Bishop v. Astrue

Filing 19

ORDER that the final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security is affirmed. The Clerk shall enter judgment accordingly and shall terminate this case. Signed by Judge Neil V Wake on 12/19/2012. (LFIG)

1

WO

2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
9

Sharon Bencic,

10
11
12
13

No. CV-12-00627-PHX-NVW
Plaintiff,

ORDER

vs.
Michael J. Astrue, Commissioner of Social
Security Administration,

14

Defendant.

15

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

16

decision of the Commissioner of Social Security (“the Commissioner”), which denied her

17

disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income under sections 216(i),

18

223(d), and 1614(a)(3)(A) of the Social Security Act. Because the decision of the

19

Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) is supported by substantial evidence and is not based

20

on legal error, the Commissioner’s decision will be affirmed.

21

I.

BACKGROUND

22

A.

23

Bencic was born on February 2, 1958, and reached the age of 50 years old slightly

24

more than three months after October 27, 2007, the date of alleged onset of disability.

25

After injuring her lumbar spine at work, she had an x-ray taken that revealed

26

degenerative disc disease. She has an eighth grade education and worked as a waitress

27

and a cook, but has not worked since October 27, 2007.

28

Factual Background

1
2
3
4
5

In September 2008, Bencic reported that she is able to perform personal care, such
as dressing and bathing, prepare meals, and do some housework and laundry. She goes
out every day and can walk, drive, and ride in a car. She can go out alone. She shops
weekly for food and household items. She can swim two or three times a week.

6
7
8
9
10

In April 2010, Bencic testified that she is able to drive and drove 45 minutes
without stopping to the administrative hearing, but when she goes to Phoenix, her
daughter drives and they take a break during the two-hour trip. She also testified that she
can stand or sit only 15 minutes before taking a break and lying down. She testified that
she does her laundry, watches television, and goes to church.

11

B.

Procedural History

12

On July 23, 2008, Bencic applied for disability insurance benefits and

13

supplemental security income, alleging disability beginning October 26, 2007. On April

14

12, 2010, she appeared with her attorney and testified at a hearing before the ALJ. On

15

July 20, 2010, the ALJ issued a decision that Bencic was not disabled within the meaning

16

of the Social Security Act. The Appeals Council denied Bencic’s request for review of

17

the hearing decision, making the ALJ’s decision the Commissioner’s final decision. On

18

March 23, 2012, Bencic sought review by this Court.

19

II.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

20

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

21

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

22

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

23

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

24

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

25

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

26

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

27

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

28

-2 

1
2
3
4
5
6

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

7

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

8

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

9

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

10

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

11

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

12

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

13

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

14

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

15

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

16

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

17

impairments meets or equals an impairment listed in Appendix 1 to Subpart P of 20

18

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

19

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

20

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

21

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

22

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

23

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

24

claimant’s residual functional capacity, age, education, and work experience.

25

§ 404.1520(a)(4)(v). If so, the claimant is not disabled. Id. If not, the claimant is

26

disabled. Id.

27
28

-3 

1
2

IV.

ANALYSIS

3

The ALJ found that Bencic meets the insured status requirements of the Social

4

Security Act through September 30, 2010, and that she has not engaged in substantial

5

gainful activity since October 27, 2007. At step two, the ALJ found that Bencic has the

6

following severe impairments: degenerative disc disease of the lumbar spine and obesity.

7

At step three, the ALJ found that Bencic does not have an impairment or combination of

8

impairments that meets or medically equals on one of the listed impairments in Appendix

9

1 to Subpart P of 20 C.F.R. Pt. 404.

10

At step four, the ALJ found that Bencic “has the residual functional capacity to

11

perform light work as defined in 20 CFR 404.1567(b) and 416.967(b) except she can

12

occasionally climb ladders, ropes and scaffolds, stoop, kneel, crouch, and crawl.” “Light

13

work involves lifting no more than 20 pounds at a time with frequent lifting or carrying

14

of objects weighing up to 10 pounds.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1567(b), 416.967(b). “Light

15

work” may require “a good deal of walking or standing.” Id. The ALJ further found that

16

Bencic is capable of performing her past relevant work as a waitress as actually and

17

generally performed.

18
19

A.

