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 

Armando Daniel, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Nancy A. Berryhill, 

Acting Commissioner of Social Security, 

Defendant. 

No. CV-15-0452-TUC-BGM 

ORDER 

Currently pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s Opening Brief (Doc. 15). 

Defendant filed her Brief (“Response”) (Doc. 20), and Plaintiff filed his Reply Brief 

(“Reply”) (Doc. 21). Plaintiff brings this cause of action for review of the final decision 

of the Commissioner denying Social Security Disability Insurance Benefits (“DIB”) and 

Supplemental Security Income (“SSI”) disability benefits pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) 

and 42 U.S.C. §1383(c)(3). The United States Magistrate Judge has received the written 

consent of both parties, and presides over this case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) and 

Rule 73, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 

 . . . 

 . . . 

Case 4:15-cv-00452-BGM Document 22 Filed 03/31/17 Page 1 of 32
- 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 

I. BACKGROUND 

A. Procedural History

 On June 13, 2012, Plaintiff filed a Title II application for Social Security 

Disability Insurance Benefits (“DIB”), as well as a Title XVI application for 

Supplemental Security Income (“SSI”), alleging disability as of January 1, 1990 due to 

obstructive sleep apnea status post uvulopalatopharyngoplasty, diverticulitis, diabetes, 

inflammatory polyarthropathy, obesity, degenerative disc disease of the lumbar spine, 

adjustment disorder with mixed anxiety and depressed mood, borderline intellectual 

functioning, and learning disorder. See Administrative Record (“AR”) at 19, 21, 52, 70, 

74, 76, 82, 86, 88, 96, 100–01, 104, 109, 113–14, 117, 198–200, 202–03, 218, 222, 227, 

236, 253, 308. Plaintiff’s date last insured is September 30, 1990. Id. at 21, 49, 70–71, 

75, 87, 91, 100, 104, 109, 205, 243. The Social Security Administration (“SSA”) denied 

these applications on October 11, 2012. Id. at 19, 68–93, 122–29. Plaintiff filed a 

request for reconsideration, and on May 15, 2013, SSA denied Plaintiff’s applications 

upon reconsideration. Id. at 19, 94–121, 131–36. On May 21, 2013, Plaintiff filed his 

request for hearing. Id. at 19, 137–38. On February 28, 2014, a hearing was held before 

Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) Laura Speck Havens. AR at 19, 46–67. On May 8, 

2014, the ALJ issued an unfavorable decision. Id. at 16–33. On June 3, 2014, Plaintiff 

requested review of the ALJ’s decision by the Appeals Council, and on July 24, 2015, 

review was denied. Id. at 1–7, 13–14. On September 23, 2015, Plaintiff filed this cause 

of action. Compl. (Doc. 1). 

 . . . 

Case 4:15-cv-00452-BGM Document 22 Filed 03/31/17 Page 2 of 32
- 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 

B. Factual History 

 Plaintiff was forty-three (43) years old at the time of the administrative hearing 

and nineteen (19) at the time of the alleged onset of his disability. AR at 21, 32, 49–50, 

68–71, 82, 94–96, 109, 175, 179, 205, 207, 243. Plaintiff has a high school education 

through special education and attempted approximately two (2) semesters of college. Id.

at 51, 212, 295. Prior to his alleged disability, Plaintiff worked briefly as a laborer in an 

automotive shop in 1996, but otherwise has no work history. Id. at 31–32, 212. 

 1. Plaintiff’s Testimony 

 a. Administrative Hearing

 At the administrative hearing, Plaintiff testified that he received a high school 

diploma through special education classes and approximately two semesters of college. 

AR at 51, 61. Plaintiff currently lives in an apartment with his mother, who is disabled. 

Id. at 52–53. Plaintiff further testified that he is able to dress and bathe himself and take 

his medications, as well as do his own laundry, cooking, and food shopping. Id. at 53–

54, 62. Plaintiff does not have any hobbies, but watches television three (3) to four (4) 

hours per day. Id. at 54. He walks approximately ten (10) to fifteen (15) minutes at a 

time, and tries to stretch to relieve his muscle pain. Id. at 54–55. 

 Plaintiff testified that he no longer has a driver’s license, because it has been 

suspended. AR at 55. Plaintiff further testified that he had an accident where he fell 

asleep while driving and hit a bus. Id. at 55–56, 63. Plaintiff testified that he has 

problems keeping his food down, and sometimes has trouble with decreased appetite. Id.

at 56–57. Plaintiff also testified that he sleeps approximately three (3) to four (4) hours 

Case 4:15-cv-00452-BGM Document 22 Filed 03/31/17 Page 3 of 32
- 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 

per night, and wakes approximately every hour and forty-five (45) minutes. Id. at 56–57. 

Plaintiff testified that some of his medications, Celebrex and Plaquenil specifically, cause 

stomach upset and gastrointestinal distress. Id. at 58–59. Plaintiff further testified that he 

sees his regular doctor at least once per month, and his rheumatologist, neurologist, and 

stomach specialist every six (6) to eight (8) weeks. AR at 59. 

 Plaintiff testified that he can stand for ten (10) to fifteen (15) minutes, and sit for 

thirty (30) to forty-five (45) minutes. Id. Plaintiff further testified that he could pick up 

ten (10) pounds using both hands. Id. Plaintiff testified that he has pain all over, but his 

back and leg pain is the worst. Id. at 60. Plaintiff also testified that with medication, his 

pain level has decreased to a five (5) out of ten (10) with ten (10) being the very worst 

pain. Id.

 Plaintiff testified that he is only able to write simple phrases, and needed help 

filling out the disability forms. AR at 51–52, 61. Plaintiff further testified that he cannot 

read the newspaper, but can perform simple addition and subtraction. Id. at 52, 61. 

Plaintiff also testified that he has difficulty staying focused or on task when directed to do 

multiple things. Id. at 62. Plaintiff testified that he is constantly overwhelmed due to 

anxiety, and because of this likes to be alone. Id.

 Plaintiff testified that he is most comfortable in a recliner or lying in bed. Id. at 

63. Plaintiff further testified that he takes two (2) to three (3) hour naps every day, and 

will fall asleep even while doing something. AR at 63–64. Plaintiff also testified that his 

lupus causes him to lack energy and be severely fatigued. Id. at 64. Plaintiff testified 

that he no longer goes to church because he cannot alternate between sitting and standing. 

Case 4:15-cv-00452-BGM Document 22 Filed 03/31/17 Page 4 of 32
- 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 

Id. at 65. Plaintiff also testified that his migraine headaches are less frequent with 

medication, but he still has them once or twice a month. Id. at 66. These headaches last 

from an hour or two (2), to two (2) to three (3) days. Id.

 b. Administrative Forms 

 With assistance, Plaintiff completed a Function Report—Adult in this matter. AR 

at 217–26. Plaintiff stated that he is “unable to hold a job due to learning disability[.]” 

Id. at 217. He noted that cares for his twin five (5) year old daughters and can take 

walks. Id. at 218. Plaintiff indicated that he suffers from sleep apnea. Id. Plaintiff 

further indicated that he can perform his personal care without assistance, and cook 

meals. Id. at 219. Plaintiff also stated that he can perform household chores, and takes 

daily walks. AR at 220. Plaintiff is also able to shop weekly. Id. at 220–21. Plaintiff 

can pay bills and talks to others approximately once per week. Id. at 221. 

 Plaintiff’s ability to lift, squat, and bend is limited, and he can walk for 

approximately one quarter (1/4) of a mile before needing to stop and rest. Id. at 222. 

