Beckman v. Social Security Administration Commissioner

Filing 24

ORDER that the final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security is REVERSED and this case is REMANDED for calculation and award of benefits. The Clerk shall enter judgment accordingly and shall terminate this case. Signed by Judge Neil V Wake on 08/23/11. (ESL)

1

WO

2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
)
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
Michael J. Astrue, Commissioner of Social)
)
Security,
)
)
Defendant.
)
)
Steven Dale Beckman,
9
10
11
12
13
14

No. CV10-08072-PCT-NVW
ORDER

15
16

Plaintiff Steven Dale Beckman filed for disability insurance benefits in June 2006.

17

At the time, he lived in Big Bear Lake, California, and all of the proceedings related to his

18

disability benefits application took place in California. In June 2008, an ALJ decided that

19

Beckman is not disabled. The Social Security Appeals Council denied Beckman’s request

20

for review. At some point, Beckman moved to Arizona, and he now asks this Court to

21

review the denial of Social Security benefits under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). The Court will

22

reverse the ALJ’s decision and remand for calculation and award of benefits.

23

I.

Standard of Review

24

The Court must uphold the Commissioner’s final decision if it is supported by

25

substantial evidence and not based on legal error. See 42 U.S.C. § 405(g); Smolen v. Chater,

26

80 F.3d 1273, 1279 (9th Cir. 1996). The substantial evidence standard requires the evidence,

27

as a whole, to be “more than a mere scintilla but not necessarily a preponderance” and

28

otherwise sufficient such that “a reasonable mind might accept [the evidence] as adequate

1

to support a conclusion.” Tomassetti v. Astrue, 533 F.3d 1035, 1038 (9th Cir. 2008) (internal

2

quotation marks omitted). Further, if the “evidence is susceptible to more than one rational

3

interpretation” and the ALJ’s decision is supported by one such rational interpretation, the

4

Court will affirm the ALJ. Orn v. Astrue, 495 F.3d 625, 630 (9th Cir. 2007).

5

The Court will review only the issues raised by the party challenging the ALJ’s

6

decision. See Lewis v. Apfel, 235 F.3d 503, 517 n.13 (9th Cir. 2001). The Court will not

7

reverse for harmless error, which exists “when it is clear from the record that the ALJ’s error

8

was inconsequential to the ultimate nondisability determination.” Tomassetti, 533 F.3d at

9

1038 (internal quotation marks omitted). However, the Court will “review the ALJ’s

10

decision based [only] on the reasoning and factual findings offered by the ALJ.” Bray v.

11

Comm’r of SSA, 554 F.3d 1219, 1225 (9th Cir. 2009). The Court will not “attempt to intuit

12

what the adjudicator may have been thinking.” Id.

13
14

II.

Facts
A.

Plaintiff Stephen Dale Beckman

15

Beckman is 55 years old. Since he graduated from high school in 1973, he has

16

worked a variety of jobs, including truck driver, self-storage clerk, and driver/dock hand for

17

a freight company. In 2002, Beckman received a closed period of disability benefits while

18

he successfully fought an unspecified cancer. Beckman then went to work (or back to work)

19

at a lumber yard. Beckman quit his lumber yard job in mid-November 2005, claiming that

20

he no longer had the physical ability to perform the work. Beckman marks this as the time

21

he became permanently disabled, resulting from a life of strenuous work. Beckman

22

specifically claims that various symptoms of pain, tingling, and numbness in his neck, back,

23

arms, and legs prevent him from obtaining substantial gainful employment.

24
25

B.

Medical Evidence
1.

The CT Scan

26

In 2003, Beckman obtained a CT scan of his neck area. This scan revealed post-

27

traumatic arthritic deformities at the skull base and in the cervical spine, as well as a

28

deformity in the cervical spine that may have resulted from a fracture. The scan also
-2-

1

revealed mild stenosis.

2

2.

Dr. Siambanes

3

Beckman began seeking treatment from an orthopedic specialist, Dr. David

4

Siambanes, in 2004. In November 2004, Dr. Siambanes diagnosed multiple-level cervical

5

degenerative changes with severe facet arthropathy, as well as lumbosacral strain

6

superimposed on multiple-level degenerative changes.

7

In March 2006, Dr. Siambanes completed a report for the California state disability

8

agency. Dr. Siambanes repeated his previous diagnosis and opined that Beckman could not

9

perform any of his “regular or customary work,” nor would he likely be able to return to

10

work until early 2007. (Tr. 144.)

