‖ after he fell when he attempted to use a pick-up walker as a front wheel walker, 

thinking ―a pick-up walker would slide like a [front wheel walker].‖ Id. at 866. Rodney Silveira, 

PT, noted that Clark‘s plan was ―pending‖ to receive a front wheel walker. Id. At a follow up for 

a front wheel walker, Clark indicated that he was not using the front wheel walker because his 

―lawyer told [him] not to listen to doctors here [at Santa Rita Jail].‖ Id. at 864, 888. I-Fei Chen, 

M.D., further noted that Clark refused an x-ray because Clark‘s lawyer ―told [him] not to‖ get one. 

Id. at 864. Dr. Chen noted that Clark could ―walk with [a front wheel walker] about 20 feet, then 

states that his arms are tired and [that] [he] wants to sit in his wheelchair.‖ Id. Concerning 

Clark‘s mental state, Dr. Chen noted that Clark had a ―flat affect‖ with ―poor judgment.‖ Id. Dr. 

Chen ―encouraged [Clark] to increase walking every day in tolerable increments.‖ Id.

In March 2014, Glenda Newell-Harris, M.D., saw Clark, and Clark ―complain[ed] of 

swelling in [his] right leg for the past month.‖ Id. at 861. Clark indicated that he would rather 

continue using a wheelchair than a walker, as ―he has broken two walkers because he does not 

know how to use them.‖ Id. Clark declined physical therapy to learn how to use a walker. Id. A 

week later, Clark reported that he fell on top of his walker in the dining area. Id. at 863. At an 

appointment the following day, Clark ―stated he use[d] to wear a brace on his [right] knee‖ but 

that ―he can‘t wear it because it contains metal.‖ Id. at 862. Clark further stated that ―he received 

a wheelchair instead,‖ he was unable to ―bear full weight‖ on his right leg, and that his right leg 

―swells every day.‖ Id.

In April 2014, Oakes saw Clark, and Clark reported that he was ―having trouble with 

hearing voices and seeing shadows.‖ Id. at 733. He explained that, when not incarcerated, he 

would use marijuana to ―cope‖ with his symptoms, and that, without marijuana, his symptoms 

were worse. Id. Clark expressed interest in seeing a psychiatrist. Id. The following day, Khenu 

Singh, M.D., saw Clark, and Clark indicated that he has been having ―problems with anger that 
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

seem to be triggered  ̳out of the blue.‘‖ Id. at 734. Dr. Singh adjusted Clark‘s medications 

multiple times over the following months. Id. at 734–37.

In June 2014, Janet R. Sachdev, M.D., saw Clark, and Clark reported that he was ―doing 

alright‖ and that his medications were ―working.‖ Id. at 741. Clark further reported that he was 

―eating and sleeping well.‖ Id. 

Clark returned to prison in February 2015. At his initial screening, the evaluator noted that 

Clark ―seemed to be in pain‖ and that he ―[s]eemed vague‖ about the psychiatric medications he 

was taking. Id. at 746. The evaluator contacted the pharmacy and found that there were ―no 

recent psych[iatric] med[ications] per staff report.‖ Id. Later that month, Clark suffered from 

―atypical pneumonia‖ and was prescribed Bactrim. Id. at 807. Khin Tha, M.D., noted that Clark 

was ―[c]leared to go back to [the] Housing Unit‖ and that ―[i]n [Clark‘s] chart, there [was] a 

notation by Dr. Slabaugh last year in Feb[ruary] 2014 that [Clark] was to wean off the [leg] 

brace.‖ Id.

c. Other Medical Records

i. Records from the John George Psychiatric Pavilion: March 2010

An intake evaluation form by Jasdeep Aulakh, M.D., at the John George Psychiatric 

Pavilion in San Leandro, California, from March 2010 indicates that Clark was transferred from 

Valley Medical Center ―for a reported [s]uicidal attempt.‖ Id. at 350. Drug testing showed that 

Clark had relapsed, as he tested positive for methamphetamine use. Id. Clark reported that he had 

used methamphetamine two days earlier on his birthday and that he had been consuming alcohol 

on the date of the exam. Id. He also ―denied paranoid ideation or auditory hallucinations.‖ Id. 

Dr. Aulakh discharged Clark to return home. Id. For Axis I, Dr. Aulakh diagnosed Clark with: 

(1) ―292.9 Amphetamine - Related Disorder NOS,‖ ―305.00 Alcohol Abuse,‖ and ―311 

Depressive Disorder NOS.‖ Id. at 351. Dr. Aulakh deferred diagnosis as to Axis II. With respect 

to Axis III, Dr. Aulakh wrote ―none acute.‖ Id. For Axis IV, Dr. Aulakh wrote ―Code I 

P[sychiatric] E[emergency] S[ervices] Evaluation.‖ Id. For Axis V, Dr. Aulakh found that Clark 

had a GAF of 55 in the past year. Id. In an exit disposition form, Dr. Aulakh noted that Clark 

again ―denied paranoid ideation or auditory hallucinations, and that Clark ―denied any suicidal 
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

thoughts‖ and ―voice[d] motivation for sobriety.‖ Id. at 352.

ii. Feng Bai, M.D.

Feng Bai, M.D., conducted a complete orthopedic evaluation of Clark on March 16, 2011. 

Id. at 561–67. Dr. Bai reviewed records by Dr. Leighton from San Quentin State Prison. Id. 

Clark reported that he was not currently taking any pain medication, his treatment ―had not helped 

at all,‖ and he was ―still feel[ing] constant sharp pain in the low back and right hip and also the 

neck, left hand, knee, and right foot.‖ Id. at 562. Concerning Clark‘s station and gait, Dr. Bai 

noted that Clark:

ambulated with [a] cane in [his] right hand with antalgic gait [i.e., a 

gait modified to avoid pain]. He is unable to do tiptoe and heel 

walking, but he reported low back pain and right leg weakness, but 

ambulated without footdrop. He is able to ambulate without a cane 

in the examining room with antalgic gait. He is sitting comfortably 

without difficulty. He is able to go up and down the exam table, 

change position by himself, but moving slightly slow due to the 

reported pain.

Id. at 563. Dr. Bai found that Clark‘s ―symptoms and physical examination are consistent with 

chronic low back pain with probably degenerative disk disease and possible right radicular pain 

and right foot arthritis or gout-type pain.‖ Id. at 566. Dr. Bai concluded that Clark was:

able to carry and lift 20 pounds occasionally and 10 pounds 

frequently. He is able to stand and walk six hours of an eight-hour 

workday and sit for six hours of an eight-hour workday. No pushing 

or pulling limitations other than carrying and lifting. Due to his low 

back pain, right foot pain, and right hip, he reported pain and 

weakness. He had postural limitations. He is able to do occasional 

climbing, stooping, kneeling, and crouching. No manipulation 

limitation in bilateral upper extremities for reaching all directions, 

doing gross or fine manipulation. Due to his low back pain and 

right pain for every two hour constant standing and walking, he 

should be allowed to change position and is allowed to change his 

sitting position for 10 to 15 minutes to relieve the symptom. He had 

no visual, communicative, or environmental limitations. He should 

be allowed to use the cane to assist ambulation and for longer 

ambulation and also when the claimant is walking on uneven 

surface[s]. He should be able to use the cane for less than two hours 

in an eight hour workday.

Id. at 567.
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

iii. Records from ValleyCare Medical Center Emergency Department and 

Axis Community Health: October 2012 and March 2013

In October 2012, Clark was admitted ―for complex right hand cellulitis and a possible 

abscess‖ after he punched a mirror several days earlier. Id. at 638, 651. He received surgery at 

the ValleyCare Medical Center and later visited Axis Community Health for surgical debridement 

of a MRSA infection in his hand. Id. at 657–58, 1000–01. 

In March 2013, Clark returned to ValleyCare for ―right index finger pain and swelling with 

history of remote injury to the finger requiring surgery.‖ Id. at 633. Clark reported that he had 

―chronic swelling and decreased range of motion‖ and that he had ―failed to follow up‖ with a 

primary care physician or orthopedist after his surgery. Id. A splint was applied to Clark‘s fifth 

right finger, and he was prescribed Vicodin for pain. Id. at 633, 636.

iv. Records from Axis Community Health and Divya Raj, M.D.: April 2013

In April 2013, Clark sought treatment at Axis Community Health for his chronic back pain 

and assistance with his disability paperwork. Id. at 584. Divya Raj, M.D., is listed as Clark‘s 

primary care provider, but Edward Liu, N.P., was Clark‘s current provider for his April 22, 2013 

visit. Id. Liu appears to have recommended that Clark get an x-ray of his lower spine. Id. at 587. 

On April 26, 2013, Dr. Raj saw Clark ―to fill out [Clark‘s] disability paperwork,‖ id. at 

589, and performed a mental capacity assessment, id. at 579–81. Concerning Clark‘s memory and 

capacity for understanding, Dr. Raj found that Clark had slight limitations in his ―ability to 

remember locations and work-like procedures‖ as well as his ―ability to understand very short and 

simple instructions.‖ Id. at 579. Dr. Raj also found that Clark had a moderate limitation with 

respect to his ―ability to understand and remember detailed instructions.‖ Id. In making these 

determinations, Dr. Raj had Clark recall ―certain things‖ and asked Clark ―about situations such as 

grocery shopping and his ability to remember.‖ Id.

Concerning Clark‘s capacity for sustained concentration and persistence, Dr. Raj found 

that Clark did not have any limitations with respect to his ―ability to make simple work-related 

decisions.‖ Id. at 580. Dr. Raj also found that Clark had slight limitations with respect to his 

―ability to carry out very short and simple instructions‖ as well as his ―ability to sustain an 

ordinary routine without special attention.‖ Id. at 579. Dr. Raj determined that Clark had 
15

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

Northern District of California

moderate limitations regarding his ―ability to carry out detailed instructions,‖ his ―ability to 

maintain attention and concentration for extended periods,‖ and his ―ability to perform activities 

within a schedule, maintain regular attendance, and be punctual within customary tolerances.‖ Id. 

Dr. Raj also found that Clark had marked limitations concerning his ―ability to work in 

coordination with or in proximity to others without being distracted by them,‖ his ―ability to 

complete a normal workday without interruptions from psychologically based symptoms,‖ his 

―ability to complete a normal workweek without interruptions from psychologically based 

symptoms, and his ―ability to perform at a consistent pace with a standard number of length and 

rest periods.‖ Id. at 580. In support of these determinations, Dr. Raj noted that Clark suffered 

from bi-polar disorder, anxiety, and ―anger issues.‖ Id. Dr. Raj further noted that Clark ―tends to 

isolate himself‖ and that Clark has difficulty working with others without becoming irritated or 

angry. Id.

With respect to Clark‘s capacity for social interaction, Dr. Raj found that Clark had a slight 

limitation concerning his ―ability to maintain socially appropriate behavior and to adhere to basic 

standards of neatness and cleanliness.‖ Id. Dr. Raj also found that Clark had a moderate 

limitation with respect to his ―ability to accept instructions and respond appropriately to criticism 

from supervisors.‖ Id. Concerning Clark‘s ―ability to ask simple questions or request assistance,‖ 

Dr. Raj found Clark had a marked limitation. Id. Dr. Raj also found that Clark had extreme 

limitations with respect to his ―ability to interact appropriately with the general public‖ as well as 

his ―ability to get along with coworkers or peers without distracting them or exhibiting behavioral 

extremes.‖ Id. In support of these findings, Dr. Raj noted that Clark has ―a lot of anger [and] 

social anxiety, which leads to poor interaction in social situations.‖ Id. 

Concerning Clark‘s capacity for adaptation, Dr. Raj found that Clark had no limitations 

regarding his ―ability to be aware of normal hazards and take appropriate precautions.‖ Id. at 581. 

Dr. Raj determined, however, that Clark had slight limitations with respect to his ―ability to 

respond appropriately to changes in the work setting‖ as well as his ―ability to set realistic goals or 

make plans independently of others.‖ Id. Dr. Raj also found that Clark had an extreme limitation 

regarding his ―ability to travel in unfamiliar places or use public transportation.‖ Id. In support of 
16

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

Northern District of California

these determinations, Dr. Raj noted that Clark ―does not adapt well to situations he is 

uncomfortable or unfamiliar with.‖ Id. 

Dr. Raj found that the use of alcohol as well as other substances had no impact on this 

assessment. Id. Dr. Raj further determined that Clark was able to voluntarily control his intake of 

alcohol as well as his use of other substances. Id. Lastly, Dr. Raj found that Clark was able to 

manage benefits in his own best interest. Id.

v. Ahmed El Sokkary, Ph.D.

Ahmed El Sokkary, Ph.D., a psychologist, examined Clark in June 2013. Id. at 595–97. 

Dr. El Sokkary obtained information from Clark for his report. Id. at 595. Dr. El Sokkary 

determined that Clark ―is able to care for hygiene, grooming, daily living activities, including light 

cooking and cleaning.‖ Id. Dr. El Sokkary also noted that Clark ―currently lives with his 

[girlfriend] and two roommates‖ and that he ―spends the majority of time alone with his dog until 

his roommate comes home from work.‖ Id. 

Dr. El Sokkary noted that his evaluation of Clark ―was limited in scope and based on a 

single, time-limited session.‖ Id. at 596. On Axis I, Dr. El Sokkary diagnosed Clark with: (1) 

―Mood disorder, nos‖; (2) ―R/O Psychotic disorder, nos‖; and (3) ―R/O Cognitive disorder, nos.‖ 

Id. Dr. El Sokkary found that, ―[b]ased solely on the current evaluation and from a strictly 

cognitive and emotional standpoint, [Clark] demonstrates a capacity to understand, remember, and 

perform simple tasks.‖ Id. He further found that Clark ―was able to maintain a sufficient level of 

concentration, persistence, and pace to do basic work in an environment that [his] health 

condition[s] would allow.‖ Id. Based on Clark‘s cooperation throughout the examination and 

Clark‘s ability to ―adequately communicat[e],‖ Dr. El Sokkary determined that Clark ―would be 

able to appropriately interact with supervisors and co-workers at this time.‖ Id. Dr. El Sokkary 

found that Clark ―would have some difficulty from time to time keeping a regular 

workday/workweek schedule without brief interruptions from his psychiatric symptoms.‖ Id. 

Lastly, Dr. El Sokkary concluded that if Clark‘s disability application were approved, Clark would 

be ―able to manage supplemental funds at this time.‖ Id.
17

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

Northern District of California

vi. Xiaochuan Melody Chen, M.D.

