Bass v. Colvin
Filing
22
ORDER that the Commissioner's final decision in this matter is AFFIRMED. The Clerk of the Court is instructed to enter judgment accordingly and close this case (see attached Order for complete details). Signed by Magistrate Judge Leslie A Bowman on 10/31/2017. (MFR)
1
WO
2
3
4
5
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
6
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
7
Robert Bass,
8
Plaintiff,
9
vs.
10
11
12
13
Commissioner
Administration,
of
Defendant.
Social
)
)
)
)
)
)
Security)
)
)
)
)
)
No. CV 16-782-TUC-LAB
ORDER
14
The plaintiff filed this action for review of the final decision of the Commissioner for
15
Social Security pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). (Doc. 1, p. 1)
16
The Magistrate Judge presides over this case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) having
17
received the written consent of both parties. See FED.R.CIV.P. 73; (Doc. 15)
18
The court finds that the final decision of the Commissioner is supported by substantial
19
evidence and free from legal error.
20
Bass’s condition does not meet or equal Listing 5.06. See 20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpt P,
21
App. 1 § 5.06. The ALJ properly discounted Bass’s credibility. The ALJ properly identified
22
and resolved the conflict between the Dictionary of Occupational Titles (DOT) and the
23
testimony from the vocational expert.
24
25
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
26
On September 17, 2014, Bass filed for disability insurance benefits pursuant to Title II
27
of the Social Security Act and supplemental security income pursuant to Title XVI. (Tr. 19),
28
1
(Tr. 251), (Tr. 279-287) He alleged disability beginning on May 30, 2014, due to scoliosis,
2
degenerative disc disease with radiculopathy, headaches, gastric complications of hernia repair,
3
left knee DJD (degenerative joint disease), depression, anxiety, and gastroparesis (stomach
4
partial paralysis). (Tr. 313)
5
His claims were denied initially (Tr. 154-157, 251) and upon reconsideration (Tr. 159-
6
162, 251). Bass requested review and appeared with counsel at a hearing before Administrative
7
Law Judge (ALJ) Laura Havens on February 11, 2016 and again on June 22, 2016. (Tr. 39, 60)
8
In her decision, dated July 14, 2016, the ALJ found Bass was not disabled. (Tr. 19-29) Bass
9
appealed, and on September 23, 2016, the Appeals Council accepted review. (Tr. 4)
10
In a decision dated October 25, 2016, the Appeals Council found that Bass is not
11
disabled. (Tr. 4-6) The Appeals Council adopted most of the ALJ’s decision but made some
12
significant amendments. Id. Bass’s filing date was changed to June 16, 2014, his last insured
13
date was changed to December 31, 2018, and his Residual Functional Capacity was changed
14
to “a reduced range of light exertional work.” (Tr. 4-5) (emphasis added) The Appeals Council
15
concluded that Bass was able to “perform past relevant work as a pharmacy clerk/customer
16
service clerk as it was actually performed by him and generally performed in the national
17
economy.” (Tr. 5) In the alternative, Bass could work as a counter clerk or a cashier. (Tr. 6)
18
Accordingly, the Appeals Council found that Bass was not disabled through the date of the
19
hearing decision. (Tr. 6) Bass subsequently filed this action appealing the Commissioner’s
20
final decision. (Doc. 1)
21
22
Claimant’s Work History and Medical History
23
Bass worked as an emergency medical technician between March of 1993 and September
24
of 2008. (Tr. 315) He worked as a driver between July of 2010 and June of 2011. (Tr. 315)
25
He worked in a mail order pharmacy between September 2011 and March of 2013. (Tr. 315,
26
66)
27
Bass alleged disability beginning on May 30, 2014, due to scoliosis, degenerative disc
28
disease with radiculopathy, headaches, gastric complications of hernia repair, left knee DJD
-2-
1
(degenerative joint disease), depression, anxiety, and gastroparesis (a disorder that slows or
2
stops the movement of food from the stomach to the small intestine). (Tr. 313)
3
In January of 2015, John Fahlberg, M.D., reviewed the medical record for the disability
4
determination service and offered an opinion of Bass’s physical limitations. (Tr. 99) Fahlberg
5
opined that Bass could lift 20 pounds occasionally and 10 pounds frequently. (Tr. 99) He could
6
sit, stand, and/or walk for 6 hours in an 8-hour day. (Tr. 99) He should only occasionally
7
climb ladders, rope, or scaffolds. (Tr. 99) Falhberg opined that Bass “is on [a] vigorous
8
campaign for disability due to homelessness and unemployment.” (Tr. 99) “He does have some
9
mild to mod[erate] [diagnoses] that are supported but [it] appears his seeking of med[ical]
10
attention for rather minor illnesses is exaggerated and [is] leading to excessive weakly supported
11
[diagnoses].” (Tr. 99) Falhberg’s opinion suggests that Bass can perform light work with some
12
exceptions. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1567(b), 416.967(b).
