IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

DEBORAH D. JOLI, 

v. 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON 

Plaintiff, 

PORTLAND DIVISION 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting Commissioner of) 

Social Security, ) 

) 

Defendant. ) 

JONES, J., 

3: 14-CV-01484-JO 

OPINION AND ORDER 

Plaintiff Deborah D. Joli appeals the Commissioner's decision to deny her Claim for 

disability insurance benefits under Title II of the Social Security Act ("the Act") and to deny her 

claim for supplemental security income under Title XVI of the Act. The Co mt has jurisdiction under 

42 U.S.C. § 405(g). I AFFIRM the Commissioner's decision. 

PRIOR PROCEEDINGS 

Joli filed concurrent applications alleging disability beginning September 15, 2008, due to 

panic attacks, anxiety, depression, migraines, high blood pressure, obesity, and arthritis. Admin. R. 

281, 312. 

The ALJ applied the sequential disability dete1mination process described in the applicable 

regulations. He determined that Joli's ability to work was limited by obesity, hype1tension, 

depression, anxiety, and substance abuse. Admin. R. 23. He found that, despite her impairments, 

1- OPINION AND ORDER 

Case 3:14-cv-01484-JO Document 20 Filed 08/14/15 Page 1 of 10
Joli retained the residual functional capacity ("RFC") to perform a range of unskilled, sedentary 

work with limited climbing and postural activities such as stooping, crouching, crawling, and so 

fmih. In addition, the ALJ found she had the capacity to perform the mental activities required in 

simple, unskilled work, but she could not tolerate more than incidental nonessential contact with the 

general public. Admin. R. 25. 

The vocational expert ("VE") testified that a person with Joli's age, education, work 

experience, and RFC could perfo1m the work activities required in sedentaiy occupations such as 

non-emergency dispatching, small-product assembly, and table sorting and that these occupations 

represent hundreds of thousands of jobs in the national economy. Admin. R. 31, 71-72. The ALJ 

concluded that Joli had failed to prove she was disabled within the meaning of the Act. Admin. R. 

31. 

STANDARD OF REVIEW 

The District Comi must affom the Commissioner's decision if it is based on proper legal 

standards and the findings of fact are suppmied by substantial evidence in the record as a whole. 

Tommasetti v. Astrue, 533 F.3d 1035, 1038 (9'h Cir. 2008). Substantial evidence is such relevant 

evidence that "a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to suppo1i a conclusion." Webb v. 

Barnhart, 433 F.3d 683, 686 (9'h Cir. 2005); See also Smolen v. Chafer, 80 F.3d 1273, 1279 (9'h Cir. 

1996) ("Substantial evidences means more than a scintilla, but less than a preponderance") (quoting 

Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389, 401 (1971). Under this standai·d, the Commissioner's factual 

findings must be upheld if suppo1ied by inferences reasonably drawn from the record even if 

evidence exists to support another rational interpretation. Batson v. Comm 'r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 

359 F.3d 1190, 1193 (9'h Cir. 2004); Andrews v. Shala/a, 53 F.3d 1035, 1039-40 (9'h Cir. 1995). 

2- OPINION AND ORDER 

Case 3:14-cv-01484-JO Document 20 Filed 08/14/15 Page 2 of 10
DISCUSSION 

I. Claims of Error 

Joli claims the ALJ improperly rejected her subjective statements about the limiting effects 

of her impairments. She fmiher contends the ALJ erroneously rejected the opinion of Dr. Palmer 

who performed a consultative psychological evaluation and issued a written repmi. As a result, Joli 

contends, the ALJ e1Ted at step five of the sequential evaluation process by relying on testimony he 

elicited from the VE based on hypothetical assumptions that did not accurately reflect all of her 

limitations. 

II. Credibility Assessment 

Joli alleged that the combined effects of obesity, anxiety disorder, depression, high blood 

pressure and migraines prevented her from working a regular full-time work day or work week. In 

her application, she said she could not be in big crowds of people, talk to people on the telephone, 

or go into stores or public places by herself. Admin. R. 291, 293. Joli said she did not engage in 

social activities because she would have panic attacks in groups or in public places. She said talking 

to people, especially authority figlll'es, caused her great anxiety. Admin. R. 295, 343. She said she 

could not tolerate sitting for long periods because she would become nervous if she could not move 

around. Joli said she had difficulty staying focused or paying attention for very long. Admin. R. 