Xiaochuan Melody Chen, M.D., also evaluated Clark in June 2013. Id. at 600–03. In 

terms of activity and daily living, Dr. Chen found that Clark ―can take care of his own personal 

hygiene‖ and that he is able to ―do light house duty‖ and ―light yard work.‖ Id. at 600. Dr. Chen 

diagnosed Clark with: (1) chronic low back pain; (2) a right hand injury stemming from his prior 

MRSA infection; (3) high blood pressure as reported by Clark; and (4) mental health issues, 

although Dr. Chen deferred from any specific psychiatric diagnoses. Id. at 602. In terms of a 

functional assessment, Dr. Chen concluded that Clark:

can stand and walk up to six hours. [Clark] can sit without 

limitations. [Clark] uses a one pointed cane to ambulate, which is 

needed for long distance as well as uneven terrain. [Clark] can lift 

and carry up to 50 pounds occasionally and 25 pounds frequently. 

[He] is capable of climbing occasionally, balancing occasionally, 

stooping without limitations, kneeling without limitations, crouching 

occasionally, and crawling occasionally. Clark is capable of 

reaching, handling, fingering, and feeling without limitations at left 

side. [He] is capable of reaching frequently, handling frequently, 

fingering frequently, and feeling at the right hand. [He] cannot work 

around at heights. [Clark] cannot work around heavy machinery. 

[He] has no limitations with working around extremes of 

temperature. [He] has no limitations with working around 

chemicals. [Clark] has no limitations with working around dust, 

fumes, and gasses. [He] has no limitations with working around 

excessive noise.

Id. at 602–03.

vii.Records from ValleyCare Medical Center Emergency Department: 

September–November 2013

In September 2013, Clark sought treatment at ValleyCare after he experienced a ―sharp 

pain to [his] right knee . . . while lifting an engine into his car,‖ and received pain medication and 

a knee immobilizer. Id. at 615, 619. Using crutches, Clark was able to ambulate safely when he 

was discharged. Id. at 619.

In November 2013, Clark sought treatment ―after he accidentally struck his [left] leg with 

[a] sledgehammer‖ and fell the following day ―while attempting to ambulate.‖ Id. at 610. X-rays 

showed soft tissue swelling but ―[n]o obvious acute fracture or subluxation.‖ Id. at 612. The 

record indicates when Clark was discharged, he was ―ambulat[ing] well on crutches‖ and that a 

―splint [had been] applied.‖ Id.
18

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

Northern District of California

viii. Lesleigh Franklin, Ph.D.

Lesleigh Franklin, Ph.D., conducted a psychological evaluation of Clark in May 2015. Id.

at 980–87. Dr. Franklin began by summarizing Clark‘s background information. Id. at 980–82. 

Dr. Franklin then included her behavioral observations of Clark as well as her test results 

regarding Clark‘s mental status. In terms of behavioral observations, Dr. Franklin noted that Clark 

―demonstrated problems paying attention and he had marked problems on formal memory 

measures.‖ Id. at 982. In describing his childhood, Clark‘s memory ―was spotty,‖ and Dr. 

Franklin also noted that Clark ―had mixed performances on formal memory measures.‖ Id. 

Concerning Clark‘s ability to relate with others, Dr. Franklin noted that while ―Clark was mostly 

cooperative,‖ he ―exhibited mild irritability, egocentricity, and a lack of empathy for others.‖ Id. 

With respect to his mood and affect, Dr. Franklin found that ―Clark exhibited a normal range of 

affect‖ and that Clark ―endorsed depressive symptoms but his mood was euthymic.‖ Id. at 983. 

Regarding Clark‘s thoughts and use of language, Dr. Franklin noted that ―Clark spoke at a normal 

rate and volume‖ and that Clark ―was able to tell a mostly coherent story of his life, without 

becoming tangential or derailed.‖ Id. She further noted, however, that Clark ―endorsed recent 

auditory, visual, tactile, and olfactory hallucinations but he could not say for certain that these 

things were not related to drug use.‖ Id. Dr. Franklin found that Clark‘s insight and judgment 

were poor. Id. She noted that Clark ―denied using any pain medication, illegal substances, or 

alcohol on the day of the evaluation.‖ Id.

Dr. Franklin then assessed Clark‘s intellectual functioning by utilizing the Weschler Adult 

Intelligence Scales, Fourth Edition (―WAIS-IV‖). Id. According to Dr. Franklin, the WAIS-IV 

―is a reliable and valid intelligence test that measures cognitive functioning.‖ Id. Dr. Franklin 

noted that Clark‘s WAIS-IV Full Scale IQ was 71, which ―plac[ed] Clark in the 3rd percentile.‖ 

Id. Dr. Franklin further noted that Clark‘s score ―placed [Clark] in the borderline range of 

intellectual functioning, but this score should be interpreted with great caution due to statistically 

significant differences between indices.‖ Id. at 984.

Dr. Franklin next assessed Clark‘s neurocognitive functioning by utilizing the Repeatable 

Battery for the Assessment of Neuropsychological Status, Form A (―RBANS‖) and the Trail 
19

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

Northern District of California

Making Test. Id. According to Dr. Franklin, the RBANS ―is a reliable and valid test that 

measures cognitive functioning in the areas of memory.‖ Id. Dr. Franklin noted that Clark scored 

a 67 on the RBANS Total Scale standard, which ―placed him in the 1stpercentile.‖ Id. Dr. 

Franklin further noted that there were ―statistically significant differences between subtests and 

indices‖ and that ―this overall score should be interpreted with caution.‖ Id. The Trail Making 

Test, according to Dr. Franklin, assesses ―the executive functioning skills of planning, previewing, 

execution, and monitoring.‖ Id. Dr. Franklin concluded that Clark‘s ―performance . . . indicates 

that he has some executive functioning deficits and is likely to have trouble when engaging in 

work that requires his careful attention even when he is in a quiet environment which is free of 

distractions.‖ Id. at 985.

Dr. Franklin then had Clark participate in the following tests to assess Clark‘s emotional 

functioning: (1) the Miller Forensic Assessment of Symptoms Test (―M-FAST‖); (2) the Beck 

Depression Inventory, Second Edition (―BDI-II‖); (3) the Behavior Rating Inventory of Executive 

Functioning—Adult Version (―BRIEF-A‖). Id. According to Dr. Franklin, the M-FAST ―is a 

forensic measure used to determine if a client is malingering.‖ Id. Dr. Franklin found that Clark‘s 

score, namely a 6, ―was higher than usual‖ and noted that Clark‘s ―M-FAST performance is 

similar to someone who may be willing to exaggerate their symptoms for personal gain.‖ Id. Dr. 

Franklin further noted, however, that Clark‘s score ―is not so high that we would clearly say he is 

malingering, but it indicates that we must interpret his reported symptoms with caution.‖ Id.

The BRIEF-A, according to Dr. Franklin, ―is a self report measure which assesses 

behaviors associated with executive functioning problems and attention deficits.‖ Id. Dr. Franklin 

elected to administer the BRIEF-A because of Clark‘s ―school, employment, and legal history and 

his overt presentation as someone with attention problems.‖ Id. Clark scored an 82 on the 

BRIEF-A Behavior Rating Index, which ―placed him in the 99th percentile, indicating that he has 

significantly more meta-cognitive indicators of an executive functioning problem [than] his age 

related peers.‖ Id. Dr. Franklin found that Clark‘s ―test scores, history, and behavior clearly 

indicate that he is an individual with a long standing Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder‖ 

(―ADHD‖). Id. Dr. Franklin elaborated that, because Clark was not treated for ADHD as a child, 
20

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

Northern District of California

he ―developed an extremely antisocial personality.‖ Id.

Concerning Clark‘s history of depression, Dr. Franklin noted that Clark ―endorsed feelings 

of pessimism and anhedonia, and physical symptoms of fatigue and poor concentration.‖ Id. at 

986. Dr. Franklin found that ―Clark‘s BDI-II score was in the moderately depressed range,‖ 

however, she noted that his score ―should be interpreted with caution.‖ Id. at 986. According to 

Dr. Franklin, ―Clark may be experiencing depressive symptoms, but his claim of being 

physiologically depressed is questionable‖ because ―[h]is alcohol and cannabis use could be 

contributing to his fatigue and concentration problems, and his claim that he is regularly 

medicated was not credible.‖ Id. In focusing on ―[t]he issue of truth telling‖ in relation to Clark‘s 

reported psychotic symptoms, Dr. Franklin noted that Clark was unable ―to sort out whether the 

symptoms or drug related or not.‖ Id. Dr. Franklin ultimately concluded that Clark‘s psychotic 

symptoms were ―very likely‖ caused by his drug use. Id.

Finally, turning to Clark‘s functional capacity, Dr. Franklin concluded that:

If Mr. Clark were to be placed in a work situation at this time, he 

would likely have mild difficulties remembering and carrying out 

simple directions, and moderate difficulties remembering and 

carrying out complex directions. He could have marked problems 

paying careful attention and monitoring his work. He would have 

marked difficulties completing tasks correctly at an adequate pace. 

He would have extreme trouble getting along with the public and coworkers and extreme trouble with authority. Mr. Clark would likely 

have marked problems getting to work on time or at all. Mr. Clark 

would need payee if he was awarded Supplemental Security Income 

due to his active substance use.

Id. at 987.

ix. Records from Axis Community Health: June 2015

In June 2015, Zara Rooshen, B.S., R.A.S., wrote a letter indicating that Clark had been 

participating in a drug and alcohol recovery program at Axis Community Health since March 

2015. Id. at 1002. Rooshen wrote that ―Clark has made progress in some areas‖ and that ―[h]is 

intentions to change his life are apparent.‖ Id. 

3. Function Report Responses

Clark filled out function reports in April and October 2013. See id. at 264–71, 293–301. 
21

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

Northern District of California

In his April 2013 responses, Clark indicated that his conditions limit his ability to work because he 

experiences pain at varying degrees, hears voices, has ―anger issues,‖ does not trust people, and 

suffers from depression. Id. at 264. In terms of his daily activities, Clark reported that he watches 

television, ―makes messes,‖ walks and cares for his dog, and ―constantly forget[s] stuff.‖ Id. at 

264–65. Clark indicated that he sometimes has problems with tending to his personal care, such 

as bathing, feeding himself, and shaving. Id. at 265. According to Clark, his girlfriend reminds 

him ―to shave and not sleep in clothes.‖ Id. at 266. With respect to his ability to prepare meals for 

himself, Clark reported that he occasionally makes peanut butter and jelly sandwiches and soup 

for himself and that he ―use[d] to cook all the time‖ before his conditions began. Id. In terms of 

chores and yard work, Clark noted that he can do laundry, wash dishes, and ―sometimes‖ mow the 

lawn. Id. He also noted, however, that he does not ―feel safe outside all the time‖ and that he 

―sometimes‖ does not go outside ―for days.‖ Id. at 267. In terms of shopping and transportation, 

Clark reported that he ―sometimes‖ drives and shops ―a couple times a month‖ on the ―spur of the 

moment.‖ Id. Clark listed fishing as his only hobby or interest but indicated that he has not gone 

fishing ―for a long time.‖ Id. at 268. He also indicated that he does not engage in social activities 

because he does not trust people. Id. Clark‘s answers that he provided in his October 2013 

function report are largely similar, but he elaborated about his daily activities. For example, he 

indicated that he ―collect[s] cans for money.‖ Id. at 294. He also reported that he is ―always 

awake‖ and that he ―sleep[s] very little.‖ Id. Lastly, Clark reported that he was able to walk ―a 

couple blocks‖ before needing to rest. Id. at 298.

Clark‘s mother, Erene Clark, also filled out a function report in October 2013. See id. at 

302–09. She indicated that Clark‘s conditions affect his ability to work in that he is unable to 

remember things, has trouble keeping track of time, often falls asleep ―if not moving,‖ and suffers 

from pain in his hip, leg, knee, and hand due to his history of injuries. Id. at 302. In terms of 

Clark‘s daily activities, his mother indicated that he watches television and ―takes his dog 

everyw[h]ere with him.‖ Id. at 303. She further indicated that Clark‘s ―dog is in good health‖ and 

that Clark treats his dog ―like a kid.‖ Id. According to Clark‘s mother, care for his dog is the only 

thing that Clark does by himself. Id. As a result of his illness, Clark‘s mother reported that Clark 
22

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

Northern District of California

has trouble ―completing things‖ and that he ―falls asleep at all times of the day.‖ Id. She also 

noted that he has difficulty with his personal care and that he needs to be reminded of his 

appointments. Id. at 303–04. In terms of his meals, Clark‘s mother indicated that Clark eats ―a lot 

of peanut butter or fast food if he has money‖ but that he ―used to be a pretty good cook before all 

the mental things got bad.‖ Id. at 304. Concerning his ability to engage in house and yard work, 

Clark‘s mother reported that Clark is able to ―clean up after himself,‖ perform ―some repairs,‖ and 

do some yard work. Id. She clarified, however, that Clark does not always complete the tasks he 

starts and that Clark benefits from encouragement and reminders. Id. Like Clark indicated, 

Clark‘s mother also reported that Clark sometimes drives, sometimes buys groceries, and has not 

gone fishing in a long time. Id. at 305–06. In terms of social activities, Clark‘s mother noted that 

Clark ―has trust issues‖ and does not engage in much socializing, except ―sometimes‖ by phone. 

Id. at 306. She also reported that Clark will sometimes ―argue with everyone‖ and that, since his 

conditions started, he ―gets angry‖ and ―doesn‘t trust anyone.‖ Id. at 307. Clark‘s mother also 

reported that Clark does not, ―at times,‖ get along well with supervisors because Clark ―thinks 

[they are] out to get him.‖ Id. at 308. She noted that Clark ―gets upset and will complain‖ when 

he experiences a change in his routine. Id. Lastly, Clark‘s mother reported that he uses a cane for 

balancing and that he uses a leg brace ―all the time.‖ Id.

4. Hearing on May 15, 2015

ALJ Welton began his examination of Clark with questions concerning his education and 

prior work history. Id. at 49. ALJ Welton asked Clark his age, and Clark testified that he was 

fifty years old. Id. ALJ Welton then asked what level of education Clark had finished, and Clark 

replied that he had completed high school. Id. 

ALJ Welton also asked Clark about his responsibilities in his most recent job, namely 

when he worked as vehicle repossessor in 2015, and Clark replied that he ―just drove a tow truck.‖ 

Id. at 49–50. ALJ Welton questioned Clark as to why he left that job, and Clark responded that he 

―just couldn‘t remember everything‖ and that he got lost driving the tow truck even when other 

employees had written instructions down on a piece of paper for him. Id. ALJ Welton asked 

Clark whether he was fired from his job, and Clark responded in the affirmative. Id.
23

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

Northern District of California

ALJ Welton inquired whether Clark had taken any medications on the day of the hearing, 

and Clark indicated that he had taken Effexor, Trazodone, Buspar, and Remeron. Id. at 50–51. 

