text:
Home /
Our Sources / About Us
/ FAQs /
Advanced Search
Not what you're
looking for? Try an advanced search.
Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.
Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.
August 21, 2009
CRAIG O'BOSKY, PLAINTIFF,v.MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, DEFENDANT.
This social security action was submitted to the court, without oral argument, for ruling on plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and defendant's cross-motion for summary judgment. For the reasons explained below, plaintiff's motion is granted, the decision of the Commissioner of Social Security (Commissioner) is reversed, and this matter is remanded with the direction to award benefits.
On April 19, 2000, plaintiff applied for disability benefits under Title II of the Social Security Act (Act), alleging onset of disability on May 25, 1994.*fn1 (Transcript (Tr.) at 218-20, 233, 254-58.) The application was denied initially on September 15, 2000, and upon reconsideration on February 8, 2001. (Tr. at 199-208.) Pursuant to plaintiff's timely request, a hearing was held before an administrative law judge (ALJ) on May 1, 2002, at which time plaintiff was represented by counsel and testified. (Tr. at 209, 812-50.) In a decision issued on August 9, 2002, the ALJ determined that plaintiff was not disabled through June 30, 2000, his date last insured. (Tr. at 738-48.) On December 11, 2004, the Appeals Council granted plaintiff's request for review, vacated the ALJ's decision, and remanded the case for further proceedings. (765-76, 777-81.) On remand, a supplemental hearing was held before the same ALJ on December 20, 2005. (Tr. at 851-81.) In a decision dated July 28, 2006, the ALJ again determined that plaintiff was not disabled through his date last insured. (Tr. at 21-29.) The ALJ entered the following findings:
1. The claimant last met the insured status requirements of the Social Security Act on June 30, 2000.
2. The claimant did not engage in substantial gainful activity during the period at issue, December 23, 1997, which is the date after the prior Administrative Law Judge's decision was issued, through his date last insured, June 30, 2000 (20 CFR 404.1520(b) and 404.1571 et seq.).
3. Through the date last insured, the claimant had the following severe impairment: continued difficulties following a lumbar fusion (20 CFR 404.1520(c)).
4. Through the date last insured, the claimant did not have an impairment or combination of impairments that met or medically equaled one of the listed impairments in 20 CFR Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1 (20 CFR 404.1520(d), 404.1525 and 404.1526).
5. After careful consideration of the entire record, I find that, during the period at issue, the claimant had the residual functional capacity to lift 10 pounds occasionally. He was capable of moving small objects throughout the workday. He was capable of standing and walking in combination no more than 30 minutes at a time for a total not [to] exceed two hours in a workday. He was capable of sitting for the remainder of the day. He could not climb ladders or scaffolding although he could climb stairs. He could not work at heights, around vibrations or around hazardous, moving machinery. Any mild mental limitations would not serve to further decrease the claimant's residual functional capacity, even when considered in combination with his back impairment.
6. Through the date last insured, the claimant was unable to perform past relevant work (20 CFR 404.1565).
7. The claimant was born on April 16, 1967, and was 32 years old on the date last insured, which is defined as a "younger individual age 18-44" (20 CFR 404.1563).
8. The claimant has at least a high school education and is able to communicate in English (20 CFR 404.1564).
9. Transferability of job skills is not material to the determination of disability because using the Medical-Vocational Rules as a framework supports a finding that the claimant is "not disabled," whether or not the claimant has transferable job skills (See SSR 82-41 and 20 CFR Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 2).
10. Through the date last insured, considering the claimant's age, education, work experience, and residual functional capacity, there were jobs that existed in significant numbers in the national economy that the claimant could have performed (20 CFR 404.1560(c) and 404.1566).
11. The claimant was not under a "disability," as defined in the Social Security Act, at any time from December 23, 1997 through June 30, 2000, the date last insured (20 CFR 404.1520(g)).
(Tr. at 23-28.)
On August 7, 2006, plaintiff requested review of the ALJ's decision. (Tr. at 17, 704-34.) The Appeals Council denied the request on August 3, 2007. (Tr. at 10-14.) Plaintiff sought judicial review pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) by filing the complaint in this action on September 19, 2007.