294-296. She could walk only a half a block before she had to stop and rest for a few minutes. 

Admin. R. 296, 342. She said she had difficulty with memmy, but could remember instrnctions if 

they were written. Admin. R. 296-297. In addition, Joli said she had arthritis pain in both knees that 

made walking, sitting, standing, and bending ve1y difficult. Admin. R. 345. 

3- OPINION AND ORDER 

Case 3:14-cv-01484-JO Document 20 Filed 08/14/15 Page 3 of 10
At her administrative hearing, Joli testified that she could stand for only 10 minutes at a time, 

and sit for only 15 minutes at a time. Admin. R. 51. She reiterated that she had difficulty 

maintaining focus on an activity. Admin. R. 58. She reported that she had periods of deep 

depression and anxiety during which she would do nothing other than sleep. Admin. R. 60-61. She 

said that she rarely left home and would not go out by herself. Admin. R. 62. 

The ALJ believed that Joli's impairments could reasonably be expected to cause some degree 

of the symptoms she alleged, but did not believe her statements about their limiting effects to the 

extent she claimed limitations in excess of those in the RFC assessment and that she could not do 

any kind of work on a full-time basis. Admin. R. 26. 

An adverse credibility determination must include specific findings supported by substantial 

evidence and the ALJ must provide a clear and convincing explanation. Carmickle v. Comm 'r of Soc. 

Sec. Admin., 533 F.3d 1155, 1160 (9'h Cir. 2008); Smolen, 80 F.3d at 1281 -82. The reviewing court 

may not second guess an ALJ' s credibility dete1mination if it is supported by substantial evidence. 

Fair, 885 F.2d at 604. The ALJ must consider all evidence in the case record when assessing a 

claimant's credibility, including objective medical evidence, medical opinions, treatment history, 

daily activities, work history, third-party observations of the claimant's functional limitations, and 

any other evidence that bears on the consistency and veracity of the claimant's statements. 

Tommasetti, 533 F.3d at 1039; Smolen, 80 F.3d at 1284; SSR 96-97p, 1996 WL 374186, at *5. Here, 

the ALJ considered the proper factors when dete1mining Joli's credibility. 

The ALJ cited objective findings suggesting Joli's impahments were not as severe as she 

claimed. Admin. R. 27-28. Conflicts between the claimant's subjective complaints and the objective 

medical evidence in the record can unde1mine the claimant's credibility and provide an adequate 

4- OPINION AND ORDER 

Case 3:14-cv-01484-JO Document 20 Filed 08/14/15 Page 4 of 10
basis for an ACJ's adverse credibility finding. lvforgan v. Comm 'r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 169 F.3d 

595, 600 (9'h Cir. 1999). Dr. Ransom performed a psychiatric evaluation on July 21, 2010 and found 

Joli's appearance appropriate and her thought processes coherent and goal oriented. Admin R. 27. 

Dr. Ransom found that Joli's memo1y was moderately impaired, but that her remote memo1y was 

intact. Dr. Ransom further found Joli could follow and understand simple directions and 

instructions, perform simple tasks independently, and maintain a schedule. The ALJ assigned Dr. 

Ransom's evaluation great weight because she obtained objective findings consistent with the record. 

Dr. Sirotenko also performed a physical evaluation on July 31, 2010. Dr. Sirotenko found Joli did 

not appear distressed, her gait and station were normal, she could walk on her heels and toes, and 

could squat 50%, but needed assistance rising. Dr. Sirotenko found her neurological testing 

unremarkable without any motor or sensory deficit. The ALJ gave Dr. Sirotenko's assessment great 

weight. The conflict between Joli's subjective complaints and the objective medical evidence 

supplied by Dr. Sirotenko and Dr. Ransom undennines her credibility. 

The ALJ determined that despite Joli's asseliions of disabling limitations, the record 

indicated she could perform a broad range of daily activities, inconsistent with the nature and 

severity of her complaints. Admin. R. 27. Inconsistencies between the claimant's conduct and the 

limitations she alleges may undermine the claimant's credibility. Light v. Soc. Sec. Adm in., 119 F .3d 

789, 792 (9'h Cir. 1997). Joli reported daily activities such as reading, painting bird houses, doing 

puzzles, watching movies, listening to music and using the computer "pretty much all day."Admin. 

