1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

WO 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Gloria June Fernandez, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Carolyn W Colvin, 

Defendant. 

No. CV-15-01928-PHX-DLR

ORDER 

 Plaintiff Gloria Fernandez seeks review under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) of the final 

decision of the Commissioner of Social Security (Commissioner) denying her application 

for supplemental security income and disability insurance benefits. Because the decision 

of the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) is supported by substantial evidence and is not 

based on legal error, the Commissioner’s decision is affirmed. 

I. Background 

 Fernandez is a 64 year-old female with an associate’s degree. (A.R. 43.) She 

previously worked as a billing associate, nurse, and physician’s assistant. She alleges 

disability based on high cholesterol, arthritis, herniated discs, sciatic nerve, depression, 

anxiety, gout, and high blood pressure. (Id. at 252.) 

 On July 16, 2012, Fernandez applied for disability insurance benefits and 

supplemental security income, alleging disability beginning March 1, 2012. (Id. at 11.) 

On December 3, 2013, she appeared with her attorney and testified at a hearing before the 

Case 2:15-cv-01928-DLR Document 19 Filed 10/13/16 Page 1 of 8
- 2 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

ALJ. A vocational expert also testified. 

 On February 11, 2014, the ALJ issued a decision that Fernandez was not disabled 

within the meaning of the Social Security Act. The Appeals Counsel denied Fernandez’s 

request for review of the hearing decision, making the ALJ’s decision the 

Commissioner’s final decision. On September 25, 2015, Fernandez sought review by this 

Court. 

II. Legal Standard 

 The district court reviews only those issues raised by the party challenging the 

ALJ’s decision. See Lewis v. Apfel, 236 F.3d 503, 517 n.13 (9th Cir. 2001). The court 

may set aside the Commissioner’s disability determination only if the determination is 

not supported by substantial evidence or is based on legal error. Orn v. Astrue, 495 F.3d 

625, 630 (9th Cir. 2007). Substantial evidence is more than a scintilla, less than a 

preponderance, and relevant evidence that a reasonable person might accept as adequate 

to support a conclusion considering the record as a whole. Id. In determining whether 

substantial evidence supports a decision, the court must consider the record as a whole 

and may not affirm simply by isolating a “specific quantum of supporting evidence.” Id. 

As a general rule, “[w]here the evidence is susceptible to more than one rational 

interpretation, one of which supports the ALJ’s decision, the ALJ’s conclusion must be 

upheld.” Thomas v. Barnhart, 278 F.3d 947, 954 (9th Cir. 2002) (citations omitted). 

III. Five-Step Sequential Evaluation Process 

To determine whether a claimant is disabled for purposes of the Social Security 

Act, the ALJ follows a five-step process. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a). The claimant bears 

the burden of proof on the first four steps, but at step five, the burden shifts to the 

Commissioner. Tackett v. Apfel, 180 F.3d 1094, 1098 (9th Cir. 1999). 

 At the first step, the ALJ determines whether the claimant is engaging in 

substantial gainful activity. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(i). If so, the claimant is not 

disabled and the inquiry ends. Id. At step two, the ALJ determines whether the claimant 

has a “severe” medically determinable physical or mental impairment. 

Case 2:15-cv-01928-DLR Document 19 Filed 10/13/16 Page 2 of 8
- 3 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

§ 404.1520(a)(4)(ii). If not, the claimant is not disabled and the inquiry ends. Id. At step 

three, the ALJ considers whether the claimant’s impairment or combination of 

impairments meets or medically equals an impairment listed in Appendix 1 to Subpart P 

of 20 C.F.R. Pt. 404. § 404.1520(a)(4)(iii). If so, the claimant is automatically found to 

be disabled. Id. If not, the ALJ proceeds to step four. At step four, the ALJ assesses the 

claimant’s residual functional capacity (RFC) and determines whether the claimant is still 

capable of performing past relevant work. § 404.1520(a)(4)(iv). If so, the claimant is not 

disabled and the inquiry ends. Id. If not, the ALJ proceeds to the fifth and final step, 

where he determines whether the claimant can perform any other work based on the 

claimant’s RFC, age, education, and work experience. § 404.1520(a)(4)(v). If so, the 

claimant is not disabled. Id. If not, the claimant is disabled. Id.

