1 – OPINION AND ORDER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF OREGON

EUGENE DIVISION

ALFREDO P. GALINDO,

Plaintiff, 

v.

COMMISSIONER OF THE SOCIAL 

SECURITYADMINISTRATION,

Defendant.

Case No. 6:14-cv-01221-ST

OPINION AND ORDER

STEWART, Magistrate Judge:

INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff, Alfredo P. Galindo (“Galindo”), seeks judicial review of the final decision 

by the Social Security Commissioner (“Commissioner”) denying his applications for

Disability Insurance Benefits (“DIB”) under Title II of the Social Security Act (“SSA”), 

42 USC §§ 401-433, and Supplemental Security Income (“SSI”) under Title XVI of the 

SSA, 42 USC §§ 1381-1383f. This court has jurisdiction to review the Commissioner’s 

decision pursuant to 42 USC § 405(g) and § 1383(c)(3). All parties have consented to allow 

a Magistrate Judge to enter final orders and judgment in this case in accordance with 

FRCP 73 and 28 USC § 636(c). For the reasons set forth below, that decision is

AFFIRMED.

Case 6:14-cv-01221-ST Document 27 Filed 11/13/15 Page 1 of 15
2 – OPINION AND ORDER

ADMINISTRATIVE HISTORY

Galindo protectively filed for DIB and SSI on September 8, 2006, alleging a 

disability onset date of October 1, 2003. Tr. 81–89.

1

 His applications were denied initially 

and on reconsideration. Tr. 36–49, 51–57. On September 14, 2009, a hearing was held 

before Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) John J. Madden, Jr. Tr. 19–35, 344–61. The 

ALJ issued a decision on September 25, 2009, finding Galindo not disabled. Tr. 7–18. The 

Appeals Council denied a request for review on June 18, 2010. Tr. 1–3. Galindo then 

appealed that adverse decision to this court, and on March 7, 2012, this court issued an 

order of remand for further administrative proceedings. Tr. 384–407. 

The Appeals Council vacated the ALJ’s decision on August 2, 2013, and remanded 

the case to an ALJ for further proceedings consistent with the court’s order. Tr. 410. ALJ 

S. Andrew Grace held a second hearing on February 26, 2014, and a supplemental hearing 

on May 6, 2014. Tr. 362–83. The ALJ issued a decision on May 20, 2014, finding Galindo 

not disabled. Tr. 322–43. Therefore, the ALJ’s decision is the Commissioner’s final 

decision subject to review by this court. 20 CFR §§ 404.981, 416.1481, 422.210. 

BACKGROUND

Born in 1980, Galindo was 29 years old at the time of the first hearing before the 

ALJ. Tr. 23, 81. He earned a GED and has past relevant work experience as a painter, 

newspaper jogger, cannery worker, dishwasher, nursery worker, and small products 

assembler. Tr. 28–30, 106, 365–66. Galindo alleges that he is unable to work due to the 

combined impairments of anxiety and depression. Tr. 105.

///

 

1

 Citations are to the page(s) indicated in the official transcript of the record filed on December 31, 2014

(docket #12).

Case 6:14-cv-01221-ST Document 27 Filed 11/13/15 Page 2 of 15
3 – OPINION AND ORDER

MEDICAL BACKGROUND

The relevant medical evidence is discussed at length in this court’s review of the 

prior ALJ decision. However, Galindo received an additional psychological evaluation 

from Emil Slatick, Ph.D., in February 2014 which is discussed in detail below.

DISABILITY ANALYSIS

Disability is the “inability to engage in any substantial gainful activity by reason of 

any medically determinable physical or mental impairment which can be expected to result 

in death or which has lasted or can be expected to last for a continuous period of not less 

than 12 months.” 42 USC § 423(d)(1)(A). The ALJ engages in a five-step sequential 

inquiry to determine whether a claimant is disabled within the meaning of the Act. 20 CFR 

§§ 404.1520, 416.920; Tackett v. Apfel, 180 F3d 1094, 1098-99 (9th Cir 1999). 

At step one, the ALJ determines if the claimant is performing substantial gainful 

activity. If so, the claimant is not disabled. 20 CFR §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(i) & (b), 

416.920(a)(4)(i) & (b).

At step two, the ALJ determines if the claimant has “a severe medically determinable 

physical or mental impairment” that meets the 12-month durational requirement. 20 CFR

§§ 404.1520(a)(4)(ii) & (c), 416.909, 416.920(a)(4)(ii) & (c). Absent a severe impairment, 

the claimant is not disabled. Id.