The ALJ Did Not Err in Weighing Medical Source Evidence.
1.

Legal Standard

20

In weighing medical source opinions in Social Security cases, the Ninth Circuit

21

distinguishes among three types of physicians: (1) treating physicians, who actually treat

22

the claimant; (2) examining physicians, who examine but do not treat the claimant; and

23

(3) non-examining physicians, who neither treat nor examine the claimant. Lester v.

24

Chater, 81 F.3d 821, 830 (9th Cir. 1995). Generally, more weight should be given to the

25

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

26

treating physician’s opinion is afforded great weight because such physicians are

27

“employed to cure and [have] a greater opportunity to observe and know the patient as an

28

-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

individual.” Sprague v. Bowen, 812 F.2d 1226, 1230 (9th Cir. 1987). 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.
Lester, 81 F.3d at 830. Moreover, the Commissioner must give weight to the treating
physician’s subjective judgments in addition to his clinical findings and interpretation of
test results. Id. at 832-33.
Further, an examining physician’s opinion generally must be given greater weight
than that of a non-examining 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.
The opinion of a non-examining physician is not itself substantial evidence that
justifies the rejection of the opinion of either a treating physician or an examining
physician. Id. at 831. “The opinions of non-treating or non-examining physicians may
also serve as substantial evidence when the opinions are consistent with independent
clinical findings or other evidence in the record.” Thomas, 278 F.3d at 957. Factors that
an ALJ may consider when evaluating any medical opinion include “the amount of
relevant evidence that supports the opinion and the quality of the explanation provided;
the consistency of the medical opinion with the record as a whole; [and] the specialty of
the physician providing the opinion.” Orn, 495 F.3d at 631.
Moreover, Social Security Rules expressly require a treating source’s opinion on
an issue of a claimant’s impairment be given controlling weight if it is well-supported by
medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent
with the other substantial evidence in the record. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2). If a
-5 

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

treating source’s opinion is not given controlling weight, the weight that it will be given
is determined by length of the treatment relationship, frequency of examination, nature
and extent of the treatment relationship, relevant evidence supporting the opinion,
consistency with the record as a whole, the source’s specialization, and other factors. Id.
Where there is a conflict between the opinion of a treating physician and an examining
physician, the ALJ may not reject the opinion of the treating physician without setting
forth specific, legitimate reasons supported by substantial evidence in the record. Orn,
495 F.3d at 632.
2.

Dr. James Hurley

11

Dr. Hurley is Bencic’s primary care physician. On February 27, 2009, Dr. Hurley

12

opined that Bencic could sit for 45 minutes at one time, stand for 15 minutes at one time,

13

sit for a total of 4 hours in an 8-hour work day, and stand/walk for a total of 2 hours in an

14

8-hour work day. He opined that she could lift/carry up to 5 pounds frequently, 6-10

15

pounds occasionally, and never more than 10 pounds. He further stated that she could

16

occasionally bend and reach but she was not able at all to squat, crawl, or climb. He

17

recommended moderate restriction of activities involving unprotected heights, being

18

around moving machinery, and exposure to marked changes in temperature or humidity;

19

mild restriction of driving automobile equipment; and no restriction of exposure to dust,

20

fumes, and gases. Dr. Hurley opined that pain severely affected Bencic’s ability to

21

function. Dr. Hurley noted that Bencic “inadvertently filled out the form which was

22

accurate to a point – corrections have been made.”

23

On March 17, 2010, Dr. Hurley opined that Bencic could continuously sit for 30

24

minutes at a time, sit for a total of 2 hours in an 8-hour work day, and stand/walk for a

25

total of one hour in an 8-hour work day. He said she could lift/carry up to 10 pounds

26

occasionally and never more than 10 pounds. He further opined that pain and fatigue had

27

a moderately severe effect on Bencic’s ability to function.

28

-6 

1
2
3
4
5
6

Bencic contends that the ALJ erred by giving “little weight” to Dr. Hurley’s
opinions. She contends that his opinions are well supported by his medical records, but
identifies records that only corroborate the diagnosis of degenerative disc disease, not the
severity of impairment.
3.