11

In October 2006, Beckman saw Dr. Siambanes again. In his report for this visit, Dr.

12

Siambanes remarked that Beckman “has chronic neck and low back pain with changes noted

13

on radiographs and CT scans consistent with a degenerative condition impairing his ability

14

to bend, twist, lift, carry, or stand or sit for any period of time, which is clearly altering his

15

ability to perform gainful employment.” (Tr. 163.) As will become significant later, Dr.

16

Siambanes signed this report with an “/s/” e-signature.

17

Dr. Siambanes examined Beckman again in March 2007. Dr. Siambanes noted

18

restricted range of motion in the neck, arms, lumbar area, and legs. Dr. Siambanes also noted

19

pain and tenderness in both the neck and lumbar regions. A few months later, at Dr.

20

Siambanes’s urging, Beckman had an MRI scan done on his neck, which revealed some

21

stenosis and disc bulges.

22

In May 2008, Dr. Siambanes examined Beckman as part of a progress report for the

23

California state disability agency. Dr. Siambanes again noted pain and tenderness arising

24

from Beckman’s neck and lumbar regions, along with restricted motion. Dr. Siambanes

25

diagnosed multiple-level spondylosis.

26

3.

Dr. Sophon

27

In September 2006, Dr. Bunsri Sophon examined Beckman at the request of the

28

disability agency. Dr. Sophon tested Beckman’s range of motion throughout the neck, back,
-3-

1

lumbar region, arms and legs, and found essentially no limitations and no tenderness.

2

Dr. Sophon concluded, “No orthopedic diagnosis.” (Tr. 154.)

3

4.

Dr. Yu

4

In March 2007, Dr. Warren Yu examined Beckman at the request of the state

5

disability agency. Dr. Yu noted restricted range of motion in the neck, back, and lumbar

6

region, along with tenderness, but normal range of motion in the legs and arms. Dr. Yu also

7

recorded “numbness throughout the fingertips of the bilateral hands.” (Tr. 168.) Dr. Yu

8

diagnosed neck and back pain with underlying spondylosis, and concluded with a “functional

9

assessment” that

10

the patient should be able to walk without an assistive device.
The patient should be able to sit for up to six hours in an eighthour day. Standing and walking should be limited to two hours
in an eight-hour day. He should occasionally be allowed to pick
up 20 pounds and frequently 10 pounds. The patient should
have frequent use of the upper extremities for pushing, pulling,
fine finger motor movements and handling. He should be
limited to only occasional squatting, stooping, kneeling,
crawling, climbing, bending or lifting.

11
12
13
14
15
16

(Tr. 169.)
5.

17

Dr. Spellman

18

In April 2007, Dr. G. G. Spellman reviewed Beckman’s file for the state agency.

19

Based on this review, Dr. Spellman concluded that Beckman could occasionally lift 20

20

pounds and frequently lift 10 pounds; he could stand or walk for six hours and sit for about

21

six hours in an eight-hour day; he could occasionally climb ramps or stairs, balance, stoop,

22

kneel, crouch, and crawl; but he should never climb ladders, ropes, or scaffolds.

23

C.

The ALJ Hearing

24

Beckman had his hearing in front of an ALJ in June 2008. Beckman testified about

25

his last job at a lumber yard where he “pretty much did everything out in the yard,” including

26

running loaders and forklifts, pulling orders and delivering them, and so forth. (Tr. 14.)

27

According to Beckman, he stopped working at the lumber yard because

28

[m]y hands would go numb. I’d drop material, drop lumber.
-4-

1

My hands go numb when I’m driving. I constantly have to
change hands while I’m steering. My back pain. I, I couldn’t
pick anything up. I got to the point I could hardly walk. I have
pain in my legs, numbness in my arms. I wake up in the night,
and my hands’ll been numb from my elbows down, tingling.
My arms and my hands feel — my fingers feel like somebody’s
pounding on my fingers with a hammer.

2
3
4
5
6

(Tr. 14–15.) Beckman also testified that the pain he experiences makes it
hard to focus on what you’re doing . . . . For me, anyway. You
have excruciating pain at times, and going to just numbness and
throbbing. It’s — it comes and goes. It’s hard for me to focus
on what I’m doing. It really is. That, combined with the fact
that some days, I can hardly get out of bed, it’d be pretty hard
for me to follow any kind of schedule with any kind of work.