At step three, the ALJ determines whether the severe impairment meets or equals an 

impairment “listed” in the regulations. 20 CFR §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(iii) & (d), 

416.920(a)(4)(iii) & (d); 20 CFR Pt. 404, Subpt. P, App. 1 (Listing of Impairments). If the 

impairment is determined to meet or equal a listed impairment, then the claimant is 

disabled. 

Case 6:14-cv-01221-ST Document 27 Filed 11/13/15 Page 3 of 15
4 – OPINION AND ORDER

If adjudication proceeds beyond step three, the ALJ must first evaluate medical and 

other relevant evidence in assessing the claimant’s residual functional capacity (“RFC”). 

The claimant’s RFC is an assessment of work-related activities the claimant may still 

perform on a regular and continuing basis, despite the limitations imposed by his or her 

impairments. 20 CFR §§ 404.1520(e), 416.920(e); Social Security Ruling (“SSR”) 96-8p, 

1996 WL 374184 (July 2, 1996). 

At step four, the ALJ uses the RFC to determine if the claimant can perform past 

relevant work. 20 CFR §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(iv) & (e), 416.920(a)(4)(iv) & (e). If the 

claimant cannot perform past relevant work, then at step five, the ALJ must determine if the 

claimant can perform other work in the national economy. 20 CFR §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(v) & 

(g), 416.920(a)(4)(v) & (g); Bowen v. Yuckert, 482 US 137, 142 (1987); Tackett, 180 F3d at

1099.

The initial burden of establishing disability rests upon the claimant. Tackett, 180 

F3d at 1098. If the process reaches step five, the burden shifts to the Commissioner to show 

that jobs exist in the national economy within the claimant’s RFC. Id. If the Commissioner 

meets this burden, then the claimant is not disabled. 20 CFR §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(v) & (g), 

416.920(a)(4)(v) & (g), 416.960(c).

ALJ’S FINDINGS

As a preliminary finding, the ALJ found that Galindo met the insured status 

requirement through December 31, 2009. Tr. 328. At step one, the ALJ concluded that 

Galindo has not engaged in substantial gainful activity since October 1, 2003. Id.

Case 6:14-cv-01221-ST Document 27 Filed 11/13/15 Page 4 of 15
5 – OPINION AND ORDER

At step two, the ALJ determined that Galindo has the severe impairments of 

generalized anxiety disorder, panic disorder, depressive disorder, and borderline intellectual 

functioning. Id. 

At step three, the ALJ concluded that Galindo does not have an impairment or 

combination of impairments that meets or equals any of the listed impairments. Id. The 

ALJ found that Galindo has the RFC to perform a full range of work at all exertional levels, 

except he is limited to simple, repetitive, and routine tasks consistent with unskilled work; 

low-stress work which is defined as work requiring few decisions and few changes; tasks 

capable of one-on-one, hands-on demonstration rather than written instruction; and a 

standard or ordinary pace but not a strict, production rate pace. Tr. 330. Galindo may have 

no contact with the public and occasional contact with supervisors and the supervisor must 

“check in with Galindo one time per day for the first two months of employment to check 

on work product and to see if [Galindo] has any questions.” Id. 

Based upon the testimony of a vocational expert (“VE”), the ALJ determined at step 

four that Galindo’s RFC did not preclude him from returning to work as a newspaper jogger 

and as a nursery laborer. Tr. 336. Alternatively, the ALJ found that Galindo can perform 

other jobs in the national economy, specifically an automobile detailer and a groundskeeper. 

Tr. 337.

Accordingly, the ALJ determined that Galindo was not disabled at any time through 

the date of the decision.

///

///

///

Case 6:14-cv-01221-ST Document 27 Filed 11/13/15 Page 5 of 15
6 – OPINION AND ORDER

STANDARD OF REVIEW

The reviewing 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. 42 

USC § 405(g); Lewis v. Astrue, 498 F3d 909, 911 (9th Cir 2007). This court must weigh the 

evidence that supports and detracts from the ALJ’s conclusion. Lingenfelter v. Astrue, 504 

F3d 1028, 1035 (9th Cir 2007), citing Reddick v. Chater, 157 F3d 715, 720 (9th Cir 1998). 

The reviewing court may not substitute its judgment for that of the Commissioner. Ryan v. 

Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 528 F3d 1194, 1205 (9th Cir 2008), citing Parra v. Astrue, 481 

F3d 742, 746 (9th Cir 2007); see also Edlund v. Massanari, 253 F3d 1152, 1156 (9th Cir 

2001). Where the evidence is susceptible to more than one rational interpretation, the 

Commissioner’s decision must be upheld if it is “‘supported by inferences reasonably drawn 

from the record.’” Tommasetti v. Astrue, 533 F3d 1035, 1038 (9th Cir 2008), quoting Batson 

v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 359 F3d 1190, 1193 (9th Cir 2004); see also Lingenfelter, 

504 F3d at 1035. We review the ALJ’s final decision, not the previously vacated decision. 

See Lombardo v. Schweiker, 749 F2d 565, 567 (9th Cir 1984). 

DISCUSSION

Galindo contends that the ALJ erred by not following this court’s instruction to account 

for his limitations found by Keli J. Dean, Psy.D., and by not properly crediting the opinion of 

Dr. Slatick.

I. Dr. Dean

Dr. Dean completed a Neuropsychological Screening and Mental Residual Function 

Capacity Report in November 2006. Tr. 203–17. Among other findings, Dr. Dean found that 

Galindo was moderately limited in the category of “Social Interaction” in his abilities to “ask 

Case 6:14-cv-01221-ST Document 27 Filed 11/13/15 Page 6 of 15
7 – OPINION AND ORDER

simple questions or request assistance” and “accept instruction and respond appropriately to 

criticism from supervisors.” Tr. 215–16. In 2009, the ALJ concluded that Galindo had the RFC 

to work at all exertional levels, but was “limited to simple, routine tasks and no more than 

occasional contact with the general public.” Tr. 14. This court found that the ALJ erred when 

fashioning that RFC by not accounting “for the moderate limitations in social interaction found 

by Dr. Dean in [Galindo’s] ability to ask simple questions or request assistance and in his ability 

to accept instructions and respond appropriately to criticism from supervisors.” Tr. 406. On 

remand, the ALJ was instructed to give specific and legitimate reasons if he rejected Dr. Dean’s 

opinion that Galindo is limited in social interaction relating to supervisors, or, if he credited 

Dr. Dean’s opinion, to include the limitation in a hypothetical to a vocational expert and the RFC 

assessment. Id. 

On remand, the ALJ assigned “significant” weight to Dr. Dean’s opinion and 

accommodated his opinion about Galindo’s “pacing as well as additional anxiety created by 

working around groups of people” in the RFC. Tr. 334. As for Galindo’s limitations in social 

interaction with supervisors, the ALJ added to the RFC a limitation of “occasional contact with 

supervisors” and a requirement that “a supervisor to check in with him one time per day for the 

first two months of employment to check on work production and to see if [Galindo] has 

questions.” Id. Essentially, Galindo argues that the ALJ erred by selecting only some of 

Dr. Dean’s limitations for inclusion in the RFC and ignoring the rest.

Dr. Dean found that Galindo’s significant weaknesses in his “verbal composition, 

processing speed, mathematics, and memory skills are likely to have a negative impact on his 

ability to learn and perform job tasks without extra assistance.” Tr. 212–13 (emphasis added). 

Case 6:14-cv-01221-ST Document 27 Filed 11/13/15 Page 7 of 15
8 – OPINION AND ORDER

Galindo contends that by limiting the need for enhanced supervision only to the first two months 

of employment, the RFC does not adequately incorporate his need for “extra assistance.”

Galindo presents a reasonable interpretation of Dr. Dean’s finding regarding his inability 

to “learn and perform job tasks without extra assistance.” Galindo’s limitations in verbal 

composition, processing speed, mathematics, and memory skills might require continual 

supervision while performing the job. Dr. Dean certainly did not opine that Galindo’s need for 

assistance would diminish over time. However, her opinion specified “extra” assistance, not 

necessarily daily assistance for the life of his employment. 

It is also reasonable to interpret her finding, as the ALJ did, to apply only to the early 

stages of employment, i.e. the first two months when Galindo is learning, practicing and 

then performing the job under close supervision. The two-month period of daily supervision 

required by the ALJ provides “extra assistance” beyond the period needed for job training. 

Galindo’s past relevant work and the jobs identified by the ALJ are classified as SVP2 2 

(unskilled work) which requires “anything beyond short demonstration up to and including 

1 month” to learn the job. Dictionary of Occupational Titles (“DOT”), Appendix C, 

available at 1991 WL 688702. Under the RFC, Galindo would receive daily assistance not 

only during the first month while learning the job, but also during the second month while 

he is performing the job he recently learned. Dr. Dean found that Galindo was not 

significantly limited in sustaining “an ordinary routine without special supervision.” 