The Commissioner's decision that a claimant is not disabled will be upheld if the findings of fact are supported by substantial evidence and the proper legal standards were applied. Schneider v. Comm'r of the Soc. Sec. Admin., 223 F.3d 968, 973 (9th Cir. 2000); Morgan v. Comm'r of the Soc. Sec. Admin., 169 F.3d 595, 599 (9th Cir. 1999). The findings of the Commissioner as to any fact, if supported by substantial evidence, are conclusive. See Miller v. Heckler, 770 F.2d 845, 847 (9th Cir. 1985). Substantial evidence is such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. Morgan, 169 F.3d at 599; Jones v. Heckler, 760 F.2d 993, 995 (9th Cir. 1985) (citing Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389, 401 (1971)).
A reviewing court must consider the record as a whole, weighing both the evidence that supports and the evidence that detracts from the ALJ's conclusion. See Jones, 760 F.2d at 995. The court may not affirm the ALJ's decision simply by isolating a specific quantum of supporting evidence. Id.; see also Hammock v. Bowen, 879 F.2d 498, 501 (9th Cir. 1989). If substantial evidence supports the administrative findings, or if there is conflicting evidence supporting a finding of either disability or non-disability, the finding of the ALJ is conclusive, see Sprague v. Bowen, 812 F.2d 1226, 1229-30 (9th Cir. 1987), and may be set aside only if an improper legal standard was applied in weighing the evidence, see Burkhart v. Bowen, 856 F.2d 1335, 1338 (9th Cir. 1988).
In determining whether or not a claimant is disabled, the ALJ should apply the five-step sequential evaluation process established under the Social Security regulations. Title 20 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Section 404.1520, sets forth the test used to assess disability. See Bowen v. Yuckert, 482 U.S. 137, 140-42 (1987). The five-step process has been summarized as follows:
Step one: Is the claimant engaging in substantial gainful activity? If so, the claimant is found not disabled. If not, proceed to step two.
Step two: Does the claimant have a "severe" impairment? If so, proceed to step three. If not, then a finding of not disabled is appropriate.
Step three: Does the claimant's impairment or combination of impairments meet or equal an impairment listed in 20 C.F.R., Pt. 404, Subpt. P, App. 1? If so, the claimant is conclusively presumed disabled. If not, proceed to step four.
Step four: Is the claimant capable of performing his past work? If so, the claimant is not disabled. If not, proceed to step five.
Step five: Does the claimant have the residual functional capacity to perform any other work? If so, the claimant is not disabled. If not, the claimant is disabled.
Lester v. Chater, 81 F.3d 821, 828 n.5 (9th Cir. 1995).
The claimant bears the burden of proof in the first four steps of the sequential evaluation process. Yuckert, 482 U.S. at 146 n.5. The Commissioner bears the burden if the sequential evaluation process proceeds to step five. Id.; Tackett v. Apfel, 180 F.3d 1094, 1098 (9th Cir. 1999).
Plaintiff advances the following arguments in support of his motion for summary judgment: (1) the ALJ's finding that plaintiff's depression was not a severe impairment is not based on substantial evidence; (2) the ALJ committed reversible error in failing to provide "clear and convincing" reasons for rejecting the opinion of Dr. Yee, plaintiff's long-term treating physician; (3) the ALJ's credibility findings are not supported by substantial evidence; and (4) the Commissioner failed to sustain his burden of establishing that there is other work in the national economy that plaintiff could perform. These arguments are addressed below.
I. Determination of Severe Impairments
Plaintiff's first argument challenges the ALJ's decision at step two of the sequential evaluation process. At this step, the ALJ must determine if the claimant has a medically severe impairment or combination of impairments. Smolen v. Chater, 80 F.3d 1273, 1289-90 (9th Cir. 1996) (citing Yuckert, 482 U.S. at 140-41).
The Commissioner's regulations provide that "[a]n impairment or combination of impairments is not severe if it does not significantly limit [the claimant's] physical or mental ability to do basic work activities."*fn2 20 C.F.R. § 416.921(a). The Supreme Court has observed that the severity regulation serves to "identify[] at an early stage those claimants whose medical impairments are so slight that it is unlikely they would be found to be disabled even if their age, education, and experience were taken into account." Yuckert, 482 U.S. at 153. "Step two, then, is 'a de minimis screening device [used] to dispose of groundless claims[.]'" Webb v. Barnhart, 433 F.3d 683, 687 (9th Cir. 2005) (quoting Smolen, 80 F.3d at 1290). See also Edlund v. Massanari, 253 F.3d 1152, 1158-59 (9th Cir. 2001). "An impairment or combination of impairments may be found 'not severe only if the evidence establishes a slight abnormality that has no more than a minimal effect on an individual's ability to work.'" Webb, 433 F.3d at 686 (quoting Smolen, 80 F.3d at 1290, and adding emphasis).