At step one, the ALJ found that Fernandez meets the insured status requirements 

of the Social Security Act through March 31, 2015, and that she has not engaged in 

substantial gainful activity since March 1, 2012. (A.R. 23.) At step two, the ALJ found 

that Fernandez has the following severe impairments: degenerative disc disease and 

spondylosis status post laminectomy and discectomy, obesity, and degenerative joint 

disease. (Id.) At step three, the ALJ determined that Fernandez does not have an 

impairment or combination of impairments that meets or medically equals an impairment 

listed in Appendix 1 to Subpart P of 20 C.F.R. Pt. 404. (Id. at 25.) 

 At step four, the ALJ found that Fernandez has the RFC to perform “the full range 

of sedentary work as defined in 20 CFR 404.1567(a) and 416.967(a).” (Id. at 26.) 

Accordingly, given her RFC, the ALJ concluded that Fernandez is capable of performing 

her past work as a billing clerk and medical billing clerk. (Id. at 30.) 

IV. Analysis 

 Fernandez argues the ALJ’s decision should be overturned because the ALJ 

improperly (1) rejected the testimony of treating physician Dr. David Minor, and (2) 

discounted the credibility of her testimony regarding the severity of her symptoms. (Doc. 

16 at 12, 16.) The Court will address each argument in turn. 

Case 2:15-cv-01928-DLR Document 19 Filed 10/13/16 Page 3 of 8
- 4 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

A. The ALJ Did Not Err in Evaluating the Medical Source Evidence 

 The ALJ is responsible for resolving conflicts in medical testimony. Andrews v. 

Shalala, 53 F.3d 1035, 1039 (9th Cir. 1995). Generally, more weight should be given to 

the opinion of a treating physician than to the opinions of non-treating physicians. Lester 

v. Chater, 81 F.3d 821, 830 (9th Cir. 1995). Where a treating physician’s opinion is not 

contradicted by another physician, it may be rejected only for “clear and convincing” 

reasons, and where it is contradicted, it may not be rejected without “specific and 

legitimate reasons” supported by substantial evidence in the record. Id. Likewise, an 

examining physician’s opinion generally must be given greater weight than that of a nonexamining physician. Id. at 830. As with a treating physician, there must be clear and 

convincing reasons for rejecting the uncontradicted opinion of an examining physician, 

and specific and legitimate reasons, supported by substantial evidence in the record, for 

rejecting an examining physician’s contradicted opinion. Id. at 830-31. 

 Dr. David Minor, D.O., has treated Fernandez for several years. (A.R. at 82.) He 

completed three medical source statements regarding her functional capabilities. The 

first form, dated August 16, 2012, states that Fernandez could occasionally lift less than 

ten pounds and that she would miss work once or twice per month. (Id. at 383.) It noted 

that she could sit for six hours during the workday and stand or walk for one hour during 

the workday. (Id. at 382.) Minor also opined that Fernandez would often experience 

interference with attention and concentration at work due to her mental impairments. 

(Id.) 

 The second form, dated April 22, 2013, states that Fernandez can lift ten pounds 

occasionally and less than ten pounds frequently due to “knee & back pain.” (Id. at 511.) 

It also states that Fernandez is able to walk or stand less than two hours per day due to 

“lumbar & knee pain [and] neuropathy.” (Id. at 512.) Further, Fernandez can sit for only 

four hours per day and can never climb, stoop, kneel, crouch, or balance. (Id. at 512-13.) 

 The third form, dated September 17, 2013, states that Fernandez cannot lift any 

weight in a work situation and would miss work three or four times a month. (Id. at 606.) 

