1 - OPINION & ORDER

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

KAYLENE DICKMEIER,

No. 2:14-cv-00967-HZ

Plaintiff,

OPINION & ORDER

v.

COMMISSIONER, SOCIAL SECURITY

ADMINISTRATION,

Defendant.

Rory J. Linerud

Linerud Law Firm

P.O. Box 1105

Salem, OR 97308

Attorney for Plaintiff

//

//
2 - OPINION & ORDER

Billy J. Williams

Acting United States Attorney, District of Oregon

Janice E. Hébert

Assistant United States Attorney

United States Attorney’s Office

1000 S.W. Third Avenue, Ste. 600 

Portland, OR 97201

Daphne Banay

Special Assistant United States Attorney

Social Security Administration

SSA Office of General Counsel

701 5th Avenue, Suite 2900 M/S 221A

Seattle, WA 98104

Attorneys for Defendant

HERNÁNDEZ, District Judge:

Plaintiff Kaylene Dickmeier brings this action under the Social Security Act (“Act”), 42 

U.S.C. §§ 405(g) and 1383(c)(3), for judicial review of the Commissioner of Social Security’s 

final decision denying her application for Disability Insurance Benefits (“DIB”) under Title II of 

the Act. Dickmeier challenges the Commissioner’s denial of her application on three separate 

grounds, but none of them are a sufficient reason for reversal and therefore, the Commissioner’s 

decision is affirmed. 

BACKGROUND

Dickmeier applied for DIB on June 18, 2010, alleging an onset date of March 1, 2010.

(Tr. 153–54.) The Commissioner denied her application initially and after reconsideration. (Tr.

114–17, 121–23.) After a hearing in July of 2012, Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) James W. 

Sherry found Dickmeier was not disabled. (Tr. 14–28.) Dickmeier appealed, but the Appeals 
3 - OPINION & ORDER

Council denied her request for review, making the ALJ’s decision the Commissioner’s final 

decision that Dickmeier now challenges in this Court. (Tr. 1–7.)

SEQUENTIAL DISABILITY EVALUATION

A claimant is disabled if she 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). Disability claims are evaluated according to a five-step procedure. See Valentine 

v. Comm’r Soc. Sec. Admin., 574 F.3d 685, 689 (9th Cir. 2009). Each step is potentially 

dispositive. At step one, the presiding ALJ determines whether the claimant is engaged in 

“substantial gainful activity.” If so, the claimant is not disabled; if not, the analysis continues. 20 

C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(b), 416.920(b). At step two, the ALJ determines whether the claimant has

one or more severe impairments. If not, the claimant is not disabled. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(c), 

416.920(c). At step three, the ALJ determines whether the impairment meets or equals one of the

impairments listed in the SSA regulations and deemed “so severe as to preclude substantial 

gainful activity.” Bowen v. Yuckert, 482 U.S. 137, 141 (1987); 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(d), 

416.920(d). If so, the claimant is conclusively presumed disabled; if not, the analysis moves to 

step four. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(d), 416.920(d). At step four, the ALJ determines whether the 

claimant, despite any impairments, has the residual functional capacity (“RFC”) to perform past 

relevant work. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(e), 416.920(e). If the claimant cannot perform his or her 

past relevant work, the analysis moves to step five where the ALJ determines whether the 

claimant is able to do any other work in the national economy considering the claimant’s RFC, 

age, education, and work experience. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(g), 416.920(g). 
4 - OPINION & ORDER

The burden to show disability rests with the claimant at steps one through four, but if the 

analysis reaches step five, the burden shifts to the Commissioner to show that a significant 

number of jobs exist in the national economy that the claimant could perform. 20 C.F.R. §§ 

404.1520(e) & (f), 416.920(e) & (f); Tackett v. Apfel, 180 F.3d 1094, 1098–1100 (9th Cir.

1999). If the Commissioner demonstrates a significant number of jobs exist in the national 

economy that the claimant can perform, the claimant is not disabled. 20 C.F.R. §§ 

404.1520(g)(1), 416.920(g).

