Boatwright v. Commissioner Social Security Administration

Filing 30

Findings & Recommendation: Pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), it is recommended that the decision of the Commissioner be affirmed. Objections to the Findings and Recommendation are due by 8/3/2009. If objections are filed, responses are due 10 days after objections are filed. Please access entire text by document number hyperlink. Signed on 07/15/2009 by Magistrate Judge Mark D. Clarke. (rsm)

FILW09 Jll.1514l26USoc-eRJ1

I N T H E UNITED STATES DISTRICT C O U R T F O R T H E D I S T R I C T OF O R E G O N

GAYLE A. BOATWRIGHT, Civil No. 08-0150-CL Plaintiff,

R e p o r t & Recommendation
v.
MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner, Social S e c u r i t y Commission, Defendant.

C L A R K E , M a g i s t r a t e Judge. P l a i n t i f f Gayle A. Boatwright ("Plaintiff') brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) to o b t a i n j u d i c i a l review o f the Commissioner's final decision denying P l a i n t i f f s claim for S o c i a l S e c u r i t y D i s a b i l i t y I n s u r a n c e ( S S D I ) b e n e f i t s . F o r t h e s e v e r a l r e a s o n s s e t f o r t h b e l o w , t h e d e c i s i o n o f t h e C o m m i s s i o n e r s h o u l d b e affirmed.

I.

Background

P l a i n t i f f w a s b o r n o n S e p t e m b e r 2, 1 9 5 7 , a n d a l l e g e s d i s a b i l i t y b e g i n n i n g o n A p r i l 2 0 , 2001, d u e to the combined disorders including hepatitis C, depression, colitis, arthritis, and

Report & Recommendation - 1

resulting pain. (pl.'s Br. 2.) She w a s 4 9 years o l d o n the date last insured for disability benefits. P l a i n t i f f h a s a d e g r e e i n m e c h a n i c a l e n g i n e e r i n g a n d w o r k e d for t h e h i g h - t e c h i n d u s t r y f o r twenty-four years. (Tr. 173.) She w a s diagnosed w i t h hepatitis C i n N o v e m b e r 2000. ( T r . 1 8 . ) P l a i n t i f f s t o p p e d working in April 2001 and explained t h a t this w a s d u e t o limitations c a u s e d b y h e r m e d i c a l c o n d i t i o n . (Tr. 1 7 3 ; P l . ' s B r . 2 . ) P l a i n t i f f a l s o b r i e f l y w e n t b a c k t o w o r k i n J u l y 2001 for t w o weeks. (Tr. 18.) F r o m August 2005 till September 2006, P l a i n t i f f w o r k e d as a babysitter for a family m e m b e r for approximately eight hours p e r week. (Tr. 18.) S h e also w o r k e d o n a p a r t - t i m e , b u t u n p a i d , b a s i s for h e r h u s b a n d ' s t r u c k i n g c o m p a n y . ( T r . 1 8 . ) P l a i n t i f f b e l i e v e s s h e contracted hepatitis C during a m e d i c a l c l a s s i n c o l l e g e w h e n s t u d e n t s p r a c t i c e d w i t h r e - u s e d n e e d l e s . (Tr. 1 7 4 ; P l . ' s B r . 3 . ) P l a i n t i f f e x p l a i n e d t h a t s h e d e v e l o p e d a r e a c t i o n t o a t r e a t m e n t f o r h e r c o n d i t i o n . S h e s u f f e r s from s y m p t o m s o f v o m i t i n g ; p r o b l e m s w i t h vision; b a l a n c e a n d hearing; e a s y b r u i s i n g ; a n d s e n s i t i v i t y i n h e r f m g e r t i p s l e a d i n g t o t h e l o s s o f f i n g e m a i l s . (Tr. 1 7 4 . ) P l a i n t i f f s a w Dr. K i m W e b s t e r f o r a c o n s u l t a t i v e e v a l u a t i o n o n N o v e m b e r 2 4 , 2 0 0 4 . D r . W e b s t e r r e v i e w e d P l a i n t i f f s records, including t h e c h a r t n o t e s from h e r p r i m a r y c a r e physician. 1 (Tr. 1 6 9 . ) I n h e r a s s e s s m e n t , D r . W e b s t e r d i a g n o s e d , n [ h ] e p a t i t i s C w i t h o u t a n y e v i d e n c e t h a t i t i s c a u s i n g a n y p r o b l e m s. . . . [s]ubjective description o f p a i n and d e c r e a s e d range o f m o t i o n o f h e r f i n g e r s w i t h a b s o l u t e l y a n o r m a l e x a m i n a t i o n . B e c a u s e o f t h i s , I w o u l d s a y t h e r e is n o o b j e c t i v e e v i d e n c e f o r r e s t r i c t i o n s i n s t a n d i n g , w a l k i n g , sitting, lifting, o r carrying, a n d t h e r e i s n o

1 D r . Melanie J. Smythe was Plaintifl's primary care physician a t t h e time o f this examination. D r . Smythe's records were n o t included i n the Plaintifl's record as compiled b y the Social Security Administration, and the r e a s o n for t h a t is unclear. (See PI,'s Br. 5.) A s n o other primary care physician is n o t e d in the record, the C o u r t assumes Dr. W e b s t e r r e v i e w e d D r . Smythe's r e c o r d s o f t h e P l a i n t i f f .

Report & Recommendation - 2

objective n e e d for postural, manipulative, o r environmental restrictions." (Tr. 172.) Dr. W e b s t e r d e s c r i b e d " e x t r a o r d i n a r i l y p o o r effort" i n h e r f i n d i n g s o f P l a i n t i f f s m o t o r s t r e n g t h / m u s c l e b u l k a n d tone. (Tr. 1 7 0 - 1 7 1 . ) P l a i n t i f f s a w p s y c h o l o g i s t Dr. J a n e S t a r b i r d o n F e b r u a r y 3 , 2 0 0 5 , f o r a c o m p r e h e n s i v e p s y c h o - d i a g n o s t i c e x a m / r e p o r t . (Tr. 173.) Dr. S t a r b i r d d i a g n o s e d h e r w i t h D e p r e s s i v e D i s o r d e r , N O S . (Tr. 1 7 7 . ) D r . P a u l R e t h i n g e r , a s t a t e a g e n c y p s y c h o l o g i s t , r e v i e w e d t h e file a n d a g r e e d t h a t P l a i n t i f f h a d D e p r e s s i v e D i s o r d e r , N O S , i n h i s e v a l u a t i o n d a t e d F e b r u a r y 2 4 , 2 0 0 5 . (Tr. 1 8 8 . ) H e d i d n o t find, h o w e v e r , t h a t s h e h a d m o r e t h a n m i l d f u n c t i o n a l l i m i t a t i o n s a s a r e s u l t o f h e r d e p r e s s i o n . (Tr. 1 8 9 . ) A l s o i n F e b r u a r y 2 0 0 5 , D r . M a r y A n n W e s t f a l l r e v i e w e d P l a i n t i f f ' s file a n d c o n c l u d e d t h a t s h e h a d n o e s t a b l i s h e d e x e r t i o n a l , p o s t u r a l , m a n i p u l a t i v e , v i s u a l , c o m m u n i c a t i v e , o r e n v i r o n m e n t a l l i m i t a t i o n s . (Tr. 1 7 9 - 1 8 6 . ) Plaintiff, o n t h e r e c o m m e n d a t i o n o f h e r p r i m a r y c a r e physician Dr. Smythe, s a w Dr. W a i L. L e e o n N o v e m b e r 3 , 2 0 0 6 , for a n initial evaluation for h e r arthralgias. ( T r . 2 0 4 . ) Dr. Lee f o u n d s o m e m i l d findings o f o s t e o a r t h r i t i s b u t n o o b v i o u s signs o f synovitis. H e e x p l a i n e d , "[h]epatitis C c a n also cause arthralgi.as; however, h e r complaints o f j o i n t d i s c o m f o r t s e e m t o b e t o s o m e e x t e n t o u t o f p r o p o r t i o n t o t h e findings o f o s t e o a r t h r i t i s o r t h a t c a n b e e x p l a i n e d b y hepatitis C.f1 (Tr. 2 0 4 . ) Dr. Lee e x a m i n e d P l a i n t i f f o n a follow-up v i s i t o n J a n u a r y 11, 2 0 0 7 , a n d c o n c l u d e d flit i s l e s s l i k e l y t h a t s h e h a s r h e u m a t o i d arthritis and i t i s m o r e likely t h a t h e r r h e u m a t o i d f a c t o r i s a c c o u n t e d b y h e r h e p a t i t i s C." ( T r . 2 2 9 . ) A l s o a t t h i s v i s i t , h e s u g g e s t e d o c c u p a t i o n a l t h e r a p y for rehabilitation, b u t P l a i n t i f f deferred a n d s t a t e d t h a t s h e h a d p r e v i o u s l y s e e n a t h e r a p i s t a n d k n e w o f t h e exercises. (Tr. 229.) On January 2 3 , 2 0 0 7 , Dr. L e e c o m p l e t e d a q u e s t i o n n a i r e r e g a r d i n g P l a i n t i f f ' s c o n d i t i o n , as r e q u e s t e d b y P l a i n t i f f s attorney. H e w a s c a r e f u l