R. 27. Joli's sister corroborated activities showing Joli had greater function than she alleged. Joli's 

sister repolied that Joli could feed and water her animals, prepare simple meals, and shop in stores 

5- OPINION AND ORDER 

Case 3:14-cv-01484-JO Document 20 Filed 08/14/15 Page 5 of 10
up to four times per week. Admin R. 27. The ALJ found that these activities contradicted Joli's 

reports of debilitating impahments. 

Joli has a successful work histo1y despite her alleged impairments, and stopped working 

because of company wide layoffs. When a claimant quits work for reasons umelated to disability 

the ALJ may draw an adverse inference as to the contention that the claimant cannot work due to a 

disabling condition. Bruton v. lvfassanari, 268 F.3d 824, 828 (9'h Cir. 2001). The ALJ noted Joli had 

some of her impairments during the time she was able to work, which suggests they do not preclude 

work. Admin R. 26. One of her examiners, Dr. Palmer noted she had worked in the past despite 

these alleged limitations and had "related well" with employers. Admin R. 659. The ALJ found this 

work history unde1mined Joli's contention that she cannot work. 

The ALJ noted that secondmy gain issues may be present. Joli reported having problems with 

her finances, and that these problems intensified her other symptoms. Admin. R. 603. The ALJ 

noted that Joli appeared to exaggerate her symptoms in order to increase her chances of receiving 

benefits. Joli insisted this confused the symptom for the cause. Joli argued she had trouble dealing 

with her financial issues due to her depression. Even if the evidence can be interpreted in the way 

Joli urges, the ALJ's interpretation is rational and must be upheld. Andrews v. Shala/a, 53 F.3d at 

1040. 

III. Medical Opinions 

Joli contends the ALJ failed to properly evaluate the opinion of Michael Palmer, Ed.D., a 

consulting psychologist. In Februmy 2011, Dr. Palmer interviewed Joli and prepared a medical 

report about her mental health status. Admin. R. 651-659. He did not provide treatment. His 

findings on mental status evaluation were generally umemarkable. For example, Joli presented with 

6- OPINION AND ORDER 

Case 3:14-cv-01484-JO Document 20 Filed 08/14/15 Page 6 of 10
good hygiene and grooming. She appeared mildly anxious initially, but relaxed during the course 

of the interview. Her thought processes were logical, goal oriented, and relevant, without signs of 

delusions, flight of ideas, or rapid, slowed, or hesitant thinking. Intelligence testing showed she 

functioned in the low average range. Her concentration and memo1y functions were generally fair. 

Joli repo1ied examples of marginal impulse control and difficulty in social functioning. Dr. Palmer 

said Joli could relate adequately with employers, family, and well-known associates, but avoided the 

general public. Admin. R. 654-657. 

Dr. Palmer opined that Joli would have marked difficulty canying out detailed instructions 

and making judgments on simple work-related decisions. Admin. R. 649. Dr. Palmer believed that 

Joli would have extreme difficulty interacting appropriately with the public and responding 

appropriately to work pressures in a usual work setting. Admin. R. 649. Dr. Palmer assessed Joli 

with a Global Assessment of Functioning score of 46, and the narrative report suggests this primarily 

reflected serious impairment in social functioning. Admin. R. 659. 

Although the ALJ agreed with Dr. Palmer that Joli required simple instructions and minimal 

public conduct as reflected in his RFC assessment, he gave Dr. Palmer's assessment little weight. 

Admin. R. 25, 29. An ALJ can reject an examining physician's opinion by making findings based 

on substantial evidence in the record that suppmi clear and convincing reasons for doing so. Thomas 

v. Barnhart, 278 F.3d 947, 956-57 (9'h Cir. 2002); Magallanes v. Bowen, 881 F.2d 747, 751 (9'h Cir. 

1989). 

Here, the ALJ found Dr. Palmer's opinion was not suppmied by his own clinical 

observations, which were generally umemarkable. An ALJ need not accept a physician's opinion 

that is brief, concluso1y, and inadequately supported by clinical findings. Bayliss, 278 F.3d at 957; 

7- OPINION AND ORDER 

Case 3:14-cv-01484-JO Document 20 Filed 08/14/15 Page 7 of 10
lvleanal v. Apfel, 172 F.3d 1111, 1117 (91

h Cir. 1999). In addition, the ALJ reasonably inferred that 

Dr. Palmer relied primarily on Joli's subjective complaints in foimulating his opinion of her 

functional capacity. Admin. R. 29. That conclusion is supported by the absence of clinical findings 

supporting the opinion and by the numerous references in the narrative repo1i to Joli's subjective 

statements. An ALJ may discount a physician's opinion that is premised primarily on subjective 

complaints that the ALJ properly found umeliable. Tonapetyan v. Halter, 242 F.3d 1144, 1149 (91h 

Cir. 2001). 