Plaintiff can pay attention for approximately thirty (30) minutes, but is unable to 

understand written instructions and is very limited in his ability to follow spoken 

instructions. Id. Plaintiff has difficulty handling stress and changes in routine. AR at 

223. 

 Plaintiff states that his biggest problem is his inability to under written or verbal 

instructions and his learning disability. Id. at 224. Plaintiff further states that his diabetes 

is limiting his ability to control his depression. Id.

Case 4:15-cv-00452-BGM Document 22 Filed 03/31/17 Page 5 of 32
- 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 

 2. Vocational Expert Report

 The ALJ did not call a vocational expert to testify at the hearing. 

 On February 14, 2014, Plaintiff was evaluated by Philip Shapiro, M.S., C.V.E., 

C.R.C., at counsel’s behest. AR at 29, 438. Mr. Shapiro stated that Plaintiff had been 

“referred for a vocational evaluation to assess the client’s aptitudes, abilities and physical 

tolerances in a variety of occupational areas in order to provide information in terms of 

vocational potential for use in Mr. Daniel’s Social Security disability hearing.” Id. at 

438. Mr. Shapiro reviewed Plaintiff’s medical history as narrated by Plaintiff, as well as 

his educational and employment history. Id. at 438–40. Plaintiff indicated that he had 

earned a high school diploma through special education classes, but did not have success 

in college. Id. at 439. 

 Mr. Shapiro administered several academic achievement tests to Plaintiff. Id. at 

440. Plaintiff obtained a score at the 6.3 grade level for the Vocabulary subtest of the 

Nelson-Denny Reading test. AR at 441. Mr. Shapiro indicated that this score is below 

average for Plaintiff’s age group. Id. On the untimed SRA Reading Index, Plaintiff 

showed proficiency in the Picture-Word Association, Word Decoding, and Phrase 

Comprehension subtests. Id. Mr. Shapiro stated that “[t]hese results indicate the client 

has the ability to read and understand simple sentences, depending on knowing the 

meaning of the preposition.” Id. On the Wide Range Achievement Test (“WRAT”) 

Spelling subtest, Plaintiff scored at the 2.8 grade level. Id. Mr. Shapiro noted that this 

score is considered deficient or below average for Plaintiff’s age group. AR at 441. 

 On the WRAT Math Computation subtest, Plaintiff scored at the 4.8 grade level. 

Case 4:15-cv-00452-BGM Document 22 Filed 03/31/17 Page 6 of 32
- 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 

Id. Mr. Shapiro noted that this would be considered borderline or below average for his 

age group. Id. The test confirmed that Plaintiff is able to do simple addition and 

subtraction, multiplication, and division of whole numbers. Id. Mr. Shapiro opined that 

these test results indicate that Plaintiff “has limited functional use of reading and basic 

arithmetic skills for use in a variety of entry level, unskilled occupational areas.” Id.

 Mr. Shapiro reported Plaintiff scored in the average range of the Standard Raven 

Progressive Matrices Test, and opined that Plaintiff has the “potential for occupations 

requiring nonverbal problem-solving skills of an abstract nature.” AR at 442. Mr. 

Shapiro further reported that Plaintiff scored below average on the Oral Directions Test 

(“ODT”), but that Plaintiff “demonstrated the ability to follow simple verbal instructions 

with demonstrations.” Id. Mr. Shapiro also reported that Plaintiff “scored in the below 

average range for fine finger and hand dexterity.” Id. Mr. Shapiro stated that this result 

indicates that Plaintiff “has poor potential for jobs requiring the rapid manipulation of 

small tools, instruments, and objects, such as assembly line work or jobs requiring a 

quota system.” Id. Mr. Shapiro stated that Plaintiff “scored in the below average range 

for time and in the average range for errors” on the Minnesota Spatial Relations Test 

which “assess visualization ability, accurate perception of spatial relations, and rapid 

manipulation of three-dimensional objects.” Id. at 443. Mr. Shapiro noted that Plaintiff 

had some apparent discomfort standing. AR at 443. 

 Mr. Shapiro administered work samples to Plaintiff, who scored in the below 

average range for time without errors in the Valpar #2 Size Discrimination Work Sample, 

and in the below average range for overall performance in the Valpar #8 Simulated 

Case 4:15-cv-00452-BGM Document 22 Filed 03/31/17 Page 7 of 32
- 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 

Assembly Work Sample. Id. at 443–44. Mr. Shapiro reported that Plaintiff was able to 

sit for approximately forty-five (45) minutes to an hour before needing a break and could 

stand for approximately twelve (12) minutes before needing to sit down. Id. at 444–45. 

 Mr. Shapiro reported that Plaintiff was friendly, casual but appropriately groomed, 

and interacted appropriately. Id. at 445. Mr. Shapiro further reported that Plaintiff’s 

“communication skills in relation to work needs were considered to be fair to good.” Id.

at 446. Mr. Shapiro opined that “[b]ased on the academic test results administered during 

the evaluation, [Plaintiff] has an approximate Reasoning level of 3; an approximate Math 

level of 2; and an approximate Language level of 2.” AR at 448. 

 3. Plaintiff’s Medical Records

 On October 21, 2008, Plaintiff saw Don H. Carlson, D.O. regarding “high blood 

pressure, cholesterol and leg spasms [which are] worse at night.” AR at 277–80. 

Plaintiff reported being unable to stay awake after eating, feeling very thirsty, and 

drinking a lot of soda. Id. at 277. Plaintiff also complained of body aches all over, with 

sharp pains in his hands and arms. Id. Plaintiff’s wife reported that Plaintiff snores at 

night and stops breathing, she has to nudge him to wake up and hears him gasping for air. 

Id. Plaintiff also reported congestion at bedtime and trouble sleeping. Id. Plaintiff 

indicated that when he wakes up at night, he goes straight to the refrigerator and eats. 

AR at 277. Dr. Carlson’s physical review of Plaintiff was otherwise unremarkable. Id. at 

278. Dr. Carlson assessment of Plaintiff included benign essential hypertension, 

esophageal reflux, hyperlipidemia, sleep apnea, and Restless Leg Syndrome. Id. at 279. 

 On January 6, 2009, Plaintiff underwent a sleep study. See AR at 276, 281–85. 

Case 4:15-cv-00452-BGM Document 22 Filed 03/31/17 Page 8 of 32
- 9 - 

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 

Plaintiff had previously undergone a sleep study on December 2, 2008. Id. at 281. The 

January 2009 study confirmed the previous diagnosis of severe obstructive sleep apnea 

syndrome. Id. at 276, 281. Plaintiff “appeared to tolerate CPAP poorly[.]” Id. at 281. 

 On February 5, 2009, Plaintiff saw Dr. Carlson for follow-up regarding lab work 

and a sleep study. AR at 273–75. Plaintiff reported “feel[ing] tired due to lack of sleep 

and fall[ing] asleep through out [sic] the day.” Id. at 273. Dr. Carlson indicated that 

Plaintiff did not have heartburn, nausea, diarrhea, constipation, or and bowel or bladder 

changes. Id. Dr. Carlson’s review of Plaintiff’s systems was unremarkable, except for 

“[t]enderness was elicited [on Plaintiff’s] [right] forearm[,] no swelling.” Id. at 274. Dr. 

Carlson assessed hyperlipidemia, nicotine dependence, sleep apnea, and recent 

diverticulitis. Id.

 On May 13, 2009, Plaintiff saw Dr. Carlson for a follow-up regarding his 

hypertension and lipids. AR at 271–72. 