Report & Recommendation - 3

to clarify h i s responses a n d h i s treating relationship w i t h the Plaintiff: "[p ]hysical capacities l i s t e d a r e e x t r a p o l a t e d f r o m p a t i e n t ' s p h y s i c a l e x a m . M y r o l e as p a t i e n t ' s r h e u m a t o l o g i s t i s t o h e l p d i a g n o s e / c l a r i f y d i a g n o s i s a n d h e l p h e r t r e a t h e r c o n d i t i o n , n o t t o d e t e r m i n e d i s a b i l i t y . " (Tr. 228.) D r . L e e o p i n e d t h a t P l a i n t i f f h a d c e r t a i n physical limitations. P l a i n t i f f c a n o c c a s i o n a l l y lift and/or carry a m a x i m u m o f 10 pounds and frequently lift and/or carry less t h a n 10 pounds. S h e c a n s t a n d a n d / o r w a l k l e s s t h a n a n h o u r a t a t i m e . ( r r . 2 2 6 . ) S h e is n e v e r t o r e a c h i n a l l d i r e c t i o n s o r f i n g e r as t o fine m a n i p u l a t i o n . ( T r . 2 2 7 . ) H e a l s o o p i n e d t h a t h e r s y m p t o m s w o u l d l i k e l y i n c r e a s e i f s h e w e r e p l a c e d i n c o m p e t i t i v e e m p l o y m e n t . (Tr. 2 2 8 . ) P l a i n t i f f s a w Dr. A t i f Z a m a n o n D e c e m b e r 2 0 , 2 0 0 6 , a n d F e b r u a r y 2 2 , 2 0 0 7 , a t h e r p r i m a r y c a r e p h y s i c i a n D r . S m y t h e ' s referral. D r . Z a m a n o r d e r e d a c o l o n o s c o p y a n d l i v e r b i o p s y . ( T r . 2 1 5 . ) Dr. Z a m a n r e p o r t e d t h a t h e r c o l o n o s c o p y s h o w e d i n f l a m m a t i o n o f t h e intest~es, a n d t h e r e f o r e h e d i a g n o s e d colitis. D r . Z a m a n e x p l a i n e d t o t h e P l a i n t i f f t h a t t h e c o l i t i s l i k e l y e x p l a i n e d h e r d i a r r h e a a n d i n t e s t i n a l b u r n i n g . ( T r . 2 3 1 . ) Dr. Z a m a n also s t a t e d t h a t h e d i d n o t t h i n k that P l a i n t i f f s j o i n t complaints were related to hepatitis C; however, h e d i d p o s i t t h a t P l a i n t i f f m a y h a v e cryoglobulinemia, w h i c h m a y b e associated w i t h hepatitis C a n d c a n c a u s e j o i n t p r o b l e m s . ( T r . 2 1 5 . ) H e n o t e d t h a t h e w o u l d p e r f o n n a c r y o g l o b u l i n s c r e e n t o r u l e i t out. T h e r e w a s n o f u r t h e r m e n t i o n o f t h i s c o n d i t i o n i n t h e record. P l a i n t i f f p r o t e c t i v e l y filed h e r a p p l i c a t i o n for a p e r i o d o f d i s a b i l i t y a n d d i s a b i l i t y insurance benefits o n February 19, 2004. H e r claim w a s denied initially o n M a y 13, 2004, and u p o n reconsideration o n M a r c h 1, 2005. P l a i n t i f f appeared a n d testified a t a hearing o n February 8 , 2 0 0 7 , a t w h i c h t i m e a v o c a t i o n a l e x p e r t a l s o testified. T h e A d m i n i s t r a t i v e L a w J u d g e ( " A U " )

Report & Recommendation - 4

issued h e r unfavorable decision o n June 2 8 , 2 0 0 7 , and the Appeals Council denied P l a i n t i f f s request for review o n December 1 4 , 2 0 0 7 . (Tr. 5). P l a i n t i f f timely filed h e r claim w i t h this Court on February 4 , 2 0 0 8 . (pl.'s Compl. 1.)

II.

Standards
T h i s C o u r t m u s t affinn t h e Commissioner's d e c i s i o n i f i t i s b a s e d o n t h e p r o p e r l e g a l

s t a n d a r d s a n d t h e f i n d i n g s a r e s u p p o r t e d b y s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e i n t h e record. H a m m o c k v . Bowen, 879 F . 2 d 4 9 8 , 5 0 1 (9th Cir. 1989). Substantial evidence is "more than a mere scintilla. I t means such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion." Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389, 401 (1971) (quoting Consolidated E d i s o n Co. v. NLRB, 305 U.S. 1 9 7 , 2 2 9 ( 1 9 3 8 » . The Court considers the record as a whole and weighs "both the evidence that supports and detracts from the [Commissioner's] conclusion." Martinez v. Heckler, 807 F.2d 771, 772 (9 th Cir. 1986). Where the evidence is susceptible o f more t h a n one rational interpretation, the Commissioner's conclusion must b e upheld. Sample v. Schweiker, 694 F.2d 639, 642 (9 th Cir. 1982). Questions o f credibility and resolution o f conflicts

in the testimony are functions solely o f the Commissioner, Waters v. Gardner, 452 F . 2 d 8 5 5 , 8 5 8
n.7 (9 th Cir. 1971), b u t any negative credibility findings must b e supported b y findings o n the record and supported b y substantial evidence. Ceguerra v. Sec'y o f Health & H u m a n Servs., 933 F.2d 735, 738 (9th Cir. 1991). The findings o f the Commissioner as to any fact, i f supported b y s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e , s h a l l b e c o n c l u s i v e . 4 2 U . S . C . § 405(g). H o w e v e r , e v e n w h e r e f i n d i n g s a r e s u p p o r t e d b y s u b s t a n t i a l evidence, "the d e c i s i o n s h o u l d b e s e t a s i d e i f t h e p r o p e r l e g a l s t a n d a r d s w e r e not applied in weighing the evidence and making the decision." Flake v. Gardner, 3 9 9 F.2d 5 3 2 , 5 4 0 (9 th Cir. 1968); see also Allen v. Heckler, 749 F.2d 5 7 7 , 5 7 9 (9th Cir. 1984). U n d e r

Report & Recommendation - 5

sentence four o f 4 2 U.S.C. § 405(g), t h e court h a s t h e p o w e r t o enter, u p o n t h e pleadings a n d t r a n s c r i p t record, a j u d g m e n t affirming, modifying, o r r e v e r s i n g t h e d e c i s i o n o f t h e C o m m i s s i o n e r , w i t h o r w i t h o u t r e m a n d i n g the c a s e for a rehearing.

