IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON 

PORTLAND DIVISION 

DENISE SUE PETROSINO, ) 

) 

Plaintiff, ) 

) 

v. ) 

) 

CAROLYN W. COL VIN, Acting Commissioner of) 

Social Security, ) 

) 

Defendant. ) 

JONES, J., 

3: 14-CV-01907-JO 

OPINION AND ORDER 

Plaintiff Denise Sue Petrosino appeals the Commissioner's decision denying her 

application for disability insurance benefits under Title II of the Social Security Act. The court 

has jurisdiction under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). I AFFIRt\1 the Commissioner's decision. 

PRIOR PROCEEDINGS 

Petrosino filed an application for disability insurance benefits under Title II, alleging 

disability beginning October 1, 2007. At her disability hearing, Petrosino amended her disability 

onset date to January 1, 2010. The ALJ required an additional consultative physical evaluation, 

after which Petrosino was given a supplemental administrative hearing. Admin. R. 15. 

The ALJ applied the five-step analysis outlined in the regulations to detennine whether 

Petrosino was disabled. Admin. R. 17-26. The ALJ found that Petrosino's ability to work was 

adversely affected by degenerative disc disease of the lumbar spine, chronic right knee pain with 

degenerative changes, obesity, mild hypertension, limited range of motion of the neck, and 

1- OPINION AND ORDER 

Case 3:14-cv-01907-JO Document 27 Filed 01/21/16 Page 1 of 8
osteoarthritis of the left knee with mild degenerative joint disease. Admin. R. 17. The ALJ 

determined that, despite these impairments, Petrosino retained the residual functional capacity 

("RFC") to perform light work, involving no more than one hour of standing or walking in an 

eight-hour workday, during which she could alternate between positions every ten minutes, and 

could not be expected to maintain a reasonable pace on uneven or rough teITain. Petrosino could 

work seated for an unlimited period of time with normal work breaks and could occasionally 

climb stairs and ramps. The ALJ identified additional limitations in postural activities, use of the 

feet bilaterally, reaching, manipulation, and environmental exposure such as heights, moving 

machinery, temperature, and so forth. Admin. R. 18-19. The vocational expert ("VE") testified 

that a person with Petrosino' s RFC could perform unskilled occupations such as production 

assembler, electronics worker, and parking lot cashier, representing a combined total of 

1,212,000 jobs in the national economy. Admin. R. 25, 68. The ALJ concluded that Petrosino 

had failed to establish that she was disabled within the meaning of the Social Security Act. 

Admin. R. 26. 

STANDARD OF REVIEW 

The district comt must affom the Commissioner's decision if it is based on proper legal 

standards and the findings of fact are supp01ted by substantial evidence in the record as a whole. 

42 U.S.C. § 405(g); Batson v. Comm 'r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 359 F.3d 1190, 1193 (9th Cir. 2004). 

Under this standard, the Commissioner's factual findings must be upheld if supported by 

inferences reasonably drawn from the record even if evidence exists to supp01t another rational 

interpretation. Batson, 359 F.3d at 1193; Andrews v. Shala/a, 53 F.3d 1035, 1039-40 (9th Cir. 

1995). 

2- OPINION AND ORDER 

Case 3:14-cv-01907-JO Document 27 Filed 01/21/16 Page 2 of 8
DISCUSSION 

I. Claims of Error 

Petrosino contends the ALJ failed to accurately assess her RFC because he did not fully 

credit her subjective statements about the severity of her limitations. Additionally, Petrosino 

contends that the ALJ erred in his step five finding, because the VE diverged from the Dictionary 

of Occupational Titles without adequate explanation. 

II. Credibility Determination 

In her application papers, Petrosino alleged that she had constant pain in her lower back, 

hips, and lower extremities. Admin. R. 19, 297. She claimed that she could no longer spend as 

much time with her grandchildren or go camping because of the pain. Admin. R. 19, 274. 

Additionally, Petrosino claimed that she experienced difficulty with household tasks, such as 

cleaning and making beds, and that she sometimes needed help getting dressed and preparing 

meals. Admin. R. 270, 272. At the first hearing, Petrosino testified that she could walk 

approximately one hundred yards, she could sit for five minutes at most, and that she spent two 

to three hours per day lying down. Admin. R. 52-53, 62. At the supplemental hearing, Petrosino 

testified that her back and knee conditions had gotten progressively worse. She also stated that 

she was in bed for three days after her first hearing, and that the car ride to the hearing and the 

act of sitting during the hearing increased her symptoms. Admin. R. 35-37. 