Dr. Michael Trainor

7

Dr. Trainor is a spinal surgeon who examined Bencic on May 8, 2008. He noted

8

that she described her pain as “sharp, stabbing, pulling, tearing, shooting and throbbing,”

9

“present all day long,” and “usually worse with virtually all activities from walking to

10

sitting, standing, climbing stairs, bending, driving and even lying in bed.” She described

11

the pain as “unbearable.”

12

Dr. Trainor observed that Bencic appeared to be “in no acute distress.” She

13

needed no assistance getting onto the examination table, showed no abnormalities with

14

balance or coordination, and walked without a limp. Based on review of her radiological

15

studies and the physical examination, Dr. Trainor concluded that Bencic had sustained a

16

disc herniation at the L5-S1 following her lifting injury at work, which aggravated her

17

degenerative disc disease, and that most of her back pain emanated from aggravated

18

degenerative disc disease. He did not recommend surgical intervention because she was

19

“a two-pack per day smoker” and because performing a fusion at the L5-S1 level would

20

create significant risk of developing spondylosis above the fusion.

21

recommended that Bencic return to Dr. Hurley for nonoperative management of her pain.

22

Dr. Trainor gave Bencic a prescription for Percocet with no refills and said he

23

would not resume her care. He also reported:

24
25
26

I do not believe that she will tolerate returning to work due to
the complaints and severity of her back pain. I do not have a
specific anatomic reason to discontinue work, as she does
have an overall normal neurological exam.

27
28

-7 

Dr. Trainor

1
2

4.

Dr. James Maxwell

3

Dr. Maxwell is a spine specialist who provided an independent medical

4

examination of Bencic on June 13, 2008. Upon physical examination and review of

5

medical records, Dr. Maxwell opined that Bencic reported discogenic lumbar pain and he

6

found no evidence of lumbar radiculopathy. He also did not recommend surgery.

7

5.

Dr. Michael Winer

8

Dr. Winer is another spine specialist, and he examined Bencic on October 16,

9

2008. Among other things, he noted that she exhibited “some pain behavior with change

10

of position and movement” and had “limited mobility secondary to apparent pain with

11

flexion to 40 degrees, extension 10 degrees with increased pain in both directions.” In

12

his review of Bencic’s medical records, Dr. Winer noted that Dr. Maxwell’s “preliminary

13

report indicates work status as no work and he indicates her condition is not stationary;

14

however, he indicates no impairment and no supportive care.”

15

Dr. Winer also observed that Bencic was receiving pain management with

16

methadone and Soma from Dr. Hurley. He further reported: “I would recommend that

17

she continue to see him for this pain management. I would not accept responsibility of

18

pain management with a patient on methadone. At some point, I would encourage her to

19

wean off this medication, hopefully after some improvement by conservative means, as

20

described above.”

21

Dr. Winer agreed with the other physicians that Bencic was not a good candidate

22

for surgery at that time. He also opined that she could not return to work without

23

restrictions as a cook. He said that she is not able to lift more than 10-15 pounds on an

24

occasional basis, needs to change position frequently, and needs to avoid repetitive

25

bending, lifting, and stooping. Dr. Winer reported that he discussed this with Bencic and

26

“encouraged her to try to modify her lifestyle and work to light tasks rather than looking

27

for surgical intervention to attempt to improve her functional level.”

28

-8 

1
2

6.

The ALJ’s Weighing of Medical Source Evidence

3

The ALJ’s hearing decision described in detail Bencic’s medical records,

4

including that she reported experiencing back pain while working as a cook and lifting a

5

5-gallon bucket of water and French fries and she denied having any history of significant

6

back injury or problem prior to that date. However, lumbar spine x-rays taken on

7

October 26, 2007, showed degenerative disc disease and atherosclerotic vascular disease.

8

The ALJ described details of an MRI and additional lumbar spine x-rays that showed

9

mild disc degeneration, but not a condition that would cause the level of functional

10

limitation that Bencic alleged. The hearing decision further detailed the results of the

11

February 26, 2008 examination by pain management physician Dr. Harald Gutgsell, the

12

May 8, 2008 examination by Dr. Trainor, the June 13, 2008 physical examination by Dr.

13

Maxwell, and the October 16, 2008 examination by Dr. Winer.