Tr. 216. Therefore, it was reasonable for the ALJ to assume that Galindo would be able to 

continue performing an unskilled job with simple, repetitive, and routine tasks and low

 

2 Specific Vocational Preparation (SVP) is defined as the amount of lapsed time required a typical worker to 

“learn the techniques, acquire the information, and develop the facility needed for average performance.” 

Dictionary of Occupational Titles, Appendix C, available at 1991 WL 688702. 

Case 6:14-cv-01221-ST Document 27 Filed 11/13/15 Page 8 of 15
9 – OPINION AND ORDER

stress without daily supervision after two months of intensive or “extra” training and 

supervision. The ALJ’s findings must be upheld “if supported by inferences reasonably drawn 

from the record” and “when the evidence is susceptible to more than one rational interpretation.” 

Tommasetti, 533 F3d at 1038 (citations omitted). 

Galindo also argues that the ALJ’s two-month restriction contravenes the 

Commissioner’s rule that functional limitations in the RFC are permanent, not temporary 

limitations. See 20 CFR §§ 404.1505, 416.905; see also SSR 96-8P, available at 1996 WL 

374184, at *7 (“In assessing RFC, the [ALJ] must discuss the individual’s ability to perform 

sustained work activities in an ordinary work setting on a regular and continuing basis.”). But 

the initial two-month assistance period in the RFC is not the only accommodation of 

Galindo’s limitations in asking questions and requesting assistance. Those limitations are 

inherent in the restriction to unskilled work. “Unskilled work is work which needs little or no 

judgment to do simple duties that can be learned on the job in a short period of time.” 20 CFR

§§ 404.1568(a), 416.968(a). Moreover, the RFC does require occasional supervision, such 

that Galindo will have some continuing assistance without the need to seek help. Tr. 330. 

Taken as a whole, the RFC considers and incorporates Dr. Dean’s finding that Galindo 

needs “extra assistance.”

Galindo also contends that the RFC completely fails to reflect his inability to accept 

instruction and respond appropriately to criticism. See Tr. 216. Although the ALJ 

specifically considered Dr. Dean’s moderate limitations in these areas when restricting 

Galindo to only occasional contact with supervisors, Galindo suggests they should instead 

be addressed with a restriction regarding the quality of supervision. In support, he points to 

the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (“MMPI-II”) which indicated that he “may 

Case 6:14-cv-01221-ST Document 27 Filed 11/13/15 Page 9 of 15
10 – OPINION AND ORDER

be hypersensitive to how others viewed him and require increased support and attention in 

interpersonal relationships.” Tr. 211–12. Dr. Dean also noted that Galindo would benefit 

from “a supportive work environment or supportive supervisors providing increased support 

and attention” and “frequent positive feedback . . . when learning new skills.” Tr. 213. 

However, as the Ninth Circuit explained in Valentine v. Comm’r Soc. Sec. Admin., 574 

F3d 685, 691–92 (9th Cir 2009), it is not error for the ALJ to omit limitations in a doctor’s 

opinion that are not expressed as functional restrictions. It is the ALJ’s responsibility to 

construct an RFC responsive to Dr. Dean’s findings. See 20 CFR §§ 404.1546(c), 

416.946(c). The Ninth Circuit found that notations in the section of the doctor’s report 

entitled “Recommendations” were “neither a diagnosis nor a statement of . . . functional 

capacity” because the doctor did not indicate that the applicant was “incapable of working 

except under the recommended conditions.” Id at 691–92. Similarly, Dr. Dean’s 

assessment of working conditions that may aid Galindo, such as frequent and positive 

feedback, were recommendations made to the Vocational Rehabilitation Services and were 

not posited as limitations that prevent him from competitive employment. The RFC 

adequately incorporates Dr. Dean’s findings of “moderate limitations in social interaction” 

as required by the court’s order. 

For these reasons, the ALJ did not fail to comply with the court’s order regarding 

Dr. Dean’s opinion.

II. Dr. Slatick

On February 18, 2014, Dr. Slatick completed a Psychological Evaluation Report and a 

Mental Residual Function Report. Tr. 584–92. As did Dr. Dean, Dr. Slatick found that Galindo 

is markedly limited in his ability to understand, remember, and carry out detailed instructions. 