Case 2:15-cv-01928-DLR Document 19 Filed 10/13/16 Page 4 of 8
- 5 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

It further stated that she could sit for three hours per workday, walk or stand for one hour 

out of the workday, and that her mental impairments would cause frequent or constant 

interference with attention and concentration. (Id. at 605.) 

 The ALJ gave little weight to the opinions of Minor because they were not 

supported by the objective medical evidence in the record and were “inconsistent with the 

record as a whole.” (Id. at 29.) Inconsistency with the medical record is a sufficient 

basis for discounting medical source evidence. Batson v. Comm’r of Social Sec. Admin., 

359 F.3d 1190, 1195 (9th Cir. 2004). As the ALJ noted, Minor “primarily summarized” 

Fernandez’s “subjective complaints, diagnoses, and treatment, but he did not provide 

objective clinical or diagnostic findings to support the functional assessment.” (Id. at 29.) 

The statements merely cite “knee and back pain” without any supporting clinical 

findings. The ALJ also noted that Minor’s medical source statements appear to suggest 

further deterioration of Fernandez’s medical conditions, which contradicts the abundant 

medical evidence indicating otherwise. The evidence demonstrates that Fernandez’s 

back pain improved after surgery and that her mental impairments were controlled with 

medication. Her surgeon believed the surgery to be a major success regarding her back 

pain. (Id. at 519.) In October 2012, a few months after surgery, progress notes indicated 

that Fernandez was “doing well,” but that she “would like us to sign a form for disability 

so she could have her student loan payments waived.” (Id. at 589.) The notes further 

state that “I told the patient that I cannot sign a form for permanent disability because I 

do not think she is disabled. She can hold a job and work.” (Id.) 

 The Court finds the ALJ reasonably concluded that Minor’s medical source 

statements were inconsistent with the objective medical evidence and properly afforded 

little weight to them. Accordingly, the Court finds the ALJ set forth specific and 

legitimate reasons supported by substantial evidence for discounting Dr. Minor’s opinion. 

See Lester, 81 F.3d at 830. 

B. The ALJ Did Not Err in Evaluating Fernandez’s Credibility 

 Fernandez argues that the ALJ erred in evaluating the credibility of her testimony 

Case 2:15-cv-01928-DLR Document 19 Filed 10/13/16 Page 5 of 8
- 6 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

regarding the severity of her symptoms. (Doc. 16 at 16.) In evaluating credibility, the 

ALJ is required to engage in a two-step analysis: (1) determine whether the claimant 

presented objective medical evidence of an impairment that could reasonably be expected 

to produce some degree of the pain or other symptoms alleged; and, if so with no 

evidence of malingering, (2) reject the claimant’s testimony about the severity of the 

symptoms only by giving specific, clear, and convincing reasons for the rejection. 

Vasquez v. Astrue, 572 F.3d 586, 591 (9th Cir. 2009). “In reaching a credibility 

determination, an ALJ may weigh inconsistencies between the claimant’s testimony and 

his or her conduct, daily activities, and work record, among other factors.” Bray v. 

Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 554 F.3d 1219, 1227 (9th Cir. 2009). 

 At the hearing, Fernandez testified that she had back surgery in July 2012. (A.R. 

46.) She lives with her two sons and has a pitbull. (Id. at 54-55.) She has a driver’s 

license and occasionally drives. (Id. at 56-57.) She frequently talks on the phone with 

her sister and a few friends. (Id. at 59.) Fernandez goes to the grocery store once a 

month and goes out to eat twice a month. (Id. at 60-61.) She handles her daily activities 

of living, including bathing, dressing, making breakfast and meals, doing the dishes, 

laundry, and occasional household chores. (Id. at 63-64.) She has a laptop on which she 

plays games, shops, takes online classes, and uses Facebook. (Id. at 64-65.) As a hobby, 

Fernandez does embroidery, and sometimes sells her work, but rarely embroiders for 

longer than thirty minutes at a time. (Id. at 65-66, 69.) 