ITI.

Commissioner's Decision
T h e initial b u r d e n o f p r o o f rests u p o n t h e claimant t o establish disability. H o w a r d v.

Heckler, 7 8 2 F . 2 d 1484, 1486 (9th Cir. 1986). T o m e e t this burden, a c l a i m a n t m u s t d e m o n s t r a t e a n " i n a b i l i t y to e n g a g e i n a n y substantial gainful a c t i v i t y b y r e a s o n o f a n y m e d i c a l l y d e t e r m i n a b l e physical o r m e n t a l i m p a i r m e n t w h i c h c a n b e expected to r e s u l t i n d e a t h o r w h i c h h a s l a s t e d o r c a n b e e x p e c t e d to last for a continuous p e r i o d o f n o t less t h a n 12 m o n t h s . . . . " 4 2 U.S.C. § 4 2 3 (d)(1 )(A). A five-step s e q u e n t i a l p r o c e s s e x i s t s for d e t e r m i n i n g w h e t h e r a p e r s o n i s disabled. B o w e n v. Yuckert, 482 U.S. 137, 140 (1987); 2 0 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520, 416.920. I n s t e p o n e , t h e C o m m i s s i o n e r d e t e r m i n e s w h e t h e r a c l a i m a n t is e n g a g e d i n " s u b s t a n t i a l g a i n f u l activity." Yuckert, 482 U.S. a t 140; 2 0 C.F.R. §§ 404. 1520(b), 416.920(b). I n t h e p r e s e n t c a s e , t h e A U found t h a t t h e P l a i n t i f f h a d n o t engaged i n substantial gainful activity d u r i n g t h e p e r i o d f r o m h e r a l l e g e d o n s e t d a t e o f A p r i l 20, 2 0 0 1 , t h r o u g h h e r l a s t i n s u r e d d a t e o f D e c e m b e r 3 1 , 2 0 0 6 . ( T r . 18.) I n step two, t h e C o m m i s s i o n e r determines w h e t h e r the c l a i m a n t h a s a " m e d i c a l l y s e v e r e i m p a i r m e n t o r c o m b i n a t i o n o f impairments." I f t h e C o m m i s s i o n e r finds n o m e d i c a l l y s e v e r e i m p a i r m e n t , t h e c l a i m a n t is d e e m e d n o t disabled. I f t h e C o m m i s s i o n e r finds a s e v e r e i m p a i r m e n t o r c o m b i n a t i o n t h e r e o f , t h e i n q u i r y m o v e s t o step three. Y u c k e r t , 4 8 2 U . S . a t 1 4 0 - 4 1 ; 2 0 C.F.R.

§§ 404.1520©), 4 1 6 . 9 2 0 0 ) . Here, the A U found that P l a i n t i f f h a d t h e following severe
Report & Recommendation - 6

impairments: hepatitis C, mild; a n d osteoarthritis. (Tr. 18.) Accordingly, the inquiry m o v e d to step three. S t e p t h r e e focuses o n w h e t h e r t h e i m p a i r m e n t o r c o m b i n a t i o n o f i m p a i r m e n t s m e e t s o r equals " o n e o f a n u m b e r o f l i s t e d i m p a i r m e n t s that t h e [ C o m m i s s i o n e r ] a c k n o w l e d g e s a r e s o severe as to preclude substantial gainful activity." Yuckert, 482 U.S. at 140-41; see 2 0 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(d),416.920(d). I f so, the claimant is conclusively presumed disabled; i f n o t , t h e analysis proceeds to step four. Yuckert, 482 U.S. at 141. I n this case, the A U found that the P l a i n t i f f d i d n o t h a v e a n impairment o r combination o f impairments t h a t meets o r equals o n e o f t h e listed impairments. ( T r . 2 1 . )
I n s t e p four, t h e C o m m i s s i o n e r d e t e n n i n e s w h e t h e r t h e c l a i m a n t h a s t h e r e s i d u a l

f u n c t i o n a l c a p a c i t y ( R F C ) to p e r f o r m h i s " p a s t r e l e v a n t w o r k . " 2 0 C . F . R . § 4 0 4 . 1 5 6 0 ( a ) . T h e R F C is b a s e d o n a l l r e l e v a n t e v i d e n c e i n t h e c a s e r e c o r d , i n c l u d i n g t h e t r e a t i n g p h y s i c i a n ' s m e d i c a l o p i n i o n s a b o u t w h a t a n i n d i v i d u a l c a n still d o despite impairments. S S R 9 6 - 8 p . " P a s t relevant w o r ktt refers to w o r k that "was done within t h e last 15 years, lasted l o n g enough for [the c l a i m a n t ] t o l e a r n t o d o i t , a n d w a s s u b s t a n t i a l g a i n f u l activity." 2 0 C . F . R . § 4 0 4 . 1 5 6 5 ( a ) . I t does n o t consider "off-and-on" w o r k during that period. Id. I f she can p e r f o r m p a s t relevant

w o r k , t h e n t h e C o m m i s s i o n e r finds t h e c l a i m a n t " n o t d i s a b l e d . t t I f t h e c l a i m a n t c a n n o t p e r f o r m p a s t relevant work, the inquiry advances to step five. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404. 1520(e), 416.920(e). T h e A U found t h a t t h e P l a i n t i f f h a s t h e following exertional a n d n o n e x e r t i o n a l limitations: t h e c l a i m a n t h a d t h e r e s i d u a l f u n c t i o n a l c a p a c i t y to p e r f o r m l i g h t e x e r t i o n w o r k activity. She is able to lift 20 pounds occasionally and 10 pounds frequently. She is able to s i t for 6 hours i n an 8-hour day. She i s able to stand and/or w a l k for 6

Report & Recommendation - 7

hours i n a n 8-hour day. ( T r . 2 1 . ) T h e A U found, U[t]hrough the date last insured, the claimant's past relevant w o r k as design e n g i n e e r a n d a mechanical engineer d i d n o t require t h e p e r f o r m a n c e o f w o r k - r e l a t e d activities precluded b y the claimant's residual functional capacity. U (Tr. 24.) She c o u l d perform p a s t r e l e v a n t work. I f the claimant c a n perform past relevant work, then she is not disabled, a n d the Commissioner concludes at that step. To complete the record and give a full review, however, the A U continued to step five, even though she determined t h a t P l a i n t i f f c a n perform past r e l e v a n t work. ( T r . 2 5 . )

I n step five, the burden is o n the Commissioner to establish that the claimant is capable o f
p e r f o r m i n g o t h e r w o r k t h a t e x i s t s i n t h e n a t i o n a l e c o n o m y . Y u c k e r t , 4 8 2 U . S . at 1 4 1 - 4 2 ; 2 0 c . P . R . §§ 404.1520(f), 416.920(f). I f the Commissioner fails to meet this burden, t h e n the claimant is deemed disabled. Here, the A U determined that there are j o b s that exist in s i g n i f i c a n t n u m b e r s i n t h e n a t i o n a l e c o n o m y t h a t the P l a i n t i f f c a n p e r f o r m , i n a d d i t i o n t o p a s t relevant work. ( T r . 2 5 . ) She determined that the P l a i n t i f f w a s not disabled from April 20, 2001, t h r o u g h D e c e m b e r 3 1 , 2 0 0 6 , t h e d a t e l a s t insured. ( T r . 2 5 . )

IV.