The ALJ's reasoning in determining the weight to give Dr. Palmer's opinion is clear and 

convincing and based on rational inferences drawn from substantial evidence in the record. The 

ALJ's evaluation of Dr. Palmer's opinion must be upheld, even ifthe record could reasonably be 

interpreted differently. Batson, 359 F.3d at 1193. 

III. Step Five 

Joli contends the ALJ failed to fulfill his burden at step five to establish that, during the 

relevant time, jobs Joli could perf01m existed in significant numbers in the national economy. An 

ALJ can satisfy this burden by eliciting the testimony of a vocational expert with a hypothetical 

question that sets forth all the claimant's limitations. Andrews, 53 F.3d at 1043. 

Joli contends the ALJ elicited testimony from the VE with hypothetical assumptions that did 

not reflect the opinion of Craig Nielsen, M.D. Dr. Nielsen performed a physical examination in 

Februaiy 2011. He observed that Joli was able to move around the examination room well and to 

get in aiid out of her chair without difficulty. Her gait and station were n01mal. She could sit, stand, 

walk, bend, lift, and grasp normally. She could heel and toe walk well. Joli squatted only halfway 

for subjective reasons. Dr. Nielsen's examination of Joli's knees was unremarkable aiid her ankles 

8- OPINION AND ORDER 

Case 3:14-cv-01484-JO Document 20 Filed 08/14/15 Page 8 of 10
appeared to be mildly swollen. Admin. R. 644. Dr. Nielsen completed a RFC worksheet, indicating 

that Joli could lift and carry 25 pounds occasionally, stand or walk for a total to two hours in a 

workday, and sit without limitation. Admin. R. 647. 

The ALJ gave Dr. Nielsen's evaluation great weight and the limitations on Dr. Nielsen's RFC 

worksheet are consistent with the ALJ' s RFC assessment. Admin. R. 25, 28, 64 7. The ALJ elicited 

vocational expert testimony with hypothetical assumptions that reflected the RFC assessment. 

Admin. R. 69-71. I find that, in eliciting testimony from the VE, the ALJ used hypothetical 

assumptions that reasonably reflected Dr. Nielsen's findings and opinion without omitting any of 

Joli's functional limitations. 

Similarly, Joli contends the ALJ's hypothetical assumptions did not reflect the opinion of 

Bruce Bather, Ph.D., a state agency consultant. Dr. Bather reviewed the medical record as of May 

2011. Admin. R. 128-129. Joli contends the ALJ' s RFC and hypothetical vocational limitations did 

not reflect Dr. Bather's opinion that Joli should avoid public contact and high stress environments. 

Pl.'s Br. 16. Although the ALJ did not quote Dr. Nielsen, he included limitations that reasonably 

reflected his opinion, and I find no error. See Turner v. Comm 'r, Soc. Sec. Admin., 613 F.3d 1217 

(9'h Cir. 2010) (ALJ not required to use exact language of a credited opinion). 

The ALJ' s RFC assessment reasonably reflects the limitations in the opinions ofDrs. Nielsen 

and Bather. Even if their opinions could be interpreted to establish additional limitations, as Joli 

urges, the ALJ' s interpretation of this evidence is rational and cannot be disturbed. Andrews v. 

Shala/a, 53 F.3d at 1040. An ALJ is not required to incorporate limitations he found unsuppo11ed 

by the evidence in the record. Bayliss v. Barnhart, 427 F.3d at 1217; Batson, 359 F.3d at 1197-98; 

9- OPINION AND ORDER 

Case 3:14-cv-01484-JO Document 20 Filed 08/14/15 Page 9 of 10
Osenbrock v. Apfel, 240 F.3d 1157, 1164-65 (9th Cir. 2001). Accordingly, Joli's challenge to the 

vocational expe1t' s testimony cannot be sustained. 

CONCLUSION 

For the foregoing reasons, the Commissioner's final decision is AFFIRMED. 

DATED this I<-/."'- day of August, 2015. 

10- OPINION AND ORDER 

Case 3:14-cv-01484-JO Document 20 Filed 08/14/15 Page 10 of 10