 On June 29, 2009, Plaintiff saw Joe M. Huerta, M.D. at Tucson ENT Associates, 

PC for a consultation regarding a “significant right sided nasal obstruction with about 95 

percent blockage.” AR at 267, 287. Plaintiff had undergone a sleep study that showed he 

needed a CPAP, but Plaintiff opted for surgery. Id. at 267, 287. Dr. Huerta 

recommended a septoplasty. Id. at 267, 287.

 On July 19, 2009, Plaintiff again saw Dr. Huerta and underwent a nasal 

septoplasty. AR at 259–60, 266. On July 21, 2009, Plaintiff returned to Dr. Huerta for a 

postoperative check. Id. at 264, 288. Dr. Huerta noted that Plaintiff did “a good job 

recovering.” Id. at 264, 288. 

Case 4:15-cv-00452-BGM Document 22 Filed 03/31/17 Page 9 of 32
- 10 - 

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 

 On October 1, 2009, Plaintiff returned to Dr. Huerta regarding his snoring and 

sleep apnea. AR at 263, 290. Dr. Huerta noted that Plaintiff was using a CPAP and was 

“going through a divorce and . . . gaining a considerable amount of weight.” Id. at 263, 

290. Dr. Huerta advised Plaintiff to work on weight reduction and then follow-up. Id. at 

263, 290. 

 On July 10, 2012, Plaintiff was referred to Guy C. Cary III, M.D. for further input 

regarding Plaintiff’s dyslexia; four (4) to five (5) month history of “apparent spontaneous 

onset of stiffness in the left hemi-nuchal region;” intermittent low back pain; and leg pain 

with a burning feeling when he walks. AR at 336–39. Plaintiff described the pain in his 

hemi-nuchal region as 6 out of 10 in intensity, spreading to his left shoulder and 

intermittently down the posterior arm and dorsolateral forearm. Id. at 336. Plaintiff also 

described his intermittent radiating low back pain as 6 out of 10 in intensity. Id. Dr. 

Cary noted Plaintiff’s additional past medical history of hypertension; diabetes mellitus; 

sleep apnea; acid reflux; status post ENT procedure; history of diverticulitis; status post 

colectomy in which 2 feet of the intestine was removed; and status post herniorrhaphy. 

Id. at 336–37. Dr. Cary’s review of Plaintiff’s systems was unremarkable, as was 

Plaintiff’s physical examination, except for spasm in Plaintiff’s cervical paraspinal 

muscles and continuing into the shoulders. Id. at 337–38. Dr. Cary also noted a positive 

Spurling sign on the left, spasm in the lumbar paraspinal musculature, and straight leg 

raising equivocally positive bilaterally. AR at 339. Dr. Cary’s impression included 

irritative cervical and lumbar radiculopathy, myofascial pain syndrome, and dyslexia per 

history. Id. Dr. Cary gave Plaintiff neck and low back exercises and a water aerobics 

Case 4:15-cv-00452-BGM Document 22 Filed 03/31/17 Page 10 of 32
- 11 - 

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 

form, as well as booklets regarding his neck and back; requested C-spine report; ordered 

lumbosacral spine and bilateral hip films; ordered a nerve conduction study; ordered 

physical therapy focusing on the neck, shoulders, and low back; ordered a TENS unit for 

the cervical radiculopathy: and ultrasound treatment. Id. On July 23, 2012, Plaintiff 

underwent a nerve conduction study/EMG. Id. at 335. The electrophysiological 

examination was normal. Id. On July 31, 2012, Plaintiff underwent a lumbar spine 

imaging. The L5-S1 disc was narrowed with “extremely tiny anterior L4-5 and S1 

spurs[,] . . . [and] a tiny posterior L5 spur[,] . . . [and] minimal posterior articular facet 

sclerosis at L5-S1.” Id. at 342, 359, 377. On this same date, Plaintiff had bilateral hip 

films taken. AR at 358, 378. Acute abnormalities were absent, and the bilateral films 

were unremarkable. Id. at 358, 378. On August 6, 2012, Plaintiff enrolled in Corazón for 

mental health services. Id. at 437. 

 On September 8, 2012, Plaintiff was evaluated by Sloan King, Ph.D. AR at 296–

307. Dr. King administered the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale – Fourth Edition 

(WAIS-IV) to Plaintiff. Id. at 296. Dr. King opined that Plaintiff’s “nonverbal reasoning 

abilities are much better developed than his verbal reasoning abilities.” Id. Dr. King 

reported Plaintiff’s “verbal reasoning abilities as measured by the Verbal Comprehension 

Index (VCI) are in the low average range and above those of only 9% of his peers[.]” Id. 

Dr. King further noted diversity in Plaintiff’s VCI verbal abilities. Id. at 296–97. Dr. 

King reported Plaintiff’s “nonverbal reasoning abilities as measured by the Perceptual 

Reasoning Index (PRI) are in the average range and above those who are approximately 

39% of his peers[.]” AR at 297. Dr. King also reported that Plaintiff’s “ability to sustain 

Case 4:15-cv-00452-BGM Document 22 Filed 03/31/17 Page 11 of 32
- 12 - 

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 

attention, concentrate, and exert mental control is in the low average range . . . [and] [h]e 

performed better than approximately 9% of his peers in this area (Working Memory 

Index)[.]” Id. Plaintiff’s “ability in processing simple or routine visual materials without 

making errors is in the borderline range . . . [and] [h]e performed better than 

approximately 8% of his peers on the Processing Speed task[.]” Id. Dr. King 

summarized Plaintiff’s WAIS-IV performance noting that to do so was difficult “because 

[Plaintiff’s] nonverbal reasoning abilities are much better developed than hi verbal 

reasoning abilities.” AR at 298. Dr. King determined that Plaintiff’s “Full Scale score 

places him in the Borderline Range of Intellectual Functioning.” Id. (emphasis in 

original). Dr. King reviewed Plaintiff’s educational, work, and health histories as 

reported to him by Plaintiff and a review of forms completed for the disability application 

process, including a report by his mother, Guadalupe Soza. Id. at 298–303. Dr. King’s 

diagnostic impressions and summary included: 

Axis I: Adjustment Disorder with Mixed Anxiety and Depressed 

Mood, and a history of learning disabilities. 

Axis II: Borderline intellectual functioning. 

Axis III: Health issues reported by Plaintiff including diverticulitis, 

sleep apnea, hypertension, Type 2 diabetes (non-Insulin dependent), muscle 

pain, restless leg syndrome, and a history of abdominal surgery. 

Axis IV: Occupational problems, problems with primary support 

group, legal involvement, financial problems, and inadequate access to 

health care services. 

Axis V: Current GAF: 55 (70 in the past year). 

Id. at 303. Dr. King also completed a Psychological/Psychiatric Medical Source 

Statement in which he opined that he did not expect any limitations to last twelve (12) 

Case 4:15-cv-00452-BGM Document 22 Filed 03/31/17 Page 12 of 32
- 13 - 

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 

continuous months from the date of his examination. Id. at 304. Dr. King opined that 

Plaintiff “should have no difficulty remembering locations and work-like procedures, as 

well as understanding and comprehending more detailed instructions.” AR at 305. Dr. 

King further opined that Plaintiff “appears to be mildly limited with regard to his ability 

to complete a normal work day and work week without interruption from 

psychologically-based symptoms as well as his reported issues relative to physical 

health.” Id. Dr. King, found Plaintiff’s prognosis to be good if he continued to receive 

mental and physical health services. Id. Dr. King found Plaintiff to “demonstrate[] very 

good interpersonal skills and [that he] should have no difficulty getting along with 

others.” Id. Dr. King further reported that Plaintiff has “the ability to travel in unfamiliar 

places, . . . utilize public transportation[,] . . . [and] appears to demonstrate the ability to 

set realistic goals, as well as make plans independently of others.” Id. Finally, Dr. King 

opined that Plaintiff is capable of managing his own benefit payments. AR at 305. 