Here, the ALJ found that during the relevant time, i.e., from December 23, 1997 through June 30, 2000, plaintiff had only one severe impairment: continued difficulties following lumbar fusion. (Tr. at 24.) However, the ALJ's step-two analysis is devoted entirely to plaintiff's depression, which the ALJ found to be "not 'severe,' as defined by the Act." (Tr. at 24-25.) In support of this finding, the ALJ cited "minimal mention of a mental impairment in the treatment records during the period at issue" and a Psychiatric Review Technique form dated January 24, 2001, in which a state agency psychiatrist opined that there was insufficient evidence to establish the existence of any mental impairment from the alleged onset date of disability through the date last insured. (Tr. at 24, citing Ex. B9F [tr. at 378-80].) The ALJ also gave "great weight" to the assessment of Michael D. Goldfield, M.D. (Tr. at 24, citing Ex. B14F [tr. at 414-76].) Dr. Goldfield, a psychiatrist who served as Qualified or Agreed Medical Evaluator in plaintiff's workers compensation proceedings, evaluated plaintiff on June 12, 2000, prior to plaintiff's date last insured, and served his report on July 26, 2000. (Tr. at 420.) Dr. Goldfield supplemented his report on October 27, 2000 and again on December 18, 2000, as additional medical records were supplied to him, but he did not change his opinion. (Tr. at 417-19, 415-16.) According to the ALJ, Dr. Goldfield "concluded that the claimant suffers from a dysthymic disorder that causes no more than a slight disability in any of the work function areas, including maintaining an appropriate work pace, performing complex tasks, relating to others and making appropriate decisions." (Tr. at 24.) The ALJ gave "great weight to this assessment" on the grounds that it was based on an actual examination of plaintiff and was consistent with plaintiff's treatment records during the period at issue. (Id.)
The ALJ considered but rejected the opinions of two psychiatrists who examined plaintiff after his date last insured. Alberto G. Lopez, M.D., examined plaintiff in April 2002 and prepared both a written evaluation (tr. at 24, citing Ex. 9B/10*fn3 ) and a form Medical Source Statement Concerning the Nature and Severity of an Individual's Mental Impairment (tr. at 24, citing Ex. B15F*fn4 ). The ALJ discounted Dr. Lopez's opinions on the following grounds: the doctor's opinion was rendered almost two years after plaintiff's date last insured; the doctor found only mild to no significant limitations; the doctor opined that plaintiff's condition had not deteriorated since 1997 and an ALJ previously found plaintiff "not disabled" in December 1997; the doctor examined plaintiff on only one occasion; the doctor noted that plaintiff had never sought psychological or psychiatric care, was "somewhat ambivalent" about receiving mental health treatment, and did not appear to have taken any psychotropic medications; although the doctor concluded that plaintiff exhibited signs of depression, the ALJ believed that"many of the signs listed are also signs of pain"; the doctor concluded that plaintiff's mental impairment would preclude him from working full-time but suggested that plaintiff's treatment should focus on pain management skills; the ALJ found it plausible that plaintiff "would have limitations because of pain" but did not believe that Dr. Lopez's opinions supported a finding that plaintiff had a severe mental impairment before June 30, 2000. The ALJ concluded his discussion of Dr. Lopez's opinions by emphasizing that plaintiff "has not seen the need to seek mental health treatment" and by asserting that "any symptoms noted by Dr. Lopez are inadequately tied to a mental condition." (Tr. at 24.)
The ALJ gave even less weight to the opinion of Dr. Kalman. (Tr. at 24-25.) Lee P. Kalman, M.D., Psy.D., M.F.C.C., examined plaintiff on November 29, 2005, and prepared both a psychiatric evaluation report and a form Medical Source Statement Concerning the Nature and Severity of an Individual's Mental Impairment. (Tr. at 537-45.) The ALJ discounted Dr. Kalman's opinions on the following grounds: the doctor examined plaintiff several years after his date last insured; the doctor opined that plaintiff had been mentally impaired to the same degree for over ten years despite the evidence of record showing lack of treatment and lack of medication for any mental impairment during that ten-year period; and it was not evident that the doctor had questioned plaintiff about his condition before his date last insured. (Tr. at 24-25.) The ALJ also did not believe that Dr. Kalman's mental status examination and assessment of functioning "truly addresse[d]" plaintiff's condition prior to his date last insured, and he found the opinion "not consistent with the claimant's treatment records and other weighty evidence of record that are [sic] contemporaneous to the period at issue." (Tr. at 25.)