ALJ Welton then stated: ―You don‘t seem like you‘re with it today, so I was just curious what the 

problem was. You can actually work. But you went to work for a whole week, but you‘re not 

with me here today very well. So what‘s going on?‖ Id. at 51. Clark replied that he ―got lost‖ 

coming to the hearing. Id. ALJ Welton asked whether Clark had taken too many medications that 

morning, and Clark responded that he had not. Id. ALJ Welton then asked Clark about the 

symptoms he experiences for which he takes his medications. Id. at 52. Clark responded that he 

takes his medications for ―[d]epression, anxiety, and to keep [his] anger levels down.‖ Id. ALJ 

Welton then asked Clark whether he had used methamphetamine within the last twenty-four 

hours, and Clark responded in the negative. Id. Clark testified that the last time he had used 

methamphetamine was approximately five or six days before the hearing. Id. Clark also denied 

using any other drugs or alcohol the night before or the morning of the hearing. Id. at 52–53.

ALJ Welton then asked Clark about his current activities, including the most recent time he 

collected any cans. Id. at 53. Clark answered that he last collected cans two days prior to the 

hearing, and he described his process for doing so. Id. Clark testified that he sits on a wagon 

while his dog pulls him, and he also testified that he walks ―maybe 20 or 30 minutes‖ while he 

collects cans within ―a couple blocks‖ from his home. Id. at 53–54. ALJ Welton asked Clark 

about what sort of transportation he uses, and Clark replied that he still drives, including driving to 

the hearing, but that he has ―hardly ever‖ utilized public transportation because he ―ha[s] issues 

with a lot of people on buses.‖ Id. at 54. In terms of errands and housekeeping, Clark testified 

that he ―sometimes‖ goes shopping for food, although his ―girlfriend usually does that.‖ Id. He 

further testified that he no longer mows the lawn where he resides. Id. at 54–55. ALJ Welton 

asked Clark whether he still performs any mechanical work, and Clark responded in the negative. 

Id. at 55. Clark explained that his tools ―disappeared‖ while he was incarcerated and that he was 

not sure whether he would still be able to work on a car even if he still had his tools. Id. at 55–56. 

ALJ Welton also inquired about whether Clark experienced any ―difficulties reading the manuals‖ 

when engaging in mechanical work. Id. at 56. Clark replied that he ―ha[s] problems with 
24

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

Northern District of California

remembering things‖ and that he fails to complete projects he starts. Id. ALJ Welton also asked 

Clark about when he had most recently been fishing, and Clark responded that he last went fishing 

approximately two or three years prior to the hearing. Id. at 58.

ALJ Welton inquired whether Clark had ever ―looked for a job like at Jiffy Lube or 

something like that.‖ Id. at 56–57. Clark responded in the negative, explaining that Jiffy Lube 

was ―too far away,‖ and that no one would hire him because of his ―bad criminal history.‖ Id. at 

57. ALJ Welton asked Clark how he obtained his job working as a vehicle repossessor, and Clark 

replied that he got hired ―[t]hrough a friend.‖ Id. ALJ Welton asked Clark whether he was ―doing 

meth at the same time [he] was trying to work there,‖ and Clark responded that he ―probably‖ used 

methamphetamine but could not remember. Id.

ALJ Welton also asked Clark about his knee brace, explaining that he ―noticed all the 

doctors were talking about [Clark] needing to wean off of the knee brace and things of that 

nature.‖ Id. at 58. Clark explained that a doctor at Santa Rita Jail had prescribed his knee brace 

because he hurt his knee when it ―twisted‖ and ―popped out of joint.‖ Id. at 59. He further 

explained that he received a heavier brace from Axis Community Health after he was released 

from Santa Rita Jail. Id. ALJ Welton asked whether Clark experienced any pain in his knee, and 

Clark replied that he experiences pain when he walks and that his knee ―buckles‖ on him if he 

does not wear a brace. Id. at 60. ALJ Welton asked Clark whether he had ever attempted physical 

therapy or other exercise options for his knee, and Clark responded that he had not because he 

would not ―stick with it.‖ Id.

ALJ Welton asked Clark whether any of his conditions have worsened in the six months 

prior to the hearing. Id. Clark replied that his back had worsened and that his legs cramp when he 

wakes up. Id. at 61. ALJ Welton inquired whether Clark was experiencing ―any difficulty‖ with 

either of his hands. Id. Clark responded that he ―severed the nerves in [the] pinky area‖ of his 

right hand, making it difficult for him to use a cane. Id. ALJ Welton then asked which doctor he 

was seeing to ameliorate the condition of his right hand, and Clark replied that he did not have a 

primary care physician. Id. at 61–62. He then asked whether Clark had any ―active MRSA‖ in his 

hand, and Clark responded in the negative. Id. at 62.
25

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

Northern District of California

Clark‘s attorney, Kyle Kitson, then proceeded to ask Clark about his work history. Id. at 

63–64. Clark testified that he worked as a roofer in 2004 and as a vehicle repossessor in 2015. Id.

Kitson asked Clark whether had attempted to find other employment between those two jobs. Id. 

Clark responded that he had tried to find another job during that time but that he ―just gave up.‖ 

Id. at 64. Kitson also asked Clark whether he primarily supported himself by collecting cans, and 

Clark replied that he receives financial assistance from his girlfriend as well as from General 

Assistance. Id.

Kitson asked Clark about his educational and medical background. Clark testified that he 

completed high school while at California Youth Authority. Id. at 65. Kitson then asked Clark to 

rate the severity of his pain in his neck, lower back, and hand on a scale of one to ten, with ten 

being of sufficient severity to seek prompt medical attention. Id. at 66–67. Clark ranked the pain 

in his neck and his hand as being a seven out of ten. Id. at 67. Concerning his hands, Clark 

testified that the severity of his pain ―depends on if [he is] moving around or not‖ and that his pain 

gets ―pretty severe where [he] can‘t hold on to things with it.‖ Id. Kitson asked Clark what he 

thought he could carry in his right hand, and Clark responded that he was able to carry his cane. 

Id.

ALJ Welton then asked Clark about his role and responsibilities when he worked driving a 

tow truck for a vehicle repossessor. Id. at 68. Specifically, ALJ Welton asked whether Clark had 

to engage in any kind of lifting. Id. Clark explained that he did not have to lift anything at his job 

because another worker would perform all of ―the tie down‖ work. Id. at 68–69.

Kitson continued his questioning of Clark by asking about Clark‘s mental conditions and 

his insomnia. Id. at 69. Clark stated that he normally slept approximately three hours per night 

and that his energy levels are usually low. Id. Kitson and ALJ Welton then asked Clark about his 

periods of sobriety, and Clark responded that he had been sober for a couple of years after he had 

worked as a roofer. Id. at 69–70. Clark did not recall the exact dates of his sobriety or when he 

relapsed. Id. Kitson asked whether Clark could remember whether he was still experiencing 

psychiatric symptoms while he abstained from drugs, and Clark testified that he thought he 

experienced ―a few‖ during that time. Id. at 71. ALJ Welton and Kitson then briefly discussed the 
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

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

medical reports in the record pertaining to this time period, with Kitson explaining that the record 

indicated Clark had a period of sobriety of approximately seven or eight years in duration. Id. at 

72–73.

Kitson then asked Clark about his problems socially interacting with others. Id. at 74–75. 

Specifically, Kitson asked Clark whether he was placed in ―the housing unit for individuals with 

mental health issues‖ while incarcerated, and Clark responded that he had been placed in that unit 

during his two most recent periods of incarceration. Id. at 75. Kitson also asked whether Clark 

got into fights in prison as well as while he was living at home, and Clark replied that he used to 

get into fights. Id. at 75–76. Kitson questioned Clark about whether his hesitation to take public 

transportation was ―just an issue of being around people in general,‖ and Clark explained that he 

becomes paranoid and does not trust anyone. Id. at 76. Turning to Clark‘s employment history, 

Kitson asked Clark whether he had ever been fired ―because of issues with either a supervisor or 

co-workers,‖ and Clark responded in the affirmative. Id. at 76. Clark testified that he ―slamm[ed] 

a supervisor through a door‖ when he was working as a janitor. Id. at 77. He also testified that he 

had been fired because he ―couldn‘t go to work‖ because he ―had to isolate and stay away from 

people.‖ Id. 

Kitson next asked Clark whether he had problems remembering things as well as 

completing projects that he has started. Id. at 78–79. Clark answered that he has trouble 

remembering basic information and appointments. Id. at 78. He also added that he was ―trying to 

do this program [at Axis Community Health] and trying to get on the right road and hopefully get 

all the doctors going and get the right medications going.‖ Id. at 79.

ALJ Welton then asked VE Cottle whether there was ―anything further [he] need[ed] to 

hear from [Clark] about his past work before [VE Cottle] testif[ied] to it.‖ Id. at 80. VE Cottle 

asked Clark about his responsibilities as a roofer, and Clark replied that he ―used to do the 

shingles‖ and ―used to do the gutters.‖ Id. After discussing the record and Clark‘s past 

employment with ALJ Welton, VE Cottle and ALJ Welton found that Clark‘s past relevant 

employment included his work as a roofer and a tow truck driver. Id. at 81–82. ALJ Welton 

asked VE Cottle to assume the following hypothetical:
27

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

Northern District of California

Assume a hypothetical person with the same age and education as 

[Clark] that is 47 years of age with a high school education. Further 

assume that this hypothetical person retains the capacity to 

occasionally lift and carry 20 pounds, frequently lift and carry 10 

pounds; can stand and walk with normal breaks for six hours out of 

any eight-hour workday; can sit for six hours out of an eight-hour 

workday; can occasionally climb ramps and stairs, balance, stoop, 

kneel, crouch, and crawl, but can do no climbing of ladders, ropes, 

and scaffolds. And with the right major hand the person would be 

capable of frequently handling, fingering, and feeling.

From a non-exertional standpoint work would be limited to simple, 

unskilled work in a low stress work environment with only 

occasional decision-making, only occasional judgment required and 

no fast paced production with no interaction with the public and no 

tandem tasks with co-workers.

Id. at 83. ALJ Welton asked VE Cottle whether, considering the above hypothetical, the 

hypothetical person would be able to perform any of the work that Clark had done in the past. Id.

at 83–84. VE Cottle answered in the negative. Id. at 84. ALJ Welton then asked VE Cottle 

whether there were any other jobs that the hypothetical individual could perform, and VE Cottle 

replied that the hypothetical person could work as a: (1) hand packager inspector, with 471,700 

jobs nationally and 47,300 jobs in California; (2) garment sorter, with 206,600 jobs nationally and 

17,000 jobs in California; and (3) bagger, with 672,000 jobs nationally and 93,000 jobs in 

California. Id. ALJ Welton then asked VE Cottle whether his opinions were consistent with the 

Dictionary of Occupational Titles, and VE responded in the affirmative. Id. ALJ Welton further 

asked VE Cottle whether these jobs would still be available if the hypothetical person ―missed 

work two days or less per month,‖ and VE Cottle replied that they would still be available if the 

person missed less than two days per month. Id. VE Cottle further testified that he ―use[d] two 

days a month on a consistent basis as a cutoff‖ and that the aforementioned jobs would not be 

available if the hypothetical person missed more than two days per month. Id. at 84–85. 

ALJ Welton then asked Clark about when he worked for a week in 2015 as tow truck 

driver for a vehicle repossessor. Id. at 85. ALJ Welton asked Clark whether he was ―able to do 

the physical work during those five days or one week that [he] worked there,‖ particularly whether 

he was able to drive the truck, pick up cars, and take them to the shop. Id. Clark responded that 

he ―sometimes . . . didn‘t put them at the right place.‖ Id. ALJ Welton asked whether he was able 
28

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

Northern District of California

to complete his tasks ―from a physical standpoint‖ but was hindered due to his mental problems, 

and Clark agreed with that characterization. Id. at 86.

Kitson asked VE Cottle whether all of the jobs mentioned ―require good use of the 

dominant hand.‖ Id. VE Cottle responded that the jobs, namely, hand packager inspector, 

garment sorter, and bagger, all require ―frequent use‖ of the dominant hand. Id. Kitson then aked 

VE Cottle whether any of the jobs require ―fine hand movements‖ or ―close work,‖ and VE Cottle 

responded in the negative. Id. at 86–87. Kitson then asked VE Cottle whether there were any jobs 

available for a hypothetical individual with the following limitations: ―someone who is unable to 

consistently, which is meaning they can do it sometimes, not consistently, maintain attention and 

concentration for extended periods, perform activities within a schedule, and accept instructions 

and respond appropriately to criticism from supervisors.‖ Id. at 87. Kitson then clarified that the 

hypothetical person would, five to ten percent of the time in an eight-hour work day, experience 

difficulty: (1) ―accepting criticism and supervision‖; (2) ―maintaining attention and concentration 

for extended periods‖; and (3) ―performing activities within a schedule.‖ Id. at 88. VE Cottle 

replied that the jobs he had already mentioned would fit within Kitson‘s hypothetical. Id. at 89. 

Kitson then increased the percentage to twenty-five percent of the time, and VE Cottle testified 

that there would be no jobs that the hypothetical person could do. Id. Kitson then asked whether 

there would be ―any jobs with someone with an extremely limited ability to accept instructions 

and respond appropriately to just the issue of supervision,‖ with ―extemely limited‖ meaning that 

the hypothetical individual would get into ―arguments with supervisors‖ and engage in some sort 

of confrontation with his or her supervisors. Id. at 90. VE Cottle responded that confrontations 

with supervisors are ―not acceptable in the workplace.‖ Id.

C. Legal Background for Determination of Disability

1. Five-Step Analysis

Disability insurance benefits are available under the Social Security Act when an eligible 

claimant is unable ―to engage in any substantial gainful activity by reason of any medically 

determinable physical or mental impairment . . . which has lasted or can be expected to last for a 

continuous period of not less than 12 months.‖ 42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(1)(A); see also 42 U.S.C. 
29

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

Northern District of California

§ 432(a)(1). A claimant is only found disabled if his physical or mental impairments are of such 

severity that he is not only unable to do his previous work but also ―cannot, considering his age, 

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

in the national economy.‖ 42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(2)(A).

The Commissioner uses a ―five-step sequential evaluation process‖ to determine if a 

claimant is disabled. 20 C.F.R.§ 404.1520(a)(4). ―The claimant bears the burden of proving steps 

one through four, consistent with the general rule that  ̳[a]t all times, the burden is on the claimant 

to establish [his] entitlement to disability insurance benefits.‘‖ Parra v. Astrue, 481 F.3d 742, 746 

(9th Cir. 2007) (quoting Tidwell v. Apfel, 161 F.3d 599, 601 (9th Cir. 1998)). At Step One, the 

ALJ must determine if the claimant is engaged in ―substantial gainful activity.‖ 20 C.F.R. 

§ 404.1520(a)(4)(I). If so, the ALJ determines that the claimant is not disabled and the evaluation 

process stops. If the claimant is not engaged in substantial gainful activity, then the ALJ proceeds 

to Step Two.

At Step Two, the ALJ must determine if the claimant has a ―severe‖ medically 

determinable impairment. An impairment is ―severe‖ when it ―significantly limits [a person‘s] 

physical or mental ability to do basic work activities.‖ 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(c). If the claimant 

does not have a ―severe‖ impairment, then the ALJ will find that the claimant is not disabled. If 

the claimant does have a severe impairment, the ALJ proceeds to Step Three.