 On September 30, 2012, Jeri B. Hassman, M.D. evaluated Plaintiff for an Internal 

Medicine Consultation and Statement of Ability to Do Work-Related Activities. AR at 

308–14. Dr. Hassman performed a physical examination with Plaintiff providing his 

medical history, and no records were reviewed. See id. at 308. A review of Plaintiff’s 

systems indicated occasional neck pain, frequent low back pain, and occasional 

headaches. Id. at 309. Dr. Hassman reported that Plaintiff reported occasional 

abdominal pain and occasional nausea and denies diarrhea or constipation. Id. Plaintiff 

denied visual problems, hearing problems, chest pain, rib pain, or shortness of breath. Id. 

Plaintiff complained of occasional dizziness and confusion and frequent fatigue, as well 

Case 4:15-cv-00452-BGM Document 22 Filed 03/31/17 Page 13 of 32
- 14 - 

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 

as waking up several times at night. AR at 309. Plaintiff also complained of severe 

depression and anxiety. Id. Plaintiff denied any numbness or tingling of his arms, hands, 

fingers, legs, feet, or toes, as well as any urinary symptoms. Id. Dr. Hassman reported 

that Plaintiff’s gait was normal and symmetric, he was able to stand and walk on his toes 

and heels, and tandem walk. Id. Plaintiff was able to hop on either foot and bend down 

to pick up something from the floor. Id. Dr. Hassman further reported that Plaintiff was 

able to kneel down on either knee, and was independent in dressing and undressing, as 

well as getting on and off the examining table and in and out of the chair. AR at 309. Dr. 

Hassman examination of Plaintiff’s head and neck was normal, with cranial nerves intact, 

supple neck, and a full range of motion of the cervical spine without pain and no 

tenderness over the cervical muscles. Id. Dr. Hassman confirmed Plaintiff’s status post 

uvulopalatopharyngoplasty. Id. Dr. Hassman further reported no respiratory distress, 

with normal breath sounds and clear lungs bilaterally. Id. Dr. Hassman also reported a 

normal abdominal examination. Id. Dr. Hassman noted a full range of motion of both 

upper extremities without pain; no swelling, warmth, or tenderness of the shoulders, 

elbows, wrists, or fingers; a negative Phalen’s test; negative Finkelstein’s test; a negative 

Tinel’s sign of both anterior wrists and medial elbows; normal coordination of the fingers 

and normal serial finger tapping of each finger to the ipsilateral thumb; and normal 

neurological examination of both upper extremities. AR at 310. Dr. Hassman reported 

Plaintiff’s right grip strength was 38 kilograms, and left grip strength was 28–29 

kilograms with normal fine motor dexterity and fine motor coordination of both hands, 

exhibited no difficulty picking up small objects, without tremor, and negative Romberg’s 

Case 4:15-cv-00452-BGM Document 22 Filed 03/31/17 Page 14 of 32
- 15 - 

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 

sign. Id. Plaintiff’s thoracic and lumbar spine was straight and nontender, without 

evidence of muscle spasm or hypertonicity of the paraspinal muscles. Id. Plaintiff had a 

full range of motion of his lumbar spine without pain, and a negative straight leg test 

bilaterally in both sitting and supine positions. Id. Plaintiff exhibited a full range of 

motion of both lower extremities without pain, and without swelling, warmth, or 

tenderness of the hips, knees, or ankles. Id. Plaintiff did not have any crepitus or 

instability of the knees or ankles or any atrophy, tenderness, or edema of either lower leg. 

AR at 310. Dr. Hassman reported that neurological examination of both lower 

extremities revealed normal motor strength, sensation, and reflexes. Dr. Hassman 

diagnosed a history of obstructive sleep apnea, with continuing symptoms and daily 

fatigue post uvulopalatopharyngoplasty; a history of learning disability; status post partial 

colectomy for diverticulosis/diverticulitis; and Type 2 diabetes mellitus, currently off 

Metformin. Id. Dr. Hassman’s medical source statement completed on the same date 

indicated that Plaintiff’s conditions would not impose any limitations for twelve (12) 

continuous months. Id. at 311. 

 On October 4, 2012, Plaintiff returned to Dr. Cary for a follow up. AR at 332–34. 

Dr. Cary noted that Plaintiff’s C-spine showed some degenerative disc changes, 

particularly in the lower cervical spine; however, the lumbosacral spine and bilateral hip 

films were both unremarkable. Id. at 332. Dr. Cary’s neurological examination of 

Plaintiff was generally unremarkable, except for spasm throughout the paraspinal 

musculature. Id. at 332–33. Again, Dr. Cary noted a positive Spurling sign on the left 

and straight leg raising equivocally positive bilaterally. Id. at 333. Additionally, Dr. 

Case 4:15-cv-00452-BGM Document 22 Filed 03/31/17 Page 15 of 32
- 16 - 

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 

Cary noted facet tenderness in the mid and low lumbar region, with hip hyperflexion and 

internal hip rotation both bilaterally positive. Id. Dr. Cary’s impressions included 

irritative cervical and lumbar radiculopathy, lumbar facet syndrome, myofascial pain 

syndrome, and dyslexia. AR at 333. Dr. Cary recommended continuing neck and low 

back exercises and water aerobics, continued physical therapy, continued use of TENS 

unit, and ultrasound treatment to the neck shoulders, and low back. Id.

 On November 2, 2012, Plaintiff saw Dr. Wu complaining of pain in his left big 

toe. AR at 357. Dr. Wu noted positive findings regarding headaches and back pain. Id. 

On November 29, 2012, Plaintiff was seen at Corazón. Id. at 434–36. Plaintiff reported 

low energy and persistent anxiety. Id. at 434. 

 On December 3, 2012, Plaintiff followed up with Dr. Wu regarding his 

headaches, breathing trouble, and back pain. AR at 356. Dr. Wu’s assessment included 

headaches, allergic rhinitis, sleep apnea, back pain, and joint pain. Id. On December 5, 

2012, Plaintiff saw Dr. Cary for a follow up. AR at 329–31. Plaintiff reported pain 

intensity of 5 out of 10 in the left low lumbosacral region. Id. at 329. Dr. Cary’s 

neurological examination of Plaintiff was generally unremarkable, except for an antalgic 

gait, and a trigger point tender to palpation around the left sacroiliac joint. Id. at 330. 

Additionally, Plaintiff had a positive Fortin sign on the left. Id. Dr. Cary’s impression 

included myofascial pain syndrome with trigger point; left sacroiliitis; lumbar facet 

syndrome; and irritative lumbar and cervical radiculopathy. Id. Dr. Cary recommended 

that Plaintiff continue with physical therapy and TENS unit; receive a trigger point 

injection of the left sacroiliac joint, to which Plaintiff agreed and received; and ultrasound 

Case 4:15-cv-00452-BGM Document 22 Filed 03/31/17 Page 16 of 32
- 17 - 

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 

treatment to low back. AR at 330. On December 29, 2012, Plaintiff returned to Dr. Wu 

for a referral for physical therapy and a refill for his anxiety medication. Id. at 354. 