13
In February of 2015, Stephen Bailey, Ed.D., reviewed the medical record for the
14
disability determination service and offered an opinion of Bass’s mental limitations. (Tr. 97)
15
He diagnosed affective disorder and anxiety-related disorder. (Tr. 97) He evaluated Bass’s “B”
16
listing criteria, which gauge the severity of his mental impairment. See 20 C.F.R. §§
17
404.1520a(c)(3), 416.920a(c)(3). He found Bass has no restrictions of his daily activities;
18
“mild” difficulties in maintaining social functioning; “mild” difficulties in maintaining
19
concentration, persistence or pace; and no evidence of decompensation. (Tr. 97) Bailey further
20
opined that the medical evidence did not establish the presence of the “C” criteria, which are
21
an alternative gauge of the extent of his mental impairment. (Tr. 97) According to Bailey, Bass
22
has been treated for depression and anxiety, but he reports “no psychological symptoms that
23
would limit him in a work setting.” (Tr. 97) Bailey concluded that Bass’s mental impairment
24
was non-severe. (Tr. 97)
25
In April of 2015, Eric Penner, Ph.D., reevaluated Bass’s medical record and affirmed
26
Bailey’s opinion. (Tr. 118) According to Penner, “[the] evidence . . . indicates no significant
27
changes in his mental status.” (Tr. 117)
28
-3-
1
2
In April of 2015, J. Wright, M.D., reevaluated Bass’s medical record and agreed with
Falhberg that Bass could perform light work with some exceptions. (Tr. 120-121)
3
In February of 2016, Jerome C. Rothbaum, M.D., examined Bass for the disability
4
determination services. (Doc. 1069) He diagnosed scoliosis, bilateral knee pain, myofascial
5
low back pain, headache, history of gastroparesis (stomach partial paralysis), hiatal hernia,
6
history of diverticulosis (a colon abnormality), status post cholecystectomy (gallbladder
7
removal), history of pulmonary hypertension, history of fibromyalgia (not substantiated), history
8
of malabsorption, and B-12 and ferrous sulfate injections. (Tr. 1079) He opined that Bass
9
could occasionally lift and carry up to 20 lbs. (Tr. 1073) He could sit for 6 hours, stand for 3
10
hours and walk for 2 hours in an 8-hour day. (Tr. 1074) He could occasionally reach, handle,
11
finger, feel, push, and pull. (Tr. 1075) He could occasionally climb stairs and ramps, balance,
12
stoop, kneel, crouch, or crawl. (Tr. 1067) He should never work at unprotected heights; with
13
moving mechanical parts; or with dust, odors, fumes, or other pulmonary irritants. (Tr. 1077)
14
He could occasionally operate a motor vehicle; work around humidity and wetness; or be
15
exposed to extreme cold, extreme heat, or vibrations. (Tr.1077)
16
On February 11, 2016, Bass appeared with counsel at a hearing before the ALJ. (Tr. 60)
17
Bass explained that his disabling impairments are “physical only.” (Tr. 68-60) His depression
18
and anxiety are “maybe just situational.” (Tr. 60) He currently takes “19 or 20 medications.”