At Step Three, the ALJ compares the claimant‘s impairment with a listing of severe 

impairments (the ―listing‖). See Appendix 1, Subpart 1 of 20 C.F.R. Part 404. If the claimant‘s 

impairment is included in the listing, then the claimant is disabled. The ALJ will also find a 

claimant disabled if the claimant‘s impairment or combination of impairments equals the severity 

of a listed impairment. If a claimant‘s impairment does not equal a listed impairment, then the 

ALJ proceeds to Step Four.

At Step Four, the ALJ must assess the claimant‘s Residual Function Capacity (―RFC‖). 

An RFC is ―the most [a claimant] can still do despite [that claimant‘s] limitations . . . based on all 

the relevant evidence in [that claimant‘s] case record.‖ 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(1). The ALJ then 

determines whether, given the claimant‘s RFC, the claimant would be able to perform his past 
30

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

Northern District of California

relevant work. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4). Past relevant work is ―work that [a claimant] has

done within the past fifteen years, that was substantial gainful activity, and that lasted long enough 

for [the claimant] to learn how to do it.‖ 20 C.F.R. § 404.1560(b)(1). If the claimant is able to 

perform his past relevant work, then the ALJ finds that he is not disabled. If the claimant is unable 

to perform his past relevant work, then the ALJ proceeds to Step Five.

At Step Five, the burden shifts from the claimant to the Commissioner. Bray v. Comm’r of 

Soc. Sec. Admin., 554 F.3d 1219, 1223 (9th Cir. 2009). The Commissioner has the burden to 

―identify specific jobs existing in substantial numbers in the national economy that the claimant 

can perform despite his identified limitations.‖ Meanel v. Apfel, 172 F.3d 1111, 1114 (9th Cir. 

1999) (quoting Johnson v. Shalala, 60 F.3d 1428, 1432 (9th Cir. 1995)). If the Commissioner is 

able to identify such work, then the claimant is not disabled. If the Commissioner is unable to do 

so, then the claimant is disabled. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(g)(1).

2. Supplemental Regulations for Determining Mental Disability

Where there is evidence of a mental impairment that allegedly prevents a claimant from 

working, the Social Security Administration has supplemented the five-step sequential evaluation 

process with additional regulations to assist the ALJ in determining the severity of the mental 

impairment, establishing a ―special technique at each level in the administrative review process.‖ 

20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520a(a), 416.920a(a). First, the Commissioner evaluates the claimant's 

―symptoms, signs, and laboratory findings‖ to determine whether the claimant has a ―medically 

determinable impairment.‖ 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520a(b)(1). For each of the eleven categories 

contained in the adult mental disorder listing, these are described in Paragraph A. 20 C.F.R. pt. 

404, Subpt. P., App. 1, § 12.00.

If the claimant has a ―medically determinable mental impairment,‖ the Commissioner goes 

on to rate the degree of the claimant‘s functional limitation in the four ―broad functional areas‖ 

identified in ―paragraph B‖ and ―paragraph C‖ of the adult mental disorders listings. See 20 

C.F.R. §§ 404.1520a(c)(3), 416.920a(c)(3); Social Security Ruling 96-8p, 1996 WL 374194, at *4. 

Those four functional areas are the capacities to ―[u]nderstand, remember, or apply information; 

interact with others; concentrate, persist, or maintain pace; and adapt or manage oneself.‖ 20 
31

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

Northern District of California

C.F.R. §§ 404.1520a(c)(3), 416.920a(c)(3). Limitations are rated on a ―five point scale: None, 

mild, moderate, marked, and extreme.‖ 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520a(c)(4), 416.920a(c)(4). Based on 

these limitations, the Commissioner determines whether the claimant has a severe mental 

impairment and whether it meets or equals a listed impairment. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 

404.1520a(d)(1)–(2), 416.920(d)(1)–(2). This evaluation process is to be used at the second and 

third steps of the sequential evaluation discussed above. Social Security Ruling 96-8p, 1996 WL 

374184, at *4 (―The adjudicator must remember that the limitations identified in the  ̳paragraph B‘ 

and  ̳paragraph C‘ criteria are not an RFC assessment but are used to rate the severity of mental 

impairment(s) at steps 2 and 3 of the sequential evaluation process.‖). 

If the Commissioner determines that the claimant has one or more severe mental 

impairments that neither meet nor are equal to any listing, the Commissioner must assess the 

claimant‘s residual functional capacity. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520a(d)(3), 416.920(d)(3). This is a 

―mental RFC assessment [that is] used at steps 4 and 5 of the sequential process [and] requires a 

more detailed assessment by itemizing various functions contained in the broad categories found 

in paragraphs B and C of the adult mental disorders listings in 12.00 of the Listing of Impairments.

. . . ‖ Social Security Ruling 96-8p, 1996 WL 374184, at *4.

D. ALJ Welton’s Decision

1. Step One: Substantial Gainful Activity

At Step One, ALJ Welton found that Clark ―has not engaged in substantial gainful activity 

since September 30, 2012, the application date.‖ AR 21.

2. Step Two: Severe Impairments

At Step Two, ALJ Welton determined that Clark ―has the following severe impairments: 

degenerative disc disease of the lumbar spine, right hand pain, obesity, depression, anxiety and a 

polysubstance use disorder.‖ Id. ALJ Welton found that ―the findings reported in [Clark‘s] 

medical records indicate the above impairments have more than minimal effect on his ability to 

work‖ and are therefore ―severe.‖ Id. at 22.

3. Step Three: Medical Severity

At Step Three, ALJ Welton found that Clark ―does not have an impairment or combination 
32

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

Northern District of California

of impairments that meets or medically equals the severity of one of the listed impairments.‖ Id. 

ALJ Welton first concluded that Clark‘s impairments did not satisfy listing requirements for a 

major dysfunction of a joint because Clark‘s ―medical records do not describe gross anatomical 

deformity with limitation of motion or other abnormal motion in one major peripheral joint in each 

upper extremity resulting in an inability to perform fine and gross movements effectively.‖ Id. 

Next, ALJ Welton found that Clark‘s conditions failed to equal or meet the listing requirements 

for a spinal disorder because ―the record does not describe the evidence of a nerve root 

compression characterized by pain, limitation of motion in the spine, motor loss and sensory or 

reflex loss.‖ Id. ALJ Welton then noted that while obesity is not a listed impairment, ―it is a 

medically determinable impairment whose cumulative effects must be considered at Step 3 of the 

sequential evaluation process.‖ Id. ALJ Welton found that ―the objective medical evidence in this 

case does not suggest that the cumulative effects of [Clark‘s] obesity meet the criteria set forth in 

any section of the Listings.‖ Id.

Concerning Clark‘s psychiatric symptoms, ALJ Welton determined that Clark ―suffers 

from no mental impairment or combination of mental impairments which meet or medically equal 

the criteria for any Listing level mental impairment.‖ Id. In support of this conclusion, ALJ 

Welton noted that Clark did not have at least two marked restrictions in the following areas in 

accordance with ―paragraph B‖ for both listings 12.04 and 12.06: (1) activities of daily living; 

(2) maintaining social functioning; (3) maintaining concentration, persistence, or pace; or 

(4) repeated episodes of decompensation that are extended in their duration. Id. Concerning 

Clark‘s activities of daily living, ALJ Welton found that Clark has only a ―mild restriction‖ 

because Clark is able to engage in activities such as light cooking, tending to his laundry, taking 

care of his dog, washing his dishes, shopping, collecting cans, and mowing his lawn. Id. With 

respect to social functioning, ALJ Welton determined that Clark has a moderate restriction 

because Clark ―does not trust other people and has no friends but also reported that he lives with 

his girlfriend and a friend in a mobile home and visits with his mother.‖ Id. Concerning Clark‘s 

concentration, persistence, or pace, ALJ Welton concluded that Clark has a moderate restriction, 

noting that his conclusion was ―consistent with the results of Dr. El-Sokkary‘s June 2013 
33

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

Northern District of California

psychological evaluation.‖ Id. at 23. Regarding episodes of decompensation, ALJ Welton found 

that Clark ―has experienced no episodes of decompensation‖ of ―extended duration.‖ Id. ALJ 

Welton concluded that, ―[b]ecause [Clark‘s] mental impairments do not cause at least two 

 ̳marked‘ limitations or one  ̳marked limitation‘ and  ̳repeated‘ episodes of decompensation, the 

 ̳paragraph B‘ criteria are not satisfied.‖ Id. Lastly, ALJ Welton also found that the evidence 

concerning Clark‘s impairments ―fails to establish the presence of the  ̳paragraph C‘ criteria‖ and 

therefore concluded that Clark had not met or equaled the listing requirements for an affective 

disorder, an anxiety disorder, or a substance abuse disorder. Id.

4. Step Four: Residual Functional Capacity

ALJ Welton found that Clark has the residual functional capacity to perform light work as 

defined in 20 C.F.R. § 416.967(b) with the following exceptions:

[L]ifting/carrying of 10 pounds frequently and 20 pounds 

occasionally, sitting for 6 hours in an 8 hour day, standing/walking 

for 6 hours in an 8 hour day, occasional stooping, balancing, 

crouching, crawling, kneeling and climbing of ramps and stairs, 

frequent handling, fingering, and feeling with the right hand, and no 

climbing of ladders, ropes, or scaffolds, and with a limitation to 

work involving simple repetitive tasks performed in a low stress 

environment, requiring only occasional decision-making, occasional 

changes in the work setting, and the occasional need to exercise 

judgment, and with a preclusion against work involving fast-paced 

production tasks, involving interaction with the public and involving 

tandem tasks performed with coworkers.

Id. In reaching this determination, ALJ Welton first discussed Clark‘s medical records concerning 

his physical impairments, including his joint and low back pain, his chronic hip pain, his use of a 

cane, and his treatment for a MRSA infection. Id. ALJ Welton noted that Clark had reported to 

prison physicians that he experienced low back pain as a result of falling off a roof. He further 

noted that ―an x-ray of [Clark‘s] lumbar spine showed a probable old moderate compression 

fracture at T-8 but was otherwise unremarkable.‖ Id. He also noted that Clark has periodically 

walked with a cane and that Clark had reported chronic hip, back, and thigh pain. Id. at 23–24. 

ALJ Welton then turned to the consultative orthopedic evaluation by Dr. Bai in March 

2011. Id. at 24. ALJ Welton noted that, during his visit with Dr. Bai, Clark ―reported that he was 

experiencing low back, right hip, hand, neck, knee and right foot pain as well as bilateral leg 
34

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

Northern District of California

numbness.‖ Id. ALJ Welton noted that Dr. Bai found that Clark ―ambulated with a cane in the 

right hand, had an antalgic gait, and was unable to do to heel and toe walking but that he was able 

to ambulate without a cane in the examining room.‖ Id. ALJ Welton noted that Dr. Bai found that 

Clark ―could lift 10 pounds frequently and 20 pounds occasionally, sit for 6 hours in an 8 hour 

day, stand/walk for 6 hours in an 8 hour day, and perform occasional climbing, stooping, kneeling, 

and crouching.‖ Id. ALJ Welton noted that Dr. Bai determined Clark ―would need to change 

positions for 10–15 minutes after every 2 hours of standing/walking and should be allowed to use 

a cane for less than 2 hours in an 8 hour day to assist in ambulation, for longer distance 

ambulation and when walking on uneven surfaces.‖ Id. ALJ Welton gave ―[g]reat deference‖ to 

Dr. Bai‘s findings ―to the extent that they are consistent with the above residual functional 

capacity finding.‖ Id. at 28. ALJ Welton added, however, that he attributed ―no weight‖ to Dr. 

Bai‘s conclusion that Clark needed to use a cane, reasoning that ―there is no evidence that any 

physician has recommended that [Clark] use a cane, other than for a limited period of time.‖ Id.

ALJ Welton also supported his residual functional capacity determination of Clark by 

discussing Dr. Chen‘s June 2013 consultative examination. Id. at 24. According to ALJ Welton, 

Dr. Chen ―observed that [Clark] was using a cane and had reported that he could not do tandem 

gait, hop or squat but she also observed that [Clark‘s] gait was steady.‖ Id. Dr. Chen ―concluded 

that the claimant could lift/carry 25 pounds frequently and 50 pounds occasionally, handling, 

fingering and feeling with the right hand, and could not work at heights or around heavy 

machinery.‖ Id. ALJ Welton also gave ―[g]reat deference‖ to Dr. Chen‘s findings. Id. at 28. He 

attributed ―little weight,‖ however, to Dr. Chen‘s findings that indicated that Clark was ―less 

limited [than] contemplated in the residual functional capacity finding above‖ because ―they are 

not consistent with Dr. Chen‘s own examination findings and the findings reflected in [Clark‘s] 

treatment records.‖ Id.

ALJ Welton then summarized Clark‘s mental health medical records. Id. at 25–28. First, 

ALJ Welton discussed Dr. Raj‘s findings that Clark: (1) suffered from bi-polar disorder; (2) ―was 

markedly limited in his ability to work in coordination with or proximity to others‖; (3) had 

marked limitations concerning his ability to ―complete a normal workday or workweek without 
35

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

Northern District of California

interruptions from psychologically-based symptoms and perform at a consistent pace‖; (4) ―was 

extremely limited to interact appropriately with the public and get along with coworkers‖; and (5) 

―was extremely limited in his ability [to] travel in unfamiliar places or use public transportation.‖ 

Id. at 26–27. He attributed ―no weight‖ to Dr. Raj‘s findings because they ―were based upon a 

short-term treatment relationship and the limitations Dr. Raj identified are out of proportion to the 

findings that he reported and that have been reported by other mental health clinicians.‖ Id. at 28. 

Second, ALJ Welton summarized Dr. El Sokkary‘s consultative psychological evaluation 

in which Dr. El Sokkary ―diagnosed a mood disorder and concluded that [Clark] could perform 

simple tasks, could maintain sufficient level concentration, persistence and pace to do basic work 

and could interact appropriately with supervisors and coworkers but would have difficulty from 

time to time keeping in regular workdays/workweek schedule without interruptions from 

psychiatric symptoms.‖ Id. at 27. ALJ Welton gave ―great weight‖ to Dr. El Sokkary‘s findings, 

reasoning that they were ―consistent with the evidence indicating stabilization of [Clark‘s] 

psychiatric symptoms with associated improved functioning when he has been incarcerated and 

maintained on his psychiatric treatment regimen.‖ Id. at 28.

Third, ALJ Welton discussed Dr. Franklin‘s psychological evaluation report. Id. at 27. 

ALJ Welton noted that ―Dr. Franklin reported findings of impaired memory, mild irritability, 

impaired insight and poor judgment during mental status examination.‖ Id. ALJ Welton further 

noted that ―Dr. Franklin interpreted [Clark‘s] scores as indicating cognitive deficits and attention 

deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD).‖ Id. ALJ Welton acknowledged that Dr. Franklin found 

Clark‘s score on the M-FAST to be ―not so high as to clearly say that [Clark] was malingering but 

that they did indicate that [Clark‘s] reported symptoms should be interpreted with caution.‖ Id. 