7
8
9
10
11

(Tr. 17.)

12

As far as current income, Beckman explained that he lives off a 401(k) that he

13

inherited from his father. In terms of finding other work, Beckman had this exchange with

14

the ALJ:

24

Q. Well, once you realized that you couldn’t do that [lumber
yard] work anymore, and you stopped doing it, I mean, this is
mid-November of 2005. Did you look for any other kind of
work?
A. Yes. I can’t find anything, sir. Big Bear’s a small town.
There’s not a whole lot going on up there.
Q. What other kind of work did you look for?
A. Well, I’ve been a truck driver all my life. Like I say, there’s
not a whole lot in Big Bear. I can’t lift a whole lot. I drop
things, so it’s not like I could work in a little paint store.
Q. Did you actually go, and open doors, and ask for work, fill
out application forms, or did you just simply —
A. No, I’ve —
Q. — look in the local paper, or what?
A. I’ve looked in the local paper. There’s, there’s just not a lot
in Big Bear.

25

(Tr. 16.) The ALJ did not ask any follow-up questions regarding the jobs that Beckman

26

looked for. However, perhaps prompted by the motorcycle endorsement on Beckman’s

27

driver’s license, the ALJ asked:

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23

28
-5-

1

Q. Still have your motorcycle?
A. No.
Q. When did you last ride a motorcycle?
A. It’s been a few years.
Q. When? How long ago? Few —
A. A few years.
Q. Few could mean —
A. Three years, three years.
Q. — one year, two years —
A. Three years.
Q. I’m sorry?
A. Three years. I have a motorcycle sitting in the garage, but
I don’t ride it.

2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17

(Tr. 19.)
The ALJ then questioned Beckman about his medical care. Beckman offered that he
sees Dr. Siambanes about every six months. However, Beckman’s unemployment and
history of cancer effectively prevents him from buying health insurance, so his ability to get
medical care is limited. Although Dr. Siambanes has provided most of his services for free
(apparently as a favor to a friend of Beckman), everything outside of Dr. Siambanes’s
control, such as prescription drugs or MRIs, is an out-of-pocket expense to Beckman.
When the ALJ finished questioning Beckman, Beckman’s attorney followed up with
this exchange about Beckman’s symptoms:

18

Q. Now, you say you have problems with numbness. Do you
have a problem with dropping things?
A. Constantly.
Q. Okay.
A. And numbness. I don’t have any strength hardly in my
hands left. No grip strength. I drop things all the time.
Q. Okay. Do you have to lay down at all during the day and
rest?
A. Yes.
Q. About how often?
A. Well, some days are better than others, depending.
Sometimes, weather systems go through. I’m — a lot more
pain. Usually, once or twice a day, I have to lay down and take
15 minutes to 20 minutes just to lay down and, and get off my
legs and my back.

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

(Tr. 22.)
-6-

1
2
3

The ALJ then examined the vocational expert, Corinne Porter, posing the following
hypothetical:

8

I’d like you to assume an individual of the same age, education,
and work experience as the claimant. Further, assume a residual
functional capacity for a full range of light work, except as I say
otherwise, as follows: able to frequently use hand levers and
controls; all of the posturals are occasional, except no climbing
of ramps — or, no climbing ladders, scaffolds, or ropes; and
manipulation, frequently able to handle and finger. Based on
these circumstances, could the claimant do any of the — could
this person do any of the claimant’s past work?

9

(Tr. 29–30.) To this, Porter testified that such a person could be a storage clerk. The ALJ

10

then modified the hypothetical to assume that standing and walking would be restricted to

11

two hours out of eight. Porter testified that such a restriction eliminated all of Beckman’s

12

past work, but other jobs were available, including sewing machine operator, electronics

13

worker, and circuit board repair person. All three jobs, said Porter, exist in substantial

14

numbers in both the national and regional economy.

4
5
6
7

15

Beckman’s attorney then asked Porter, “If we assume that he’s going to be off task

16

about 20 percent of the time, what effect would that have on the occupational base there?”

17

Porter replied, “There would not be any work. The individual wouldn’t be working at a

18

competitive rate for full-time employment.” (Tr. 31–32.)

19

D.