 Fernandez further testified that she is unable to sit for longer than thirty minutes 

due to back pain. (Id. at 69-70.) She stated that she has left knee pain for which she 

takes medication. (Id. at 71-72.) She can only stand and walk for five to ten minutes at a 

time before her back starts hurting, which requires her to use a scooter when she goes 

grocery shopping. (Id. at 72-73.) After her surgery, she did not go to physical therapy as 

recommended by her doctor. (Id. at 74-75.) The surgery helped her back pain and the 

pain in her thigh. (Id. at 81.) She can lift one gallon of milk, but cannot lift two at the 

same time because “it hurts.” (Id. at 76.) 

Case 2:15-cv-01928-DLR Document 19 Filed 10/13/16 Page 6 of 8
- 7 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

 Fernandez stated that she has anxiety, major depressive disorder, and bipolar 

disorder. (Id. at 77.) Sometimes she gets upset and will “scream and holler” and “can’t 

bring [her]self back down.” (Id.) Medication, however, controls all the symptoms of 

these disorders. (Id. at 78.) 

 The ALJ found Fernandez’s statements regarding the severity of her symptoms not 

fully credible because they were inconsistent with the “relatively benign” medical 

evidence and inconsistent with the relatively conservative treatment she received for her 

conditions. (Id. at 26, 27.) An ALJ may discount a claimant’s credibility if the 

“statements at her hearing do not comport with objective evidence in her medical record.” 

Bray, 554 F.3d at 1227. The ALJ stated that “[t]he claimant has not generally received 

the type of medical treatment one would expect for a totally disabled individual and the 

claimant’s alleged loss of function is not supported by objective medical findings.” (Id.

at 27.) The ALJ noted that Fernandez had back surgery in July 2012, which was 

described as a “major success for [her] back pain.” (Id. at 519.) Although her doctor 

recommended physical therapy, Fernandez did not follow through. (Id. at 74-75.) For 

pain, she takes over-the-counter medications. (Id. at 451.) In addition, the latest x-ray on 

her knee was “unremarkable,” and all of her other conditions were “under control” and 

“medically stable.” (Id. at 521, 641.) 

 With respect to Fernandez’s alleged mental impairments, the ALJ noted that 

Fernandez stated that her symptoms are controlled with medication. (Id. at 28.) The 

medical evidence confirms this, as over the course of several treatment visits it is noted 

that she has “normal mood and affect,” good insight and judgment, and all of her mental 

status examinations were within normal limits. (Id. at 386, 517, 619.) In November 

2013, Fernandez reported no depression and no anxiety. (Id. at 611.) 

 The Court agrees with the ALJ’s characterization of the medical evidence as 

“relatively benign” in this case. The evidence indicates that Fernandez’s pain is managed 

with mild medication and that her remaining medical conditions are stable. In addition, 

her mental impairments appear to have improved, and Fernandez admitted that they are 

Case 2:15-cv-01928-DLR Document 19 Filed 10/13/16 Page 7 of 8
- 8 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

controlled with medication. The ALJ reasonably concluded that this evidence 

undermined Fernandez’s testimony at the hearing, especially regarding her back pain and 

her “screaming and hollering.” Accordingly, the Court finds the ALJ provided specific, 

clear, and convincing reasons for discounting Fernandez’s credibility regarding the 

severity of her symptoms, and that those reasons are supported by substantial evidence. 

Vasquez, 572 F.3d at 591. 

 IT IS ORDERED that the final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security 

is AFFIRMED. The Clerk shall enter judgment accordingly and terminate this case. 

 Dated this 13th day of October, 2016. 

Douglas L. Rayes 

United States District Judge 

 

Case 2:15-cv-01928-DLR Document 19 Filed 10/13/16 Page 8 of 8