The ALJ concluded that plaintiff's mental impairment "only caused him to experience mild restrictions of his activities of daily living and mild difficulties maintaining social functioning" while retaining "the understanding and memory, sustained concentration and persistence, social interaction and adaptation skills necessary to engage in substantial gainful activity." (Tr. at 25.)
The court finds that the ALJ did not properly apply the law and reached a conclusion contrary to substantial evidence in the record in this regard. Treatment records and the examining psychiatrists' reports -- Dr. Goldfield's on June 12, 2000, eighteen days prior to plaintiff's last date insured, and Dr. Lopez's on May 8, 2002, slightly less than two years after plaintiff's last date insured -- demonstrate that plaintiff's depression was more than a slight abnormality as of June 30, 2000, and that this mental impairment had more than a minimal effect on plaintiff's ability to work at the relevant time.
First, the ALJ's finding that there was "minimal mention of a mental impairment in the treatment records" at the relevant time is contradicted by the medical records before the court. Gary A. Schneiderman, M.D., a spine surgeon who saw plaintiff on July 13, 1998, reported that plaintiff's psychiatric symptoms were positive for depression. (Tr. at 178.) The doctor observed that plaintiff had suffered multiple industrial injuries to his lumbar spine between 1990 and 1994, had been treated for those injuries for eight years, had "failed all non-operative modalities of treatment," had been extensively evaluated, was unable to work, and had experienced a substantially altered lifestyle. (Tr. at 177, 180.) Dr. Schneiderman advised plaintiff that it was possible to consider him for a lumbar fusion if a psychological profile showed that he could be considered a surgical candidate. (Tr. at 180-81.) On September 1, 1998, Dr. Schneiderman recommended against surgery after he reviewed the psychological profile of plaintiff prepared by Dr. Martin Shaffer on August 21, 1998. (Tr. at 283-84.) Dr. Goldfield also had an opportunity to review a report from Dr. Shaffer and noted in his October 27, 2000 supplemental report that the MMPI portion of Dr. Shaffer's report "showed [plaintiff] to have chronic pain and some associated depression." (Tr. at 417.)
Evidence of plaintiff's mental impairment during the relevant time is also found in the treatment records of Randall K. Yee, M.D., plaintiff's treating physician. On April 13, 2000, Dr. Yee prescribed the psychotropic drug Effexor at 37.5 milligrams per day for plaintiff's "associated depression" and to help his chronic pain. (Tr. at 328.) On April 18, 2000, Dr. Yee continued the Effexor at the doubled dosage of 75 milligrams per day. (Tr. at 326.) On June 5, 2000, Dr. Yee's diagnosis was chronic back pain, failed back, underlying degenerative joint disease with osteophyte formation, and depression secondary to the physical impairments. (Tr. at 318.) Dr. Yee noted that plaintiff was tolerating Effexor along with the medications prescribed for pain and sleep. (Id.) When Dr. Yee saw plaintiff on July 12, 2000, just twelve days after plaintiff's date last insured, plaintiff reported that his pain intensity had increased despite all the medications he had tried, and Dr. Yee described him as "very distraught and despondent about not getting relief of his back pain." (Tr. at 312.) On September 8, 2000, Dr. Yee noted that plaintiff felt "somewhat 'down'" but had no suicidal ideation. (Tr. at 311.) Even the neurologist who performed an orthopedic examination of plaintiff on August 7, 2000, less than five weeks after plaintiff's last date insured, observed that plaintiff was "a somewhat depressed appearing gentleman." (Tr. at 298.) These records demonstrate that plaintiff's treatment records contained more than "minimal mention of a mental impairment" during the period of time at issue.*fn5 The conclusory form opinion of the state agency psychiatrist who found insufficient evidence to establish the existence of any mental impairment in January 2001 contains no indication that the records described above were considered.