The ALJ’s Decision

20

The ALJ issued his decision on July 3, 2008. The ALJ concluded that Beckman “has

21

the following severe impairments: lumbar spine disorder, cervical spine disorder, and

22

numbness in his arms, legs, and hands” (Tr. 40 (citation omitted)), but that such impairments

23

did not automatically qualify Beckman for disability benefits. The ALJ then went on to

24

evaluate Beckman’s residual functional capacity:

25
26
27
28

I find that the claimant has the residual functional capacity to
perform a limited range of light exertion. The claimant can lift
and carry 20 pounds occasionally and 10 pounds frequently. He
can push and pull 20 pounds occasionally and 10 pounds
frequently. He can stand and walk for 2 hours out of an 8-hour
workday, and he can sit for 6 hours out of an 8-hour workday.
-7-

1

He cannot climb ladders, ropes, or scaffolds. He can
occasionally climb ramps and stairs. He can occasionally
balance, bend, stoop, crouch, and kneel. He can frequently
reach overhead, above the shoulders, and in all directions. He
can perform frequent hand manipulation.

2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

(Tr. 40–41.) The ALJ stated that he adopted this residual functional capacity assessment
from the opinion of Dr. Yu because Dr. Yu’s “assessment [was] consistent with the evidence
as a whole.” (Tr. 43.) The ALJ then adopted the vocational expert’s opinion, concluding
that Beckman could do none of his past work but he could still be a sewing machine operator,
electronics worker, or circuit board repair person. Therefore, the ALJ concluded that
Beckman was not disabled.
Regarding Beckman’s own testimony about his symptoms (e.g., the intensity of his

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

pain, his need for rest during the day, his numbness that causes him to drop objects), the ALJ
found it “less than fully credible” because “[t]he claimant’s testimony was vague and evasive
at times.” (Tr. 43.) The ALJ gave two examples of such supposed vagueness or evasiveness.
First,
[t]he claimant, who complained about having a back problem,
was asked if he still owned a motorcycle (riding a motorcycle is
known to be hard to do with a back problem). The claimant first
said no, but he later said he still kept his motorcycle in his
garage. It is difficult to believe the claimant would keep a
motorcycle without riding it, especially since he has indicated he
has limited resources.
(Tr. 43.) Second, “[w]hen asked if he looked for other work after his last job in 2005, the
claimant said yes, but he did not provide any details regarding the type of work he has
sought.” (Tr. 43.) The ALJ also seemed to feel justified in discrediting Beckman’s
testimony because Beckman “has had very little medical treatment” and “[t]here is no
evidence the claimant has sought emergency room treatment for acute exacerbation of
symptoms.” (Tr. 43–44.)
The ALJ’s decision contains little discussion of Beckman’s primary treating
physician, Dr. Siambanes, except that the ALJ discounts Dr. Siambanes’s March 2006

28
-8-

1

disability finding for the California state disability agency because that state agency relies

2

on different criteria than the Social Security Administration.

3

continued, “the finding of disability is inconsistent with the medical evidence summarized

4

herein.” (Tr. 44.) The ALJ also discounts Dr. Siambanes’s October 2006 opinion — the e-

5

signed opinion — because (i) it was not properly signed; (ii) it “implies that the claimant

6

cannot work, but it is vague and does not clearly specify what the claimant can do despite his

7

impairments”; and (iii) “the objective findings in the remainder of the record do not support

8

a finding of disability.” (Tr. 44.)

9

III.

“Moreover,” the ALJ

Analysis

10

Beckman’s main challenge to the ALJ’s opinion is its residual functional capacity

11

conclusion. The ALJ gave all weight to Dr. Yu, and no weight either to Dr. Siambanes or

12

Beckman’s own testimony about his symptoms. The Court will first discuss the ALJ’s

13

treatment of Dr. Siambanes and Dr. Yu. The Court will then address the ALJ’s treatment of

14

Beckman’s symptom testimony.

15

A.

Medical Opinion Testimony

16

Beckman argues that the ALJ, in reaching his residual functional capacity assessment,

17

improperly discounted Beckman’s treating physician’s opinions. “As a general rule, more

18

weight should be given to the opinion of a treating source than to the opinion of doctors who

19

do not treat the claimant.” Lester v. Chater, 81 F.3d 821, 830 (9th Cir. 1995). In this case,

20

the ALJ gave all the weight to Dr. Yu, a non-treating physician, and no weight to

21

Dr. Siambanes, the treating physician. The ALJ may do so only if he provided “specific and

22

legitimate reasons supported by substantial evidence in the record.” Id. (internal quotation

23

marks omitted).