19
(Tr. 60) He has pain over his entire body. (Tr. 70) Sometimes it is “dull and achy, sometimes
20
it’s sharp.” (Tr. 70) He has stomach problems that result in constipation, diarrhea, and
21
vomiting. (Tr. 71) He goes to the bathroom six to ten times an hour. (Tr. 71) Bass testified
22
that he can sit, walk, or stand for only 10 to 15 minutes at a time. (Tr. 70)
23
The ALJ took testimony from Lawrence Haney, a vocational expert. (Tr. 76) Haney
24
opined that a person of the claimant’s age, education, and past relevant work, who could sit,
25
stand, or walk 6 hours out of an 8-hour day, who could occasionally lift and carry 20 pound and
26
frequently lift and carry 10 pounds, could frequently climb stairs and occasionally climb
27
ladders, and could frequently balance, stoop, kneel, crouch and crawl, could work as a
28
-4-
1
pharmacy clerk. (Tr. 76-77) The ALJ decided at the end of the hearing to obtain another
2
evaluation of Bass’s medical condition. (Tr. 79)
3
On June 22, 2016, Bass appeared with counsel at a second hearing before the ALJ. (Tr.
4
39) On the advice of counsel, Bass amended his disability onset date to April 2, 2015. (Tr. 41)
5
The ALJ took testimony from a medical expert, Alexander B. White, M.D. (Tr. 42) White
6
opined, based on the medical record, that Bass suffers from fibromyalgia syndrome. (Tr. 42)
7
His worst symptom is gastroparesis, partial paralysis of the stomach, which is caused by all the
8
medications he is taking. (Tr. 43) White opined that Bass could perform light work now and,
9
with continued activity, could return to normal functioning.
(Tr. 45); see 20 C.F.R. §§
10
404.1567(b), 416.967(b). He noted that Bass has lost weight recently but he still has a BMI
11
(body mass index) of 26 to 27 (Tr. 46) White opined that Bass’s recent loss of 65 pounds was
12
not indicative of a disability. (Tr. 47-48) Assuming the loss was due to nausea and vomiting,
13
White opined that Bass’s symptoms were caused by the excessive medication that he had been
14
prescribed. (Tr. 50)
15
The ALJ took testimony from Robert Bradley Cottle, a vocational expert. (Tr. 53) The
16
ALJ asked Cottle a hypothetical assuming Bass had the RFC given by Rothbaum but without
17
his manipulative restrictions. (Tr. 1073-1077) Cottle opined that a person of the claimant’s age,
18
education, and past relevant work, who could sit 6 hours out of an 8-hour day, stand for 3 hours,
19
walk for 2 hours, who requires a sit/stand option every hour, who could occasionally lift and
20
carry 20 pounds, who could never climb ladders, who could occasionally climb stairs, balance,
21
stoop, kneel, crouch and crawl, who is precluded from working jobs involving heights, moving
22
mechanical parts, and dust, fumes, or odors, and who can only occasionally be exposed to
23
temperature extremes and vibrations, could work as a pharmacy clerk, Bass’s past relevant
24
work. (Tr. 54-55) In the alternative, such a person could work as a counter clerk or cashier.
25
(Tr. 56)
26
27
CLAIM EVALUATION
28
-5-
1
Social Security Administration (SSA) regulations require that disability claims be
2
evaluated pursuant to a five-step sequential process. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520, 416.920. The first
3
step requires a determination of whether the claimant is engaged in substantial gainful activity.
4
20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4), 416.920(a)(4). If so, then the claimant is not disabled, and
5
benefits are denied. Id.