ALJ DECISION

The ALJ found that Dickmeier met the insured status requirement for DIB through June 

1, 2015. (Tr. 16.) At step one, the ALJ found Dickmeier had not engaged in substantial gainful 

activity since March 1, 2010, her alleged onset date. (Tr. 16.) At step two, the ALJ found 

Dickmeier had the “following severe impairments: cervical degenerative disc disease; 

cervicalgia; sacroiliitis; left knee patella chondromalacia; chronic myalgia and 

arthralgia/fibromyalgia; left carpal tunnel syndrome; left tarsal tunnel syndrome; asthma; hearing 

loss; pain disorder association with a general medical condition; and posttraumatic stress 

disorder[.] ” (Tr. 16.) At step three, the ALJ found Dickmeier’s impairments or combination of 

impairments did not meet or equal the severity of any listed impairments. (Tr. 16–17.) The ALJ 

next found that Dickmeier had the following RFC: 

[T]he claimant has the residual functional capacity to perform light work as 

defined in 20 C.F.R. 404.1567(b). The claimant is able to lift/carry up to 20 

pounds occasionally and 10 pounds frequently. She is able to stand/walk up to six 

hours in an eight hour workday and she is able to sit for six hours in an eight hour 

workday. She has unlimited push/pull ability with the upper extremities within the 

lifting restrictions. The claimant can never climb ladders, ropes, or scaffolds and 

she can occasionally climb stairs and ramps. She can occasionally crouch, crawl, 

and kneel. She can frequently rotate, flex, and extend her neck. She can 

occasionally reach over head bilaterally [with] the upper extremities. She can 
5 - OPINION & ORDER

have exposure to moderate noise level. She should avoid concentrated exposure to 

irritants, such as dusts, odors, fumes, chemicals, and gases, and poorly ventilated 

areas. The claimant is capable of performing simple, routine, and repetitive tasks 

and she would be able to understand and remember work place procedures and 

simple routine instructions. She could complete a normal workday and workweek. 

She can have occasional contact with the public, but would be capable acceptable 

[sic] supervisor and coworker contact and would be able to accept instructions 

and criticism.

(Tr. 20.) At step four, the ALJ found that Dickmeier was not able to perform any of her past 

relevant work. (Tr. 26.) At step five, the ALJ found that Dickmeier was not disabled because 

jobs existed in significant numbers in the national economy that she could perform, including 

mail clerk, lab sample carrier, deliverer (outside), charge account clerk, surveillance system 

monitor, and escort vehicle driver. (Tr. 26–27.)

STANDARD OF REVIEW

The district court must affirm the Commissioner’s decision if it is based on proper legal 

standards and the findings are supported by substantial evidence in the record as a whole. 42 

U.S.C. § 405(g); see also Andrews v. Shalala, 53 F.3d 1035, 1039 (9th Cir. 1995). “Substantial 

evidence means more than a mere scintilla but less than a preponderance; it is such relevant 

evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.” Id. The court 

must weigh all of the evidence, whether it supports or detracts from the Commissioner’s 

decision. Martinez v. Heckler, 807 F.2d 771, 772 (9th Cir. 1986). If the evidence is susceptible to 

more than one reasonable interpretation, the court must uphold the decision. Andrews, 53 F.3d at 

1039–40. A reviewing court must consider the entire record as a whole and cannot affirm the 

Commissioner by simply isolating a specific quantum of supporting evidence. Robbins v. Soc. 

Sec. Admin., 466 F.3d 880, 882 (9th Cir. 2006) (citation omitted).
6 - OPINION & ORDER

DISCUSSION

Dickmeier challenges the ALJ’s decision on three separate grounds: 1) that the ALJ 

improperly discounted the credibility of Dickmeier’s testimony about the severity and limiting 

effects of her symptoms; 2) that the ALJ improperly relied on testimony from a vocational expert 

that conflicted with information in the Dictionary of Occupational Titles; and 3) that the ALJ 

erred by not providing the narrative explanation required by SSR 96-8p as to the ALJ’s 

formulation of Dickmeier’s RFC or how the RFC finding accommodated her tarsal tunnel 

syndrome. Each contention is addressed below.