24

Before addressing whether the ALJ met this standard, it bears noting that most of the

25

medical professionals’ opinions in the record are substantially consistent. With the exception

26

of Dr. Sophon (who examined Beckman once at the state’s request), all doctors agreed that

27

Beckman has neck, back, arm, and leg problems that limit his abilities somewhat. The

28

doctors disagree only in how much those problems limit him.
-9-

1

Dr. Siambanes stated in his March 2006 disability finding for the state of California

2

that Beckman could not return to his previous employment. The ALJ discounted this opinion

3

because it was intended for the state disability agency, which supposedly operates under

4

different standards. However, the only difference that the ALJ or the Commissioner has

5

discussed is that the Social Security Administration requires an opinion both on whether the

6

claimant can perform his past work and whether he can perform any other work. Dr.

7

Siambanes’s March 2006 opinion is relevant to the first question. Therefore, the ALJ could

8

not discredit it completely for failing to offer an opinion on the second question.

9

As to that first question, the ALJ still found it unpersuasive because “the finding of

10

disability is inconsistent with the medical evidence summarized herein.” This reasoning is

11

difficult to understand. The ALJ himself concluded that Beckman cannot return to any of

12

his previous work. The ALJ cannot declare Beckman unable to return to his former

13

employment and yet discount a doctor’s opinion for reaching the same conclusion.

14

Accordingly, the ALJ had no legitimate reasons for discounting Dr. Siambanes’s March 2006

15

opinion.

16

Nonetheless, the ALJ is correct that Dr. Siambanes’s March 2006 opinion about

17

Beckman’s ability to perform his past work does not resolve whether Beckman can perform

18

any other work. Dr. Siambanes’s October 2006 report approaches this question, stating that

19

Beckman “has chronic neck and low back pain with changes noted on radiographs and CT

20

scans consistent with a degenerative condition impairing his ability to bend, twist, lift, carry,

21

or stand or sit for any period of time, which is clearly altering his ability to perform gainful

22

employment.”

23

The ALJ chose to give no weight to this opinion for three reasons. First, it was not

24

signed by hand. The Commissioner, however, concedes that this reason is not legitimate.

25

(Doc. 23 at 7–8.) Second, it “implies that the claimant cannot work, but it is vague and does

26

not clearly specify what the claimant can do despite his impairments.” At least in part, this

27

is a specific and legitimate reason to discredit Dr. Siambanes’s opinion. “The ALJ need not

28

accept the opinion of any physician, including a treating physician, if that opinion is brief,
- 10 -

1

conclusory, and inadequately supported by clinical findings.” Thomas v. Barnhart, 278 F.3d

2

947, 957 (9th Cir. 2002). Dr. Siambanes’s opinion that Beckman’s conditions “alter[] his

3

ability to perform gainful employment” is too vague to provide much guidance to the ALJ.

4

Accordingly, the ALJ did not need give weight to that assertion.

5

Even if Dr. Siambanes’s statement about Beckman’s ability to work is not entitled to

6

weight, it does not discredit his opinion that Beckman’s conditions “impair[] his ability to

7

bend, twist, lift, carry, or stand or sit for any period of time.” As to that conclusion, the

8

ALJ’s third reason for rejecting Dr. Siambanes’s opinion apparently applies: “the objective

9

findings in the remainder of the record do not support a finding of disability.” Presumably

10

“objective findings” refers to “objective medical evidence,” defined in the Social Security

11

regulations to mean “medical signs and laboratory findings.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(a).

12

“Signs” and “laboratory findings” are in turn defined as follows:

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23

(b) Signs are anatomical, physiological, or psychological
abnormalities which can be observed, apart from [a claimant’s
subjective] statements (symptoms). . . . Psychiatric signs are
medically demonstrable phenomena that indicate specific
psychological abnormalities, e.g., abnormalities of behavior,
mood, thought, memory, orientation, development, or
perception. They must also be shown by observable facts that
can be medically described and evaluated.
(c) Laboratory findings are anatomical, physiological, or
psychological phenomena which can be shown by the use of
medically acceptable laboratory diagnostic techniques. Some of
these diagnostic techniques include chemical tests,
electrophysiological studies (electrocardiogram,
electroencephalogram, etc.), roentgenological studies (X-rays),
and psychological tests.
20 C.F.R. § 404.1528(b)–(c).