Case 6:14-cv-01221-ST Document 27 Filed 11/13/15 Page 10 of 15
11 – OPINION AND ORDER

Compare Tr. 215–16 with Tr. 591–92. But unlike Dr. Dean, Dr. Slatick also found Galindo was 

markedly limited in the following areas: the “ability to perform activities within a schedule, 

maintain regular attendance, and be punctual within customary tolerances;” the “ability to 

complete a normal workday and workweek without interruptions from psychologically based 

symptoms and to perform at a consistent pace without an unreasonable number and length of rest 

periods;” and the “ability to set realistic goals or make plans independently of others.”3 Tr. 591–

92. The ALJ gave only “limited weight” to Dr. Slatick’s opinion “because it is not supported by 

objective evidence.” Tr. 335. Accordingly, the ALJ credited Dr. Slatick’s opinion only to limit 

Galindo to “simple, repetitive, and routine tasks consistent with unskilled work, in addition to the 

limitation to low stress work (defined as work requiring few decisions and few changes).” Id.

Disability opinions are reserved for the Commissioner. 20 CFR §§ 404.1527(e)(1), 

416.927(e)(1). If no conflict arises between medical source opinions, the ALJ generally must 

accord greater weight to the opinion of a treating physician than that of an examining physician. 

Lester v. Chater, 81 F3d 821, 830 (9th Cir 1995). The ALJ should also give greater weight to the 

opinion of an examining physician over that of a reviewing physician. Orn v. Astrue, 495 F3d 

625, 632 (9th Cir 2007). If a treating or examining physician’s opinion is not contradicted by 

another physician, the ALJ may reject it only for clear and convincing reasons. Id (treating 

physician); Widmark v. Barnhart, 454 F3d 1063, 1067 (9th Cir 2006) (examining physician). 

Even if one physician is contradicted by another physician, the ALJ may not reject the opinion 

without providing specific and legitimate reasons supported by substantial evidence in the 

record. Orn, 495 F3d at 632; Widmark, 454 F3d at 1066. 

 

3 The only other category in which Dr. Dean found that Galindo was markedly limited was the “ability to 

remember locations and work-like procedure.” Tr. 215.

Case 6:14-cv-01221-ST Document 27 Filed 11/13/15 Page 11 of 15
12 – OPINION AND ORDER

Galindo argues that his inability to maintain regular attendance and punctuality, as opined 

by Dr. Slatick, renders him disabled and that the ALJ erred by rejecting that portion of 

Dr. Slatick’s opinion. Because Dr. Slatick’s opinion is contradicted by the opinion of at least 

one other examining physician, the ALJ was required to provide specific and legitimate reasons 

for rejecting it. 

The Commissioner argues that any error committed by the ALJ in his treatment of 

Dr. Slatick’s opinion is harmless because he incorporated it into the RFC by “limiting [Galindo]

to simple, repetitive, and routine tasks consistent with unskilled work, in addition to the 

limitation to low stress work (defined as work requiring few decisions and few changes).” 

Tr. 335. However, these aspects of the RFC do not account for Dr. Slatick’s opinion that 

Galindo has a limited ability to maintain regular attendance and punctuality. 

The Commissioner further argues that the lack of objective medical evidence is a specific 

and legitimate reason to give only limited weight to Dr. Slatick’s opinion. As an example of that

lack of objective medical evidence, the ALJ cited Galindo’s report to Dr. Slatick “that he had 

panic attacks ten times a year for which he sought emergency department treatment.” Tr. 335, 

citing Tr. 589. However, as the ALJ correctly stated, the “emergency department treatment 

records do not substantiate this claim.” Tr. 335; see Tr. 166–200, 524–52. 

In addition, the ALJ found that Galindo “is less than fully credible” (Tr. 335) which 

Galindo does not challenge. An ALJ may discredit a treating physician’s opinion if it is largely 

based on uncritically accepted, incredible, and subjective claimant reports rather than objective 

medical findings. Cotton v. Astrue, 374 F App’x 769, 771 (9th Cir 2010); see also Morgan v. 

Comm=r of Soc. Sec., 169 F3d 595, 600-02 (9th Cir 1999) (the opinion of a physician that is

“premised to a large extent upon the claimant’s own accounts of his symptoms and limitations 

Case 6:14-cv-01221-ST Document 27 Filed 11/13/15 Page 12 of 15
13 – OPINION AND ORDER

may be disregarded where those complaints have been ‘properly discounted’”). Galindo 

reported to Dr. Slatick that he first experienced anxiety 13 years earlier, leading to random and 

unpredictable panic attacks approximately 10 times a year which render him “completely nonfunctional” for three days to a week at a time and require emergency medical treatment. Tr. 585. 