Discussion
P l a i n t i f f a s s e r t s t h a t t h e A U ' s d e c i s i o n s h o u l d b e r e v e r s e d a n d r e m a n d e d for b e n e f i t s

because i t is n o t supported b y substantial evidence and because it is based o n the application o f improper legal standards. P l a i n t i f f argues that: (1) (2) the ALJ has n o t met h e r duty to fully and fairly develop the record. the A U improperly rejected the opinion o f treating physician Dr. Wai L. Lee.

Report & Recommendation - 8

(3)

t h e A U i m p r o p e r l y r e j e c t e d t h e l a y w i t n e s s e v i d e n c e o f P l a i n t i f f s h u s b a n d , Mr. B r a d y Boatwright.

A.

T h e A L J F u l l y a n d F a i r l y Developed t h e R e c o r d

P l a i n t i f f argues that the A U d i d n o t meet h e r duty to fully and fairly develop t h e record and as a result, r e m a n d is appropriate. (pl.'s Br. 12.) The Defendant argues that the record " c o n t a i n e d n e i t h e r i n s u f f i c i e n t n o r a m b i g u o u s e v i d e n c e to d e t e r m i n e P l a i n t i f f w a s n o t d i s a b l e d . " (Def. Br. 6.)

IIIIn Social Security cases the A U has a special duty to fully and fairly develop the record
a n d assure t h a t t h e claimant's i n t e r e s t s are considered.' This d u t y exists e v e n w h e n t h e c l a i m a n t is represented b y counsel." Smolen v. Chater, 80 F.3d 1273, 1288 ( 9 t h Cir. 1996) (Quoting B r o w n v. Heckler, 713 F . 2 d 441, 443 (9th Cir. 1 9 8 3 » ; 2 0 C.F.R. § 416.1444. R e m a n d m a y b e n e c e s s a r y w h e n t h e r e c o r d does n o t c o n t a i n r e l e v a n t facts a n d h i s t o r y t o a s s i s t t h e A U t o f a i r l y m a k e h e r d e c i s i o n . "In d e c i d i n g w h e t h e r a r e m a n d i s t h e p r o p e r r e m e d y , w e h a v e s t a t e d t h a t w h e r e t h e a d m i n i s t r a t i v e r e c o r d c o n t a i n s gaps, r e m a n d to t h e C o m m i s s i o n e r for further development o f the evidence is appropriate. That is, w h e n 'further findings w o u l d so plainly help to assure the proper disposition o f [the] claim, w e believe that remand is particularly appropriate. III Butts v. Barnhart, 388 F . 3 d 3 7 7 , 3 8 5 - 8 6 (2nd Cir. 2004) (quoting R o s a v. Callahan, 168 F . 3 d 7 2 , 8 3 (2nd Cir. 1 9 9 9 » . I n T h o m e v. Califano, t h e court remanded the case because there w a s n o opinion evidence as to whether T h o m e w a s employable i n the year i n question. 607 F . 2 d 2 1 8 , 2 2 0 (8th Cir. 1979). Remand has also b e e n appropriate w h e n t h e evidence i s ambiguous o r the A U finds t h a t the record is inadequate for a proper evaluation. Tonapetyan v. Halter, 242 F . 3 d 1144, 1150 (9th Cir. 2001) (citing Smolen, 80 F . 3 d a t 1288).

Report & Recommendation - 9

Here, the P l a i n t i f f argues that t h e A U did not obtain t h e medical record from her primary care physician, Dr. Smythe. P l a i n t i f f asserts, "[t]his case cannot properly b e evaluated without t h e r e c o r d s o f t h i s i m p o r t a n t doctor. T h a t t h e A L I ' s d e c i s i o n w a s b a s e d o n s u c h a n i n c o m p l e t e r e c o r d i n d i c a t e s t h a t t h i s is n o t a d e c i s i o n b a s e d u p o n s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e . " ( p l . ' s B r . 1 2 . ) P l a i n t i f f e x p l a i n s that s h e c a n n o t develop o r c o m p l e t e h e r o w n arguments for d i s a b i l i t y w i t h o u t these records and t h a t the A U ' s arguments are equally incomplete a n d unreliable for the same r e a s o n . ( p l . ' s B r . 12.) T h e A U did, h o w e v e r , h a v e m e d i c a l r e c o r d s a n d e v i d e n c e from m e d i c a l p r o f e s s i o n a l s s p e c i a l i z i n g i n t h e a r e a s f o r w h i c h P l a i n t i f f a l l e g e d disability. T h e r e w a s s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e i n the record o n w h i c h t h e A l J could base h e r decision, despite the omission o f Dr. Smythe's files. P l a i n t i f f a s s e r t e d d i s a b i l i t y b a s e d o n j o i n t discomfort, digestive p r o b l e m s , a n d h e p a t i t i s C, a n d t h e A L J c o n s u l t e d m e d i c a l r e c o r d s from s p e c i a l i s t s who e v a l u a t e d h e r o n t h e s e i m p a i r m e n t s . T h e P l a i n t i f f s record, which t h e A L I used a n d to w h i c h the P l a i n t i f f h a d access, included files f r o m h e r r h e u m a t o l o g i s t D r . Lee, d i g e s t i v e h e a l t h s p e c i a l i s t D r . Z a m a n , h e r p r i m a r y c a r e c l i n i c Kaiser Permanente, a n d Dr. Webster who provided a consultative examination. P l a i n t i f f h a s n o t s h o w n that there are a n y gaps i n h e r medical or treatment history that suggests h e r record is incomplete w i t h the absence Dr. Smythe's records. I t is clear from Dr. Webster's, Dr. Zaman's notes, a n d Dr. Lee's notes that they at least consulted Dr. Smythe's records o r communicated w i t h her. Dr. Webster began h e r report, "We have some chart notes from h e r p r i m a r y care physician showing she has hepatitis C." (Tr. 169.) Dr. Z a m a n addressed a letter to Dr. Smythe and thanked h e r for t h e referral. (Tr. 214.) Dr. Lee s a w P l a i n t i f f at Dr. S m y t h e ' s r e f e r r a l a n d r e v i e w e d h e r r e c o r d s a s p a r t o f h i s e v a l u a t i o n . ( T r . 2 0 3 . ) I t is n o t i r r a t i o n a l R e p o r t & R e c o m m e n d a t i o n - 10

for the A U to rely o n these doctors' notes and interpretations o f Dr. Smythe's records, especially s i n c e n o n e o f t h e doctors suggested t h a t t h e y f o u n d s o m e t h i n g t h a t w a s different from o r c o n f l i c t e d w i t h D r . S m y t h e ' s r e c o r d s o r t h a t t h e y d i s a g r e e d w i t h her. T h e A U f u l l y a n d f a i r l y d e v e l o p e d t h e record. T h e r e c o r d c o n t a i n s r e l e v a n t f a c t s a n d h i s t o r y a b o u t P l a i n t i f f s c o n d i t i o n as i t r e l a t e s t o h e r a l l e g e d i m p a i r m e n t s , a n d t h e A U h a d s u f f i c i e n t e v i d e n c e o n w h i c h t o b a s e h e r decision.

B.