6
If the claimant is not engaged in substantial gainful activity, the ALJ proceeds to step
7
two, which requires a determination of whether the claimant has a severe impairment or
8
combination of impairments. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4), 416.920(a)(4). In making a
9
determination at step two, the ALJ uses medical evidence to consider whether the claimant’s
10
impairment significantly limits or restricts his or her physical or mental ability to do basic work
11
activities. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(c), 416.920(c). Id. If the ALJ concludes the impairment is
12
not severe, the claim is denied. Id.
13
Upon a finding of severity, the ALJ proceeds to step three, which requires a
14
determination of whether the impairment meets or equals one of several listed impairments that
15
the Commissioner acknowledges are so severe as to preclude substantial gainful activity. 20
16
C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4), 416.920(a)(4); 20 C.F.R. Pt. 404, Subpt. P, App.1. If the claimant’s
17
impairment meets or equals one of the listed impairments, then the claimant is presumed to be
18
disabled, and no further inquiry is necessary. Ramirez v Shalala, 8 F.3d 1449, 1452 (9th Cir.
19
1993). If the claimant’s impairment does not meet or equal a listed impairment, evaluation
20
proceeds to the next step.
21
The fourth step requires the ALJ to consider whether the claimant has sufficient residual
22
functional capacity (RFC)1 to perform past work. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4), 416.920(a)(4).
23
If yes, then the claim is denied. Id. If the claimant cannot perform any past work, then the ALJ
24
must move to the fifth step, which requires consideration of the claimant’s RFC to perform
25
26
27
1
28
Residual functional capacity is defined as that which an individual can still do despite
his or her limitations. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1545, 416.945.
-6-
1
other substantial gainful work in the national economy in view of claimant’s age, education, and
2
work experience. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4); 416.920(a)(4).
3
4
The ALJ’s Findings
5
At step one of the disability analysis, the ALJ found Bass “has not engaged in substantial
6
gainful activity since April 2, 2015, the alleged onset date. . . .” (Tr. 21) At step two, he found
7
Bass “has the following severe impairments:
8
gastroparesis, degenerative joint disease, [and scoliosis]. . . .” (Tr. 21)
chronic pain syndrome, fibromyalgia,
9
At step three, the ALJ found Bass’s impairments did not meet or equal the criteria for any
10
impairment found in the Listing of Impairments, Appendix 1, Subpart P, of 20 C.F.R., Part 404.
11
(Tr. 23) The ALJ’s findings at steps one, two, and three were later adopted by the Appeals
12
Council. (Tr. 5)
13
The ALJ then analyzed Bass’s residual functional capacity (RFC). She found “the
14
claimant had the residual functional capacity to perform sedentary work as defined in 20 CFR
15
§§ 404.1567(a) and 416.967(a) except that the claimant is able to sit for six hours out of an
16
eight-hour day. The claimant can stand for three hours out of an eight-hour day. The claimant
17
can walk for two hours out of an eight-hour day. The claimant requires a sit/stand option every
18
1 hour. The claimant can occasionally lift and carry twenty pounds. The claimant can never
19
climb ladders. The claimant can occasionally climb stairs, or balance, stoop, kneel, crouch or
20
crawl. The claimant is precluded from working at jobs with heights and moving mechanical
21
parts, or around dust, fumes or odors. The claimant can only occasionally be exposed to
22
temperature extremes or vibrations.” (Tr. 23-24) It appears that this is the RFC given by
23
Rothbaum without his manipulative restrictions. (Tr. 1073-1077) The Appeals Council adopted
24
this finding except that it concluded Bass can perform a reduced range of light exertional work.
25
(Tr. 5); see 20 CFR §§ 404.1567(b) and 416.967(b).