Dr. Franklin also diagnosed Clark with ―ADHD, amphetamine, cannabis and alcohol use disorders 

and an antisocial personality disorder.‖ Id. ALJ Welton attributed ―no weight‖ to Dr. Franklin‘s 

findings because ―she did not review and consider [Clark‘s] prison medical records and her 

conclusions are not consistent with [Clark‘s] history, including the evidence of stabilization of 

[Clark‘s] psychiatric symptoms when he has been incarcerated and consistently maintained on 

psychotropic medication.‖ Id. at 28–29.
36

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

Northern District of California

Fourth, ALJ Welton ascribed ―great weight‖ to the findings of the ―State Agency medical 

consultant who likewise found that [Clark] could perform some light work‖ because ―that opinion 

is supported by the record as a whole.‖6 Id. at 28.

After ALJ Welton concluded that he had ―considered all symptoms and the extent to which 

these symptoms can reasonably be accepted as consistent with the objective medical evidence and 

other evidence,‖ he found that Clark‘s ―medically determinable impairments could reasonably be 

expected to cause the alleged symptoms; however, [Clark‘s] statements and those of his mother 

concerning the intensity, persistence and limiting effects of these symptoms are not entirely 

credible for the reasons explained in this decision.‖ Id. at 29–30. According to ALJ Welton, he 

found ―specific and legitimate reasons to reject [Clark‘s] statements and those of his mother 

regarding his symptoms.‖ Id. at 29.

ALJ Welton found Clark‘s allegations of complete disability to be ―undermined by his 

history.‖ Id. Specifically, ALJ Welton concluded that Clark‘s symptoms ―stabilized‖ when he 

was incarcerated because he received regular treatment and abstained from drugs and alcohol. Id. 

He also determined that the credibility of Clark‘s allegations was undermined by his statements to 

the Social Security Administration and to Dr. El Sokkary that ―he was able to perform a variety of 

daily activities including driving, doing light cooking, doing laundry, taking care of his dog, 

washing dishes, going shopping, cleaning and mowing the lawn.‖ Id. at 29–30. ALJ Welton also 

noted that in Clark‘s mother‘s function report responses, she similarly ―reported that [Clark] does 

light cooking, cleans up after himself, does some repairs, goes shopping and cares for his dog like 

 ̳a kid.‘‖ Id. at 30. ALJ Welton further noted that, despite having an alleged onset disability date

of December 15, 2007, Clark had reported to physicians that he sustained injuries in 2013 while he 

was lifting an engine into his car and while he was using a sledgehammer. Id.

ALJ Welton also found that there are ―further inconsistencies in the record which 

undermine [Clark‘s] credibility.‖ Id. In particular, ALJ Welton noted that while Clark 

―repeatedly told his physicians and clinicians that a cane had been prescribed for him and that he 

 

6

It is worth noting that ALJ Welton does not specify which of the various consultants whose 

opinions are included in the exhibit he cited deserved ―great weight.‖ AR 28.
37

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

Northern District of California

needed to use a cane or a wheelchair, there is no evidence that any physician recommended or 

prescribed a cane or wheelchair other than for a short period of time.‖ Id. ALJ Welton surmised 

that, accordingly, Clark‘s ―use of a cane or wheelchair was merely affirmed by [Clark‘s] 

physicians after he reported he was using one or the other.‖ Id. ALJ Welton found that Clark ―has 

also made inconsistent statements regarding his drug use,‖ as he reported that he had used 

methamphetamine while hospitalized in March 2010 but later reported to his prison physician in 

April 2010 that he had refrained from using methamphetamine for eight years. Id. Lastly, ALJ 

Welton cited Clark‘s M-FAST score as an indication that Clark‘s ―credibility was questionable.‖ 

Id. In contrast to his analysis of Clark‘s own statements, ALJ Welton did not identify specific 

statements by Clark‘s mother that he found not to be credible or specific reasons for rejecting her 

testimony.

5. Step Five: Ability to Perform Other Jobs in the National Economy

At Step Five, ALJ Welton found that Clark ―is unable to perform any past relevant work.‖ 

Id. He further found, however, that in ―[c]onsidering [Clark‘s] age, education, work experience, 

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

economy that [Clark] can perform.‖ Id. at 31. In support of this determination, ALJ Welton relied 

on VE Cottle‘s testimony that a person with the RFC assessed by ALJ Welton could work as a

hand packager inspector, garment sorter, and bagger, with each of those jobs existing in significant 

numbers in the national economy. Id. Accordingly, ALJ Welton concluded that ―[a] finding of 

 ̳not disabled‘ is therefore appropriate under the framework of the above-cited rules‖ and that 

Clark is not disabled pursuant to Section 1614(a)(3)(A) of the Social Security Act. Id. at 31–32.

E. Motions for Summary Judgment

1. Clark’s Motion for Summary Judgment

Clark filed this Motion seeking review of ALJ Welton‘s decision and now moves for 

summary judgment on the basis that ALJ Welton committed five errors in his November 2015 

decision. First, Clark argues that ALJ Welton improperly rejected the opinions of Drs. Raj and 

Franklin because he failed to provide specific and legitimate reasons for doing so. Clark‘s Mot.

(dkt. 16) at 8–15 (citing, e.g., Lester v. Chater, 81 F.3d 821, 830 (9th Cir. 1995)). With respect to 
38

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

Northern District of California

Dr. Raj‘s opinion, Clark contends that Dr. Raj‘s failure to adhere to Dr. El Sokkary‘s view that 

Clark‘s psychiatric symptoms stabilized while he was incarcerated and receiving consistent 

treatment does not constitute a specific and legitimate reason for rejecting Dr. Raj‘s opinion. Id. at 

11. To the contrary, Clark contends that any improvement of his symptoms while incarcerated is, 

in fact, ―indicative of disability.‖ Id. at 11 (citations omitted). Second, Clark contends that ALJ 

Welton improperly evaluated Clark‘s credibility because ALJ Welton utilized the ―specific and 

legitimate reasons‖ standard for rejecting his testimony when he should have employed the ―clear 

and convincing‖ standard. Id. at 15–17 (citing Gallant v. Heckler, 753 F.2d 1450, 1455 (9th Cir. 

1984)). Third, Clark asserts that ALJ Welton erred when he rejected Clark‘s mother‘s third party 

statements because he failed to provide ―germane‖ reasons for doing so. Id. at 17–18 (citing Lewis 

v. Apfel, 236 F.3d 503, 511 (9th Cir. 2001)). Fourth, Clark argues that ALJ Welton improperly

calculated Clark‘s residual functional capacity because he did not consider ―all of [Clark‘s] 

impairments, even those that are not severe.‖ Id. at 18–20 (citing Social Security Ruling 96-8p, 

1996 WL 374184, at *5). Specifically, Clark argues that ALJ Welton ―failed to incorporate 

[Clark‘s] reliance on a cane for longer ambulation‖ as part of his residual functional capacity 

determination as well as Clark‘s inability to interact appropriately with his supervisors. Id. Fifth, 

Clark asserts that ALJ Welton improperly determined Clark‘s severe impairments because he 

failed to mention Clark‘s diagnoses of organic mental disorder, ADHD, and Antisocial Personality 

Disorder at Step Two of the five-step framework. Id. at 20–22.

2. Commissioner’s Motion for Summary Judgment

The Commissioner filed a cross-motion for summary judgment, asking the Court to affirm 

ALJ Welton‘s decision that Clark is not disabled. Def.‘s Mot. (dkt. 19) at 1. The Commissioner 

contends that Clark‘s assertions are without merit because ALJ Welton‘s decision is free of 

reversible error and is supported by substantial evidence. Id. at 18. First, the Commissioner 

argues that ALJ Welton did not err in evaluating the medical opinion evidence at issue in this case. 

Id. at 2–8. The Commissioner contends that ALJ Welton ―properly gave the opinions of Drs. Raj 

and Franklin no weight because they were inconsistent with the medical records as a whole.‖ Id.

at 4 (citing 20 C.F.R. § 416.927(c)(4)). Second, the Commissioner contends that ALJ Welton 
39

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

Northern District of California

properly evaluated Clark‘s credibility in terms of Clark‘s ―subjective account of his symptoms‖ 

because: (1) Clark‘s claims were contradicted by medical evidence; (2) ALJ Welton ―properly 

considered [Clark‘s] noncompliance with treatment‖; (3) Clark‘s reported daily activities were 

―inconsistent with his reports of disability‖; and (4) Clark made inconsistent statements 

concerning his drug use. Id. at 9–13. Third, the Commissioner asserts that ALJ Welton properly 

discounted Clark‘s mother‘s answers that she provided on a function report because the reasons 

ALJ Welton provided in rejecting Clark‘s testimony were also germane reasons for rejecting his 

mother‘s testimony. Id. at 13 (citing Valentine v. Astrue, 574 F.3d 685, 694 (9th Cir. 2009)). 

Fourth, the Commissioner argues that ALJ Welton‘s residual functional capacity determination 

was supported by substantial evidence. Id. at 13–15. The Commissioner contends that ALJ 

Welton properly excluded ―any use of a cane or walker‖ from the residual functional capacity 

determination because evidence in the record was ―inconsistent‖ with Clark‘s use of a cane. Id. at 

14. With respect to Clark‘s inability to interact appropriately with supervisors, the Commissioner 

asserts that ―limitations to simple work account for moderate limitations caused by mental 

impairments,‖ including an inability to respond to criticism. Id. at 14–15 (citing, e.g., StubbsDanielson v. Astrue, 539 F.3d 1169, 1174–76 (9th Cir. 2008)). 

Finally, the Commissioner contends that even if ALJ Welton committed an error at Step 

Two or Step Three, the error is harmless. Id. at 16–18. According to the Commissioner, any 

failure to mention ―psychotic or mood disorder related to [Clark‘s] methamphetamine use, ADHD, 

and antisocial personality disorder‖ as severe impairments at Step Two are harmless because ALJ 

Welton went on to discuss them in his residual functional capacity analysis. Id. at 16 (citing Lewis 

v. Astrue, 498 F.3d 909, 911 (9th Cir. 2007)). At Step Three, the Commissioner contends any 

error made by ALJ Welton is harmless because Clark failed to meet his burden of showing that he 

met the requirements for listings 12.02 and 12.08. Id. at 18.

3. Clark’s Reply

In his Reply, Clark reiterates many of the same arguments he presented in his motion for 

summary judgment. Clark elaborates, however, on his argument that ALJ Welton lacked specific 

and legitimate reasons for rejecting the opinions of Drs. Raj and Franklin, comparing those 
40

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

Northern District of California

doctors‘ opinions to the opinion of Dr. El Sokkary as well as the opinion of the state agency 

medical consultant that ALJ mentioned, although not by name, in his November 2015 opinion. 

Pl.‘s Reply (dkt. 22) at 8–9. With respect to Dr. El Sokkary‘s opinion, Clark argues that ―Dr. El 

Sokkary only administered a mental status examination, a brief test originally designed to test for 

dementia among elderly populations‖ and, accordingly, his ―examining source opinion should 

have been accorded little weight.‖ Id. at 9. Concerning the opinion of the state agency medical 

examiner, Clark points out that ALJ Welton ―did not even specify which medical consultant he 

was giving great weight to, as he simply alluded to  ̳a medical consultant‘ and cited Exhibit 3A, 

which contains the opinions of multiple physical and psychological consultants.‖ Id. at 8. 

Moreover, Clark contends that ―the opinion of a non-examining doctor does not alone constitute 

substantial evidence for rejecting the opinion of a treating or examining doctor.‖ Id. (citing 

Andrews v. Shalala, 53 F.3d 1035, 1041 (9th Cir. 1995)). 

III. ANALYSIS

A. Legal Standard Under 42 U.S.C. §§ 405(g) and 1383(c)(3)

District courts have jurisdiction to review the final decisions of the Commissioner and 

have the power to affirm, modify, or reverse the Commissioner‘s decisions, with or without 

remanding for further hearings. 42 U.S.C. § 405(g); see also 42 U.S.C. § 1383(c)(3). 

When asked to review the Commissioner‘s decision, the Court takes as conclusive any 

findings of the Commissioner which are free from legal error and supported by ―substantial 

evidence.‖ 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). Substantial evidence is ―such evidence as a reasonable mind 

might accept as adequate to support a conclusion,‖ and it must be based on the record as a whole. 

Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389, 401 (1971). ― ̳Substantial evidence‘ means more than a 

mere scintilla,‖ id., but ―less than a preponderance.‖ Desrosiers v. Sec’y of Health & Human 

Servs., 846 F.2d 573, 576 (9th Cir. 1988) (citation omitted). Even if the Commissioner‘s findings 

are supported by substantial evidence, the decision should be set aside if proper legal standards 

were not applied when weighing the evidence. Benitez v. Califano, 573 F.2d 653, 655 (9th Cir. 

1978) (quoting Flake v. Gardner, 399 F.2d 532, 540 (9th Cir. 1978)). In reviewing the record, the 

Court must consider both the evidence that supports and detracts from the Commissioner‘s 
41

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

Northern District of California

conclusion. Smolen v. Chater, 80 F.3d 1273, 1279 (9th Cir. 1996) (citing Jones v. Heckler, 760 

F.2d 993, 995 (9th Cir. 1985)). 

If the Court identifies defects in the administrative proceeding or the ALJ‘s conclusions, 

the Court may remand for further proceedings or for a calculation of benefits. See Garrison v. 

Colvin, 759 F.3d 995, 1019–21 (9th Cir. 2014).

B. Any Error in Determining Clark’s Severe Impairments Was Harmless

The Ninth Circuit applies a harmless error analysis to social security appeals. McLeod v. 

Astrue, 640 F.3d 881, 887 (9th Cir. 2011); Molina, 674 F.3d at 1115 (―We have long recognized 

that harmless error principles apply in the Social Security Act context.‖ (citation omitted)); see 

also Marsh, 792 F.3d at 1172 (―[W]e apply harmless error analysis to social security cases.‖). The 

application of the harmless error analysis is ―fact-intensive,‖ as ―no presumptions operate,‖ and 

courts ―must analyze harmlessness in light of the circumstances of the case.‖ Marsh, 792 F.3d at 

1172 (quoting Molina, 674 F.3d at 1121). ―ALJ errors in social security cases are harmless if they 

are  ̳inconsequential to the ultimate nondisability determination‘ and . . .  ̳a reviewing court cannot 

consider [an] error harmless unless it can confidently conclude that no reasonable ALJ, when fully 

crediting the testimony, could have reached a different disability determination.‖ Id. at 1173 

(quoting Stout v. Comm’r, Soc. Sec. Admin., 454 F.3d 1050, 1055–56 (9th Cir. 2006)). In McLeod

v. Astrue, the Ninth Circuit held that ―remand is appropriate‖ when ―the circumstances of the case 

show a substantial likelihood of prejudice.‖ 640 F.3d at 888. Alternatively, the court explained 

that ―where harmlessness is clear and not a borderline question, remand for reconsideration is not 

appropriate.‖ Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). Furthermore, the court also found that, 

―despite the burden to show prejudice being on the party claiming error by the administrative 

agency, the reviewing court can determine from the  ̳circumstances of the case‘ that further 

administrative review is needed to determine whether there was prejudice from the error.‖ Id.