 On January 6, 2013, Plaintiff was seen in the Southeast Arizona Medical Center 

Emergency Room for fever. AR at 396–405. Plaintiff also complained of pain at 8 out 

of 10, with 10 being the worst pain. Id. at 396. Plaintiff tested positive for Influenza B 

and was given Tylenol and Tamiflu, then discharged home. Id. at 396–98, 402. On 

January 10, 2013, Plaintiff saw Ulker Tok, M.D. for a rheumatology consultation. AR at 

363–64. Dr. Tok’s review of Plaintiff’s systems indicated weight gain, fatigue, 

weakness, leg spasms, hoarseness, high blood pressure, shortness of breath, wheezing, 

headaches, dizziness, nasal congestions, depression, lower abdominal pain, and dry 

mouth. Id. at 363. Dr. Tok’s physical examination of Plaintiff was generally 

unremarkable, but found pain on lateral bending C-spine, pain on range of motion in the 

left shoulder, straight leg raise elicited left posterior thigh pain, and hands were mildly 

tender on metacarpophalangeal joints. Id. at 364. Dr. Tok’s assessment included 

myofascial neck and left shoulder pain, a mild rotator cuff tendinitis in the left shoulder, 

chronic lower back pain and intermittent left sciatica, myalgias, cramps, and paresthesias 

in his legs. Id. Plaintiff also had blood work performed on this same date. Id. at 370–73. 

On January 16, 2013, Plaintiff returned to Dr. Cary for a follow up. AR at 327–329. 

Plaintiff again reported pain intensity of 5 out of 10 in his neck, shoulders, and low back. 

Id. at 327. Dr. Cary’s neurological examination of Plaintiff was generally unremarkable, 

except for an antalgic gait and positive Fortin sign on the left. Id. at 327–28. Dr. Cary’s 

impressions included myofascial pain syndrome; left sacroiliitis, improved since 

Case 4:15-cv-00452-BGM Document 22 Filed 03/31/17 Page 17 of 32
- 18 - 

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 

Plaintiff’s previous appointment; lumbar facet syndrome; and irritative lumbar and 

cervical radiculopathy. Id. at 328. Dr. Cary recommended that Plaintiff continue with 

physical therapy and the TENS unit, obtain a lumbosacral MRI, and ultrasound treatment 

to the neck, shoulders, and low back. Id. at 328. Dr. Cary did not perform a trigger point 

injection, because Plaintiff was under the weather. Id. On January 17, 2013, Plaintiff 

saw Dr. Wu regarding his lower back pain. AR at 353. Dr. Wu’s assessment included 

lower back pain, recent headaches, and anxiety. Id. On January 31, 2013, Plaintiff was 

seen at Corazón. AR at 431–33. Plaintiff reported sleeping during the day, with 

interrupted sleep at night which results in pacing, walking, and eating at night. Id. at 431. 

 On February 5, 2013, Plaintiff underwent a nerve conduction study/EMG. AR at 

326. Plaintiff’s electrophysiological examination was again normal. Id. On February 8, 

2013, Plaintiff returned to Dr. Cary for a follow up. AR at 322–25. Plaintiff reported a 6 

out of 10 pain intensity in the low lumbosacral regions bilaterally. Id. at 322. Dr. Cary’s 

neurological examination of Plaintiff was generally unremarkable, except for an antalgic 

gait, and facet tenderness bilaterally in the low lumbar region. Id. at 323. Plaintiff also 

exhibited a positive Fortin sign on the left, and hip hyperflexion and internal hip rotation 

were both bilaterally positive. Id. Dr. Cary’s impression included lumbar facet 

syndrome; left sacroiliitis; myofascial pain syndrome; and irritative lumbar and cervical 

radiculopathy. Id. Dr. Cary recommended that Plaintiff continue with physical therapy 

and the TENS unit, proceed with a lumbosacral MRI, and bilateral L5-S1 lumbar facet 

medial branch blocks. AR at 323. Dr. Cary utilized C-arm fluoroscopy to perform the 

bilateral L5-S1 lumbar facet medial branch block. Id. at 324. Plaintiff reported a pain 

Case 4:15-cv-00452-BGM Document 22 Filed 03/31/17 Page 18 of 32
- 19 - 

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 

level of 0 out of 10 after the block. Id. at 325. On February 13, 2013, Plaintiff 

underwent an MRI lumbar spine without contrast. Id. at 340–41, 392–93. The MRI 

findings were generally unremarkable except for “[b]road-based posterior disc protrusion, 

moderate bilateral facet disease, and mild disc height loss at the L5-S1 level contributing 

to mild to moderate left and nominal right neuroforaminal narrowing without significant 

central canal stenosis.” Id. at 341, 393. On February 18, 2013, Plaintiff saw Dr. Wu for 

medication management for diabetes and anxiety. Id. at 352. 

 On March 5, 2013, Plaintiff was seen in the Southeast Arizona Medical Center 

Emergency Room complaining of headache and nausea. AR at 382–90. Plaintiff rated 

his pain as 7 out of 10, with 10 being the worst pain imaginable. Id. at 383. Plaintiff was 

given Demerol and Phenergan for pain and sent home. Id. at 384. Plaintiff also received 

a head CT on this same date. Id. at 391. The Ct showed no acute intracranial 

abnormality. Id. On March 7, 2013, Plaintiff followed up with Dr. Cary for chronic 

migraine headaches, lumbar facet syndrome, left sacroiliitis, myofascial pain syndrome, 

irritative cervical and lumbar radiculopathy, and per Plaintiff’s report dyslexia. AR at 

319–21. Plaintiff reported a flare-up in his chronic migraine headaches. Id. at 319. Dr. 

Cary’s examination was unremarkable, except a spasm palpated throughout the 

paraspinal musculature. Id. at 319–20. Dr. Cary recommended continued use of the 

TENS unit; reviewed Plaintiff’s December 13, 2013 lumbosacral MRI, noting that it “was 

remarkable for broad-based L5-S1 disc protrusion”; requested old records to be sent to 

his office; prescribed Topamax for headaches and Zanaflex, a muscle relaxant; gave 

Plaintiff samples and a prescription for Maxalt-MLT 10 mg for headache; and performed 

Case 4:15-cv-00452-BGM Document 22 Filed 03/31/17 Page 19 of 32
- 20 - 

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 

an ultrasound treatment to neck, shoulders, and low back, followed by spray and stretch 

treatment. Id. at 320–21. On March 18, 2013, Plaintiff again saw Dr. Wu regarding his 

anxiety medication. Id. at 351. Plaintiff returned to Dr. Wu on March 26, 2013 

regarding his lower back pain, bilateral lower leg pain, and anxiety. Id. at 350. On 

March 27, 2013, Plaintiff again followed up with Dr. Cary. AR at 316–18. Dr. Cary 

reported that Dr. Wu had discontinued all of Plaintiff’s medications (including those 

prescribed by Dr. Cary). Id. at 316. Plaintiff complained of gastric hypomotility and 

hypogastric pain. Id. Dr. Cary’s examination of Plaintiff was unremarkable except for a 

Fortin sign present on the left side, with spasm palpated throughout the paraspinal 

musculature. Id. at 317. Dr. Cary’s impressions included chronic migraine headaches, 

lumbar facet syndrome, left sacroiliitis, myofascial pain syndrome, irritative cervical and 

lumbar radiculopathy, and, per history, dyslexia. Id. Dr. Cary recommended continued 

use of the TENS unit; requested old records to be sent to his office, remain off Topamax 

and Zanaflex; provided Plaintiff with samples of Relpax 40 mg for his headaches while 

trying to obtain prior authorization for Maxalt; referral for a gastroenterology evaluation; 

and an ultrasound treatment to neck, shoulders, and low back, followed by spray and 

stretch treatment. AR at 317–18. 

