United States District Court, D. Arizona
HONORABLE JOHN Z. BOYLE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Monica Leon seeks review under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) of the
final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security
(“the Commissioner”), which denied her disability
insurance benefits and supplemental security income under
sections 216(i), 223(d), and 1614(a)(3)(A) of the Social
Security Act. Because the decision of the Administrative Law
Judge (“ALJ”) is not supported by substantial
evidence, the Commissioner's decision will be vacated and
the matter remanded for an award of benefits.
August 22, 2013, Plaintiff applied for disability insurance
benefits and supplemental security income, alleging
disability beginning August 1, 2013 (amended). On October 1,
2015, Plaintiff appeared with her attorney and testified at a
hearing before the ALJ. A vocational expert also testified.
On December 14, 2015, the ALJ issued a decision that
Plaintiff was not disabled within the meaning of the Social
Security Act. The Appeals Council denied Plaintiff's
request for review of the hearing decision, making the
ALJ's decision the Commissioner's final decision.
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
is responsible for resolving conflicts in medical testimony,
determining credibility, and resolving ambiguities.
Andrews v. Shalala, 53 F.3d 1035, 1039 (9th Cir.
1995). In reviewing the ALJ's reasoning, the court is
“not deprived of [its] faculties for drawing specific
and legitimate inferences from the ALJ's opinion.”
Magallanes v. Bowen, 881 F.2d 747, 755 (9th Cir.
The ALJ's Five-Step Evaluation Process.
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).
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. §
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.
one, the ALJ found that Plaintiff meets the insured status
requirements of the Social Security Act through December 31,
2015, and that she has not engaged in substantial gainful
activity since November 22, 2010. At step two, the ALJ found
that Plaintiff has the following severe impairments: obesity,
rheumatoid arthritis, and fibromyalgia. At step three, the
ALJ determined that Plaintiff 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. At step four, the ALJ found that Plaintiff has the RFC
sedentary work as defined in 20 CFR 404.1567(a) except with
the following additional limitations: The claimant is capable
of occasional fingering and feeling, bilaterally.
further found that Plaintiff is able to perform her past
relevant work as a receptionist.
argues the ALJ's decision is defective for two reasons:
(1) the ALJ erred in rejecting the medical assessments of
Ramina Jajoo. M.D. and Occupational Therapist Ty J. Pehrson,
and (2) the ALJ erred in rejecting Plaintiff's symptom
testimony. The Court will address each argument below.
Weighing of Medical Source Evidence.
argues that the ALJ improperly weighed the medical opinions
of the following medical sources: Ramina Jajoo, M.D. and Ty
J. Pehrson, Occupational Therapist. The Court will address
the ALJ's treatment of each opinion below.
Ninth Circuit distinguishes between the opinions of treating
physicians, examining physicians, and non-examining
physicians. See Lester v. Chater, 81 F.3d 821, 830
(9th Cir. 1995). Generally, an ALJ should give greatest
weight to a treating physician's opinion and more weight
to the opinion of an examining physician than to one of a
non-examining physician. See Andrews v. Shalala, 53
F.3d 1035, 1040-41 (9th Cir. 1995); see also 20
C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)-(6) (listing factors to be
considered when evaluating opinion evidence, including length
of examining or treating relationship, frequency of
examination, consistency with the record, and support from
objective evidence). If it is not contradicted by another
doctor's opinion, the opinion of a treating or examining
physician can be rejected only for “clear and
convincing” reasons. Lester, 81 F.3d at 830
(citing Embrey v. Bowen, 849 F.2d 418, 422 (9th Cir.
1988)). A contradicted opinion of a treating or examining
physician “can only be rejected for specific and
legitimate reasons that are supported by substantial evidence
in the record.” Lester, 81 F.3d at 830-31
(citing Andrews, 53 F.3d at 1043).
can meet the “specific and legitimate reasons”
standard “by setting out a detailed and thorough
summary of the facts and conflicting clinical evidence,
stating his interpretation thereof, and making
findings.” Cotton v. Bowen, 799 F.2d 1403,
1408 (9th Cir. 1986). But “[t]he ALJ must do more than
offer [her] conclusions. [She] must set forth [her] own
interpretations and explain why they, rather than the
doctors', are correct.” Embrey, 849 F.2d
at 421-22. The Commissioner is responsible for determining
whether a claimant meets the statutory definition of