1 – OPINION AND ORDER

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

MICHELLE N. FIELDS,

Plaintiff, Civ. No. 6:15-cv-2229-MC

v. OPINION AND ORDER

CAROLYN W. COLVIN,

Acting Commissioner of the Social Security

Administration,

Defendant.

_____________________________

MCSHANE, Judge:

Plaintiff Michelle Fields brings this action for judicial review of the Commissioner’s 

decision denying her application for disability insurance benefits and supplemental security 

income. This court has jurisdiction under 42 U.S.C. §§ 405(g) and 1383(c)(3). 

Fields alleges disability due to degenerative disk disease, back strains, migraines, 

fibromyalgia, and loss of depth perception in the right eye. After a hearing, the Administrative 

law judge (ALJ) concluded Fields could perform the jobs of charge account clerk, addresser, and 

document preparer. Tr. 21.1Fields argues the ALJ erred in finding her less-than credible, in 

rejecting the opinion of her treating physician, and in failing to credit law witness evidence. 

Because the Commissioner’s decision is based on proper legal standards and supported by 

substantial evidence, the Commissioner’s decision is AFFIRMED.

 

1

“Tr” refers to the Transcript of Social Security Administrative Record provided by the Commissioner.

Case 6:15-cv-02229-MC Document 19 Filed 01/11/17 Page 1 of 9
2 – OPINION AND ORDER

STANDARD OF REVIEW

The reviewing court shall affirm the Commissioner’s decision if the decision is based on 

proper legal standards and the legal findings are supported by substantial evidence in the record. 

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

“Substantial evidence is ‘more than a mere scintilla but less than a preponderance; it is such 

relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.’” Hill 

v. Astrue, 698 F.3d 1153, 1159 (9th Cir. 2012) (quoting Sandgathe v. Chater, 108 F.3d 978, 980 

(9th Cir. 1997)). To determine whether substantial evidence exists, we review the administrative 

record as a whole, weighing both the evidence that supports and that which detracts from the 

ALJ’s conclusion. Davis v. Heckler, 868 F.2d 323, 326 (9th Cir. 1989). “If the evidence can 

reasonably support either affirming or reversing, ‘the reviewing court may not substitute its 

judgment’ for that of the Commissioner.” Gutierrez v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 740 F.3d 

519, 523 (9th Cir. 2014) (quoting Reddick v. Chater, 157 F.3d 715, 720-21 (9th Cir. 1996)). 

DISCUSSION

The Social Security Administration utilizes a five step sequential evaluation to determine 

whether a claimant is disabled. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520 & 416.920 (2012). The initial burden of 

proof rests upon the claimant to meet the first four steps. If claimant satisfies his or her burden 

with respect to the first four steps, the burden shifts to the Commissioner for step five. 20 C.F.R. 

§ 404.1520. At step five, the Commissioner’s burden is to demonstrate that the claimant is 

capable of making an adjustment to other work after considering the claimant’s residual 

functional capacity (RFC), age, education, and work experience. Id. 

Fields alleges disability as of June 29, 2010. On that day, Fields was involved in a traffic 

accident. Fields’s vehicle was rear ended by another vehicle and Fields suffered whiplash. The 

Case 6:15-cv-02229-MC Document 19 Filed 01/11/17 Page 2 of 9
3 – OPINION AND ORDER

accident was what one would characterize as a relatively minor accident. Fields managed to 

drive away from the accident and her airbags did not deploy. Before the accident, Fields worked 

as a dental assistant. Other than for a few days several months after the accident, Fields did not 

return to work. 

The ALJ found Fields suffered from the following severe impairments: lumbar and 

thoracic spine degenerative disc disease; fibromyalgia; cervical, thoracic, and lumbar strains; 

migraines; and right eye low vision status post corneal transplant. Tr. 16. After a hearing, the 

ALJ issued a written opinion concluding Fields was not disabled under the Social Security Act. 