 On April 2, 2013, Dr. Wu performed an ingrown toenail removal on Plaintiff. Id.

at 347–49. On April 16, 2013, Plaintiff was referred to Jaya H. Maddur, M.D. for his 

heartburn and nausea. AR at 412–13. Dr. Maddur reported that Plaintiff denied any 

malaise or fatigue, or any headaches, but indicated that his hypertension was well 

controlled with medication, and that he took several different narcotics for arthritis pain 

Case 4:15-cv-00452-BGM Document 22 Filed 03/31/17 Page 20 of 32
- 21 - 

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 

control. Id. at 412. Dr. Maddur’s physical examination of Plaintiff was unremarkable. 

Id. Dr. Maddur diagnosed Plaintiff with acid reflux disease, but noted that a Barrett’s 

esophagus and non-healing ulcer needed to be ruled out. Id. at 413. On April 17, 2013, 

Plaintiff saw Dr. Wu for a regular appointment. Id. at 346. Dr. Wu assessed lower back 

pain, bilateral lower leg pain, and anxiety. Id. On April 30, 2013, Plaintiff underwent an 

ultrasound of his right lower extremity because of swelling. Id. at 379. The results were 

negative for right lower extremity deep venous thrombosis. Id.

 On May 3, 2013, Plaintiff was seen at Corazón. AR at 429–30. Plaintiff reported 

that Trazadone triggers his migraine headaches. Id. at 429. Plaintiff further reported 

significant weight gain since starting at Corazón. Id. Plaintiff also reported that he 

continued to struggle with anxiety and sleep disturbance. Id. On May 7, 2013, Plaintiff 

followed up with Laura S. Brown, M.D. regarding his pain medication. AR at 345. Dr. 

Brown assessed chronic low back and cervical pain, bilateral leg pain, including upper 

calf pain, anxiety, and diabetes. Id. On May 7, 2013, Plaintiff followed up with Dr. Wu 

regarding his lower back and leg pain and referral to Dr. Tok. Id. at 344. On May 8, 

2013, Plaintiff saw Dr. Tok for a follow-up. Id. at 365–66. Physical examination was 

unremarkable, except Plaintiff’s knees, ankles, and shoulders were tender. Id. at 366. On 

May 13, 2013, Dr. Maddur performed an Esophagogastroduodenoscopy on Plaintiff. AR 

at 410–11. Dr. Maddur obtained multiple biopsies and noted gastritis, duodenitis, and 

duodenal erosions. Id. at 410. 

 On June 4, 2013, Plaintiff saw Dr. Maddur for a follow-up after a recent 

endoscopy. AR at 409. Dr. Maddur reported that Plaintiff was being treated for H-Pylori 

Case 4:15-cv-00452-BGM Document 22 Filed 03/31/17 Page 21 of 32
- 22 - 

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 

and had not yet completed the course of antibiotics. Id. On June 18, 2013, Plaintiff 

underwent a colonoscopy performed by Dr. Maddur; however, the examination was 

incomplete. AR at 408. On July 12, 2013, Plaintiff underwent another colonoscopy, this 

time performed by Charles Krone, M.D. AR at 407. Dr. Krone reported that the colon 

itself was normal, but noted internal and external hemorrhoids excoriation. Id.

 On September 5, 2013, Plaintiff continued treatment through Corazón “to learn to 

be a better parent for his twin 5 year old girls.” AR at 420. Plaintiff also indicated a 

desire for assistance with his anxiety. Id.

 On October 1, 2013, Plaintiff returned to Dr. Tok for a follow-up regarding his 

rheumatoid arthritis. AR at 367–68. Physical examination of Plaintiff was 

unremarkable, except for tenderness in his shoulders, knees, ankles, and fore feet. Id. at 

368. Dr. Tok’s impressions included rheumatoid arthritis, Sjogren’s Syndrome, and Syst 

Lupus Erythematosus. Id. Plaintiff also had blood work performed on this same date. 

Id. at 369. On October 10, 2013, Plaintiff saw Dr. Maddur for a follow up after a 

colonoscopy. Id. at 406. Dr. Maddur noted Plaintiff has acid reflux, but is doing well 

with omeprazole, and recommended an ultrasound of the lower abdomen to evaluate his 

chronic pain in the groin area. Id.

 On March 23, 2014, Plaintiff again saw Jeri B. Hassman, M.D. for an Internal 

Medicine Consultation. AR at 450–62. Dr. Hassman reviewed Plaintiff’s medical 

records, noting Plaintiff’s recent rheumatoid arthritis, lupus, and Sjogren’s syndrome 

diagnoses. Id. at 451. Dr. Hassman reported that Plaintiff has occasional neck, left 

shoulder, and low back pain, as well as pain in the left buttock and hip area. Id. at 452. 

Case 4:15-cv-00452-BGM Document 22 Filed 03/31/17 Page 22 of 32
- 23 - 

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 

Plaintiff further reported occasional headaches, nausea, and chest pain with frequent 

fatigue and occasional shortness of breath. Id. Plaintiff further reported frequent 

depression and anxiety and occasional dizziness. Id. Dr. Hassman’s physical 

examination of Plaintiff was unremarkable, except for “minimal pain with range of 

motion of the left shoulder and minimal pain with impingement testing left shoulder[,] . . 

. [and] minimal tenderness over the left proximal forearm and no tenderness over the 

right proximal forearm.” AR at 452–53. Dr. Hassman noted that Plaintiff had a “full 

range of motion of both shoulders, elbows, and wrists . . . [and] normal manual dexterity 

and normal fine motor coordination of the fingers[,] . . . Plaintiff’s [r]ight grip strength 

was 28 kilograms and left grip strength was 6 kilograms.” Id. at 453. Dr. Hassman 

further reported that there was no evidence of “muscle spasm or hypertonicity of the 

paraspinal muscles” and that Plaintiff had a “full range of motion of the lumbar spine 

without pain.” Id. Dr. Hassman also reported “[s]traight leg raising test was negative 

bilaterally in both sitting and supine positions.” Id. Dr. Hassman completed a Medical 

Source Statement of Ability to Do Work-Related Activities (Physical) in this matter. Id.

at 454–62. Dr. Hassman opined that Plaintiff could occasionally lift up to ten (10) 

pounds, occasionally lift eleven (11) to twenty (20) pounds, and occasionally lift twentyone (21) to fifty (50) pounds, but never lift more than fifty (50) pounds. Id. at 454–55. 

Dr. Hassman further opined that Plaintiff could occasionally carry up to twenty (20) 

pounds, but never more than that. AR at 455. Dr. Hassman stated that without 

interruption Plaintiff could sit for two hours, stand for one hour, and walk for thirty (30) 

minutes. Id. Dr. Hassman further stated that in an eight (8) hour work day, Plaintiff 

Case 4:15-cv-00452-BGM Document 22 Filed 03/31/17 Page 23 of 32
- 24 - 

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 

could sit for eight (8) hours, stand for three (3) hours, and walk for two (2) hours. Id. Dr. 

Hassman reported that Plaintiff did not need a cane to ambulate. Id. Dr. Hassman opined 

that with his right hand, Plaintiff could frequently reach (overhead and otherwise) and 

push-pull, and continuously handle, finger, and feel. Id. at 457. Dr. Hassman further 

opined that with his left hand, Plaintiff could occasionally reach (overhead and 

otherwise) and push-pull, and continuously handle, finger, and feel. AR at 457. Dr. 

Hassman also opined that Plaintiff could frequently operate foot controls with either his 

right or his left foot. Id. at 457–58. Dr. Hassman indicated that Plaintiff could 

occasionally climb stairs and ramps; climb ladders or scaffolds; balance, crouch; or 

crawl, and frequently stoop or kneel. Id. at 458. Dr. Hassman stated that Plaintiff should 

never be exposed to unprotected heights; operating a motor vehicle; dust, odors, fumes, 

and Pulmonary irritants; extreme cold; extreme heat; or vibrations. Id. at 459. Dr. 