24

In claiming that “the objective findings in the remainder of the record do not support

25

a finding of disability,” the ALJ is apparently saying that signs and laboratory findings do

26

not support Dr. Siambanes’s opinion about Beckman’s “ability to bend, twist, lift, carry, or

27

stand or sit for any period of time.” But nearly every doctor who examined Beckman noted

28
- 11 -

1

his restricted ability to bend and twist. Therefore, in that respect, Dr. Siambanes and the

2

“objective findings in the remainder of the record” agree. As for the ability to lift and carry,

3

it appears that no one actually tested these abilities. Some doctors tested grip strength (which

4

was generally normal), but grip strength does not necessarily translate into lifting and

5

carrying. Finally, concerning the ability to “stand or sit for any period of time,” no party has

6

pointed to signs or laboratory findings about this. Some doctors noted that Beckman could

7

sit comfortably through a physical exam, but without more (e.g., information on the length

8

of the exam, how long Beckman sat continuously, etc.) that does not establish his ability to

9

sit, much less stand, “for any period of time.”

10

In short, there are no “objective findings in the remainder of the record” that

11

undermine Dr. Siambanes’s statements about Beckman’s limited “ability to bend, twist, lift,

12

carry, or stand or sit for any period of time.” However, simply because Dr. Siambanes

13

opined consistently with the record as a whole does not establish that Beckman’s residual

14

functional capacity precluded all work. On this question, the only direct evidence available

15

to the ALJ came through Dr. Yu’s and Dr. Spellman’s assessments, and the ALJ chose to rely

16

on Dr. Yu, who concluded that Beckman

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

should be able to sit for up to six hours in an eight-hour day.
Standing and walking should be limited to two hours in an eighthour day. He should occasionally be allowed to pick up 20
pounds and frequently 10 pounds. The patient should have
frequent use of the upper extremities for pushing, pulling, fine
finger motor movements and handling. He should be limited to
only occasional squatting, stooping, kneeling, crawling,
climbing, bending or lifting.
This opinion and Dr. Siambanes’s opinion appear to conflict with respect to: (i) the duration
Beckman can sit; (ii) how much Beckman can push, pull, and handle; and perhaps (iii) how
much weight Beckman can lift.
Dr. Yu’s modal phrasing — “should be able,” “should . . . be allowed,” etc. — is
troubling because Dr. Yu does not explain how his physical examination of Beckman
justified these conclusions. Nonetheless, Dr. Siambanes’s opinions are likewise lacking in

28
- 12 -

1

detail. But given the preference for treating physician’s opinions over those from other

2

medical sources, Lester, 81 F.3d at 830, and in light of all the evidence (especially

3

Beckman’s own testimony, discussed below), it was error for the ALJ not to explain clearly

4

why he favored Dr. Yu’s opinion over that of Dr. Siambanes.

5

B.

Beckman’s Symptom Testimony

6

At the ALJ hearing, Beckman testified about two symptoms that limit his ability to

7

function: pain, which distracts him and sometimes requires him to rest during the day; and

8

numbness, which (among other things) causes him to drop things frequently. Each of these

9

symptoms has an objective and a subjective component. For example, we can observe

10

someone wincing and objectively conclude that the person is in pain.

11

Commissioner’s interpretive rulings recognize that the intensity of symptoms is often purely

12

subjective: “individuals may experience their symptoms differently and may be limited by

13

their symptoms to a greater or lesser extent than other individuals with the same medical

14

impairments.” Social Security Ruling (SSR) 96-7p, 1996 WL 374186, at *3.

But the

15

Therefore, “a claimant who alleges disability based on subjective symptoms . . . need

16

not produce objective medical evidence of the [symptom] itself, or the severity thereof.”

17

Smolen v. Chater, 80 F.3d 1273, 1281–82 (9th Cir. 1996). Instead, he must (a) “produce

18

objective medical evidence of an impairment or impairments” and (b) “show that the

19

impairment or combination of impairments could reasonably be expected to (not that it did

20

in fact) produce some degree of [the subjective] symptom.” Id. at 1282. If the claimant

21

satisfies this test, then the Commissioner’s rulings obligate the ALJ to evaluate the claimant’s

22

credibility in light of

23

26

the entire case record. This includes the medical signs and
laboratory findings, the individual’s own statements about the
symptoms, any statements and other information provided by
treating or examining physicians or psychologists and other
persons about the symptoms and how they affect the individual,
and any other relevant evidence in the case record.