26
At step four, the Appeals Council found Bass was able to perform his “past relevant work
27
as a pharmacy clerk/customer service clerk as it was actually performed by him and generally
28
performed in the national economy.” (Tr. 5) In the alternative, Bass could work as a counter
-7-
1
clerk and a cashier. (Tr. 6) These findings are apparently based on the testimony given by the
2
vocational expert, Robert Bradley Cottle. (Tr. 27, 53) Consequently, the Appeals Council
3
found Bass was not disabled.
4
5
STANDARD OF REVIEW
6
An individual is entitled to disability benefits if he or she demonstrates, through
7
medically acceptable clinical or laboratory standards, an inability to engage in substantial
8
gainful activity due to a physical or mental impairment that can be expected to last for a
9
continuous period of at least twelve months. 42 U.S.C. §§ 423(d)(1)(A), 1382c(a)(3)(A). “[A]
10
claimant will be found disabled only if the impairment is so severe that, considering age,
11
education, and work experience, that person cannot engage in any other kind of substantial
12
gainful work which exists in the national economy.” Penny v. Sullivan, 2 F.3d 953, 956 (9th Cir.
13
1993).
14
The findings of the Commissioner are meant to be conclusive. 42 U.S.C. §§ 405(g),
15
1383(c)(3). The decision to deny benefits “should be upheld unless it contains legal error or is
16
not supported by substantial evidence.” Orn v. Astrue, 495 F.3d 625, 630 (9th Cir. 2007).
17
Substantial evidence is defined as “such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept
18
as adequate to support a conclusion.” Id. It is “more than a mere scintilla but less than a
19
preponderance.” Id.
20
“Where evidence is susceptible to more than one rational interpretation, the
21
[Commissioner’s] decision should be upheld.” Orn, 495 F.3d at 630. “However, a reviewing
22
court must consider the entire record as a whole and may not affirm simply by isolating a
23
specific quantum of supporting evidence.” Id.
24
The Commissioner need not accept the claimant’s subjective testimony of disability, but
25
if she decides to reject it, “she must provide specific, cogent reasons for the disbelief.” Lester,
26
81 F.3d 821, 834 (9th Cir. 1995). “Unless there is affirmative evidence showing that the
27
claimant is malingering, the Commissioner’s reasons for rejecting the claimant’s testimony must
28
be clear and convincing.” Id. “General findings are insufficient; rather, the [Commissioner]
-8-
1
must identify what testimony is not credible and what evidence undermines the claimant’s
2
complaints.” Id.
3
4
Discussion: Listing 5.06
5
Bass argues first that the ALJ erred at step three of the disability analysis by failing to
6
find that his condition meets Listing 5.06, which describes when inflammatory bowel disease
7
is so serious that it is per se disabling. (Doc. 16, p. 12); see 20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpt P, App.
8
1 § 5.06.
9
As a preliminary matter, Bass argues that the ALJ erred as a matter of law by relying on
10
the medical expert’s testimony because it was too equivocal. Bass notes that in Tonapetyan,
11
a medical expert testified that he found “the lack of treatment notes from the plaintiff’s treating
12
psychiatrist ‘confusing’ and that it was ‘difficult to say’ whether the record was complete
13
enough to render an opinion.” (Tr. 16, p. 13) (citing Tonapetya v. Halter, 242 F.3d 1144, 1150
14
(9th Cir. 2001)). The Ninth Circuit found the ALJ erred in relying on that expert’s equivocal
15
testimony. Id. Similarly, in Padilla, where “a medical expert testified both that the plaintiff had
16
no severe impairments and that the expert would agree with another doctor’s opinion that the
17
plaintiff would be limited,” “the ALJ’s reliance on this contradictory testimony was found to
18
be reversible error.” (Tr. 16, p. 13) (citing Padilla v. Astrue, 541 F. Supp 2d 1102, 1107-08).
19
Bass argues that the medical expert in this case gave a similarly equivocal statement concerning
20
Bass’s qualification for Listing 5.06 and that the ALJ should not have relied upon it. The court
21
does not agree with Bass’s characterization of the medical expert’s testimony.
