DONALD AMONSON, 

v. 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON 

Plaintiff, 

6:14-cv-1531-TC 

FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATION 

Commissioner of Social Security, 

Defendants. 

COFFIN, Magistrate Judge: 

Plaintiff brings this proceeding to obtain judicial review of the Commissioner's final decision 

denying plaintiffs application for disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income 

benefits. 

Plaintiff asserts disability beginning November 1, 2008, due to chronic pain syndrome, multilevel degenerative disk disease, hypertension, disability neurosis, attention deficit disorder, and 

depression. After a hearing, an administrative law judge (ALJ) determined that plaintiff is not 

disabled because he can perform his past relevant work and, in the alternative, can perform other 

work. Plaintiff contends that the ALJ erred in determining that plaintiff could perform his past 

relevant work and in failing to provide an adequate residual functional capacity (RFC) determination. 

Page 1 - ORDER 

Case 6:14-cv-01531-TC Document 15 Filed 10/26/15 Page 1 of 5
The Commissioner concedes that the ALJ erred with respect to finding plaintiff able to 

perform his past relevant work. Thus, the issue is whether the ALJ appropriately determined that 

plaintiff can perform other work. In this regard, plaintiff asserts that the ALJ erred in: (1) 

determining that he can frequently handle and finger; (2) failing to quantify plaintiffs limitations 

regarding sitting and standing; and (3) failing to clarify the medical record. Accordingly, plaintiff 

asserts the ALJ improperly determined his RFC and thus his ability to perform other work. 

A. Limitation Regarding Handling and Fingering 

Although the ALJ provided an extensive discussion of the medical record, including recurrent 

opinions of exaggerated pain behavior, plaintiff asserts that the ALJ cited no medical evidence when 

limiting him to only frequent handling and fingering. 1 Here, plaintiff appears to confuse the ALJ' s 

burden of determining whether other work exists in the national economy with his own burden of 

demonstrating his limitations. 

While plaintiff asserts limitations regarding fingering and handling, the ALJ found him to 

lack credibility, a finding to which plaintiff does not object. In such circumstances, the ALJ need 

only take into account those limitations for which there was record support that did not depend on 

subjective complaints. See Bayliss v. Barnhart, 427 F.3d 1211, 1217 (9th Cir. 2005). The ALJ 

specifically found that while Dr. Carroll did, on one occasion, find weak grip and a positive Tinel's 

sign, neither prevented plaintiff from subsequently performing drafting work. Tr. 24. Moreover, 

the ALJ noted that even when he did raise the issue with Dr. Carroll, plaintiff almost immediately 

1

Plaintiff s prior employment did require constant fingering and handling, but the ALJ 

also determined that plaintiff could perform other work as a wire worker which could 

accommodate limitation found. 

Page 2 - ORDER 

Case 6:14-cv-01531-TC Document 15 Filed 10/26/15 Page 2 of 5
indicated that he did not want to pursue treatment and no further signs or findings are noted in the 

record. Tr. 24. Plaintiff points to no evidence to support a finding of a more restrictive limitation 

and, in fact, Dr. Richard Alley opined that plaintiff has no manipulative limitations. Tr. 138, 404. 

B. Limitations Regarding Sitting and Standing 

Curiously, plaintiff argues that the ALJ failed to address the frequency of his need to change 

from sitting to standing. However, the ALJ explicitly determined that plaintiff would need to change 

positions as needed or on demand. Tr. 86. 

Plaintiff also argues that the ALJ failed to comply with SSR 96-9p by failing to indicate how 

long it would take to change positions. However, SSR 96-9p only applies when the RFC falls into 

the less than full range of sedentary work. Here, the ALJ determined that plaintiff falls into less than 

full range oflight work category which is governed by SSR 83-12.2 In such cases, the ALJ should 

call upon a vocational expert to clarify the implication for the occupational base. The ALJ did 

consult a vocational expert who opined that the need to change from sitting to standing at will did 

not exclude work as a wire worker. Tr. 87. 

Plaintiff also suggests that the ALJ failed to comply with SSR 96-8p by not identifying what 

medical evidence he relied on in forming the RFC. However, as noted above, the ALJ provided an 

2

It should be noted that SSR 96-9p does not require the ALJ to identify the time it takes to 

change from sitting to standing, but requires examination of facts such as the frequency of the 

need to alternate from sitting to standing and the length of time needed to stand. The ALJ did 

address this issue and consulted a vocational expert as to the implications for work. To the 

extent plaintiff asserts that the need to change from sitting to standing would force him off task, 

there is no support in the record for such a finding beyond plaintiffs own subjective implication 

of such limitation. As noted, the ALJ appropriately determined that plaintiff lacked credibility 

regarding his subjective complaints. 

Page 3 - ORDER 

Case 6:14-cv-01531-TC Document 15 Filed 10/26/15 Page 3 of 5
extensive discussion of the medical record and specifically cited medical opinion that limited 

plaintiff to light work. See Tr. 16-29. Morever, plaintiff fails to identify, with record support 

beyond his own subjective complaints, what limitations the ALJ failed to include. 

C. Clarification of the Medical Record 

Plaintiff also asserts that the ALJ "ignored his opportunity to seek clarification from a 

medical source of record in an effort to ascertain [plaintiffs] true and actual restrictions." It is 

unclear what plaintiff means given his argument that ALJ failed to cite any medical evidence to 

support his RFC determination. However, as noted above, the ALJ provided extensive discussion 

of the medical record. An ALJ's duty to develop the record further is triggered only when there is 

ambiguous evidence or when the record is inadequate to allow for proper evaluation of the evidence. 

Tonapetyan v. Halter, 242 F.3d 1144, 1150 (9th Cir. 2001). Plaintiff fails to identify any legitimate 

inadequacies or ambiguities. The ALJ's RFC determination adequately identified those limitations 

supported by the medical evidence and he properly relied on the vocational expert in determining 

that such limitations did not preclude all work. 

CONCLUSION 

For the reasons stated above, the decision of the Commissioner should be affirmed. 

This recommendation is not an order that is immediately appealable to the Ninth Circuit 

Court of appeals. Any notice of appeal pursuant to Rule 4(a)(l), Federal Rules of Appellate 

Procedure, should not be filed until entry of the district court's judgment or appealable order. The 

parties shall have fourteen (14) days from the date of service of a copy of this recommendation 

Page 4 - ORDER 

Case 6:14-cv-01531-TC Document 15 Filed 10/26/15 Page 4 of 5
within which to file specific written objections with the court. Thereafter, the parties shall have 

fourteen (14) days within which to file a response to the objections. Failure to timely file objections 

to any factual determination of the Magistrate Judge will be considered as a waiver of a party's right 

to de novo consideration of the factual issues and will constitute a waiver of a party's right to 

appellate review of the findings of fact in an order or judgment entered pursuant to this 

recommendation. 

DATED this_&__ day of October 2015. 

Page 5 - ORDER 

Case 6:14-cv-01531-TC Document 15 Filed 10/26/15 Page 5 of 5