27

SSR 96-7p, 1996 WL 374186, at *2. If the ALJ concludes that the claimant’s symptom

24
25

28
- 13 -

1

testimony is not credible, the ALJ must “make[] specific findings stating clear and

2

convincing reasons for doing so. The ALJ must state specifically which symptom testimony

3

is not credible and what facts in the record lead to that conclusion.” Smolen, 80 F.3d at 1284

4

(citation omitted).

5

Here, objective medical evidence confirmed the existence of Beckman’s pain and

6

numbness. A CT scan and an MRI both confirmed degenerative changes that could cause

7

pain and numbness. Further, every doctor that met with Beckman personally, except Dr.

8

Sophon, noted restricted range of motion, pain, and so forth, when Beckman moved in

9

certain ways. Dr. Yu specifically noted numbness in Beckman’s fingertips on both hands.

10

Accordingly, Beckman satisfied his burden to produce objective medical evidence of

11

conditions that could cause pain and numbness. The ALJ nonetheless found Beckman’s

12

testimony about his symptoms “less than fully credible.” The ALJ therefore had a duty to

13

state clear and convincing reasons for rejecting Beckman’s testimony.

14

The ALJ stated “clear” reasons for rejecting Beckman’s testimony, but none of these

15

reasons are “convincing.” First, the ALJ stated that he disbelieved Beckman generally

16

because, when asked about whether he still owned his motorcycle, Beckman “first said no,

17

but he later said he still kept his motorcycle in his garage. It is difficult to believe the

18

claimant would keep a motorcycle without riding it, especially since he has indicated he has

19

limited resources.” However, Beckman’s change from “no” to “I still have one in the

20

garage” was something that Beckman himself quickly volunteered. It did not come out

21

through some sort of cross-examination. Thus, the apparent discrepancy has no obvious

22

significance. Further, whether Beckman needs to or can sell his motorcycle is unwarranted

23

speculation, and does not impeach his truthfulness generally. Accordingly, neither does it

24

impeach his symptom testimony.

25

The ALJ next claimed that Beckman was vague and evasive because “[w]hen asked

26

if he looked for other work after his last job in 2005, the claimant said yes, but he did not

27

provide any details regarding the type of work he has sought.” But it was the ALJ who asked

28

him if he looked for other work, and it was the ALJ who pursued another line of questioning
- 14 -

1

after Beckman supposedly gave an answer lacking in detail. If the ALJ was concerned about

2

that lack of detail, the ALJ should have asked for detail. As it stands, the lack of detail alone

3

is not a convincing reason to distrust Beckman’s general truthfulness, and therefore not a

4

convincing reason to distrust his symptom testimony.

5

Finally, the ALJ remarked that Beckman “has had very little medical treatment” and

6

“[t]here is no evidence the claimant has sought emergency room treatment for acute

7

exacerbation of symptoms.” But Beckman explained that he cannot get health insurance

8

because he is unemployed and a cancer survivor. Apparently the ALJ disbelieved this

9

explanation, although the ALJ does not explain why. Without such an explanation,

10

Beckman’s supposed paucity of medical care says nothing about his credibility.

11

The ALJ did not articulate convincing reasons for disbelieving Beckman’s testimony

12

about his symptoms, nor for placing no weight on Dr. Siambanes’s opinions. “Because the

13

ALJ failed to provide legally sufficient reasons for rejecting [Beckman]’s testimony and [his]

14

treating physician[’s] opinions, [this Court] credit[s] the evidence as true.” Benecke v.

15

Barnhart, 379 F.3d 587, 594 (9th Cir. 2004). Remand for award of benefits is appropriate

16

if “there are no outstanding issues that must be resolved before a determination of disability

17

can be made.” Id. Here, no outstanding issues must be resolved. Regarding the effects of

18

Beckman’s numbness and consequent tendency to drop things, it is clear that he could

19

perform none of the jobs supposedly available to him (sewing machine operator, electronics

20

worker, and circuit board repair person). And concerning Beckman’s pain, Beckman’s

21

attorney asked the vocational expert whether any work would be available to Beckman if he

22

was “off task about 20 percent of the time.” The vocational expert replied, “There would not

23

be any work. The individual wouldn’t be working at a competitive rate for full-time

24

employment.” Therefore, Beckman is disabled for purposes of the Social Security Act, and

25

the matter will be remanded for calculation and award of benefits.

26
27
28
- 15 -

1

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

2

Security is REVERSED and this case is REMANDED for calculation and award of benefits.

3

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

4

DATED this 23rd day of August, 2011.

5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
- 16 -