Second, a review of Dr. Goldfield's psychiatric evaluation reveals that the ALJ erred in relying on it as evidence supporting a finding that plaintiff's depression was not a severe impairment at the relevant time. Dr. Goldfield spent two hours examining plaintiff on June 12, 2000, two additional hours performing psychological testing and reviewing the results, and almost three hours reviewing voluminous medical records dating back to 1990. (Tr. at 421.) Dr. Goldfield described plaintiff as downcast, subdued, and depressed. (Tr. at 426.) Plaintiff admitted to depression, difficulty sleeping, tiredness, easy fatigability, difficulty concentrating, feelings of low self-esteem, a loss of confidence in himself, weight gain, the giving up of previously pleasurable activities, and irritability. (Id.) In his review of the medical records, Dr. Goldfield noted the following: in April 2000 Dr. Yee placed plaintiff on Effexor; in July 1998 Dr. Schneiderman found a psychological evaluation essential before considering plaintiff for surgery; in August 1998 Dr. Shaffer determined the outcome potential of surgery to be marginal based on psychometric indices; the salient features of Dr. Goldfield's own June 12, 2000 MMPI-2 report were "physical complaints and depressed mood." (Tr. at 426-31.) Dr. Goldfield's MMPI-2 report also reflected plaintiff's nervousness, irritability, reaction to minor problems with physical symptoms, tendency to develop physical problems when under stress, difficulty managing routine affairs, indications of poor memory and concentration problems, and inability to make decisions. (Tr. at 431.) At Axis I, Dr. Goldfield diagnosed dysthymic disorder (chronic depression) and psychological factors affecting medical condition with increasing back pain when under stress. (Id.) At Axis IV, Dr. Goldfield diagnosed occupational injury and inability to return to his previous occupation, causing depression and stress-aggravated back pain. (Tr. at 432.)
Dr. Goldfield's concluding summary and impression included the following remarks: plaintiff "is currently suffering from classical signs and symptoms of a Dysthymic Disorder and from Psychological Factors Affecting His Medical Condition"; plaintiff's emotional disorders are caused entirely by the physical injury suffered in 1994; as a result of the injury, "he is depressed with difficulty sleeping, tiredness, easy fatigability, difficulty concentrating, feelings of low self-esteem, a loss of confidence in himself, weight gain, and the giving up of previously pleasurable activities"; he is irritable and has a lowered frustration tolerance as a result of the injury and the chronic pain and depression from that injury; he was placed on Effexor 75 milligrams a day by his treating physician. (Tr. at 432-33.) Noting that plaintiff was "not interested in any psychotherapy," Dr. Goldfield indicated that he would not force the issue but would strongly recommend that antidepressant medications be continued because "[he] is in definite need of continued psychoactive medications, which could be prescribed by his primary care physician, Dr. Yee." (Tr. at 433.)
With respect to work functions, Dr. Goldfield found no disability in plaintiff's ability to comprehend and follow instructions, perform simple and repetitive tasks, influence people, and accept and carry out responsibility for direction, control, and planning. (Tr. at 433-34.) He found that plaintiff had a slight disability in the ability to maintain a work pace appropriate to a given workload as well as a reduced ability to perform at a consistent pace because of his depression and other factors, which precluded him "from handling a stressful job in the open labor market, as stress aggravates his back pain." (Tr. at 433.) Dr. Goldfield found a slight disability in plaintiff's ability to perform complex and varied tasks, explaining that plaintiff's "pain and depression are causing a reduced ability to synthesize, coordinate and analyze data." (Id.) Dr. Goldfield found a slight disability in plaintiff's ability to relate to other people beyond giving and receiving instructions, again citing plaintiff's depression as a factor in the disability and elaborating that plaintiff has a reduced ability to perform work activities requiring negotiating with explaining or persuading. (Tr. at 434.) Dr. Goldfield found a slight disability in plaintiff's ability to make generalizations, evaluations, or decisions without immediate supervision, as well as a reduced ability to set realistic goals or make plans independently of others. (Id.)
While Dr. Goldstein did not find more than a slight disability in any one work function, it is significant that he found a slight disability in numerous functions, and he specifically found that plaintiff could not handle a stressful job in the open labor market. Plaintiff's claim of a mental impairment is hardly groundless when the impairment has more than a minimal effect on his ability to deal with stress, maintain an appropriate work pace, perform at a consistent pace, perform complex and varied tasks, relate to people, make decisions without immediate supervision, and set realistic goals or make plans independently of others.
Third, a review of Dr. Lopez's opinion reveals that the ALJ improperly rejected the opinion, which also supports a conclusion that plaintiff's mental impairment should be deemed severe for purposes of step-two analysis. While Dr. Lopez examined plaintiff almost two years after plaintiff's date last insured, his psychiatric report is not based merely on plaintiff's condition in April of 2002. Dr. Lopez had been provided with "the voluminous medical file," and he reviewed those records "in their entirety." (Tr. at 755.) He concluded that plaintiff had been significantly depressed since approximately 1995 and that the depression had proved to be chronic. (Tr. at 762.) He determined that plaintiff "does have a chronic depressive disorder, best characterized as a dysthymic disorder," that plaintiff has "a clinically depressed, irritable mood, with multiple neurovegetative signs of depression," and that plaintiff's dysthymic disorder flowed from his work injuries and the development of chronic pain that followed. (Id.)