Hassman further stated that Plaintiff could occasionally be exposed to moving 

mechanical parts and humidity and wetness; and frequently be exposed to noise. Id. at 

459–60. Dr. Hassman opined that Plaintiff can shop; travel without a companion for 

assistance; ambulate without using a wheelchair, walker, or two (2) canes or crutches; 

walk a block at a reasonable pace on rough or uneven surfaces; climb a few steps at a 

reasonable pace with the use of a single hand rail; prepare a simple meal and feed 

himself; and sort, handle or use paper files. AR at 460. Dr. Hassman’s diagnosis 

included a history of obstructive sleep apnea and status post uvulopalatopharyngoplasty 

(“UVPP”); a history of learning disability; status post colectomy for treatment of 

diverticulitis; a history of type 2 diabetes mellitus; a “[r]ecent diagnosis of inflammatory 

Case 4:15-cv-00452-BGM Document 22 Filed 03/31/17 Page 24 of 32
- 25 - 

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 

polyarthropathy including ‘lupus, rheumatoid arthritis and Sjogren’s syndrome’ 

according to rheumatology consults” and “minimal pain with left shoulder range of 

motion and physical exam is consistent with rotator cuff tendonitis[;]” and obesity. Id. at 

461. 

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

 The factual findings of the Commissioner shall be conclusive so long as they are 

based upon substantial evidence and there is no legal error. 42 U.S.C. §§ 405(g), 

1383(c)(3); Tommasetti v. Astrue, 533 F.3d 1035, 1038 (9th Cir. 2008). This Court may 

“set aside the Commissioner’s denial of disability insurance benefits when the ALJ’s 

findings are based on legal error or are not supported by substantial evidence in the 

record as a whole.” Tackett v. Apfel, 180 F.3d 1094, 1097 (9th Cir. 1999) (citations 

omitted); see also Treichler v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 775 F.3d 1090, 1098 (9th 

Cir. 2014). 

 Substantial evidence is “‘more than a mere scintilla[,] but not necessarily a 

preponderance.’” Tommasetti, 533 F.3d at 1038 (quoting Connett v. Barnhart, 340 F.3d 

871, 873 (9th Cir. 2003)); see also Garrison v. Colvin, 759 F.3d 995, 1009 (9th Cir. 

2014). Further, substantial evidence is “such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind 

might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.” Parra v. Astrue, 481 F.3d 742, 746 

(9th Cir. 2007). Where “the evidence can support either outcome, the court may not 

substitute its judgment for that of the ALJ.” Tackett, 180 F.3d at 1098 (citing Matney v. 

Sullivan, 981 F.2d 1016, 1019 (9th Cir. 1992)); see also Massachi v. Astrue, 486 F.3d 

Case 4:15-cv-00452-BGM Document 22 Filed 03/31/17 Page 25 of 32
- 26 - 

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 

1149, 1152 (9th Cir. 2007). Moreover, the court may not focus on an isolated piece of 

supporting evidence, rather it must consider the entirety of the record weighing both 

evidence that supports as well as that which detracts from the Secretary’s conclusion. 

Tackett, 180 F.3d at 1098 (citations omitted). 

III. ANALYSIS 

A. The Five-Step Evaluation 

 The Commissioner follows a five-step sequential evaluation process to assess 

whether a claimant is disabled. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4). This process is defined as 

follows: Step one asks is the claimant “doing substantial gainful activity[?]” If yes, the 

claimant is not disabled; step two considers if the claimant has a “severe medically 

determinable physical or mental impairment[.]” If not, the claimant is not disabled; step 

three determines whether the claimant’s impairments or combination thereof meet or 

equal an impairment listed in 20 C.F.R. Pt. 404, Subpt. P, App.1. If not, the claimant is 

not disabled; step four considers the claimant’s residual functional capacity and past 

relevant work. If claimant can still do past relevant work, then he or she is not disabled; 

step five assesses the claimant’s residual functional capacity, age, education, and work 

experience. If it is determined that the claimant can make an adjustment to other work, 

then he or she is not disabled. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(i)-(v). 

 In the instant case, the ALJ found that Plaintiff met the insured status requirements 

of the Social Security Act through September 30, 1990, and was not engaged in 

substantial gainful activity since his alleged onset date of January 1, 1990. AR at 21. At 

Case 4:15-cv-00452-BGM Document 22 Filed 03/31/17 Page 26 of 32
- 27 - 

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 

step two of the sequential evaluation, the ALJ found that “the claimant has the following 

severe impairments: obstructive sleep apnea status post uvulopalatopharyngoplasty, 

diverticulitis, diabetes, inflammatory polyarthropathy, obesity, degenerative disc disease 

of the lumbar spine, adjustment disorder with mixed anxiety and depressed mood, 

borderline intellectual functioning, and learning disorder (20 CFR 404.1520(c) and 

416.920(c)).” Id. At step three, the ALJ found that “[t]he claimant does not have an 

impairment or combination of impairments that meets or medically equals the severity of 

one of the listed impairments in 20 CFR Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1 (20 CFR 

404.1520(d), 404.1525, 404.1526, 416.920(d), 416.925, and 416.926).” Id. at 22. Prior 

to step four and “[a]fter careful consideration of the entire record,” the ALJ determined 

that “the claimant has the residual functional capacity to perform sedentary work as 

defined in 20 CFR 404.1567(c) and 416.967(a) except he can sit six hours; stand and 

walk two hours each; lift and/or carry 10 pounds occasionally and frequently; reach 

frequently bilaterally; and perform only simple, repetitive tasks.” AR at 24. At step four, 

the ALJ found that “[t]he claimant has no past relevant work (20 CFR 404.1565 and 

416.965).” Id. at 31. Relying on the Medical-Vocational Guidelines Rule 202.17 as a 

“framework” at step five (5), the ALJ found that Plaintiff was not disabled. Id. at 32. In 

making this determination, the ALJ did not use vocational expert testimony, and gave 

little weight to the vocational evaluations procured by the claimant’s representative. See 

id. at 30–32. The ALJ found that “the additional limitations have little or no effect on the 

occupational base of unskilled sedentary work.” Id. at 32. Accordingly, the ALJ 

determined that Plaintiff was not disabled. Id.

Case 4:15-cv-00452-BGM Document 22 Filed 03/31/17 Page 27 of 32
- 28 - 

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 

 Plaintiff asserts that the ALJ erred by 1) failing to obtain Vocational Expert 

testimony at Step 5; 2) failing to evaluate non-examining psychiatrist Dr. Nathan’s 

opinion; 3) failing to properly evaluate Dr. Hassman’s March 2014 opinion; and 4) 

failing to properly evaluate Plaintiff’s education level. Pl.’s Opening Br. (Doc. 15) at 7–

23. 

B. Examining Physician Jeri Hassman, M.D.

 Plaintiff asserts that the ALJ “erroneously rejected Dr. Hassman’s opinion that 

Daniel could reach with his left hand only occasionally.” Pl.’s Opening Br. (Doc. 15) 

19–20. Conversely, the Commissioner argues that the ALJ “reasonably rejected Dr. 

Hassman’s opinion because the record as a whole did not support a limitation to only 

occasional reaching with the left hand.” Def.’s Response (Doc. 20) at 18. 