The ALJ found that Petrosino had medically determinable impainnents that could 

reasonably be expected to produce some of her alleged symptoms. Admin. R. 20. Fu11hermore, 

as reflected in the RFC assessment, the ALJ believed that Petrosino' s pain significantly limited 

her ability to perform basic work activities such as lifting, standing, walking, climbing, postural 

3- OPINION AND ORDER 

Case 3:14-cv-01907-JO Document 27 Filed 01/21/16 Page 3 of 8
activities, and so forth. Admin. R. 18. The ALJ na!Towed Petrosino's RFC by signifi¥antly 

limiting the amount of time she could be expected to engage in each of these activities. Admin. 

R. 18-19. 

Because the ALJ found that Petrosino had medically determinable impairments that could 

reasonably be expected to produce some degree of pain and did not identify affomative evidence 

of malingering, the ALJ was required to assess the credibility of Petrosino' s statements about the 

intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of her impaiiments. Lingenfelter v. Astrue, 504 F.3d 

1028, 1036 (9th Cir. 2007); Smolen v. Chafer, 80 F.3d 1273, 1282 (9th Cir. 1996). 

The ALJ determined that Petrosino's statements about the severity and limiting effects of 

her symptoms less than fully credible. Admin. R. 20. An adverse credibility determination 

must include specific findings supported by substantial evidence and a clear and convincing 

explanation of the rationale. Carmickle v. Comm'r, Soc. Sec. Admin., 533 F.3d 1155, 1160 (9th 

Cir. 2008); Smolen, 80 F.3d at 1281-82 (9th Cir. 1996). The findings must be sufficiently 

specific to permit the reviewing court to conclude that the ALJ did not arbitrarily discredit the 

claimant's testimony. Tommasetti v. Astrue, 533 F.3d 1035, 1039 (9th Cir. 2008). 

In assessing credibility, an ALJ must consider all the evidence in the case record, 

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

daily activities, work hist01y, the observations of third pmiies with knowledge of the claimant's 

functional limitations, and any other evidence that bears on the consistency and veracity of the 

claimant's statements. Tommasetti, 533 F3d at 1039; Smolen, 80 F3d at 1284; SSR 96-7p, 1996 

WL 374186, at *5. 

4- OPINION AND ORDER 

Case 3:14-cv-01907-JO Document 27 Filed 01/21/16 Page 4 of 8
The ALJ' s decision demonstrates that she considered all the evidence relating to the 

proper factors for evaluating Petrosino's credibility. She found that the objective medical 

evidence did not suggest Petrosino's allegations of total disability. Admin. R. 23. For example, 

on December 1, 2011, Petrosino had an appointment with an orthopedic specialist, Dr. Jeffrey 

Feinblatt, regarding her knee pain. Dr. Feinblatt found that Petrosino could ambulate without an 

antalgic gait, she could climb onto the examining table without significant difficulty, and she had 

some tenderness, crepitus, and grind. He administered a steroid injection and prescribed physical 

therapy. Admin. R. 21, 408. Dr. Feinblatt examined Petrosino again on July 2, 2012 and 

determined that Petrosino had no effusion, good range of motion, no significant joint line 

tenderness, and stable ligaments. Admin. R. 421. A physical examination performed on July 5, 

2012 revealed that Petrosino "moves all extremities without difficulty." Admin. R. 22, 446. 

Additionally, on December 29, 2012, Petrosino had a consultative physical examination 

with Dr. Ellison. Dr. Ellison reviewed an MRI of her spine, which showed degenerative changes 

in the lumbar region, including moderate to marked disc space narrowing, a small to moderate 

disc protrusion, and a moderate bulging disc, but with no nerve root displacement or 

compression. Admin. R. 385, 449. An x-ray of the lumbar spine revealed mild arthropathy. An 

MRI of Petrosino' s knee showed osteomihritic changes in the lateral compmiment of the right 

knee and an abnonnal signal consistent with a meniscal tear. Admin. R. 384, 388, 449. On 

physical examination, Dr. Ellison found that Petrosino's back was tender to the right ofL5-Sl, 

that she had mild right scoliosis, mottled erythema of her skin, and that her range of motion was 

decreased. However, she had no arthritic stigmata, and her knees were umemarkable with no 

crepitation, effusion, or remarkable tenderness. While Petrosino walked with an antalgic gait, 

5- OPINION AND ORDER 

Case 3:14-cv-01907-JO Document 27 Filed 01/21/16 Page 5 of 8
she had n01mal coordination, muscle strength, and muscle tone. Admin. R. 22, 450. Based on 

these findings, it was reasonable for the ALJ to conclude that the objective medical evidence was 

not consistent with the debilitating limitations Petrosino claimed. 