With respect to plaintiff's ability to work, Dr. Lopez opined that [i]n all likelihood, there has been a level of psychiatric disability from 1995, up until the time of this examination. It does not appear that this has been severe enough at any point in time to warrant a total preclusion from returning to the open labor market.
However, there has been a level of partial psychiatric disability. (Tr. at 763.) He determined that plaintiff was "incapable of withstanding the pressures of an eight-hour a day/five-day a week work, because of problems with sleep and low energy." (Id.) Dr. Lopez identified the following work function impairments: (1) plaintiff's ability to comprehend and follow instructions is somewhat impaired because of poor memory and concentration, as well as irritability; (2) plaintiff's ability to relate to others in a workplace -- co-workers, supervisors, and the public -- is impaired because of continuing depression, irritability, and admitted moodiness; (3) plaintiff's ability to maintain a work pace appropriate to a given work load and his ability to perform more complex and varied task are both impaired because of problems with severe low energy, fatigue, and exhaustion. (Id.)
The agency form completed by Dr. Lopez on April 24, 2002 provides additional detail about the severity of plaintiff's mental impairment. The form defines "mildly limited" as meaning "[p]erformance of the designated work-related mental function is somewhat impaired," such that the individual can perform the function at a level no greater than 80 to 85% of normal in terms of speed and accuracy and can perform that function only occasionally to frequently, i.e., for 1/3 to 2/3 of an 8-hour workday. (Tr. at 486.) "Moderately limited" is defined as meaning "[p]erformance of the designated work-related mental function is not totally precluded, but it is substantially impaired in terms of speed and accuracy and can be performed only seldom to occasionally during an 8-hour workday," which might mean, for example, for durations lasting from 5 to 15 minutes and not totaling more than 2 to 3 hours in an 8-hour workday. (Id.) In the category of understanding and memory, Dr. Lopez found plaintiff mildly limited in one of three work-related mental functions.*fn6 (Tr. at 486-87.) In the category of sustained concentration and persistence, Dr. Lopez found plaintiff moderately limited in three of the eight work-related mental functions and mildly limited in the other five.*fn7 (Tr. at 487.) In the category of social interaction, Dr. Lopez found plaintiff moderately limited in two of the five work-related mental functions and mildly limited in two of the remaining three.*fn8 (Tr. at 487-88.) In the category of adaptation, Dr. Lopez found plaintiff mildly limited in three of four work-related mental functions.*fn9 (Tr. at 488.) Dr. Lopez opined that work stressors of all kinds would increase plaintiff's level of impairment in all work-related mental functions. (Id.) He estimated that plaintiff's mental impairment was sufficiently severe that it would render him unable to complete a workday, if employed full-time, approximately twice per month. (Tr. at 489.) Finally, it was Dr. Lopez's opinion that plaintiff's limitations had lasted for 12 continuous months and that, on the basis of evaluation, treatment, and records, the onset of plaintiff's limitations -- at the severity described in the form -- commenced in 1995. (Id.)
The court finds that the medical evidence does not clearly establish that plaintiff's mental impairment was a slight abnormality having no more than a minimal effect on his ability to work. Consequently, the ALJ should have identified plaintiff's depression as a severe impairment at step two of the sequential evaluation process. As a result of the ALJ's failure to identify depression as a severe impairment at step two, the ALJ's decision is not supported by substantial evidence in the record as a whole. See Schneider, 223 F.3d at 973; Morgan, 169 F.3d at 599). In reaching this conclusion, the undersigned is mindful that the step-two inquiry is "a de minimis screening device to dispose of groundless claims." Smolen, 80 F.3d at 1290. Regardless of whether the evidence related to a severe impairment establishes disability at step three, or ultimately leads to a finding of disability in combination with the claimant's other impairments, it was error not to recognize an impairment as severe when the medical evidence does not clearly establish that the impairment had no more than a minimal effect on the claimant's ability to work at the relevant time. Accordingly, plaintiff is entitled to summary judgment on his challenge to the ALJ's finding that plaintiff's depression was not a severe impairment.