(citing Shinseki v. Sanders, 556 U.S. 396, 410–11 (2009)). Lastly, courts ―cannot affirm the 

decision of an agency on a ground that the agency did not invoke in making its decision.‖ Pinto v. 

Massanari, 249 F.3d 840, 847 (9th Cir. 2001) (citing SEC v. Chenery Corp, 332 U.S. 194, 196 

(1947)).
42

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

Northern District of California

Clark argues that ALJ Welton erred because he ―did not include organic mental disorder, 

Attention Deficit Disorder, and Antisocial Personality Disorder in his step two analysis.‖ Pl.‘s 

Mot. at 21. It is worth noting that none of the exhibits Clark cites in support of his argument 

mention organic mental disorder. There are, however, numerous instances in the record where 

Clark has been diagnosed with a mood disorder. See, e.g, AR 720, 723, 725, 727, 785. Dr. 

Franklin also diagnosed Clark with Attention Deficit Disorder and Antisocial Personality 

Disorder. Id. at 987.

The Ninth Circuit has held that an ALJ‘s failure to consider a severe impairment at Step 

Two can amount to a harmless error when the ALJ subsequently discusses the limitations posed by 

that impairment at Step Four. See Lewis, 498 F.3d at 910–911 (holding that the ALJ‘s failure to 

list plaintiff‘s bursitis at Step Two constituted a harmless error because the ALJ‘s decision 

―reflect[ed] that the ALJ considered any limitations posed by the [plaintiff‘s] bursitis at Step 4‖). 

The Commissioner concedes that ALJ Welton ―did not find psychotic or mood disorder related to 

his methamphetamine use, ADHD, and antisocial personality disorder to be severe impairments‖ 

at Step Two. Def.‘s Mot. at 16. The Commissioner contends, however, that ALJ Welton ―cur[ed] 

any error‖ because he later discussed these impairments at Step Four. Id. at 16–17. The Court 

agrees. At Step Four, ALJ Welton discussed Dr. Franklin‘s diagnoses of Clark having ADHD and 

Antisocial Personality Disorder. AR 27. He also discussed Dr. El Sokkary‘s diagnosis of Clark 

having a mood disorder. Id.. Accordingly, even if ALJ Welton should have determined that 

Clark‘s mood disorder, Attention Deficit Disorder, and Antisocial Personality Disorder were 

severe, any error was harmless because ALJ Welton considered these limitations in his 

explanation of his residual functional capacity determination. Lewis, 498 F.3d at 911; see also

Bryant v. Colvin, No. 15-cv-02982 (JSC), 2016 WL 3405442, at *25 (N.D. Cal. June 21, 2016).

C. ALJ Welton Erred in Determining that Clark’s Impairments Met No Listing 

At Step 3, ALJ Welton considered the following listings: 1.02 (Major Dysfunction of a 

Joint(s) (Due to Any Cause)); 1.04 (Disorders of the Spine); 12.04 (Affective Disorders); 12.06 

(Anxiety Related Disorders); 12.09 (Substance Addiction Disorders). AR 22–23. As discussed 

above, ALJ Welton concluded that Clark‘s impairments did not meet or equal the  ̳paragraph B‘ 
43

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

Northern District of California

requirements for listings 12.04 and 12.06. AR 22. He also determined that Clark‘s impairments 

did not meet or equal the  ̳paragraph C‘ requirements for listings 12.04, 12.06, and ―by reference,‖ 

12.09. Id. at 23. 

Listing 12.04 pertains to affective disorders, with ―paragraph A‖ criteria requiring 

―[m]edically documented persistence‖ of: (1) ―[d]epressive syndrome‘; (2) ―[m]anic syndrome‖; 

or (3) ―[b]ipolar syndrome.‖ 20 C.F.R. Pt. 404, Subpt. P, App. 1, 12.04.7 The applicable 

―paragraph B‖ criteria require that the claimant‘s affective disorder ―[r]esult[] in at least two of the 

following‖: (1) ―[m]arked restriction of activities of daily living‖; (2) ―[m]arked difficulties in 

maintaining social functioning‖; (3) ―[m]arked difficulties in maintaining concentration, 

persistence, or pace‖; or (4) ―[r]epeated episodes of decompensation, each of extended duration.‖ 

Id. The ―paragraph C‖ criteria for listing 12.04 require that the claimant have a ―[m]edically 

documented history of a chronic affective disorder of at least two years‘ duration that has caused 

more than a minimal limitation of ability to do basic work activities, with symptoms or signs 

currently attenuated by medication or psychosocial support, and one of the following‖: 

(1) ―[r]epeated episodes of decompensation, each of extended duration‖; (2) a ―residual disease 

process that has resulted in such marginal adjustment that even a minimal increase in mental 

demands or change in the environment would be predicted to cause the individual to 

decompensate‖; or (3) ―[c]urrent history of 1 or more years‘ inability to function outside a highly 

supportive living arrangement, with an indication of continued need for such an arrangement.‖ Id.

Listing 12.06 pertains to anxiety-related disorders, with the ―paragraph A‖ criteria 

requiring that the claimant have ―[m]edically documented findings of at least one of the 

following‖: (1) [g]eneralized persistent anxiety accompanied‖ by certain listed symptoms; (2) ―[a] 

persistent irrational fear of a specific object, activity, or situation which results in a compelling 

desire to avoid the dreaded object, activity, or situation‖; or (3) ―[r]ecurrent severe panic attacks 

 

7

The listings for mental impairments have been amended since the date of ALJ Welton‘s decision. 

The parties‘ briefs, all filed several months after the listings were amended, do not address the 

changes to the listings or whether such intervening amendments should affect the Court‘s analysis. 

The Court therefore applies the listing definitions in effect at the time of the decision under 

review, and all citations herein to specific listings refer to their then-existing versions. 
44

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

Northern District of California

manifested by a sudden unpredictable onset of intense apprehension, fear, terror, and sense of 

impending doom occurring on the average of at least once a week.‖ 20 C.F.R. Pt. 404, Subpt. P, 

App. 1, 12.06. The ―paragraph B‖ criteria for listing 12.06 are the same as the  ̳paragraph B‘ 

listing criteria for listing 12.04. See 20 C.F.R. Pt. 404, Subpt. P, App. 1, 12.04, 12.06. The 

 ̳paragraph C‘ criteria for listing 12.06 require the anxiety-related disorder to cause the claimant to 

suffer from a ―complete inability to function independently outside the area of [the claimant‘s] 

home. 20 C.F.R. Pt. 404, Subpt. P, App. 1, 12.06.

In reaching his conclusion that Clark did not meet the ―paragraph B‖ criteria, ALJ Welton 

rejected the opinions of Drs. Raj and Franklin. ―Cases in this circuit distinguish among the 

opinions of three types of physicians: (1) those who treat the claimant (treating physicians); 

(2) those who examine but do not treat the claimant (examining physicians); and (3) those who 

neither examine nor treat the claimant (nonexamining physicians).‖ Lester, 81 F.3d at 830. 

―[T]he opinion of a treating physician is . . . entitled to greater weight than that of an examining 

physician, [and] the opinion of an examining physician is entitled to greater weight than that of a 

non-examining physician.‖ Garrison, 759 F.3d at 1012. 

―To reject [the] uncontradicted opinion of a treating or examining doctor, an ALJ must 

state clear and convincing reasons that are supported by substantial evidence.‖ Ryan v. Comm’r of 

Soc. Sec., 528 F.3d 1194, 1198 (9th Cir. 2008) (citations omitted). ―[T]he opinion of a 

nonexamining physician cannot by itself constitute substantial evidence that justifies the rejection 

of the opinion of either an examining physician or a treating physician.‖ Id at 1202 (quoting 

Lester, 81 F.3d at 831). The Ninth Circuit has recently emphasized the high standard required for 

an ALJ to reject an opinion from a treating or examining doctor, even where the record includes a 

contradictory medical opinion:

―If a treating or examining doctor‘s opinion is contradicted by 

another doctor‘s opinion, an ALJ may only reject it by providing 

specific and legitimate reasons that are supported by substantial 

evidence.‖ Id. This is so because, even when contradicted, a 

treating or examining phyisician‘s opinion is still owed deference 

and will often be ―entitled to the greatest weight . . . even if it does 

not meet the test for controlling weight.‖ Orn v. Astrue, 495 F.3d 

625, 633 (9th Cir. 2007). An ALJ can satisfy the ―substantial 

evidence‖ requirement by ―setting out a detailed and thorough 
45

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

Northern District of California

summary of the facts and conflicting clinical evidence, stating his 

interpretation thereof, and making findings.‖ Reddick [v. Chater, 

157 F.3d 715, 725 (9th Cir. 1998)]. ―The ALJ must do more than 

state conclusions. He must set forth his own interpretations and 

explain why they, rather than the doctors‘, are correct.‖ Id. (citation 

omitted).

Where an ALJ does not explicitly reject a medical opinion or set 

forth specific, legitimate reasons for crediting one medical opinion 

over another, he errs. See Nguyen v. Chater, 100 F.3d 1462, 1464 

(9th Cir. 1996). In other words, an ALJ errs when he rejects a 

medical opinion or assigns it very little weight while doing nothing 

more than ignoring it, asserting without explanation that another 

medical opinion is more persuasive, or criticizing it with boilerplate 

language that fails to offer a substantive basis for his conclusion. 

See id.

Garrison, 759 F.3d at 1012–13.

1. Dr. Raj’s Opinion

ALJ Welton attributed ―no weight‖ to Dr. Raj‘s findings concerning Clark‘s ―ability to 

meet the mental demands of work‖ based on the brevity of his ―treatment relationship‖ with Clark 

as well as due to the fact that ―the limitations he identified are out of proportion to the findings 

that he reported and that have been reported by other mental health clinicians.‖ AR 28. He 

attributed ―great weight‖ to examining physician Dr. El Sokkary‘s conflicting findings, reasoning 

that Dr. El Sokkary‘s ―conclusions are consistent with the evidence indicating stabilization of 

[Clark‘s] psychiatric symptoms with associated improved functioning when he has been 

incarcerated and maintained on his psychiatric treatment regimen.‖ Id. Even though ALJ Welton 

himself referred to the relationship between Clark and Dr. Raj as a ―treatment relationship,‖ the 

Commissioner contends that Dr. Raj was not, in fact, Clark‘s treating physician. Def.‘s Mot. at 6. 

The applicable regulation defines who constitutes a ―treating source‖ as follows:

Treating source means your own acceptable medical source who 

provides you, or has provided you, with medical treatment or 

evaluation and who has, or has had, an ongoing treatment 

relationship with you. Generally, we will consider that you have an 

ongoing treatment relationship with an acceptable medical source 

when the medical evidence establishes that you see, or have seen, 

the source with a frequency consistent with accepted medical 

practice for the type of treatment and/or evaluation required for your 

medical conditions(s). We may consider an acceptable medical 

source who has treated or evaluated you only a few times or only 

after long intervals (e.g., twice a year) to be your treating source if 

the nature and frequency of the treatment or evaluation is typical for 

your condition(s). We will not consider an acceptable medical 
46

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

Northern District of California

source to be your treating source if your relationship with the source 

is not based on your medical need for treatment or evaluation, but 

solely on your need to obtain a report in support of your claim for 

disability. In such a case, we will consider the acceptable medical 

source to be a nontreating source.

20 C.F.R. § 416.927(a)(2). In Benton v. Barnhart, the Ninth Circuit elaborated on who can be 

considered a ―treating source‖ as a matter of first impression. 331 F.3d 1030, 1035–39 (9th Cir. 

2003). The court quoted with approval a district court‘s conclusion that:

It is not necessary, or even practical, to draw a bright line 

distinguishing a treating physician from a non-treating physician. 

Rather, the relationship is better viewed as a series of points on a 

continuum reflecting the duration of the treatment relationship and 

the frequency and nature of the contact. For instance, the opinion of 

a doctor who has examined the patient will ordinarily be entitled to 

greater weight than the opinion of a non-examining physician whose 

only knowledge of the patient is obtained from written reports. 20 

C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(1). Similarly, the opinion of a physician who 

has treated the patient for an extended period of time is usually 

entitled to greater weight than a physician who has only examined 

the patient for [Social Security Administration] purposes, because 

the treating physician is employed to cure, and also has a greater 

opportunity to know and observe the patient over the course of time. 

Rodriguez v. Bowen, 876 F.2d 759, 761 (9th Cir. 1989). See also 20 

C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2).

Id. at 1038 (quoting Ratto v. Sec’y, Dep’t of Health & Human Servs., 839 F. Supp. 1415, 1425 (D. 

Or. 1993)). The court concluded that the plaintiff‘s psychiatrist, who had performed a mental 

capacity assessment, was a treating physician because he had sufficient contact with the plaintiff 

―as the leader of a treatment team that had an extensive ongoing treating relationship with [the 

plaintiff].‖ Id. at 1035–39. The court reasoned that the psychiatrist had ―had examined [the 

plaintiff] not much more than a year before his report, and was still employed to cure her.‖ Id. at 

1038. The court further reasoned that the psychiatrist‘s mental capacity assessment reflected his 

own knowledge as well as the knowledge the treatment team working under his supervision. Id. at 

1039. Following the reasoning in Benton, the Ninth Circuit held in Le v. Astrue that a physician 

who saw the plaintiff ―only five times in three years for treatment of severe psychological 

problems‖ was the plaintiff‘s treating physician. 529 F.3d 1200, 1201–02 (9th Cir. 2008). 

Turning to the record at issue in this case, Clark visited Axis Community Health, where 

Dr. Raj was a practitioner, on numerous occasions in 2012 and 2013. See AR 579–94, 989–1002. 
47

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

Northern District of California

In March 2012, Clark met with Stephanie Kelly, a case manager, in attempt to acquire refills of his 

psychiatric medications. Id. at 594. Kelly scheduled an appointment for Clark to see a physician 

the following week. Id. During that appointment she had arranged, Clark visited Axis

Community Health and requested refills of his psychiatric medication to keep him in compliance 

until he was able to see a psychiatrist, as he had recently been released from prison. Id. at 592. 

