# 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON 

SHAUN DIRKS, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

CAROLYNL. COLVIN, 

Commissioner of Social Security, 

Defendant. 

George J. Wall 

1336 E. Burnside Street, Suite 130 

Portland, OR 97214 

Attorney for Plaintiff 

Billy J. Williams 

United States Attorney, District of Oregon 

Janice E. Hebert 

Assistant United States Attorney 

1000 SW Third Avenue, Suite 600 

Portland, OR 97204 

Jordan D. Goddard 

Special Assistant United States Attorney 

Social Security Administration 

701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2900 MIS 221A 

Seattle, WA 98104 

Attorneys for Defendant 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Case No. 3:15-cv-01600-TC 

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 

Case 3:15-cv-01600-TC Document 19 Filed 08/25/16 Page 1 of 4
COFFIN, Magistrate Judge: 

Plaintiff Shaun Dirks ("Plaintiff') seeks judicial review of the final decision of the 

Commissioner of the Social Security Administration ("Commissioner") denying his applications 

for Supplemental Security Income ("SSI") and Disability Insurance Benefits ("DIB") under 

Titles II and XVI of the Social Security Act. This court has jurisdiction under 42 U.S.C. §§ 

405(g) and 1383(c). Because the Commissioner's decision is supported by substantial evidence, 

the decision should be affirmed and this case should be dismissed. 

DISCUSSION 

Plaintiff challenges the ALJ' s decision, claiming that he erred by failing to develop the 

record. The reviewing court must affirm the Commissioner's decision if it is based on the proper 

legal standards and the findings are supported by substantial evidence. 42 U.S.C. § 405(g); see 

also Hammock v. Bowen, 879 F.2d 498, 501 (9th Cir. 1989). "Substantial evidence" means 

"more than a mere scintilla, but less than a preponderance." Bray v. Comm'r Soc. Sec. Admin, 

554 F.3d 1219, 1222 (9th Cir. 2009) (quoting Andrews v. Shalala, 53 F.3d 1035, 1039 (9th 

Cir. 1995)). It means "such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to 

support a conclusion." Id. 

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

Commissioner's conclusion must be upheld. Sample v. Schweiker, 694 F.2d 639, 642 (9th 

Cir. 1982). Variable interpretations of the evidence are insignificant if the Commissioner's 

interpretation is a rational reading of the record, and this court may not substitute its judgment 

for that of the Commissioner. Burch v. Barnhart. 400 F.3d 676, 679 (9th Cir. 2005). "However, 

a reviewing court must consider the entire record as a whole and may not affirm simply by 

isolating a specific quantum of supporting evidence." Om v. Astrue, 495 F.3d 625, 630 (9th 

Page 2 -REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 

Case 3:15-cv-01600-TC Document 19 Filed 08/25/16 Page 2 of 4
Cir. 2007) (quoting Robbins v. Soc. Sec. Admin., 466 F.3d 880, 882 (9th Cir. 2006) (quotation 

marks omitted)). The reviewing court, however, may not affirm the Commissioner on a ground 

upon which the Commissioner did not rely. Qm, 495 F.3d at 630; see also Bray, 554 F.3d 

at 1226-26 (citing SEC v. Chenery Corp., 332 U.S. 194, 196 (1947)). 

Plaintiff first argues that the ALJ failed to fully and fairly develop the record, alleging 

that the ALJ erred in his determination of plaintiffs disability onset date. An ALJ' s "duty to 

develop the record is triggered only when there is ambiguous evidence or when the record is 

inadequate to allow for proper evaluation of the evidence." McLeod v. Astrue, 640 F.3d 881, 

885 (9th Cir. 2011). 

The court has considered the entire record and concludes that it was not ambiguous and 

did not require further development to constitute substantial evidence supporting the ALJ's nondisability determination. 1 Here, the ALJ found that plaintiffs disability onset was of traumatic 

origin, beginning when plaintiff suffered a stroke on August 19, 2013. Tr. 34-36, 483-84. SSR 

83-20 provides that, "[f]or disabilities of traumatic origin, onset is the day of the injury." SSR 

83-20, at *2. Because the ALJ determined that plaintiffs disability onset was of traumatic origin, 

and the date of plaintiffs stroke was substantiated in the record, the ALJ was not required to 

further develop the record by calling on the services of a medical expert. Id. at *2; McLeod, 640 

F.3d at 885. 

Plaintiff also argues that the ALJ' s evaluation of the record was not supported by 

substantial evidence, but does not provide legal argument to support his claim. Instead, he 

attempts to bolster his assertion by citing to evidence that the ALJ rejected in his decision. 

Specifically, plaintiff cites his own testimony, the testimony of the lay witness, and the medical 

1 Indeed, neither plaintiff nor plaintiffs counsel requested a consultative examination at 

the administrative hearing or otherwise indicated that the record was incomplete. See Tr. 45-90. 

Page 3 - REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 

Case 3:15-cv-01600-TC Document 19 Filed 08/25/16 Page 3 of 4
opinion of James Borden, M.D. Because plaintiff does not challenge the ALJ's evaluation of the 

evidence, however, he has waived any challenge to the ALJ's credibility finding (Tr. 25, 33), his 

evaluation of the lay testimony (Tr. 30), and his evaluation of the medical evidence (Tr. 32-33). 

Carmickle v. Comm'r, 533 F.3d 1155, 1161 n.2 (9th Cir. 2008) (declining to address arguments 

not raised with specificity in briefing). The court has examined the ALJ's findings in light of the 

entire record and finds that they are rational. On this record, because plaintiff merely provides 

an alternative interpretation of the evidence, the court must uphold the ALJ' s rational 

conclusions that are based on the record. Burch, 400 F.3d at 679. 

RECOMMENDATION 

In sum, there was substantial evidence in the record to support the ALJ' s non-disability 

determination. The decision that Plaintiff is not disabled should therefore 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 Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure Rule 

4(a)(l) should not be filed until entry of the district court's judgment or appealable order. 

The Report and Recommendation will be referred to a district judge. Objections to this 

Report and Recommendation, if any, are due no later than fourteen (14) days from today's 

date. If objections are filed, any response is due fourteen (14) days from the date of the 

objections. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72, 6. Parties are advised that the failure to file objections within 

the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court's order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 

F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 

DATED this~ day of August, 2016. 

Page 4- REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 

Case 3:15-cv-01600-TC Document 19 Filed 08/25/16 Page 4 of 4