As a general rule, when a step-two error is found, remand is required so that the ALJ can proceed beyond step two of the evaluation process with respect to all severe impairments and properly consider the previously omitted impairments in combination with all of claimant's impairments, whether severe or not. See Webb, 433 F.3d at 688 (remanding for further proceedings where "[t]he ALJ should have continued the sequential analysis beyond step two because there was not substantial evidence to show that Webb's claim was 'groundless'"); see also SSR 85-28, 1985 WL 56856, at *3. However, the court will turn to plaintiff's additional arguments in order to determine whether it is necessary to remand this case for further administrative proceedings.
II. Rejection of Treating Physician's Opinions
Plaintiff argues that the ALJ committed reversible error in failing to provide "clear and convincing" reasons for rejecting the opinion of Dr. Yee, plaintiff's treating physician.
It is well established that the weight to be given to medical opinions depends in part on whether they are proffered by treating, examining, or non-examining professionals. Lester, 81 F.3d at 830. "As a general rule, more weight should be given to the opinion of a treating source than to the opinion of doctors who do not treat the claimant." Id. This is so because a treating doctor is employed to cure and has a greater opportunity to know and observe the patient as an individual. Id.; Smolen, 80 F.3d at 1285; Bates v. Sullivan, 894 F.2d 1059, 1063 (9th Cir. 1990). However, the ALJ need not give weight to conclusory opinions supported by minimal clinical findings. Meanel v. Apfel, 172 F.3d 1111, 1113-14 (9th Cir. 1999); Magallanes v. Bowen, 881 F.2d 747, 751 (9th Cir. 1989).
"At least where the treating doctor's opinion is not contradicted by another doctor, it may be rejected only for 'clear and convincing' reasons." Lester, 81 F.3d at 830 (quoting Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1396 (9th Cir. 1991)). "Even if the treating doctor's opinion is contradicted by another doctor, the Commissioner may not reject this opinion without providing 'specific and legitimate reasons' supported by substantial evidence in the record for so doing." Lester, 81 F.3d at 830 (quoting Murray v. Heckler, 722 F.2d 499, 502 (9th Cir. 1983)). If a treating professional's opinion is contradicted by an examining professional's opinion that is supported by different, independent clinical findings, the ALJ may resolve the conflict. Andrews v. Shalala, 53 F.3d 1035, 1041 (9th Cir. 1995) (citing Magallanes, 881 F.2d at 751). The opinion of a non-examining professional, without other evidence, is an insufficient basis for rejecting the opinion of either a treating or examining professional. Lester, 81 F.3d at 831.
Here, the medical records reflect that Randall K. Yee, M.D., was plaintiff's treating physician from February 1999 to July 2002. (See tr. at 304-39, 366-67, 389, 393-412, 451-58, 463-76, 491-508, 547-52.) It appears that from May 1994 through 1998, plaintiff was treated by Rafaelito S. Victoria, M.D., a physician in the same medical group as Dr. Yee.*fn10 (See tr. at 95-106, 340-65, 368-69, 459-62.) Although both Dr. Victoria and Dr. Yee treated plaintiff during the relevant period from December 23, 1997 through June 30, 2000, the ALJ did not mention Dr. Victoria by name and made only cursory references to Dr. Victoria's treatment records. (See tr. at 26.) The ALJ considered but rejected the opinions of Dr. Yee, stating that Dr. Yee wrote that the claimant had failed conservative treatment, and he offered acupuncture for what he now categorized as "extensive" degenerative joint disease and "chronic pain syndrome [with a] total disability" (Exhibit B-7F/35 [tr. at 337]). Although Dr. Yee also gave the claimant very specific and very severe limitations,*fn11 he noted that these limitations would apply for approximately the next six months (Exhibit B-7F/33 [tr. at 335]). Less than 12 months later, Dr. Yee wrote that he again thought the claimant was "totally disabled," but he gave limitations that were consistent with sedentary work (Exhibit 7 B-7F/28, 20-26 [tr. at 330, 322-28] ).
Dr. Yee later told the claimant to avoid sitting for longer than 20 minutes at a time*fn12 (Exhibit B7F/12-19 [tr. at 314-21]). I reject Dr. Yee's opinions for the following reasons: they are based on properly discounted subjective complaints; there are inconsistencies between the opinions and clinical and laboratory findings; the physician is advocating on the claimant's behalf; there are inconsistencies between the opinions and the treatment records; the physician's opinions have changed without evidence of a change in objective clinical findings; the opinions are unsupported, brief and/or conclusory; and the opinions are inconsistent with one previously expressed in the clinical findings.
(Tr. at 27.)