1. Dickmeier’s credibility

Dickmeier argues that the ALJ improperly relied on her application for and receipt of 

unemployment benefits as a reason for rejecting her subjective testimony as not entirely credible. 

Pl. Brief at 12–16. An ALJ analyzes the credibility of a claimant’s testimony regarding her 

subjective pain and other symptoms in two steps. Lingenfelter v. Astrue, 504 F.3d 1028, 1035–

36 (9th Cir. 2007). “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.” Id. at 1036 (citation and internal quotation omitted). “The 

claimant, however, need not show that her impairment could reasonably be expected to cause the 

severity of the symptom she has alleged; she need only show that it could reasonably have 

caused some degree of the symptom.” Id. (citation and internal quotation omitted). Second, if the 

claimant meets the first test, and there is no evidence of malingering, the ALJ can reject her

testimony about the severity of her symptoms only by offering specific, clear and convincing 

reasons for doing so. Id. (citation and internal quotation omitted). 
7 - OPINION & ORDER

The ALJ’s credibility findings must be “sufficiently specific to permit the reviewing 

court to conclude that the ALJ did not arbitrarily discredit the claimant’s testimony.” Orteza v. 

Shalala, 50 F.3d 748, 750 (9th Cir. 1995) (citing Bunnell v. Sullivan, 947 F.2d 341, 345–46 (9th 

Cir. 1991) (en banc)). The ALJ may consider objective medical evidence and the claimant’s 

treatment history, as well as the claimant’s daily activities, work record, and observations of 

physicians and third parties with personal knowledge of the claimant’s functional limitations. 

Smolen v. Chater, 80 F.3d 1273, 1283 (9th Cir. 1996). The ALJ may additionally employ 

ordinary techniques of credibility evaluation, such as weighing inconsistent statements by the 

claimant. Id.

The ALJ provided a lengthy summary of Dickmeier’s testimony that included a 

description of her daily activities, her various physical ailments, including shoulder pain, hearing 

loss, wrist problems, knee pain, ankle pain, back pain, eczema on her hands, back and feet, 

asthma, and mental impairments including depression and mood swings. (Tr. 19–21.) The ALJ 

found that Dickmeier’s “medically determinable impairments could reasonably be expected to 

cause the alleged symptoms,” but found that her “statements concerning the intensity, persistence 

and limiting effects of these symptoms are not entirely credible.” Tr. 20–21. There is no evidence 

of malingering in the record. Therefore, the ALJ’s reasons for discounting Dickmeier’s

credibility must be clear and convincing.

The ALJ explained that “the record reveal[ed] that [Dickmeier’s] allegedly disabling 

impairments were present at approximately the same level of severity prior to the alleged onset 

date,” and the “fact that the impairments did not prevent [her] from working at that time suggests 

that it would not currently prevent work.” (Tr. 21.) The ALJ then gave a lengthy summary of the 

medical evidence of Dickmeier’s various symptoms over time and concluded that “current 
8 - OPINION & ORDER

treatment notes show [her] signs and symptoms related to her severe impairments have not 

worsened since the alleged onset date.” (Tr. 22.) A conflict between a claimant’s ability to work 

while suffering from impairments that she now claims render her disabled is a valid reason for 

discounting the claimant’s credibility. See Bray v. Com’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 554 F.d 1219, 

1227 (9th Cir. 2009) (ALJ’s conclusion that claimant’s recent work history while suffering from 

the same impairments was a sufficient reason for discounting credibility ); Gregory v. Bowen, 

844 F.3d 664, 666–67 (9th Cir. 1988) (affirming ALJ’s conclusion that claimant was less than 

credible in part because “substantial evidence indicated that the condition of Gregory’s back had 

remained constant for a number of years and that her back problems had not prevented her from 

working over that time.”). 