It is reasonable to assume that Dr. Slatick’s conclusions about Galindo’s ability to participate in a

regular work schedule were based in part on his discredited report about the frequency and 

severity of his anxiety attacks requiring medical treatment.

Although Dr. Slatick relied in part on Galindo’s unsubstantiated report, he also relied 

on his observations, review of psychiatric and medical records, and objective intelligence 

and psychological testing. Tr. 584, 587–88. He concluded that the “[p]revious evaluations 

and current psychological testing are consistent with [Galindo’s] reports of symptoms.” 

Tr. 589. Galindo’s scores on the MMPI II were representative of individuals who tend to 

feel depressed, sad, or despondent; are socially introverted and dislike parties or other group 

activities; are anxious and lack confidence in their own abilities; lack energy to cope with 

everyday activities; view the world as a threatening place; and may respond to stress by 

withdrawing into fantasy. Tr. 588–89. 

The objective testing and the weight of consistent medical evidence in the record

certainly support Dr. Slatick’s opinion that Galindo suffers from anxiety. However, they do not 

support a finding that Galindo’s anxiety is so severe that he is unable to conform to a regular 

work schedule. That finding is entirely based on Galindo’s account of how often he experiences

debilitating anxiety attacks and how long the episodes last, not reported elsewhere in the record. 

This is clear from Dr. Slatick’s discussion of the frequencies of Galindo’s anxiety in this 

summary:

Case 6:14-cv-01221-ST Document 27 Filed 11/13/15 Page 13 of 15
14 – OPINION AND ORDER

[Galindo] reports a history of anxiety which began 13 years ago in the 

form of a severe anxiety episode characterized by extreme panic, fear, and 

paranoia which led to a significant decline in functioning for 

approximately one month. While he appears to have experienced 

generalized anxiety on a persistent basis since that time, he also continues 

to have intermittent episodes of heightened anxiety which cause him to 

seek emergency medical treatment and can last anywhere from three days 

to a week at a time. These subsequent episodes also cause a decline in 

functioning; similar to that of his initial episode. These anxiety episodes 

do not appear to be triggered by external events and their onset is, 

therefore, unpredictable. He also reports briefer panic attacks which tend 

to occur when he is in public and can leave him unable to complete day to 

day tasks such as grocery shopping. Previous evaluations and current 

psychological testing are consistent with [Galindo’s] report of symptoms 

and he does not appear to be experiencing improvement over time.

Tr. 589. 

Without relying on Galindo’s discredited self-reporting and without confirming medical 

records, the testing alone does not support Dr. Slatick’s finding that Galindo’s anxiety causes

marked limitations in his inability to maintain regular attendance and punctuality. 

Another reason given by the ALJ for giving only “limited weight” to Dr. Slatick’s 

opinion is that Galindo “has never participated in any therapy” and that his “only recent medical 

treatment has been for routine medication refills.” Tr. 335. However, Dr. Slatick formed his 

opinion based on his review of Galindo’s previous psychological evaluations, including 

Dr. Dean’s recommendation that Galindo receive mental health therapy in addition to 

medications. Tr. 214. In fact, Dr. Slatick specifically noted that Galindo’s treatment “has been 

limited to antidepressant medication and, while reportedly helpful, is insufficient in 

managing his symptoms” and recommended regular mental health counseling. Tr. 589–90. 

He also noted Galindo’s report that he had once seen a counselor for a single session and 

would like to see a counselor on a regular basis. Tr. 586. A claimant’s “unexplained or 

inadequately explained failure to seek treatment or follow a prescribed course of treatment” is 

Case 6:14-cv-01221-ST Document 27 Filed 11/13/15 Page 14 of 15
15 – OPINION AND ORDER

grounds for discrediting a claimant’s credibility. Smolen v. Chater, 80 F3d 1273, 1284 (9th Cir

1996). However, it does not provide a legitimate reason to reject a physician’s opinion. 

Nonetheless, any error in relying on Galindo’s lack of participation in mental health therapy 

to reject some of Dr. Slatick’s findings is harmless because the ALJ provided other specific 

and legitimate reasons for discrediting the opinion of Dr. Slatick.

ORDER

For the reasons discussed above, the Commissioner’s decision is AFFIRMED.

DATED November 13, 2015.

s/ Janice M. Stewart

Janice M. Stewart

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 6:14-cv-01221-ST Document 27 Filed 11/13/15 Page 15 of 15