The A L J Did Not Improperly Reject Dr. Lee's Opinion

P l a i n t i f f a r g u e s t h a t t h e A U i m p r o p e r l y r e j e c t e d D r . L e e ' s o p i n i o n b y f a i l i n g to p r o v i d e clear and convincing reasons, and she asserts that Dr. Lee's opinion regarding h e r sedentary l i m i t a t i o n s s h o u l d b e c r e d i t e d as a m a t t e r o f l a w . ( p l . ' s B r . 1 3 , 1 6 . ) T h e D e f e n d a n t a r g u e s t h a t the ALJ applied t h e p r o p e r weight to the opinion. (Defo's Br. 6.) C o n t r o l l i n g w e i g h t w i l l b e g i v e n t o a t r e a t i n g physician's o p i n i o n o n t h e i s s u e s o f t h e nature and severity o f a claimant's impairment(s) i f the opinion "is well-supported b y medically a c c e p t a b l e c l i n i c a l a n d l a b o r a t o r y diagnostic t e c h n i q u e s and i s n o t i n c o n s i s t e n t w i t h t h e o t h e r substantial evidence" in the case record. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404. 1527(d)(2), 416.927(d)(2). "The t r e a t i n g p h y s i c i a n ' s o p i n i o n i s n o t , h o w e v e r , n e c e s s a r i l y c o n c l u s i v e as t o e i t h e r a p h y s i c a l condition or the ultimate issue o f disability." Magallanes v. Bowen, 881 F . 2 d 747, 751 (9th Cir. 1989) (citing Rodriguez v. Bowen, 876 F . 2 d 759, 761-62 & n.7 (9th Cir. 1 9 8 9 » ; 20 C.F.R. §§ 4 0 4 . 1 5 2 7 ( e ) , 4 1 6 . 9 2 7 ( e ) ; s e e a l s o M o n t i j o v . S e c r e t a I y o f H H S , 7 2 9 F . 2 d 5 9 9 , 6 0 1 ( 9 t h Cir. 1984).

I f t h e A U d o e s n o t find t h a t t h e t r e a t i n g p h y s i c i a n ' s o p i n i o n w a r r a n t s " c o n t r o l l i n g
weight," under 2 0 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(d)(2), 416.927(d)(2), t h e ALJ evaluates several factors to Report & Recommendation - 11

detennine t h e weight to give the opinion. These include (1) the length o f t h e treatment r e l a t i o n s h i p a n d t h e f r e q u e n c y o f t h e e x a m i n a t i o n , (2) t h e n a t u r e a n d e x t e n t o f t h e t r e a t m e n t r e l a t i o n s h i p , ( 3 ) s u p p o r t a b i l i t y o f the o p i n i o n w i t h e v i d e n c e i n t h e r e c o r d , ( 4 ) c o n s i s t e n c y o f t h e opinion w i t h the record o n a whole, (5) the specialization o f the physician as i t relates to the subject o f the opinion, a n d (6) other factors brought to t h e A U ' s attention. 20 C.F.R. § 404. 1 5 2 7 ( d ) ( 2 ) - ( 6 ) .

I f the A U chooses to disregard a treating physiciants o r a n examining p h y s i c i a n ' s
o p i n i o n , and t h a t o p i n i o n i s n o t c o n t r a d i c t e d b y a n o t h e r doctor, she m u s t s e t f o r t h c l e a r a n d convincing reasons for doing so. Lester, 81 F.3d at 830; Magallanes, 881 F . 2 d at 751; Gallant v. Heckler, 753 F.2d 1450, 1454 ( 9 t h Cir. 1984). I f a treating o r examining physiciants opinion i s c o n t r a d i c t e d b y t h a t o f a n o t h e r d o c t o r , the A U m u s t s e t f o r t h s p e c i f i c a n d l e g i t i m a t e r e a s o n s , b a s e d o n s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e i n t h e r e c o r d , for d i s r e g a r d i n g t h e o p i n i o n o f t h e t r e a t i n g o r examining physician. Lester, 81 F . 3 d at 830-31; Nguyen v. Chater, 100 F.3d 1462, 1466, (9th C i r . 1996). T h e A U c a n m e e t t h i s b u r d e n b y s e t t i n g o u t a d e t a i l e d a n d t h o r o u g h s u m m a r y o f t h e facts a n d c o n f l i c t i n g m e d i c a l e v i d e n c e , t h e n s t a t i n g h i s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n , a n d l a s t l y m a k i n g f i n d i n g s . Cotton, 799 F . 2 d at 1408; Rodriguez, 876 F.2d at 762. "The opinion o f a nonexamining p h y s i c i a n c a n n o t b y i t s e l f constitute substantial evidence t h a t j u s t i f i e s t h e rejection o f t h e o p i n i o n o f either a n examining physician o r a treating physician. tt Lester, 81 F. 3 d at 831. P l a i n t i f f argues that w h e n the A U d i d not include Dr. Lee's functional limitations i n her h y p o t h e t i c a l t o t h e v o c a t i o n a l e x p e r t , s h e i m p r o p e r l y r e j e c t e d h i s o p i n i o n . S h e also a p p e a r s t o argue t h a t D r . L e e ' s o p i n i o n w a s n o t c o n t r a d i c t e d a n d t h u s t h e A U c a n o n l y d i s r e g a r d h i s o p i n i o n b y giving clear a n d convincing reasons: "Dr Lee[,] Plaintiff's treating arthritis specialist, o p i n e d R e p o r t & R e c o m m e n d a t i o n - 12

that his p a t i e n t h a d some v e r y specific functional limitations w h i c h were n e v e r p r e s e n t e d t o the Y E . " ( p l . ' s Br. 1 3 . ) T h e h e a r i n g t r a n s c r i p t r e v e a l s t h a t t h e A U d i d n o t p r e s e n t a h y p o t h e t i c a l t h a t i n c l u d e d l i m i t a t i o n s o f r e a c h i n g o v e r h e a d o r p r e d o m i n a n t l y s e d e n t a r y work, a l t h o u g h i t a p p e a r s t h e r e w a s a d i s c u s s i o n o f fine m a n i p u l a t i o n t a s k s . ( T r . 3 0 5 . ) T h e r e w e r e n o h y p o t h e t i c a l s r e g a r d i n g l i m i t a t i o n s t o climb, b a l a n c e , stoop, k n e e l , crouch, o r c r a w l a s Dr. L e e d e c l i n e d t o e v a l u a t e t h e P l a i n t i f f s a b i l i t i e s . (Tr. 2 2 7 . ) T h e C o u r t d i s a g r e e s w i t h t h e Plaintiff; t h e A U d i d n o t i m p r o p e r l y r e j e c t t h e o p i n i o n a n d d i d g i v e i t a p p r o p r i a t e w e i g h t . T h e A U f o u n d t h a t Dr. L e e ' s o p i n i o n w a s c o n t r a d i c t e d b y a n o t h e r d o c t o r , r e q u i r i n g h e r to o n l y g i v e specific a n d l e g i t i m a t e r e a s o n s t o d i s r e g a r d t h e s e d e n t a r y r e s t r i c t i o n s . T h e A U f o u n d t h a t Dr. Lee's o p i n i o n " s h a r p l y c o n t r a s t e d " w i t h t h o s e o f Dr. W e b s t e r a n d o t h e r s t a t e a g e n c y doctors. ( T r . 2 4 . ) W h i l e D r . L e e o p i n e d t h a t t h e P l a i n t i f f n e e d e d sedentary restrictions, Dr. W e b s t e r noted that there w a s "no objective evidence for restrictions in s t a n d i n g , w a l k i n g , s i t t i n g , l i f t i n g , carrying, a n d t h e r e i s n o o b j e c t i v e n e e d f o r p o s t u r a l manipulative, o r environmental restrictions." (Tr. 23, 172.) Similarly, Dr. Westfall, w h o p r o v i d e d a r e s i d u a l functional c a p a c i t y assessment, f o u n d t h a t P l a i n t i f f h a d n o e s t a b l i s h e d e x e r t i o n a l , p o s t u r a l , m a n i p u l a t i v e , v i s u a l , c o m m u n i c a t i v e , o r e n v i r o n m e n t a l l i m i t a t i o n s . (Tr. 1 7 9 - 1 8 4 . ) Dr. W e s t f a l l e x p l a i n e d h e r p e r c e p t i o n o f P l a i n t i f f s symptoms: C l a i m a n t indicates in ADL's, she had signifi[cant] limitations i n daily living, b u t d o e s l i g h t h o u s e w o r k , o c c a [ s i o n a l ] c o o k i n g , o c c a [ sional] s h o p p i n g . S h e h a s l i m i t e d u s e o f h e r h a n d s / a r m s d u e t o a b l o o d [disorder], she s a i d s h e w a s d i a g n o s e d w i t h , b u t t h e r e i s n o r e c o r d s o f a n y b l o o d disease. S h e d o e s o w n g r o o m i n g , a n g e r s e a s i l y , g e t s c o n f u s e d , c a n w a l k 1 0 0 yards. U s e s a s p i r i n , n o o t h e r d r u g treatment. U n a b l e to d r i v e i n u n f a m i l i a r p l a c e s . O c c a [ s i o n a l l y ] v i s i t s relatives. I n CE's, claimant alleges unable to use h e r hands, b u t C E n o t e d multiple i n c o n s i s t e n c i e s t h r o u g h o u t t h e exam, a n d s h e w a s o b s e r v e d u s i n g h e r h a n d s w i t h n o p r o b l e m s . C E f o u n d n o p h y s i c a l d i s a b i l i t i e s , n o t e d c r e d i b i l i t y p r o b l e m s , as