The ALJ also noted that “[a]lthough there is a referral in the treatment notes for physical 

therapy, there is no evidence of record indicating the claimant followed up on the referral, which 

suggests that the symptoms may not have been as serious as has been alleged in connection with 

this application and appeal. (Tr. 23.) This too is a legally sufficient reason for discounting the 

credibility of her testimony. Atwood v. Astrue, 742 F. Supp. 2d 1146, 1152–53 (D. Or. 2010)

(“The ALJ may consider many factors in weighing a claimant’s credibility, including . . . 

inadequately explained failures to seek treatment or to follow a prescribed course of treatment.”) 

(citing Smolen, 80 F.3d at 1284). 

The ALJ stated that “[t]he claimant has asthma but there is very little in the current 

treatment notes,” and also that “[t]he claimant alleged she has constant outbreaks of eczema on 

her hands and outbreaks over her body; however, the record since the alleged onset date shows 

only one reported outbreak.” (Tr. 23.) Again, that is a legally sufficient reason for discounting 

Dickmeier’s credibility. Social Security Ruling (SSR) 96-7p, available at 1996 WL 374186 at *7 
9 - OPINION & ORDER

(explaining that “the individual’s statements may be less credible if the level or frequency of 

treatment is inconsistent with the level of complaints[.]”). 

The ALJ also discounted her testimony about the limiting effects of her symptoms 

because it was inconsistent with evidence in the record about her daily activities, including a 

report from her mother that contradicted Dickmeier’s claims. (Tr. 24.) Inconsistencies such as 

these are yet another legitimate basis for the ALJ to find a claimant less than credible. See Parra 

v. Astrue, 481 F.3d 742, 750 (9th Cir. 2007) (upholding an ALJ’s adverse credibility findings 

based on inconsistencies between the claimant’s testimony and numerous medical reports).

Dickmeier, however, does not challenge the ALJ’s analysis of her credibility on any of 

those grounds. Instead, Dickmeier argues that the ALJ improperly relied “primarily and most 

importantly” on the fact that she previously applied for and received unemployment benefits as a 

reason for finding her less than credible. Pl. Brief at 15. First, the Court disagrees with 

Dickmeier’s characterization of the ALJ’s reasoning. The ALJ did not “primarily and most 

importantly” rely on the unemployment issue at all—the ALJ briefly mentioned her application 

for and receipt of unemployment benefits in merely two sentences at the end of a nearly fivepage long discussion of the other issues with Dickmeier’s credibility that the Court analyzed 

above. Tr. 21–25. More importantly, even if the Court were to find the ALJ erred in relying the 

unemployment benefits issue as a reason to discount her credibility, that error is harmless 

because the ALJ gave numerous, legally sufficient reasons for discounting Dickmeier’s 

credibility. Carmickle v. Comm’r, Soc. Sec. Admin., 533 F.3d 1155, 1162 (9th Cir. 2008)

(explaining that an error in one reason for discounting credibility is harmless where an ALJ’s 

“remaining reasoning and ultimate credibility determination were adequately supported by 
10 - OPINION & ORDER

substantial evidence in the record.”). Accordingly, the Court finds no reversible error in the 

ALJ’s conclusion that Dickmeier’s testimony was not fully credible. 

2. Alleged conflict between VE testimony and the DOT

Dickmeier also argues that the ALJ erred by relying on testimony from a vocational 

expert (“VE”) about the jobs she could perform with her RFC because information about those 

jobs contained in the Dictionary of Occupational Titles (“DOT”) seemed to conflict with the 

limitations in her RFC. Pl. Brief at 6–8. 

At step five, the Commissioner bears the burden of proving that the claimant can perform 

other work in the national economy, given the claimant’s RFC, age, education, and work 

experience. Tackett, 180 F.3d at 1099; 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(e), (f), & (g). In doing so, the ALJ 

relies primarily on the DOT and its companion publication, the Selected Characteristics of 

Occupations Defined in the Revised Dictionary of Occupational Titles (“SCO”). Bray, 554 F.3d 

at 1233. The DOT and SCO are not the sole sources of information concerning jobs, as the ALJ 

can also rely on testimony from a vocational expert about locally available jobs, even if the job 

traits vary from the DOT classification. Johnson v. Shalala, 60 F.3d 1428, 1435 (9th Cir. 1995).