22
The medical expert here, Alexander B. White, M.D., testified that Bass did not meet
23
listing 5.06. (Tr. 44) He was not equivocal. He testified that Bass does not have inflammatory
24
bowel disease, he has irritable bowel syndrome. (Tr. 44) White noted that Bass recently lost
25
weight, but be believed this weight loss would not be disabling because Bass was overweight
26
to begin with and “he needed to lose weight.” (Tr. 45) He noted that Bass was taking Ensure
27
supplemental nutrition to minimize his stomach discomfort, but be believed it was “no
28
-9-
1
significant problem.” (Tr. 49) White’s testimony was not equivocal. The ALJ’s reliance on
2
his testimony was not error.
3
Bass further argues that his condition is equivalent to Listing 5.06. 20 C.F.R. Part 404,
4
Subpt P, App. 1 § 5.06. Listing 5.06 explains when a claimant with inflammatory bowel disease
5
has a condition so serious that it is per se disabling. The listing sets forth a number of specific
6
factors, two of which must be present to qualify for a per se disability finding. Among the listed
7
factors are (1) an “[i]nvoluntary weight loss of at least 10 percent” over six months and (2) a
8
“[n]eed for supplemental daily enteral nutrition via a gastrostomy or daily parenteral nutrition
9
via a central venous catheter.” 20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpt P, App. 1 § 5.06.
10
Bass argues that he experienced an involuntary weight loss of at least 10 percent and that
11
his doctors “directed him to consume nutritional supplements for persistent gastroparesis
12
symptoms.” (Doc. 16) He argues these two factors medically equal the two factors set forth
13
by Listing 5.06 and he is per se disabled. The court does not agree.
14
First, as the medical expert White testified, Bass does not have a diagnosis for
15
inflammatory bowel disease. Second, his condition does not medically equal the two stated
16
factors.
17
Assuming that Bass did have a 10 percent weight loss, the court finds that his doctor’s
18
prescription for the nutritional supplement Ensure does not medically equal the requirement of
19
a “need for supplemental daily enteral nutrition via a gastrostomy [an opening to the stomach
20
through the abdominal wall] or daily parenteral nutrition via a central venous catheter.” Listing
21
5.06. This later factor is important, not simply because the patient needs supplemental nutrition,
22
but because the patient’s need for nutrition is so severe and difficult to remedy that nutrition
23
must be introduced through a surgically created abdominal opening or through a central venous
24
catheter. Bass’s need for supplemental nutrition is not so dire. Bass has been prescribed the
25
nutritional supplement Ensure, but he takes it the usual way, by drinking it. Bass’s prescription
26
for Ensure does not medically equal the supplemental nutrition factor in Listing 5.06.
27
Bass further argues that White improperly discounted his nausea, vomiting, and weight
28
loss because he found they are merely side effects of his prescribed medications. Bass argues
- 10 -
1
to the contrary that medical side effects must be considered when evaluating a claimant’s ability
2
to work and should not be ignored. (Doc. 16, p. 15) This court agrees that a medication’s side
3
effects ordinarily should be considered in the disability analysis.
4
404.1529(c)(3)(iv), 416.929(c)(3)(iv).
5
characterization of White’s testimony.
See 20 C.F.R. §§
The court does not agree, however, with Bass’s
6
White found that Bass’s nausea, vomiting, and weight loss are side effects of his
7
prescribed medications, and he found that they do not constitute a disabling condition. (Tr. 50)
8
But he did not reach this conclusion because they are side effects of his medication and
9
therefore unimportant. (Tr. 50) He reached this conclusion because these side effects are the
10
result of over-medication. (Tr. 50-51) White concluded that Bass is taking too much
11
medication. (Tr. 50-51) (“He was eating medicines instead of food.”). If he were being
12
properly treated, he would be taking fewer medications and his symptoms would greatly
13
improve. White did not improperly discount side effects that result from necessary medication.