R e p o r t & Recommendation - 13

was observed b y n y [sic] analyst. Statements are at best partially credible. (Tr.184.) T h e A U p r o v i d e d s e v e r a l r e a s o n s to d i s r e g a r d p a r t o f D r . L e e ' s t e s t i m o n y t h a t w e r e s p e c i f i c a n d l e g i t i m a t e , a n d t h e r e a s o n s also e x p l a i n w h y she a f f o r d e d t h i s t r e a t i n g d o c t o r ' s opinion less t h a n controlling weight. See 2 0 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(d)(2)-(6), 4 l 6 . 9 2 7 ( d ) ( 2 ) . T h e A L I e x p l a i n e d , " [ a ] s a t r e a t i n g m e d i c a l d o c t o r , Dr. Lee's o p i n i o n s d e s e r v e s i g n i f i c a n t consideration, b u t the treatment records from Dr. Lee and other physicians fail to reveal such severe limitations that the claimant is reduced to sedentary work." (Tr. 24.) F i r s t , Dr. L e e ' s t r e a t i n g r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h t h e P l a i n t i f f w a s l i m i t e d . H e h a d o n l y s e e n h e r t w i c e a t t h e t i m e o f t h e e v a l u a t i o n , a n d h e c l e a r l y e x p l a i n e d t h a t h i s r o l e w a s n o t to d e t e r m i n e disability b u t to treat h e r arthritis. H e pointedly declined to evaluate various physical limitations sought i n t h e questionnaire. (Tr. 24, 226-28.) T h e A U determined t h a t h i s assessment w a s b a s e d o n " s u b j e c t i v e r e p o r t s w i t h o u t a n y o b j e c t i v e corroboration." ( T r . 2 4 . ) S h e , d i d n o t find D r . Lee's report to b e descriptive or entirely helpful: "[it] w a s vague a n d does n o t give information regarding m a n y o f t h e specific limitations." (Tr. 24.) T h e P l a i n t i f f a r g u e s t h a t Dr. Lee's o p i n i o n s h o u l d b e c r e d i t e d a n d i s b a s e d o n " h i s t a k i n g o f a clinical history and u p o n physical examination o f t h e patient." (Tr. 228; Pl.'s Br. 14.) P l a i n t i f f relies o n E m b r e y v. Bowen, 849 F.2d 418 (9thCir. 1988), a n d explains "it is improper f o r t h A U S [sic] t o r e j e c t a d o c t o r ' s o p i n i o n o n t h e g r o u n d s t h a t t h e d o c t o r fails t o l i s t t h e objective criteria underlying his opinion." (pl.'s Br. 15.) I n Embrey, t h e court explained, "in a c a s e w h e r e t h e m e d i c a l o p i n i o n s o f t h e physicians d i f f e r s o m a r k e d l y from t h e A U ' s , i t i s i n c u m b e n t o n t h e A U t o p r o v i d e detailed, r e a s o n e d , a n d l e g i t i m a t e r a t i o n a l e s for d i s r e g a r d i n g Report & Recommendation - 14

the physicians' findings. It Id. at 422. U n l i k e E m b r e y w h e r e t h e A U d i s r e g a r d e d t h r e e t r e a t i n g d o c t o r s o p i n i o n s for h i s o w n , h e r e at l e a s t t w o d o c t o r s c o m m e n t e d t h a t t h e P l a i n t i f f r e q u i r e d n o r e s t r i c t i o n s , a n d t h e A U agreed. T h e A U h a s a l s o p r o v i d e d m o r e t h a n h e r o w n c o n c l u s i o n o f t h e e v i d e n c e t o s u p p o r t h e r decision. S e c o n d , t h e A U n o t e d t h a t Dr. Lee's o p i n i o n s w e r e n o t s u p p o r t e d b y t h e r e c o r d a n d w e r e n o t c o n s i s t e n t w i t h o t h e r e v i d e n c e . H o w h i s o p i n i o n " c o n t r a s t e d sharply" h a s a l r e a d y b e e n d i s c u s s e d . M o r e v e r , Dr. Lee's o p i n i o n i n J a n u a r y 2 0 0 7 w a s i n c o n s i s t e n t w i t h h i s p r e v i o u s N o v e m b e r 2 0 0 6 opinion. Dr. L e e w r o t e i n N o v e m b e r , " h e r c o m p l a i n t s o f j o i n t d i s c o m f o r t s e e m t o b e to s o m e e x t e n t o u t o f p r o p o r t i o n to t h e findings o f o s t e o a r t h r i t i s o r t h a t c a n b e e x p l a i n e d b y h e r h e p a t i t i s C . " ( T r . 2 0 4 . ) I n January, h o w e v e r , Dr. L e e d i d n o t d i s c u s s h i s e a r l i e r i m p r e s s i o n r e g a r d i n g t h e p r o p o r t i o n a l i t y o f h e r d i s c o m f o r t o r g i v e r e a s o n s for w h y h i s i m p r e s s i o n c h a n g e d . T h e A U g a v e Dr. Lee's o p i n i o n " v e r y l i t t l e w e i g h t i n d e t e r m i n i n g t h e c l a i m a n t ' s r e s i d u a l f u n c t i o n a l c a p a c i t y " a n d h e r d e c i s i o n is r a t i o n a l a n d s u p p o r t e d b y s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e , i n c l u d i n g Dr. Lee's limited treating relationship w i t h the Plaintiff, his reluctance to answer fully t h e q u e s t i o n n a i r e regarding p h y s i c a l limitations, a n d h i s o p i n i o n ' s inconsistencies w i t h t h e m e d i c a l r e c o r d . P a r t s o f Dr. Lee's o p i n i o n w e r e also c o n t r a d i c t e d b y o t h e r m e d i c a l e v i d e n c e . Accordingly, t h e A L J gave specific a n d legitimate reasons for disregarding this i n h e r h y p o t h e t i c a l t o t h e v o c a t i o n a l expert.

C.