Tr. 13-22. In reaching that conclusion, the ALJ determined Fields was less-than credible 

regarding the severity of her symptoms and the extent of her limitations. Fields challenges that 

determination, along with the ALJ’s weighing of the opinion of Fields’s treating physician and 

lay evidence. 

1. The ALJ’s Adverse Credibility Determination

Field’s primary complaint is from back pain related to the car accident. The objective 

findings were normal, showing only minor impairments. Because of the relatively normal 

objective findings, this case turns primarily on Fields’s credibility regarding her symptoms and 

limitations. 

The ALJ is not “required to believe every allegation of disabling pain, or else disability 

benefits would be available for the asking, a result plainly contrary to 42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(5)(A).”

Molina v. Astrue, 674 F.3d 1104, 1112 (9th Cir. 2012) (quoting Fair v. Bowen, 885 F.2d 597, 

603 (9th Cir.1989)). The ALJ “may consider a wide range of factors in assessing credibility.” 

Ghanim v. Colvin, 12-35804, 2014 WL 4056530, at *7 (9th Cir. Aug. 18, 2014). These factors 

can include “ordinary techniques of credibility evaluation,” id., as well as:

Case 6:15-cv-02229-MC Document 19 Filed 01/11/17 Page 3 of 9
4 – OPINION AND ORDER

(1) whether the claimant engages in daily activities inconsistent with the alleged 

symptoms; (2) whether the claimant takes medication or undergoes other 

treatment for the symptoms; (3) whether the claimant fails to follow, without 

adequate explanation, a prescribed course of treatment; and (4) whether the 

alleged symptoms are consistent with the medical evidence. 

Lingenfelter v. Astrue, 504 F.3d 1028, 1040 (9th Cir.2007). The ALJ in this case supported her

credibility determination with references to several of the above factors.

The ALJ also pointed to the fact that during much of the time period in question, Fields 

applied for, and received, unemployment benefits. The parties agree that in Oregon, one may 

receive unemployment benefits even if one is unable to work full-time. While that may be so, it 

does not follow, as Fields argues, that the ALJ erred in pointing to Fields’s unemployment 

benefits in finding her less-than credible. Fields testified to severely debilitating limitations. For 

example, Fields testified she “cannot sit for longer than 40 minutes without severe spasms.” Tr. 

40. When Fields looked down for too long, she claimed to “get a severe migraine which will last 

a day or two.” Id. Fields could walk for only two and a half blocks before she would have to sit 

down and rest due to “extreme pain.” Tr. 42. She testified she could stand for about five minutes 

before needing to sit down from the pain. Tr. 43. Blow drying her hair resulted in sharp pain 

down her legs and back. Tr. 45. When the ALJ asked why she did not cut her long hair, Fields 

testified she only gets her hair cut once or twice a year because sitting in the beautician’s chair 

results in bad headaches and shoulder and neck pain. Id. Fields stated she spends over half of her 

average day lying down, tr. 51, and often times even reclining hurt, tr. 50.

Even though one need not work full time to collect unemployment benefits, the ALJ did 

not err in finding a dichotomy between Fields’s receipt of unemployment benefits and the 

severity of the her alleged limitations. Applying for unemployment benefits means one holds 

oneself out as retaining the ability to do “some work.” See Or. Admin. R. 471-030-0036(3)(e). 

Case 6:15-cv-02229-MC Document 19 Filed 01/11/17 Page 4 of 9
5 – OPINION AND ORDER

But Fields’s own allegations as to her limitations—she could walk two and a half blocks, stand 

five minutes, sit for 40 minutes before needing to rest, and lies down the majority of the day—

portray a person unable to perform essentially any job, for any amount of time. The ALJ’s 

reference to Fields’s unemployment benefits is a specific and legitimate reason, supported by 

substantial evidence, in finding Fields not credible. 