But before relying on VE testimony about the requirements of a particular occupation, the ALJ 

must first inquire whether the testimony conflicts with the DOT. Massachi v. Astrue, 486 F.3d 

1149, 1152–54 (9th Cir. 2007).

Here, the ALJ asked the VE to identify jobs that Dickmeier could perform with a 

limitation to, among others, occasional overhead reaching bilaterally. (Tr. 77–79.) The VE 

identified mail clerk, lab sample carrier, deliverer (outside), charge account clerk, surveillance 

system monitor, and escort vehicle driver. (Tr. 78–80.) The VE then testified that the information 
11 - OPINION & ORDER

she gave the ALJ was consistent with the DOT unless she specifically stated otherwise. (Tr. 81–

82.)

Dickmeier claims that the DOT descriptions of five of the six identified jobs are 

inconsistent with the limitations in her RFC because the jobs “require frequent reaching, and no 

distinction is made by the DOT regarding overhead reaching and other forms of reaching.” Pl. 

Brief at 7. 

The Court does not find a conflict between the VE’s testimony and the DOT descriptions 

of the identified jobs. First, the VE testified she chose the mail clerk, lab sample carrier, and 

deliverer (outside) jobs specifically because those positions were compatible with the ALJ’s 

restriction to only occasional bilateral overhead reaching. (Tr. 78.) Second, the ALJ did not 

restrict Dickmeier to all forms of reaching, but only to occasional overhead reaching bilaterally. 

The DOT descriptions of the various positions only indicate that the jobs require unspecified 

reaching; none of the descriptions include any mention of any overhead work. See Routing 

Clerk,1 DOT § 222.687-022, available at 1991 WL 672133; Lab Sample Carrier, DOT § 

922.687-054, available at 1991 WL 688131; Deliverer, Outside, DOT § 230.663-010, available 

at 1991 WL 672160; Charge Account Clerk, DOT §205.367-014, available at 1991 WL 671715; 

Escort Vehicle Driver, DOT § 919.663-022, available at 1991 WL 687886. In contrast, other 

DOT descriptions expressly indicate when overhead work is involved. See, e.g., Flour–Blender 

Helper, DOT § 520.686–022, available at 1991 WL 674044; Gambreler Helper, DOT § 525.687–

034, available at 1991 WL 674446; Rigger, DOT § 921.260–010, available at 1991 WL 688020.

Courts in this district have repeatedly held that a limitation on overhead reaching does not 

conflict with a DOT description that requires reaching generally. Gonzales v. Colvin, No. 3:12-

CV-01068-AA, 2013 WL 3199656, at *3–4 (D. Or. June 19, 2013); Lee v. Astrue, 2013 WL 

 1 The ALJ and the VE referred to the job under this DOT entry as “mail clerk.” (Tr. 27, 78.)
12 - OPINION & ORDER

1296071, *11 (D. Or. Mar. 28, 2013); see also Palomares v. Astrue, 887 F.Supp.2d 906, 920 

(N.D. Cal. 2012) (concluding that occasional, one-armed, overhead reaching limitation was 

consistent with DOT requirement for constant reaching). Third, and finally, to find a conflict 

between the VE’s testimony and the DOT, the Court would “have to read a requirement into the 

DOT that is not expressly stated[.]” Gonzalez, 2013 WL 3199656 at *4. 

Dickmeier also claims there is a conflict between the VE’s testimony that she could 

perform the job of surveillance system monitor, which according to the DOT would require her 

to engage in “frequent” talking and hearing, and her RFC, which limits her to only occasional 

public contact. But the Court again finds no conflict. The DOT does not specify what kind of 

“talking” or “hearing” is required to perform the job, and the DOT narrative description does not 

indicate any kind of public contact:

Monitors premises of public transportation terminals to detect crimes or 

disturbances, using closed circuit television monitors, and notifies authorities by 

telephone of need for corrective action: Observes television screens that transmit in 

sequence views of transportation facility sites. Pushes hold button to maintain 

surveillance of location where incident is developing, and telephones police or 

other designated agency to notify authorities of location of disruptive activity. 