T h e A L J D i d Not I m p r o p e r l y Reject M r . B r a d y B o a t w r i g h t ' s T e s t i m o n y

P l a i n t i f f a r g u e s t h a t t h e A U r e j e c t e d l a y w i t n e s s M r . B r a d y B o a t w r i g h t ' s t e s t i m o n y for u n s u p p o r t a b l e r e a s o n s . ( p t ' s B r . 16.) T h e C o m m i s s i o n e r w i l l c o n s i d e r n o n - m e d i c a l s o u r c e s t o Report & Recommendation - 15

evaluate t h e severity o f t h e impairment, such as testimony from spouses a n d other family m e m b e r s . 2 0 C . F . R . § 404. I 5 1 3 ( d ) ( 4 ) . W h e n t h e claimant indicates that p a i n is a significant factor o f h i s/her alleged i n a b i l i t y to w o r k , a n d t h e a l l e g a t i o n i s n o t s u p p o r t e d b y o b j e c t i v e m e d i c a l evidence i n the file, the adjudicator shall obtain detailed descriptions o f daily a c t i v i t i e s b y d i r e c t i n g s p e c i f i c inquiries a b o u t the p a i n a n d its effects t o t h e c l a i m a n t , h i s / h e r p h y s i c i a n s f r o m w h o m m e d i c a l e v i d e n c e is b e i n g r e q u e s t e d , a n d other t h i r d parties who w o u l d b e likely to have such knowledge. S S R 88-13 at *3.
I n Sprague v. Bowen, the court found that testimony o f claimant's daughter

a n d f r i e n d is f u l l y c o m p e t e n t t o s u b s t a n t i a t e t h e d o c t o r ' s d i a g n o s i s . T h e c o u r t c o n c l u d e d , " [ d ] i s r e g a r d o f t h i s e v i d e n c e v i o l a t e s t h e Secretary's r e g u l a t i o n t h a t h e w i l l c o n s i d e r o b s e r v a t i o n s b y n o n - m e d i c a l s o u r c e s as t o h o w a n i m p a i r m e n t a f f e c t s a c l a i m a n t ' s a b i l i t y t o w o r k . . . . D e s c r i p t i o n s b y f r i e n d s a n d f a m i l y m e m b e r s i n a p o s i t i o n to o b s e r v e a c l a i m a n t ' s s y m p t o m s a n d daily activities h a v e routinely b e e n treated as competent evidence." 812 F . 2 d 1226, 1232 ( 9 t h Cir. 1 9 8 7 ) ( c i t i n g 2 0 C . F . R . § 4 0 4 . 1 5 I 3 (e){2». " L a y t e s t i m o n y as t o a c l a i m a n t ' s s y m p t o m s i s c o m p e t e n t e v i d e n c e t h a t a n A L l m u s t t a k e into account, unless h e o r s h e expressly determines to disregard such testimony and gives reasons germane to each witness for doing SO.II Lewis v. Apfel, 236 F.3d 503, 511 (9th Cir. 2001) (citing Nguyen v. Chater, 100 F . 3 d 1462, 1467 (9th C i r . 1 9 9 6 ) . f u evaluating lay witness opinions, "it w o u l d b e a p p r o p r i a t e t o c o n s i d e r s u c h f a c t o r s as t h e n a t u r e a n d e x t e n t o f t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p , w h e t h e r t h e e v i d e n c e i s c o n s i s t e n t w i t h o t h e r e v i d e n c e , a n d a n y o t h e r f a c t o r s t h a t t e n d to s u p p o r t o r refute the evidence." S S R 06-03p at *6.
f u Greger v. Barnhart, the court affirmed t h e A L I ' s decision to reject l a y witness

testimony. T h e A L l c o n c l u d e d t h a t t h e w i t n e s s statements w e r e i n c o n s i s t e n t w i t h c l a i m a n t ' s

Report & Recommendation - 16

presentations to his doctors and n o t e d the witness's "close relationship," w h i c h m a y have i n f l u e n c e d h e r d e s i r e t o h e l p t h e claimant. T h e c o u r t concluded, " [ t ] h e A U ' s r e a s o n s f o r d o u b t i n g [ t h e w i t n e s s ' s ] c r e d i b i l i t y a r e g e r m a n e t o her; a c c o r d i n g l y , i t w a s n o t e r r o r f o r t h e A U t o disregard h e r testimony. II 4 6 4 F . 3 d 968, 972 (9th Cir. 2006). However, the court i n Dodrill v. Shalala clarified that lay witness testimony has its p l a c e i n t h e A U ' s d e c i s i o n w h e n t h e witness c a n p r o v i d e independent observations: [t] h a t the A U dismissed all the lay witness testimony solely because h e found that t h e c l a i m a n t w a s n o t credible suggests h e m a y h a v e b e e n u n d e r t h e m i s t a k e n i m p r e s s i o n that l a y witnesses c a n never m a k e independent observations o f t h e c l a i m a n t ' s p a i n a n d o t h e r symptoms . . . . A n eyewitness c a n o f t e n t e l l w h e t h e r s o m e o n e i s s u f f e r i n g o r m e r e l y malingering. W h i l e t h i s i s p a r t i c u l a r l y t r u e o f witnesses w h o v i e w t h e claimant o n a daily basis, t h e testimony o f those w h o s e e t h e c l a i m a n t l e s s o f t e n s t i l l c a r r i e s s o m e wait. I f t h e A U w i s h e s to d i s c o u n t t h e testimony o f the lay witnesses, h e must give reasons that are germane to each witness. 12 F . 3 d 9 1 5 , 9 1 9 (9th Cir. 1993). P l a i n t i f f asserts t h a t M r . Boatwright's t e s t i m o n y c o r r o b o r a t e s o t h e r e v i d e n c e i n t h e r e c o r d and is consistent w i t h medical evidence. (Pl.'s Br. 16.) "His statements further support Dr. S t a r b i r d ' s s u s p i c i o n t h a t t h i s m a y b e a s o m a t o f o r m d i s o r d e r c a s e , as h e a t t e s t e d t o m a n y m e n t a l a n d c o g n i t i v e i m p a i r m e n t s . I I ( P l . ' s B r . 17.) T h e A U found this testimony less useful: "[1] h a v e found the lay testimony to b e o f limited u s e i n the evaluation o f the claimant's residual functional capacity." ( T r . 2 3 . ) T h e A U p r o p e r l y e v a l u a t e d h i s t e s t i m o n y b y considering t h e "nature a n d e x t e n t o f relationship, w h e t h e r t h e e v i d e n c e is c o n s i s t e n t w i t h o t h e r e v i d e n c e , a n d a n y o t h e r f a c t o r s t h a t t e n d t o s u p p o r t o r r e f u t e the evidence. II S S R 06-03p at *6. T h e A L I explained that Mr. Boatwright's testimony w a s inconsistent w i t h o t h e r evidence

Report & Recommendation - 17

in the record a n d w a s n o t supported b y evidence. The A L I references Dr. Webster a n d state agency physicians who d e t e n n i n e d that there was no objective evidence for restrictions. (Tr. 232 4 . ) T h e A L I also q u e s t i o n e d t h e s e v e r i t y o f P l a i n t i f l ' s s y m p t o m s a n d Mr. B o a t w r i g h t ' s p e r c e p t i o n o f t h e m b e c a u s e h e r m e d i c a l records d o n o t reveal a n aggressive t r e a t m e n t r e g i m e n o r p a i n m a n a g e m e n t strategy. P l a i n t i f f w a s t a k i n g o n l y a s p i r i n f o r h e r p a i n a s D r . W e s t f a l l n o t e d ,
s~e

w a s p u r s u i n g o n l y l i m i t e d t r e a t m e n t f o r b o w e l - r e l a t e d p r o b l e m s , a n d s h e d e c l i n e d to b e g i n