Dr. Raj‘s name and signature appear to be on the paperwork for that visit. Id. In October 2012, 

Clark went to Axis Community Health for ruptured sutures in his hand following his surgery for 

MRSA, and Andrea Williams signed the office visit paperwork. Id. at 582–583. In April 2013, 

Edward Liu saw Clark, although Dr. Raj‘s name is listed as Clark‘s primary care provider. Id. at 

584. During this visit, Clark complained of back pain and presented the physician with disability 

paperwork. Id. A few days later, Dr. Raj filled out a mental capacity assessment form for Clark‘s 

disability paperwork and also saw Clark for an office visit. Id. at 589–591. In December 2013, 

Clark visited Axis Community Health for a follow up after he sustained injuries to his lower left 

leg when he accidentally struck it with a sledgehammer. Id. at 989. Andrea Williams is listed as 

his current provider, and Sudha Chadalawada, M.D., is listed as his primary care provider. Id. At 

the visit, Clark also requested refills for his psychiatric medications until his upcoming 

appointment the following month. Id. In March 2015, Clark began participating in a drug and 

alcohol recovery program at Axis Community Health. Id. at 1002.

While Dr. Raj himself did not see Clark all that frequently, Clark sought treatment at Axis 

Community Health numerous times, including visits that were not based on his need for a report in 

support of his claim for disability. Id. at 61–62 (Clark‘s attorney explaining that Clark visited 

Axis Community Health for primary health provider treatment), id. at 748 (progress note during a 

period of incarceration indicating that Clark ―was getting treatment at Axis [Community Health] 

while out of custody‖), see also id. at 579–94, 989–1001. Additionally, while it is unclear to what 

extent, if at all, Dr. Raj supervised other staff members at Axis Community Health, he nonetheless 

was able to review their records and observations. Dr. Raj‘s findings are entitled to greater weight 

than an examining physician who examined him merely for disability determination purposes 

because Dr. Raj was able to observe him on multiple occasions and was employed to cure Clark. 
48

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

Northern District of California

Benton, 331 F.3d at 1038 (citing Rodriguez, 876 F.2d at 761).

―Although the treating physician‘s opinion is given deference, the ALJ may reject the 

opinion of a treating physician in favor of a conflicting opinion of an examining physician if the 

ALJ makes  ̳findings setting forth specific, legitimate reasons for so doing that are based on 

substantial evidence in the record.‘‖ Thomas v. Barnhart, 278 F.3d 947, 957 (9th Cir. 2002) 

(quoting Magallanes v. Bowen, 881 F.2d 747, 751 (9th Cir. 1989)). Here, the length of time that 

Clark saw Dr. Raj is not a specific and legitimate reason for rejecting Dr. Raj‘s findings in favor of 

those of Dr. El Sokkary. Unlike Dr. El Sokkary, who only examined Clark once for disability 

determination purposes, Dr. Raj saw Clark multiple times and prescribed Clark medications. AR 

589–92. Along with other clinicians at Axis Community Health, he was employed to cure Clark. 

The second reason that ALJ Welton set forth for rejecting Dr. Raj‘s findings, namely that 

they ―are out of proportion to the findings that he reported and that have been reported by other 

mental health clinicians,‖ is also not a specific and legitimate reason to discredit Dr. Raj‘s opinion. 

Id. at 28. The Commissioner argues that ALJ Welton properly discounted Dr. Raj‘s opinion 

because his findings ―were inconsistent with the record as a whole‖ in that Clark‘s periods of 

improvement while he was incarcerated ―show that his mental impairments were controlled with 

compliance.‖ Def.‘s Mot. at 4. 

In Garrison v. Colvin, the Ninth Circuit cautioned against characterizing improved periods 

of mental health as indicating that a claimant is not disabled:

Cycles of improvement and debilitating symptoms are a common 

occurrence, and in such circumstances it is error for the ALJ to pick 

out a few isolated instances of improvement over a period of months 

or years and to treat them as a basis for concluding that a claimant is 

capable of working. Reports of  ̳improvement‘ in the context of 

mental health issues must be interpreted with an understanding of 

the patient‘s overall well-being and nature of her symptoms. They 

must also be interpreted with an awareness that improved 

functioning while being treated and while limited environmental 

stressors does not always mean that a claimant can function 

effectively in a workplace.

759 F.3d at 1017 (citations omitted). Intermittent improvement in limited to structured settings is 

particularly suspect as evidence that a claimant can work outside of such settings. See 20 C.F.R. 
49

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

Northern District of California

Pt. 404, Subpt. P, App. 1, 12.00(F). 

To the extent that Clark‘s symptoms improved during periods of incarceration, such 

improvement is attributable to the consistent medical treatment that Clark received while 

incarcerated as well as any other benefits associated with Clark remaining in a highly structured 

setting. The Commissioner argues that the effective listings at issue in this case do not include 

prison as an example of a highly structured setting. Def‘s Mot. at 7. The listing states:

Particularly in cases involving chronic mental disorders, overt 

symptomatology may be controlled or attenuated by psychological 

factors such as placement in a hospital, halfway house, board care 

and facility, or other environment that provides similar structure. 

Highly structured and supportive settings may also be found in your 

home. Such settings may greatly reduce the mental demands placed 

on you. With lowered mental demands, overt symptoms and signs 

of the underlying mental disorder may be minimized. At the same 

time, however, your ability to function outside of such a structured 

or supportive setting may not have changed. If your 

symptomatology is controlled or attenuated by psychosocial factors, 

we must consider your ability to function outside of such highly 

structured settings.

20 C.F.R. Pt. 404, Subpt. P, App. 1, 12.00(F) (emphasis added). District courts have found that 

prisons, while not explicitly mentioned in the listing, can constitute highly structured settings that 

may minimize a claimant‘s psychological symptoms. See Morris v. Astrue, No. 11-cv-248 (JL), 

2012 WL 4499348, at *11 (D.N.H. Sept. 28, 2012) (―The court has no doubt that a prison 

environment can provide the type of highly structured setting described in the listings.‖); Clester 

v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., No. 09-cv-765 (ST), 2010 WL 3463090, at *7 (D. Or. Aug. 3, 2010)

(―[I]mprisonment also imposes a highly structured setting with little interaction with a limited set 

of individuals, a highly controlled schedule, and incentives for  ̳good‘ behavior. It imposes little 

or nothing comparable to the performance demands that are imposed in daily life, much less in a 

competitive work setting.‖), findings and recommendation adopted, 2010 WL 3463078 (D. Or. 

Aug. 31, 2010); Langwell v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., No. 3:14-cv-00019 (ST), 2015 WL 

3936449, at *6 (D. Or. June 4, 2015) (―[P]rison provides a regimented lifestyle and rewards for 

good behavior that are unique to incarceration . . . it is precisely the type of highly controlled 

environment the [Social Security Administration] requires the ALJ to contemplate before a finding 
50

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

Northern District of California

that a claimant‘s behavior is improved or her symptoms have diminished.‖ (report and 

recommendation adopted June 26, 2015)); Moore v. Colvin, No. 5:12-CV-120 (C), 2013 WL 

3156505, at *5 (N.D. Tex. May 21, 2013) (―Finally, the evidence shows that Moore remained in 

highly supportive living arrangements such as jail, psychiatric facilities, and his family ranch 

where he lived with his mother throughout the relevant period.‖ (report and recommendation 

adopted June 21, 2013)).

Clark‘s periods of incarceration were the most highly structured and supportive periods of 

his life reflected in the record. They were the only periods of time in which he received consistent 

medical treatment as an adult. See AR 382, 516, 561, 600, 981–82. The record reflects that lack 

of access to medical care and his prescriptions has in fact been a source of stress for Clark. Dr. 

Graves-Matthews noted that Clark did not receive follow up medical attention after being released 

because he did not have medical insurance. Id. at 382. Dr. Chaffin reported that Clark appeared 

nervous about how he would be able to obtain medication following his release from prison. Id. at 

756. She further noted that she ―calmed him‖ down by explaining how he would able to acquire 

medication. Id. Accordingly, to the extent that Clark‘s symptoms improved while he was 

incarcerated, it is not is not a specific and legitimate reason to reject Dr. Raj‘s conclusions for

those of Dr. El Sokkary. Id. at 28. Under listing 12.00(F), ALJ Welton should have considered 

the fact that Clark‘s symptoms may have been minimized during periods of incarceration because 

he was living in a highly structured environment.

2. Dr. Franklin’s Opinion

ALJ Welton also gave ―no weight‖ to Dr. Franklin‘s conclusions because ―she did not 

review and consider [Clark‘s] prison medical records‖ and because ―her conclusions are not 

consistent with [Clark‘s] history, including the evidence of stabilization of [Clark‘s] psychiatric 

symptoms when he has been incarcerated and consistently maintained on psychotropic 

medication.‖ Id. at 28–29. For the reasons mentioned above, any inconsistency between Dr. 

Franklin‘s findings with any stabilization that Clark may have experienced when he was 

incarcerated is not a specific and legitimate reason to discount Dr. Franklin‘s conclusions. ALJ 

Welton should have considered the fact that Clark‘s symptoms have have been minimized as a 
51

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

Northern District of California

result of living in a highly structured setting.

Additionally, failing to review and consider Clark‘s medical records from his periods of 

incarceration is also not a specific and legitimate reason for discounting Dr. Franklin‘s opinion. It 

is worth noting that Dr. El Sokkary, like Dr. Franklin, relied on information provided by Clark and 

did not review Clark‘s prison medical records. AR 595. The fact that Dr. Franklin obtained and 

utilized reports from Clark instead of reviewing his prior medical records is not a sufficient reason 

to reject Dr. Franklin‘s findings because her conclusions are based on ample clinical testing. See 

Ryan, 528 F.3d at 1199–1200 (―[A]n ALJ does not provide clear and convincing reasons for 

rejecting an examining physician‘s opinion by questioning the credibility of the patient‘s 

complaints where the doctor does not discredit those complaints and supports his ultimate opinion 

with his own observations.‖ (citation omitted)). As discussed above, Dr. Franklin conducted 

numerous clinical tests and based her conclusions in large part on the results from those tests.

* * *

Therefore, the Court finds that ALJ Welton erred at Step Three. ALJ Welton‘s conclusion 

that Clark‘s impairments did not meet or equal the medical severity of a listed impairment under 

12.04 and 12.06 was not supported by substantial evidence, as he failed to provide specific and 

legitimate reasons for rejecting the opinions of Dr. Raj and Dr. Franklin. 

D. ALJ Welton Erred in Determining Clark’s RFC

At Step Four, ALJ Welton relied in part on his findings as to the  ̳paragraph B‘ criteria for 

listings 12.04 and 12.06 in determining Clark‘s residual capacity finding. Therefore, the legal 

errors discussed above with respect to Step Three also infect his determination of Clark‘s residual 

functional capacity. The Court further concludes that the ALJ failed to provide adequate reasons 

for rejecting the testimony of Clark‘s mother, Dr. Bai‘s findings concerning Clark‘s use of a cane, 

and Dr. Chen‘s findings concerning Clark‘s use of a cane. 

1. Credibility of Clark and His Mother

a. The ALJ Did Not Err in Assessing Clark‘s Credibility

―[T]he ALJ is responsible for determining credibility, resolving conflicts in medical 

testimony, and for resolving ambiguities.‖ Reddick, 157 F.3d at 722 (9th Cir. 1998). ―The ALJ‘s 
52

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

Northern District of California

findings, however, must be supported by specific, cogent reasons.‖ Id. ―In evaluating the 

credibility of a claimant‘s testimony regarding subjective pain, an ALJ must engage in a two-step 

analysis.‖ Vasquez v. Astrue, 572 F.3d 586, 591 (9th Cir. 2009) (citation omitted); see also 

Molina v. Astrue, 674 F.3d 1104, 1112 (9th Cir. 2012).

―First, the ALJ must determine whether the claimant has presented objective medical 

evidence of an underlying impairment which could reasonably be expected to produce the pain or 

other symptoms alleged.‖ Ligenfelter v. Astrue, 504 F.3d 1028, 1036 (9th Cir. 2007) (internal 

quotation marks and citation omitted); see also Molina, 674 F.3d at 1112.

―Second, if the claimant meets this first test, and there is no evidence of malingering, the 

ALJ can reject the claimant‘s testimony about the severity of her symptoms only by offering 

specific, clear and convincing reasons for doing so.‖ Ligenfelter, 504 F.3d at 1036 (internal 

quotation marks and citation omitted); see also Molina, 674 F.3d at 1112; Valentine, 574 F.3d at 

693; Vasquez, 572 F.3d at 591–93 (concluding that an ALJ failed to provide ―specific, clear, and 

convincing‖ reasons to support an adverse credibility determination). ―General findings are 

insufficient; rather, the ALJ must identify what testimony is not credible and what evidence 

undermines the claimant‘s complaints.‖ Berry v. Astrue, 622 F.3d 1228, 1234 (9th Cir. 2010) 

(quoting Lester, 81 F.3d at 834); Treichler v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 775 F.3d 1090, 1103 

(9th Cir. 2014) (―Although the ALJ‘s analysis need not be extensive, the ALJ must provide some 

reasoning in order for us to meaningfully determine whether the ALJ‘s conclusions were 

supported by substantial evidence.‖).

―In evaluating the credibility of pain testimony after a claimant produces objective medical 

evidence of an underlying impairment, an ALJ may not reject a claimant‘s subjective complaints 

based solely on a lack of medical evidence to fully corroborate the alleged severity of pain.‖ 

Burch v. Barnhart, 400 F.3d 676, 680 (9th Cir. 2005). ―An ALJ is not required to believe every 

allegation of disabling pain or other non-exertional impairment. However, to discredit a 

claimant‘s testimony when a medical impairment has been established, the ALJ must provide 

specific, cogent reasons for the disbelief.‖ Orn v. Astrue, 495 F.3d 625, 635 (9th Cir. 2007) 

(internal quotation marks and citations omitted). The ALJ is required to ―cit[e] the reasons why 
53

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

Northern District of California

the [claimant‘s] testimony is unpersuasive.‖ Id. (alterations in original; citations omitted). 

―Where, as here, the ALJ did not find affirmative evidence that the claimant was a malingerer, 

those reasons for rejecting the claimant‘s testimony must be clear and convincing.‖ Id. (internal 

quotation marks and citations omitted).

ALJ Welton satisfied the first step of the two-step inquiry regarding Clark‘s testimony. In 

his decision, ALJ Welton found that Clark‘s ―medically determinable impairments could 

reasonably be expected to cause the alleged symptoms.‖ AR 30; Ligenfelter, 504 F.3d at 1036. 

Second, because ALJ Welton did not identify any evidence of malingering,

8

he was required to 

support his finding that Clark‘s testimony was not credible with clear and convincing reasons. 

Ligenfelter, 504 F.3d at 1036. ALJ Welton employed the wrong legal standard when he noted that 

he found ―specific and legitimate reasons‖ for discrediting Clark‘s testimony. Id. at 29. He 

should have employed the clear and convincing standard. The clear and convincing standard ―is 

not an easy requirement to meet,‖ as it is ―the most demanding [standard] required in Social 

Security cases.‖ Garrison, 759 F.3d at 1015 (quoting Moore v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 278 

F.3d 920, 924 (9th Cir. 2002)).