The ALJ pointed to other evidence supporting her credibility finding. For example, the 

ALJ noted the fact that Fields lived with her two young children did not align with her severe 

limitations. While Fields testified her mother came over to help approximately once or twice per 

week, the ALJ did not err in noting that the requirements of maintaining a household with a ten 

and twelve year old did not fit with Fields’s testimony as to severe limitations. The ALJ also 

noted that despite alleging she was “blind,” Fields had managed to work for many years with 

right eye vision loss following a corneal transplant. Tr. 41. Finally, the ALJ noted that despite the 

fact that claimant testified she was unable to sit for 40 minutes without suffering “severe 

spasms,” Fields sat comfortably during the 40 minute hearing. 

Here, the ALJ provided “specific, clear and convincing reasons” for rejecting Fields’s

testimony. Vasquez v. Astrue, 572, F.3d 586, 591 (9th Cir. 2009) (quoting Smolen v. Charter, 80 

F.3d 1273, 1282 (9th Cir. 1996)).

2. Dr. Cordes’s Opinion

Where there exists conflicting medical evidence, the ALJ is charged with determining 

credibility and resolving any conflicts. Chaudhry v. Astrue, 688 F.3d 661, 671 (9th Cir. 2012). 

When a treating physician’s opinion is contradicted by another medical opinion, the ALJ may 

reject the opinion of a treating physician only by providing “specific and legitimate reasons 

Case 6:15-cv-02229-MC Document 19 Filed 01/11/17 Page 5 of 9
6 – OPINION AND ORDER

supported by substantial evidence in the record.” Orn v. Astrue, 495 F.3d 625, 632 (9th Cir. 

2007).

Dr. Kathleen Cordes was Fields’s primary care physician during the time in question. Dr. 

Cordes treated Fields once every three to six months. Tr. 443. In December 2012, Dr. Cordes 

completed a Residual Functional Capacity Questionnaire (RFCQ). Tr. 443-44. Dr. Cordes opined 

Fields’s impairments would cause her to miss work more than four times per month and Fields 

was unable to work a 40 hour week on a sustained basis. Tr. 443. Dr. Cordes opined Fields could 

walk 1 block without significant pain, could sit for two hours in an eight hour workday, and 

stand/walk for two hours in an eight hour workday. Tr. 443. The ALJ gave Dr. Cordes’s opinion 

little weight as it was based on Fields’s subjective reporting and unsupported by the record. 

The ALJ did not err in concluding Dr. Cordes’s opinion was based on Fields’s subjective 

reporting. Other than noting some tenderness and tightness, Dr. Cordes’s objective findings upon 

examination were relatively normal. “An ALJ may reject a treating physician's opinion if it is 

based ‘to a large extent’ on a claimant's self-reports that have been properly discounted as 

incredible.” Tommasetti v. Astrue, 533 F.3d 1035, 1041 (9th Cir. 2008). As noted above, the ALJ 

did not err in finding Fields not credible. Because Dr. Cordes’s opinion was based largely on 

Fields’s subjective reporting, the ALJ did not err in assigning little weight to the RFCQ. 

The ALJ also contrasted Dr. Cordes’s opinion with that of Dr. Mark Leadbetter. Dr. 

Leadbetter, an orthopedic surgeon, performed an independent medical exam several months after 

Fields’s car accident. The ALJ pointed to the objective findings of Dr. Leadbetter, a specialist. 

Fields’s subjective reports to Dr. Leadbetter generally mirrored her reports to Dr. Cordes and the 

ALJ. Fields told Dr. Leadbetter any activity produces increased pain, she could sit for 20 

Case 6:15-cv-02229-MC Document 19 Filed 01/11/17 Page 6 of 9
7 – OPINION AND ORDER

minutes, she could walk for five minutes before feeling increased pain, and she could not shop 

for groceries. Tr. 452. She had difficulty sleeping and wakes up throughout the night with pain.

During the examination, Fields’s gait, tandem gait, toe and heel walking were intact. Tr. 