14
He discounted side effects resulting from over-prescription. White’s opinion was not error.
15
16
Discussion: Credibility
17
Bass also argues that the ALJ failed to properly assess his credibility. (Doc. 16, p. 16)
18
The court does not agree.
19
The ALJ is not required to accept a claimant’s subjective testimony of disability and may
20
discount it if she provides the proper justification. See also Molina v. Astrue, 674 F.3d 1104,
21
1112 (9th Cir. 2012) (“[T]he ALJ is not required to believe every allegation of disabling pain,
22
or else disability benefits would be available for the asking.”) (punctuation modified). “To
23
determine whether the claimant’s testimony regarding the severity of his symptoms is credible,
24
the ALJ may consider, for example: (1) ordinary techniques of credibility evaluation, such as
25
the claimant’s reputation for lying, prior inconsistent statements concerning the symptoms, and
26
other testimony by the claimant that appears less than candid; (2) unexplained or inadequately
27
explained failure to seek treatment or to follow a prescribed course of treatment; and (3) the
28
claimant’s daily activities.” Smolen v. Chater, 80 F.3d 1273, 1284 (9th Cir. 1996). In this case,
- 11 -
1
the ALJ found that while “the claimant’s medically determinable impairments could reasonably
2
be expected to cause the alleged symptoms” his statements concerning limiting effects of those
3
impairments was not entirely consistent with the medical record. (Tr. 24)
4
The ALJ noted that in January of 2015, Bass presented to the emergency department
5
complaining of nausea and vomiting for four days. (Tr. 24) (citing Ex. 20F/4); (Tr. 772-776)
6
Bass was given a differential diagnosis of gastroparesis, viral syndrome, malingering, and
7
electrolyte abnormality. (Tr. 775) Melissa Ann Kelsey, D.O., found no abdominal tenderness
8
or dehydration. (Tr. 776) She told Bass he needed to undergo a [per oral] challenge for a
9
proper evaluation, but Bass refused. Id. “He had completely unremarkable labs and there was
10
no concern for significant pathology based upon normal labs, normal vitals, normal physical
11
exam” Id. The ALJ incorrectly stated that Bass was given a final diagnosis of malingering.
12
(Tr. 24) As Bass correctly notes, malingering was only a “differential diagnosis” and did not
13
appear in the final diagnosis which was “Nondiabetic gastroparesis, Abdominal pain, and
14
Dehydration.” (Tr. 777); (Doc. 21, p. 4) Nevertheless, the ALJ correctly highlighted the fact
15
that the Bass did not display the clinical signs ordinarily associated with the symptoms he
16
reported. (Tr. 24, 776) In addition, he noted that Bass was unwilling to accept the suggested
17
course of treatment offered by the attending physician. (Tr. 24, 776)
18
The ALJ further noted that Bass was evaluated on April 2, 2015 by Miguel Arenas, M.D.
19
(Tr. 25) (citing Ex. 25F/7); (Tr. 877) Arenas found Bass “well developed, well-nourished and
20
in no acute distress.” Id. He further found “that the claimant was non-compliant with his
21
medications.” Id.; (Tr. 878) A claimant’s failure to follow a prescribed course of treatment is
22
some evidence that the claimant’s subjective testimony is not entirely credible. See Smolen v.
23
Chater, 80 F.3d at 1284.
24
The ALJ also noted that Bass was examined by Jerome Rothbaum, M.D., on February
25
25, 2016. (Tr. 25) (citing Ex. 34F) Rothbaum also found Bass “in no acute distress” but he
26
did observe substantial weight and muscle loss. (Tr. 26) (citing Ex. 34F) Rothbaum “felt that
27
the claimant did not give maximum effort” during his examination of Bass’s respiration. Id.;
28
(Tr. 1071) Bass “complained of substantial accentuation of abdominal pain although the
- 12 -
1
examination was very minimal and very light.” Id., (Tr. 1072) “He also complained of
2
exacerbation of left knee pain although the examination was very minimal.” Id. Rothbaum’s
3
observations also support the ALJ’s adverse credibility findings.