The first reason that ALJ Welton provided as a basis for rejecting Clark‘s testimony is 

Clark‘s ―history,‖ namely, that Clark had periods of stability and improvement ―with treatment 

and with abstinence from alcohol and drugs‖ while incarcerated. AR 29. For the reasons 

discussed above, this is not a clear and convincing reason to reject Clark‘s testimony that he is 

disabled. Garrison, 759 F.3d at 1017–1018. While Clark may have experienced periods of 

improvement with respect to some of his symptoms while he was incarcerated, ―the record reveals 

a tortuous path,‖ Garrison, 759 F.3d at 1018, in that Clark often continued to experience 

 

8 ALJ Welton noted Dr. Franklin‘s conclusion that Clark‘s reporting should be considered with 

caution due to his elevated M-FAST score, but stopped short of asserting that Clark was 

malingering. AR 27. Because the Court concludes that ALJ Welton‘s reasons for rejecting 

Clark‘s testimony satisfy even the higher ―clear and convincing‖ standard, however, the 

determination of whether a ―specific and legitimate‖ standard would be appropriate in light of 

evidence of malingering does not affect the outcome. See Mobbs v. Berryhill, No. 3:17-CV05374-TLF, 2017 WL 6759321, at *6 (W.D. Wash. Dec. 29, 2017) (holding that the ―specific and 

legitimate‖ standard applies if there is evidence of malingering).
54

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

Northern District of California

psychiatric symptoms while incarcerated and receiving consistent medical attention. AR 733 

(―hearing voices and seeing shadows‖ months into a period of incarceration despite expressing a 

desire to meet with a psychiatrist ―for several months‖), 760 (―bouts of uncontrollable crying‖ 

even after having been incarcerated and having received medical attention for months), 773 

(―ongoing anxiety‖ described as ―paranoia‖ after months of incarceration and consistent medical 

care).

The second basis that ALJ set forth in support of finding Clark‘s testimony not credible 

was Clark‘s daily activities. According to ALJ Welton, Clark‘s ―activities since his alleged 

disability onset date also undermine the allegations of his disabling symptoms.‖ AR 29. ―While a 

claimant need not  ̳vegetate in a dark room‘ in order to be eligible for benefits, the ALJ may 

discredit a claimant‘s testimony when the claimant reports participation in everyday activities 

indicating capacities that are transferable to a work setting.‖ Molina, 674 F.3d at 1112–13 

(citations omitted). Moreover, ―[e]ven when those activities suggest some difficulty functioning, 

they may be grounds for discrediting the claimant‘s testimony to the extent that they contradict 

claims of a totally debilitating impairment.‖ Id. (citations omitted). Here, ALJ Welton noted that 

Clark ―told the Administration and Dr. El Sokkary that he was able to perform a variety of daily 

activities‖ such as mowing the lawn, going shopping, collecting cans, driving, doing light cooking, 

doing laundry, taking care of his dog, and washing dishes. AR 29–30. He further noted that, 

―contrary to the claimant‘s allegations of disabling pain precluding him from performing any work 

since December 15, 2007, he told his physician in September 2013 that he had injured his right 

knee while lifting an engine into his car‖ and later reported in November 2013 that he ―injured his 

left leg after striking it with a sledgehammer.‖ AR 30. Taken together, the activities in the record 

sufficiently contradict Clark‘s allegations of disabling pain precluding him from all work. ALJ 

Welton gave a specific, clear, and convincing reason for rejecting Clark‘s testimony.

The third reason that ALJ Welton gave in support of rejecting Clark‘s testimony is that 

Clark has been inconsistent in his reports concerning his use of a cane as well as his history of 

drug use. Id. at 30. ALJ Welton noted that Clark told physicians that he had been prescribed a 

cane even though ―there is no evidence that any physician recommended or prescribed a cane 
55

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

Northern District of California

other than for a short period of time.‖ Id. The fact remains, however, that he had been prescribed 

a cane, and that is what Clark has reported. Id. at 678, 699–701, 271. Accordingly, the Court 

finds no inconsistency in the record with respect to Clark‘s use of a cane. 

With respect to Clark‘s inconsistent statements concerning his drug use, ALJ Welton 

correctly identified that Clark reported in March 2010 that he had used methamphetamine and 

later told a physician in April 2010 that he had abstained from methamphetamine use for eight 

years. Id. at 30, 350, 370. The Ninth Circuit has held that, in ―determin[ing] whether the 

claimant‘s testimony regarding the severity her symptoms is credible, the ALJ may consider . . . 

ordinary techniques or credibility evaluation,‖ including a ―claimant‘s reputation for lying, prior 

inconsistent statements concerning the symptoms, and other testimony by the claimant that 

appears less than candid.‖ Smolen, 80 F.3d at 1284. The Ninth Circuit has also held that 

inconsistent statements concerning drug or alcohol use can constitute specific, clear, and 

convincing reasons for rejecting a claimant‘s testimony. Thomas v. Barnhart, 278 F.3d 947, 959 

(9th Cir. 2002); Verduzco v. Apfel, 188 F.3d 1087, 1090 (9th Cir. 1999) (holding that the ALJ 

provided clear and convincing reasons for discrediting claimant‘s testimony, including that the 

claimant‘s ―testimony and various statements regarding his drinking were not consistent‖). For

example, in Thomas v. Barnhart, the Ninth Circuit held that ―[t]he ALJ gave specific, clear and 

convincing reasons for discounting [the claimant‘s] testimony,‖ including that the claimant ―had 

not been a reliable historian, presenting conflicting information about her drug and alcohol usage.‖ 

Thomas, 278 F.3d at 959. Here, too, Clark gave conflicting information about his drug use to 

physicians, and the Court concludes that the ALJ gave a specific, clear, and convincing reason to 

discredit Clark‘s symptom testimony. AR 29, 350, 370.

b. The ALJ Erred in Assessing Clark‘s Mother‘s Credibility

The Ninth Circuit has made clear that ―lay witness 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.‖ Nyugen v. Chater, 100 F.3d 1462, 1467 (9th Cir. 1996) (citing 

Dodrill v. Shalala, 12 F.3d 915, 919 (9th Cir. 1993)); see also Sprague v. Bowen, 812 F.2d 1226, 

1232 (9th Cir. 1987) (holding that ―[d]isregard‖ of descriptions by friends and family members in 
56

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

Northern District of California

a position to observe a claimant‘s symptoms and daily activities ―violates the Secretary‘s 

regulation that he will consider observations by non-medical sources as to how an impairment 

affects a claimant‘s ability to work‖) (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1513(e)(2)); Lewis, 236 F.3d at 511 

(―Lay testimony as to a claimant‘s symptoms is competent evidence that an ALJ must take into 

account, unless he or she expressly determines to disregard such testimony and gives reasons 

germane to each witness for doing so.‖).

ALJ Welton did not provide any reasons for specifically rejecting Clark‘s mother‘s third 

party function report from October 2013. The Ninth Circuit does not ―require[] the ALJ to discuss 

every witness‘ testimony on an individualized, witness-by-witness basis.‖ Molina, 674 F.3d 1114. 

The court elaborated that ―if the ALJ gives germane reasons for rejecting testimony by one 

witness, the ALJ need only point to those reasons when rejecting similar testimony by a different 

witness.‖ Id. (citing Valentine, 574 F.3d at 694). As discussed above, one germane reason that 

ALJ Welton gave for rejecting Clark‘s testimony was that he gave inconsistent reports to his 

physicians concerning his drug use. AR 29, 350, 370. The third party function report that Clark‘s 

mother submitted, however, did not contain any similar inconsistencies. See id. at 302–309. Her 

report did not address Clark‘s history of drug use at all. Id. The other germane reason that ALJ 

Welton gave for rejecting Clark‘s testimony was that his allegations of disabling pain were 

contradicted by his disabling activities. Id. at 29–30. ALJ Welton cited Clark‘s mother‘s function 

report responses in support of that conclusion. Id. at 30. Nothing in her function report responses 

conflicts with ALJ Welton‘s determination regarding Clark‘s daily activities. Accordingly, ALJ 

Welton erred when he failed to provide a germane reason for rejecting Clark‘s mother‘s report.

2. Dr. Bai, Dr. Chen, the State Agency Medical Consultant, and Clark’s Use of 

a Cane

ALJ Welton‘s assessment of Clark‘s residual functional capacity does not include the use 

of a cane. In making that determination, ALJ Welton attributed ―great weight to the opinion of the 

State Agency consultant‖ that Clark could perform light work. AR 28. As discussed above, it is 

unclear which consultant ALJ Welton is referring to because he failed to provide the consultant‘s 

name and because the exhibit he cited contains the names of numerous physicians. Id. 110–29. 
57

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

Northern District of California

ALJ Welton also gave ―[g]reat deference‖ to the opinions of Drs. Bai and Chen, but he rejected 

their conclusions that Clark needed a cane for longer periods of ambulation or when ambulating 

on uneven surfaces. Id. at 28, 567, 602. While ALJ Welton did not address Dr. Chen‘s 

determination that Clark needed a cane for longer periods of ambulation or for ambulation on 

uneven surfaces, he found that Dr. Bai‘s similar conclusion was ―entitled to no weight as there is 

no evidence that any physician has recommended that the claimant use a cane, other than for a 

limited period of time.‖ Id. at 28. 

Even assuming that the state agency consultant‘s findings conflict with those of Drs. Bai 

and Chen, the fact that Clark has been prescribed the use of a cane for limited periods of time is 

not a specific and legitimate reason to reject their conclusions that he should be able to use a cane 

for longer periods of ambulation and for uneven surfaces. It is worth noting that the physicians 

who treated Clark and prescribed the use of a cane saw Clark while he was incarcerated for limited 

amounts of time. Id. at 388, 393, 515. These prescriptions for a cane were often for the duration 

of time he was incarcerated or fail to contain a specific cutoff date. Id. at 513, 678, 819, 821. 

There is no indication that those doctors contemplated that Clark would be walking for long 

distances or on uneven surfaces that might arise in a work setting. To the contrary, their notes are 

focused on accommodating Clark within a prison setting, such as making sure he had access to a 

handicapped shower and a bottom bunk. Id. at 388, 390, 678. To the extent that Clark faced any 

likelihood of encountering longer distance walking or uneven surfaces, the prison doctors

prescribed a cane for appointments and court appearances. Id. at 388. Accordingly, the Court 

concludes that to the extent any of Clark‘s prescriptions for a cane were of a limited duration, it is 

not a specific and legitimate reason to reject the conclusions of Drs. Bai and Chen because the 

prescriptions addressed Clark‘s immediate needs in prison as opposed to potential demands of a 

work setting. ALJ Welton should have allowed for Clark‘s use of a cane when he crafted Clark‘s 

residual functional capacity determination.

* * *

For the reasons discussed above, ALJ Welton erred at Step Four and his conclusions are 

not supported by substantial evidence because ALJ Welton failed to provide germane reasons for 
58

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

Northern District of California

rejecting the testimony of Clark‘s mother as well as specific and legitimate reasons for rejecting 

the findings of Drs. Bai and Chen.

E. Whether the Court Should Remand for Further Proceedings or for Award of 

Benefits

If an ALJ has improperly failed to credit claimant testimony or medical opinion evidence, 

a district court must credit that testimony as true and remand for an award of benefits if three 

conditions are satisfied:

(1) the record has been fully developed and further administrative 

proceedings would serve no useful purpose; (2) the ALJ failed to 

provide legally sufficient reasons for rejecting evidence, whether 

claimant testimony or medical opinion; and (3) if the improperly 

discredited evidence were credited as true, the ALJ would be 

required to find the claimant disabled on remand.

Garrison, 759 F.3d at 1020. Under such circumstances, a court should not remand for further 

administrative proceedings to reassess credibility. See id. 1019–21. This ―credit-as-true‖ rule, 

which is ―settled‖ in the Ninth Circuit, id. at 999, is intended to encourage careful analysis by 

ALJs, avoid duplicative hearings and burden, and reduce delay and uncertainty facing claimants, 

many of whom ―suffer from painful and debilitating conditions, as well as severe economic 

hardship.‖ Id. at 1019 (quoting Varney v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 859 F.2d 1396, 1399 

(9th Cir. 1988)). A court may remand for further proceedings ―when the record as a whole creates 

serious doubt as to whether the claimant is, in fact, disabled within the meaning of the Social 

Security Act.‖ Garrison, 759 F.3d at 1021. A court may also remand ―when, even if the evidence 

at issue is credited, there are  ̳outstanding issues that must be resolved before a proper disability 

determination can be made,‖ such as ambiguity as to when the claimant‘s disability began. Luna 

v. Astrue, 623 F.3d 1032, 1035 (9th Cir. 2010) (quoting Vasquez v. Astrue, 572 F.3d 586, 593 (9th 

Cir. 2009)). Outside of such circumstances, however, a ―district court abuse[s] its discretion by 

remanding for further proceedings where the credit-as-true rule is satisfied and the record afford[s]

no reason to believe that [the claimant] is not, in fact, disabled.‖ Garrison, 759 F.3d at 1021. 

Here, the Court finds that the record has been fully developed, ALJ Welton failed to 
59

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

Northern District of California

provide legally sufficient reasons for rejecting evidence, and that if the improperly credited 

evidence were created as true, ALJ Welton would be required to award benefits. First, as 

discussed above, ALJ Welton improperly disregarded the opinions of Drs. Raj and Franklin at 

Step Three. Crediting their evidence, Clark would satisfy the  ̳paragraph B‘ criteria of listings 

12.04 and 12.06 because he has at least two marked impairments. Dr. Raj found that Clark had 

numerous marked restrictions in maintaining concentration, persistence or pace. AR 580. Dr. Raj

also determined that Clark had one marked and two extreme restrictions in maintaining social 

functioning. Id. Similarly, Dr. Franklin found that Clark had marked restrictions in maintaining 

concentration, persistence, or pace. Id. at 987. She also concluded that Clark had extreme 

restrictions in maintaining social functioning. Id. Crediting those opinions, Clark is disabled 

under listings 12.04 and 12.06. Second, ALJ Welton failed to address the descriptions of Clark‘s 

physical and mental limitations offered in the third party function report written by Clark‘s 

mother. Her descriptions support the conclusion that Clark would have extreme limitations in 

maintaining social functioning. Id. at 307–08. Additionally, the Court finds that the records as a 

whole does not ―create[] serious doubt as to whether [Clark] is, in fact, disabled within the 

meaning of the Social Security Act.‖ Garrison, 759 F.3d at 1021. The credit-as-true rule 

therefore applies, and remand for an award of benefits is appropriate. 

IV. CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated above, the Court GRANTS Clark‘s Motion for Summary Judgment, 

DENIES the Commissioner‘s Motion for Summary Judgment, and REMANDS this case to the 

Commissioner for an award of benefits.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 2, 2018

______________________________________

JOSEPH C. SPERO

Chief Magistrate Judge