14

The ALJ’s hearing decision provided specific, legitimate reasons supported by

15

substantial evidence in the record for assigning little weight to Dr. Hurley’s two residual

16

functional capacity assessments:

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

The claimant has had conventional treatment for back pain,
with medication, epidural injections and physical therapy
(Exhibits 1F/2, 3F/5, 3, 6F, 7F) and as discussed above, the
claimant has been evaluated by 3 spine specialists who have
all recommended that she pursue conventional treatment
methods instead of surgery (Exhibit 1F/2, 4F/6, 6F/6). Dr.
Hurley’s treatment records show that [] the claimant
continued to report experiencing back pain, and began
reporting left leg edema and hip pain on July 1, 2009 (Exhibit
18F/13, 17). However, her back and leg pain were noted as
being unchanged through April 14, 2010 and the claimant
was not referred for further evaluation by a specialist (Exhibit
18F/1-19). In addition, Dr. Hurley has not ordered further xray or MRI reports. Moreover, Dr. Hurley’s April 21, 2009
treatment notes even show that he explained to the claimant

27
28

-9 

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

that she has been addicted to pain medication for some time
(Exhibit 18F/21). . . .
Little weight is given to the opinions of the claimant’s
primary care physician, Dr. James Hurley, because it is
inconsistent with the record as a whole (Exhibit 17F). In his
February 17, 2009 opinion, Dr. Hurley opined that . . . . In
his March 17, 2010 opinion, Dr. Hurley opined that . . . .
However, the objective medical evidence, as discussed above,
including the opinions by some spine specialists, do not
support the limitations described in Dr. Hurley’s opinions.
Bencic also contends that the ALJ erred by giving weight to only a portion of Dr.
Trainor’s opinion. The ALJ stated:

11

16

Substantial weight is given to [the] May 8, 2008 [] opinion of
spinal surgeon Dr. Michael Trainor to the extent that it is
consistent with the record as a whole (Exhibit 4F/7). Upon
examining the claimant, Dr. Trainor opined that while the
claimant will not tolerate returning to work due to complaints
and severity of her back pain, he did not have “a specific
anatomic reason to discontinue work as she does have an[]
overall normal neurological exam” (Id.).

17

Although Dr. Trainor reported Bencic’s complaints of severe pain and opined that she

18

would “not tolerate returning to work,” it was the ALJ’s responsibility to determine the

19

credibility of Bencic’s complaints. See Andrews v. Shalala, 53 F.3d 1035, 1039 (9th Cir.

20

1995) (the ALJ is responsible for resolving conflicts in medical testimony, determining

21

credibility, and resolving ambiguities). The ALJ did not err by giving substantial weight

22

to Dr. Trainor’s medical opinion that Bencic had an overall normal neurological exam

23

and did not have a specific anatomic irregularity severe enough to discontinue work.

12
13
14
15

24

Thus, the ALJ set forth specific, legitimate reasons supported by substantial

25

evidence in the record for assigning little weight to Dr. Hurley’s opinions and substantial

26

weight to some of Dr. Trainor’s opinions.

27
28

- 10  

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21

B.

The ALJ Did Not Err by Not Finding Bencic Disabled Under Medical
Vocational Rule 20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpart P, App. 2 § 201.10.

Bencic contends that at step four the ALJ should have found that she is unable to
return to her past relevant work and then should have gone on to step five and found that
she lacked skills transferable to sedentary work and is deemed disabled because of her
age. As found above, the ALJ did not err in finding Bencic is able to perform her past
relevant work as a waitress and therefore was not required to make any step five findings.
However, even if he had done so, the Medical Vocational Rule 20 C.F.R. Part 404,
Subpart P, App. 2 § 201.10 states that a finding of “disabled” for an individual of age 4549 is warranted if she is restricted to sedentary work, unskilled or has no transferable
skills, can no longer perform past relevant work, and is unable to communicate in English
or able to speak and understand English, but unable to read or write in English. Bencic is
able to communicate in English and can read and write in English. The ALJ would not
have been required to consider her as an individual approaching advanced age (age 5054), but only to consider whether to do so because she was within “a few months” of
reaching an older age category. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1563(b).
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the final decision of the Commissioner of
Social Security is affirmed.

The Clerk shall enter judgment accordingly and shall

terminate this case.
Dated this 19th day of December, 2012.

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

- 11