o c c u p a t i o n a l t h e r a p y for j o i n t d i s c o m f o r t . T h e r e w a s n o e v i d e n c e o f a n y m e n t a l h e a l t h t r e a t m e n t w h i c h m i g h t include anti-depressant o r psycho-tropic medications o r counseling. (Tr. 20.) T h e A U a l s o f o u n d M r . B o a t w r i g h t ' s a s s e r t i o n o f P l a i n t i t r s l i m i t a t i o n s to b e i n c o n s i s t e n t with h e r daily activities. I n completing t h e SSA's Function Report Adult - T h i r d P a r t y form, Mr. B o a t w r i g h t s e l e c t e d e v e r y o p t i o n p o s s i b l e o f ways t o d e s c r i b e t h e l i m i t a t i o n s ' a f f e c t o n t h e Plaintiff. (Tr. 129.) H e identified the following activities that were affected: lifting, squatting, b e n d i n g , s t a n d i n g r e a c h i n g , w a l k i n g , sitting, k n e e l i n g , talking, h e a r i n g , s e e i n g , m e m o r y , s t a i r c l i m b i n g , u s i n g h a n d s , c o m p l e t i n g tasks, c o n c e n t r a t i o n , u n d e r s t a n d i n g , f o l l o w i n g i n s t r u c t i o n s , getting along w i t h others. (Tr. 129.) Yet, Mr. Boatwright also reported that P l a i n t i f f p e r f o r m e d basic activities o f caring for plants, shopping, cooking, and paying bills. (Tr. 124-32.) T h e P l a i n t i f f finds e r r o r i n m a n y o f t h e A U ' s r e a s o n s for d i s r e g a r d i n g t h e t e s t i m o n y . First, she r e m i n d s t h e c o u r t t h a t l a y witnesses have a unique v i e w o f a c l a i m a n t o n a d a i l y b a s i s a n d s h o u l d n o t b e discredited for the reason that t h e y are n o t professionally trained. ( S e e Pl.'s Br. 16-17; P l . ' s R e p l y 5 . ) I n a d d i t i o n , i n s o m e c i r c u m s t a n c e s , t h e A U m u s t s o l i c i t e v i d e n c e o f d a i l y activities w h e n p a i n allegations are not supported b y the objective medical evidence i n the file. S S R 88-13 at *3. A lay person is n o t required to have the same experience as a vocational

Report & Recommendation - 18

expert: "[a] l a y p e r s o n , [claimantts spouse], though n o t a vocational expert, [is] n o t disqualified f r o m r e n d e r i n g a n o p i n i o n a s t o h o w [ h i s s p o u s e ' s ] c o n d i t i o n a f f e c t s [her] a b i l i t y t o p e r f o r m b a s i c w o r k activities." B r u c e v. Astrue, 557 F.3d 1113, 1116 (9th Cir. 2009). T h e P l a i n t i f f a r g u e s t h a t t h e A l l t s r e a s o n s t o d i s r e g a r d Mr. B o a t w r i g h t ' s s t a t e m e n t s a r e legally unsupportable. (pl.'s Br. 16.) S h e argues that h e r daily activities should n o t b e u s e d to discredit h e r b e c a u s e disability claimants are n o t required t o tlbe totally unable t o engage i n any form o f m e n t a l o r physical activity:' (pl.'s Br. 18.) See F a i r v. Bowen, 885 F . 2 d 597, 603 ( 9 t h Cir.1989). H o w e v e r , t h e A l l m a y c a s t d o u b t o n P l a i n t i f f ' s s y m p t o m s b e c a u s e o f h e r d a i l y activities. W h i l e t h e A L I cannot tlrequire claimants t o b e utterly incapacitated to b e eligible for benefits,tI i t Itwould n o t b e farfetched for an A U t o conclude that the claimant's p a i n does n o t p r e v e n t the c l a i m a n t from working It w h e n the claimant is able t o perform activities t h a t i n v o l v e m a n y o f the s a m e physical tasks as a particular job. Fair, 885 F . 2 d 597, 603. T h e P l a i n t i f f also suggests that the A U w a s in error to disregard Mr. Boatwright's t e s t i m o n y because h e is n o t a trained vocational expert. Indeed, t h e A U d i d state, tlMr. B o a t w r i g h t is n o t t r a i n e d t o c r i t i c a l l y e v a l u a t e w h e t h e r t h e c l a i m a n f s c o m p l a i n t s a r e e x a g g e r a t e d o r i n c o n s i s t e n t w i t h o b j e c t i v e evidence. I n a d d i t i o n , h e h a s n o d e m o n s t r a t e d v o c a t i o n a l e x p e r t i s e n e c e s s a r y t o s u p p o r t a conclusion t h e claimant is unable t o work. tI ( T r . 2 3 . ) T h e A U ' s s t a t e m e n t about the l a y witness's l a c k o f v o c a t i o n a l e x p e r t i s e does n o t n e g a t e h e r o t h e r specific a n d gerIilane reasons for disregarding this witnessts testimony. I n describing t h e i n c o n s i s t e n c i e s a n d s e t t i n g forth o t h e r e v i d e n c e t o s u p p o r t h e r d e c i s i o n o f P l a i n t i f f ' s limitations, t h e A U b a s e d h e r d e c i s i o n o n substantial e v i d e n c e t h a t s h o u l d n o t b e disturbed.

R e p o r t & R e c o m m e n d a t i o n - 19

That the A U preferred t h e "more reliable evidence o f record from examining medical p r o f e s s i o n a l s w h o a r e t r a i n e d to e v a l u a t e i m p a i l m e n t s a n d t h e i r i m p a c t o n f u n c t i o n a l c a p a c i t y , " i s n o t irrational. ( T r . 2 3 . )

V.

Conclusion
T h e A L I ' s d e c i s i o n i s b a s e d o n t h e p r o p e r legal s t a n d a r d s a n d i s s u p p o r t e d b y s u b s t a n t i a l

e v i d e n c e . T h e A U f u l l y a n d fairly d e v e l o p e d t h e r e c o r d a n d a s s u r e d t h a t t h e P l a i n t i f f ' s i n t e r e s t s w e r e c o n s i d e r e d , e v e n i n t h e a b s e n c e o f Dr. Smythe's r e c o r d s . S h e p r o v i d e d s p e c i f i c a n d legitimate reasons for disregarding p a r t o f Dr. Lee's opinion and properly evaluated t h e relevant f a c t o r s t o g i v e i t a p p r o p r i a t e w e i g h t . Lastly, s h e p r o p e r l y r e j e c t e d M r . B o a t w r i g h t ' s l a y w i t n e s s t e s t i m o n y b y g i v i n g s p e c i f i c and g e t m a n e reasons, i n t h a t h i s t e s t i m o n y w a s i n c o n s i s t e n t w i t h t h e r e c o r d a n d n o t s u p p o r t e d b y m e d i c a l evidence. T h e A U ' s d e c i s i o n s h o u l d b e a f f i n n e d .

VI.

Ileconnnendation
B a s e d o n t h e foregoing, a n d pursuant to sentence four o f 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), i t is

r e c o m m e n d e d t h a t t h e d e c i s i o n o f t h e C o m m i s s i o n e r b e affirmed. This recommendation is n o t an order that is immediately aPJ2ealable to the Ninth Circuit Court o fAppeals. A n y notice o f appeal pursuant to R w e 4 ( a ) ( I ) , Federal R w e s o f Appellate P r o c e d u r e , s h o u l d n o t b e f i l e d u n t i l e n t r y o f t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t ' s j u d g m e n t o r a p p e a l a b l e order. Objections to this R e p o r t a n d Recommendation. i f a n v . a r e due b y A U 6 u s t 3. 2009. ] f o b j e c t i o n s are filed. a n y responses to the objections are due within 1 0 days. s e e Federal Rules o f Civil Procedure 72 a n d 6. Failure to timely file objections to any factual determinations o f t h e M a g i s t r a t e J u d g e w i l l b e considered a w a i v e r o f a party's r i g h t t o de n o v o c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f t h e factual issues a n d w i l l COl).stitute a waiver o f a party's right to appellate review o f the findings o f Report & Recommendation - 20

fact i n a n o r d e r o r j u d g m e n t entered pursuant t o the Magistrate Judge's recommendation.

D A T E D this

/5

d a y o f July, 2 0 0 9 .

.

~.

/~-~::_~:~-"

-D-.-C-LARKE--

U n i t e d States Magistrate J u d g e

R e p o r t & R e c o m m e n d a t i o n - 21