 “As a general rule, more weight should be given to the opinion of a treating source 

than to the opinion of doctors who do not treat the claimant.” Lester v. Chater, 81 F.3d 

821, 830 (9th Cir. 1996) (citing Winans v. Bowen, 853 F.2d 643, 647 (9th Cir. 1987)); see 

also Garrison v. Colvin, 759 F.3d 995, 1012 (9th Cir. 2014). “The opinion of a treating 

physician is given deference because ‘he is employed to cure and has a greater 

opportunity to know and observe the patient as an individual.’” Morgan v. Comm’r of the 

SSA, 169 F.3d 595, 600 (9th Cir. 1999) (quoting Sprague v. Bowen, 812 F.2d 1226, 1230 

(9th Cir. 1987) (citations omitted)). “The ALJ may not reject the opinion of a treating 

physician, even if it is contradicted by the opinions of other doctors, without providing 

‘specific and legitimate reasons’ supported by substantial evidence in the record.” 

Rollins v. Massanari, 261 F.3d 853, 856 (9th Cir. 2001) (citing Reddick v. Chater, 157 

Case 4:15-cv-00452-BGM Document 22 Filed 03/31/17 Page 28 of 32
- 29 - 

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 

F.3d 715, 725 (9th Cir. 1998)); see also Orn v. Astrue, 495 F.3d 625, 632 (9th Cir. 2007); 

Embrey v. Bowen, 849 F.2d 418, 421 (9th Cir. 1988). Similarly, “[t]he opinion of an 

examining physician is, in turn, entitled to greater weight that the opinion of a 

nonexamining physician.” Lester v. Chater, 81 F.3d 821, 830 (9th Cir. 1995) (citations 

omitted). “As is the case with the opinion of a treating physician, the Commissioner 

must provide ‘clear and convincing’ reasons for rejecting the uncontradicted opinion of 

an examining physician.” Id. (citations omitted). Furthermore, “like the opinion of a 

treating doctor, the opinion of an examining doctor, even if contradicted by another 

doctor, can only be rejected for specific and legitimate reasons that are supported by 

substantial evidence in the record.” Id. at 830–31 (citations omitted). “[T]he more 

consistent an opinion is with the record as a whole, the more weight we will give to that 

opinion.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(4). Additionally, “[t]he opinion of a nonexamining 

physician cannot by itself constitute substantial evidence that justifies the rejection of the 

opinion of either an examining physician or a treating physician.” Lester, 81 F.3d at 831 

(citations omitted). 

 The ALJ provided a detailed and thorough summary of the medical evidence, then 

concluded that “Dr. Hassman’s opinion from the second examination is only given partial 

weight as the evidence does not support environmental limitations or occasional reaching 

with the left hand.” AR at 28. “The ALJ must do more than state conclusions. [She] 

must set forth [her] own interpretations and explain why they, rather than the doctor’s are 

correct.” Garrison v. Colvin, 759 F.3d 995, 1012 (9th Cir. 2014) (citations omitted). The 

ALJ did not do so here, and as such, failed to set forth “specific and legitimate” reasons 

Case 4:15-cv-00452-BGM Document 22 Filed 03/31/17 Page 29 of 32
- 30 - 

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 

supported by “substantial evidence in the record” for her dismissal of Dr. Hassman’s 

opinions. See, e.g., Rollins, 261 F.3d at 856. As an initial matter, Plaintiff’s treating 

physician Dr. Tok assessed mild rotator cuff tendinitis. AR at 364. Moreover, despite 

the Commissioner’s argument to the contrary, Dr. Hassman did diagnose Plaintiff with 

“minimal pain with left shoulder range of motion and physical exam [] consistent with 

rotator cuff tendonitis.” Id. at 453, 461. Additionally, the contradictory opinion put forth 

by the Commissioner is an “opinion of a nonexamining physician [which] cannot by 

itself constitute substantial evidence that justifies the rejection of the opinion of either an 

examining physician or a treating physician.” Lester, 81 F.3d at 831 (citations omitted). 

Neither did the ALJ state “specific and legitimate” reasons for rejecting Dr. Hassman’s 

environmental limitations. See AR at 28. As such, the Court finds that the ALJ 

improperly discounted Dr. Hassman’s opinions. 

C. Vocational Expert Testimony

 “Because the ALJ failed to provide adequate reasons for rejecting Dr. Hassman’s 

opinion, we credit it as a matter of law.” Widmark v. Barnhart, 454 F.3d 1063, 1069 (9th 

Cir. 2006) (citations omitted). “Doing so makes the ALJ’s use of the Medical-Vocational 

Guidelines to determine [Plaintiff’s] ability to adjust to other work reversible error.” Id. 

“A non-exertional impairment, if sufficiently severe may limit the claimant’s functional 

capacity in ways not contemplated by the guidelines.” Tackett v. Apfel, 180 F.3d 1094, 

1102 (9th Cir. 1999) (quotation and citation omitted). “Examples of non-exertional 

limitations are pain, postural limitations, or environmental limitations.” Id. (citations 

omitted). “Because [Plaintiff] suffers from non-exertional limitations not contemplated 

Case 4:15-cv-00452-BGM Document 22 Filed 03/31/17 Page 30 of 32
- 31 - 

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 

by the grids, the ALJ was required at step five to call upon a vocational expert to 

establish whether [Plaintiff] was disabled.” Id.

D. Remand for Further Proceedings 

 “‘[T]he decision whether to remand the case for additional evidence or simply to 

award benefits is within the discretion of the court.’” Rodriguez v. Bowen, 876 F.2d 759, 

763 (9th Cir. 1989) (quoting Stone v. Heckler, 761 F.2d 530, 533 (9th Cir. 1985)). 

“Remand for further administrative proceedings is appropriate if enhancement of the 

record would be useful.” Benecke, 379 F.3d at 593 (citing Harman v. Apfel, 211 F.3d 

1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2000)). Conversely, remand for an award of benefits is appropriate 

where: 

(1) the ALJ failed to provide legally sufficient reasons for rejecting the 

evidence; (2) there are no outstanding issues that must be resolved before a 

determination of disability can be made; and (3) it is clear from the record 

that the ALJ would be required to find the claimant disabled were such 

evidence credited. 

Benecke, 379 F.3d at 593 (citations omitted). Where the test is met, “we will not remand 

solely to allow the ALJ to make specific findings. . . . Rather, we take the relevant 

testimony to be established as true and remand for an award of benefits.” Id. (citations 

omitted); see also Lester v. Chater, 81 F.3d 821, 834 (9th Cir. 1995). “Even if those 

requirements are met, though, we retain ‘flexibility’ in determining the appropriate 

remedy.” Burrell v. Colvin, 775 F.3d 1133, 1141 (9th Cir. 2014). 

 Here, the ALJ committed legal error in rejecting examining physician Dr. 

Hassman’s opinion evidence. Because the ALJ did not previously call a vocational 

expert, the Court finds that there are issues to be resolved before a disability 

Case 4:15-cv-00452-BGM Document 22 Filed 03/31/17 Page 31 of 32
- 32 - 

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 

determination can be made. As such, the Court will remand for further proceedings, 

including Vocational Expert testimony. Additionally, the ALJ is directed to reassess 

Plaintiff’s educational status in light of his special education requirements. 

V. CONCLUSION 

In light of the foregoing, the Court REVERSES the ALJ’s decision and the case is 

REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with this decision. 

 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 

 1) Plaintiff’s Brief for Plaintiff (Doc. 15) is GRANTED; 

 2) The Commissioner’s decision is REVERSED and REMANDED; 

 3) Upon remand, the Appeals Council will remand the case back to an ALJ on 

an open record; and 

 4) The Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment, and close its file in this matter. 

 Dated this 31st day of March, 2017. 

Honorable Bruce G. Macdonald 

United States Magistrate Judge 

Case 4:15-cv-00452-BGM Document 22 Filed 03/31/17 Page 32 of 32