453. Her posture was normal and she could put full weight on either foot. There was some 

tenderness in the C6-7 region. Upon reviewing X-rays, Dr. Leadbetter concluded Fields had 

cervical and lumbar strains related to the car accident but the mild degenerative changes in her 

spine pre-existed the accident. Dr. Leadbetter concluded:

At the time of the examination, there were no significant abnormal objective 

findings that would correlate with severe pain complaints that were being 

expressed by Ms. Fields.

* * * *

Ongoing pain complaints are felt to be disproportionate to a three month old nonserious motor vehicle accident. The damage incurred by Ms. Fields’ vehicle is not 

considered a major motor vehicle accident and these types of accidents do not 

produce major bodily injury.

There are no objective findings to support her subjective complaints.

* * * *

At the time of this examination there was no evidence of a cervical radiculopathy. 

There is no evidence of a cervical myelopathy and there is no evidence of a 

lumbar radiculopathy.

Her ongoing pain complaints are on a subjective basis without documented 

abnormal objective findings to substantiate the subjective complaints.

The psycho-emotional factors appear to be overwhelming at the time of 

examination.2

Tr. 455-56. 

 The ALJ gave Dr. Leadbetter’s opinion significant weight. An ALJ may assign greater 

weight to the opinion of a specialist. Benecke v. Barnhart, 379 F.3d 587, 594 n.4 (9th Cir. 2004). 

 

2

Fields does not allege any mental health impairments. Tr. 41.

Case 6:15-cv-02229-MC Document 19 Filed 01/11/17 Page 7 of 9
8 – OPINION AND ORDER

In addition to being a specialist, Dr. Leadbetter also based his opinion on the objective medical 

evidence, i.e., imaging results and his own objective findings upon examination.

Although Fields argues another interpretation of the record is reasonable, that is not a 

legitimate reason for overturning the ALJ’s conclusions. Gutierrez, 740 F.3d at 523 (quoting 

Reddick, 157 F.3d at 720-21) (“If the evidence can reasonably support either affirming or 

reversing, ‘the reviewing court may not substitute its judgment’ for that of the Commissioner.”)).

The ALJ did not err in assigning little weight to Dr. Cordes’s opinion.

3. Lay Evidence

Fields argues the ALJ erred in not crediting the lay evidence provided by her mother and 

friends. The law witness statements generally echoed Fields’s own testimony regarding her 

limitations. The ALJ gave some weight to the lay testimony, but noted it conflicted with the 

record and objective medical evidence and was based on Fields’s unreliable self-reporting.

An ALJ must provide “germane reasons” for rejecting lay testimony. Lewis v. Apfel, 236 

F.3d 503, 511 (9th Cir. 2001). The ALJ need not discuss every witness’s testimony, and “if the 

ALJ gives germane reasons for rejecting testimony by one witness, the ALJ need only point to 

those reasons when rejecting similar testimony by a different witness.” Molina v. Astrue, 674 

F.3d 1104, 1114 (9th Cir. 2012). Inconsistency with other evidence in the record is a germane 

reason for rejecting the testimony of a lay witness. Lewis, 236 F.3d at 511. Further, it is not 

reversible error to reject lay testimony when “the lay testimony described the same limitations as 

[claimant’s] own testimony, and the ALJ’s reasons for rejecting [claimant’s] testimony apply 

with equal force to the lay testimony.” Molina, 674 F.3d at 1122.

As noted, the ALJ provided clear and convincing reasons for finding Fields not credible. 

That alone is a germane reason to reject similar lay testimony. Additionally, some of the 

Case 6:15-cv-02229-MC Document 19 Filed 01/11/17 Page 8 of 9
9 – OPINION AND ORDER

mother’s statements, such as the fact that Fields had “4-6 collapsed discs,” are contradicted by 

the objective medical evidence. 

CONCLUSION

The Commissioner’s decision that plaintiff is not disabled was supported by substantial 

evidence in the record and is therefore AFFIRMED. This case is dismissed. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED this 11th day of January, 2017.

_______/s/ Michael J. McShane ________

Michael McShane

United States District Judge

Case 6:15-cv-02229-MC Document 19 Filed 01/11/17 Page 9 of 9