The ALJ also found that Petrosino' s treatment history did not suggest the extreme 

symptoms she claimed. Admin. R. 20. Since her amended onset date, Petrosino has only 

received conservative treatment with pain medications and infrequent steroid injections. Admin. 

R. 20-21. When a claimant alleges debilitating pain .but receives only conservative treatment, 

this supports an adverse inference as to the claimant's statements about the severity or intensity 

of the symptoms. Parra v. Astrue, 481 F.3d 742, 750-51 (91

h Cir. 2007). 

In addition, conservative treatment with medications suggests that the medications are 

effective. Indeed, Petrosino's treatment notes indicate that she was doing "significantly better" 

with medication. Admin. R. 447. After receiving a c01iicosteroid injection for her right knee in 

2012, for example, treatment notes indicate that the "symptoms that she was having previously 

are gone." Admin. R. 411. Treatment notes from another office visit on May 15, 2012 indicate 

that medication has "helped her pain and her mood." Treatment notes from July 5, 2012 

similarly indicate that "for the most part [medication] controls her symptoms." Admin. R. 425, 

445. Impaiiments that are effectively controlled by medication are not disabling. Warre v. 

Comm'r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 439 F.3d 1001, 1006 (91

h Cir. 2006). Therefore, Petrosino's 

treatment history supports an adverse credibility determination regarding the claimed limiting 

effects of her symptoms. 

Finally, the ALJ considered Petrosino's daily activities. Admin R. 23. In her function 

repoti, Petrosino reported a fairly broad range of activity, including taking her husband to and 

6- OPINION AND ORDER 

Case 3:14-cv-01907-JO Document 27 Filed 01/21/16 Page 6 of 8
from work, dusting, vacuuming, doing laundry and going to the store a few times per week, 

preparing lunches and dinners, and walking the dog a few times per week. Admin. R. 23, 271-

27 4. While these activities are not equivalent to full time work, the ALJ reasonably concluded 

that Petrosino's daily activities were inconsistent with the limitations she claimed and with her 

claim of total disability. 

The ALJ' s findings are supported by substantial evidence in the record and are 

sufficiently specific for me to conclude that the ALJ did not arbitrarily reject Petrosino's 

subjective statements. His reasoning is clear and convincing, and the credibility determination 

will not be disturbed. Tommasetti, 533 F.3d at 1039; Carmickle, 533 F.3d at 1160. 

III. Step Five Finding 

The ALJ also properly relied on a vocational expe1t ("VE") in his step five finding. 

Petrosino argues that the VE diverged from the Dictionary of Occupational Titles ("DOT") 

without adequate explanation. Pl. Opening Brief at 5. Social Security Ruling ("SSR") 00-4p 

requires an ALJ to ask the VE if the evidence he or she provides is consistent with the DOT and 

to obtain a reasonable explanation for any apparent conflict. 1vlassachi v. Astrue, 486 F.3d 1149, 

1152-53 (9111 Cir. 2007). 

Here, the ALJ specifically asked the VE if all of the VE's testimony was in accordance 

with the DOT. The VE answered "yes, except for I've otherwise stated regarding no light work 

exertion levels assigned to the three sample occupations I've just testified to." Admin. R. 68. 

The VE explained that the occupations of hand packager, electronics worker, and parking lot 

cashier were all assigned a light work exe1tional level, principally because they were all 

perfo1med standing on one's feet. However, during the last ten to twelve years, these 

7- OPINION AND ORDER 

Case 3:14-cv-01907-JO Document 27 Filed 01/21/16 Page 7 of 8
occupations have been performed either sitting or standing, and are therefore consistent with the 

ALJ's hypotheticals. Admin. R. 68. Thus, the ALJ properly inquired and obtained from the VE 

a reasonable explanation for the apparent conflict between the VE's evidence and the DOT. 

Accordingly, the ALJ did not en in relying on the VE for his step five finding. 

CONCLUSION 

Petrosino's assignments of error cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the Commissioner's 

final decision is AFFIRMED. 

DATED this _jJ._&ay of January, 2016. 

//' ~> 

Robe~ Senior Judge 

United States District Court 

8- OPINION AND ORDER 

Case 3:14-cv-01907-JO Document 27 Filed 01/21/16 Page 8 of 8