Adjusts monitor controls when required to improve reception, and notifies repair 

service of equipment malfunctions.

Surveillance System Monitor, DOT § 379.367-010, available at 1991 WL 673244. The DOT 

does not, as Dickmeier asserts, indicate that the job requires “communication with members of 

the public to carry out the various tasks.” Pl. Brief at 8. Again, to find a conflict between the 

VE’s testimony and the DOT, the Court would have to “read a requirement into the DOT that is 

not expressly stated[.]” Gonzalez, 2013 WL 3199656 at *4. Accordingly, the Court finds no 

conflict between the VE’s testimony and the DOT, and therefore concludes that the ALJ did not

err in relying on the VE’s testimony at step five. 
13 - OPINION & ORDER

3. Dickmeier’s tarsal tunnel syndrome and her RFC

Finally, Dickmeier contends that the ALJ erred by failing to provide an adequate 

narrative explanation, as required by SSR 96-8p, regarding “1) what medical opinion evidence 

he relied [on] when formulating the physical RFC regarding the tarsal tunnel impairment; or 2) 

how the medical evidence or opinions supported those limitations included in the RFC.” Pl. Brief 

at 11–12. 

An ALJ’s RFC assessment must include a narrative discussion describing how the 

evidence supports each conclusion. SSR 96–8p at *7. However, an ALJ is not required to 

“discuss every piece of evidence” in the record. Howard v. Barnhart, 341 F.3d 1006, 1012 (9th 

Cir. 2003). The ALJ in this case complied with the narrative requirements of SSR 96-8p. He 

provided a lengthy discussion—covering nearly eight single-spaced pages—of the evidence in 

the record, explained what evidence he relied on, and gave proper reasons for rejecting or 

discounting evidence he found less than credible. The Court finds no error in the ALJ’s narrative 

discussion. See Holloway v. Colvin, No. 6:12-CV-109-CL, 2013 WL 3929778, at *4 (D. Or. July 

29, 2013) (rejecting similar argument based on SSR 96-8p where ALJ provided a four-page 

narrative summarizing the evidence, explaining which evidence the ALJ relied on, and giving 

sufficient reasons for rejecting other evidence). 

Notably, Dickmeier does not identify any medical evidence in the record about her tarsal 

tunnel syndrome that the ALJ should have included in his narrative. The only evidence the Court 

can find of her tarsal tunnel syndrome is her own subjective complaints, which the ALJ properly 

found were not entirely credible. In making his RFC determination, the ALJ was not required to 

“prepar[e] a function-by-function analysis for medical conditions or impairments that the ALJ 
14 - OPINION & ORDER

found neither credible nor supported by the record[.]” Bayliss v. Barnhart, 427 F.3d 1211, 1217 

(9th Cir. 2005). 

Finally, Dickmeier claims that the ALJ “reached his own conclusion regarding 

Dickmeier’s physical RFC, which is a medical judgment the ALJ is not qualified to make.” Pl. 

Brief at 11. But that misunderstands the nature of the RFC analysis and the ALJ’s role. “The 

term ‘residual functional capacity assessment’ describes an adjudicator’s finding about the 

ability of an individual to perform work-related activities.” SSR 96-55p, available at 1996 WL 

374183 at *5. According to Social Security regulations, and contrary to Dickmeier’s assertions, it 

is in fact precisely the ALJ’s role to evaluate a claimant’s RFC: “[T]he administrative law judge 

. . . is responsible for assessing your residual functional capacity.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1546(c). 

Accordingly, the Court finds no error. 

CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated, the Commissioner’s decision is AFFIRMED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated this _________ day of _______________________, 2015.

__________________________________ 

MARCO A. HERNÁNDEZ

United States District Judge