4
The ALJ discounted Bass’s testimony of disabling pain because the medical record
5
contains evidence that Bass is non-compliant with his medications and he exaggerates the extent
6
of his symptoms. In addition, Bass’s testimony concerning his residual functional capacity is
7
not supported by any similar opinion in the medical record. Bass testified that he can sit, walk,
8
or stand for only 10 to 15 minutes at a time. (Tr. 70) None of the physicians in the medical
9
record opined that Bass is limited to that extent. The ALJ’s decision to discount Bass’s
10
credibility is supported by substantial evidence and is free from legal error. See Carmickle v.
11
Commissioner, 533 F.3d 1155, 1161 (9th Cir. 2008) (“Contradiction with the medical record is
12
a sufficient basis for rejecting the claimant’s subjective testimony.”).
13
14
Discussion: Vocational Testimony
15
Bass argues that the ALJ erred by failing to clarify why the vocational expert’s testimony
16
differed from the Dictionary of Occupational Titles (DOT). The court concludes that the ALJ
17
properly resolved this conflict at the hearing.
18
At step five of the disability analysis, the ALJ must determine whether the claimant’s
19
Residual Functional Capacity (RFC) allows him to perform work that exists in the national
20
economy. Zavalin v. Colvin, 778 F.3d 842, 845 (9th Cir. 2015). “In making this determination,
21
the ALJ relies on the DOT, which is the SSA’s primary source of reliable job information
22
regarding jobs that exist in the national economy.” Id., pp. 845-46 (punctuation modified). The
23
DOT describes the exertional and educational requirements for each listed occupation. Id., p.
24
846. The ALJ may also rely on the testimony of a vocational expert. Id. “When there is an
25
apparent conflict between the vocational expert’s testimony and the DOT—for example, expert
26
testimony that a claimant can perform an occupation involving DOT requirements that appear
27
more than the claimant can handle—the ALJ is required to reconcile the inconsistency.” Id.
28
“The ALJ must ask the expert to explain the conflict and then determine whether the vocational
- 13 -
1
expert’s explanation for the conflict is reasonable before relying on the expert's testimony to
2
reach a disability determination.” Id. (punctuation modified).
3
In this case, the vocational expert, Cottle, testified that a person with Bass’s RFC could
4
work as a pharmacy clerk, counter clerk, or cashier. (Tr. 55-56) The jobs identified by Cottle
5
were light work jobs, but Bass did not have the exertional ability to perform the full range of
6
light work. Accordingly, the ALJ asked Cottle to explain the discrepancy between his
7
testimony and the DOT. (Tr. 56) Cottle explained that the discrepancy was “based on my
8
experience as a provid[er] [of] rehab services and written job analysis.” Id. He asked, “You
9
included a sit/stand option?” Id. The ALJ answered, “Yes,” and Cottle replied, “It’s . . . It’s
10
based on my experiences.” Id. This court concludes that the ALJ properly identified and
11
resolved the conflict between the DOT and the expert’s testimony.
12
13
Bass argues that the expert only resolved the conflict surrounding the sit/stand option and
nothing more. This court reads the record differently. Accordingly,
14
15
IT IS ORDERED that the Commissioner’s final decision in this matter is AFFIRMED.
16
Bass’s condition does not meet or equal Listing 5.06. See 20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpt P, App.
17
1 § 5.06. The ALJ properly discounted Bass’s credibility. The ALJ properly identified and
18
resolved the conflict between the Dictionary of Occupational Titles (DOT) and the testimony
19
from the vocational expert. The Clerk of the Court is instructed to enter judgment accordingly
20
and close this case.
21
22
DATED this 31st day of October, 2017.
23
24
25
26
27
28
- 14 -
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?