The court finds that the ALJ's cursory discussion of Dr. Yee's opinions misses the mark. First, the ALJ's assertion concerning "properly discounted subjective complaints" would appear to be based on the ALJ's failure to recognize plaintiff's depression as a severe impairment, as set forth supra, and on the ALJ's failure to properly evaluate plaintiff's subjective complaints, as set forth infra. The alleged discrepancies, inconsistencies, and changes of opinion are presented as mere generalities, have not been demonstrated on the record, and appear to be based on the ALJ's failure to take into consideration plaintiff's severe mental impairment and symptoms of pain. The ALJ's charge of advocacy on plaintiff's behalf fails because the purpose for which a report is obtained, by itself, does not provide a legitimate basis for rejecting it and the ALJ did not note any evidence of an impropriety on the part of Dr. Yee. See Lester, 81 F.3d at 832 ("The Secretary may not assume that doctors routinely lie in order to help their patients collect disability benefits. While the Secretary may introduce evidence of actual improprieties, no such evidence exists here."); Saelee v. Chater, 94 F.3d 520, 523 (9th Cir. 1996); Reddick v. Chater, 157 F.3d 715, 726-27 (9th Cir. 1998).
Notably, the ALJ's list of reasons for rejecting Dr. Yee's opinions does not include an assertion that Dr. Yee's opinions were contradicted by the opinion of any treating or examining physician. The court is unpersuaded by defendant's argument that Dr. Yee's opinions were controverted by the opinion of Dr. Mikol, the neurologist who performed a complete orthopedic evaluation of plaintiff on August 7, 2000. First, the court may not affirm a decision to deny benefits on a ground not invoked in making the decision to deny benefits. Pinto v. Massanari, 249 F.3d 840, 847 (9th Cir. 2001); see also Stout v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 454 F.3d 1050, 1054-56 (9th Cir. 2006). Second, Dr. Mikol's opinion considered only plaintiff's physical residual functional capacity and did not consider the impact of any mental impairment or subjective symptoms. The court also notes that Dr. Mikol's opinion contained anomalies, including his express observation that plaintiff was "in obvious discomfort during much of the examination" and sat "on the edge of the examination table uncomfortably," which the doctor contradicted by stating in his diagnosis that "[d]uring the examination he is in no discomfort." (Tr. at 298-99.)
The court finds that the ALJ failed to offer clear and convincing reasons for rejecting Dr. Yee's uncontradicted opinion. Plaintiff is entitled to summary judgment on his claim that the ALJ erred by failing to provide such reasons for rejecting Dr. Yee's opinions.
III. Credibility Findings
Once a claimant has presented medical evidence of an underlying impairment, the ALJ may not discredit the claimant's testimony regarding subjective pain and other symptoms merely because the symptoms, as opposed to the impairments, are unsupported by objective medical evidence. Lingenfelter v. Astrue, 504 F.3d 1028, 1035-36 (9th Cir. 2007); Reddick, 157 F.3d at 722; Light v. Soc. Sec. Admin., 119 F.3d 789, 792 (9th Cir. 1997). "'[T]he ALJ can reject the claimant's testimony about the severity of [his or] her symptoms only by offering specific, clear and convincing reasons for doing so.'" Lingenfelter, 504 F.3d at 1036 (quoting Smolen, 80 F.3d at 1281). See also Morgan, 169 F.3d at 599 ("Without affirmative evidence showing that the claimant is malingering, the Commissioner's reasons for rejecting the claimant's testimony must be clear and convincing.").*fn13
The testimony of lay witnesses, including family members, about their own observations regarding the claimant's impairments must be considered and discussed by the ALJ. Robbins v. Soc. Sec. Admin., 466 F.3d 880, 885 (9th Cir. 2006); Smolen, 80 F.3d at 1288; Sprague, 812 F.2d at 1232. Clearly, family members who see the claimant on a daily basis are competent to testify as to their observations. Regennitter v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 166 F.3d 1294, 1298 (9th Cir. 1999); Dodrill v. Shalala, 12 F.3d 915, 918-19 (9th Cir. 1993). If the ALJ chooses to reject or discount the testimony of a lay witness, he must give reasons that are germane to that particular witness. Regennitter, 166 F.3d at 1298; Dodrill, 12 F.3d at 919.
The determination of credibility and the resolution of conflicts in the testimony are functions of the ALJ acting on behalf of the Commissioner. Morgan, 169 F.3d at 599; Saelee, 94 F.3d at 522. In general, an ALJ's assessment of credibility should be given great weight. Nyman v. Heckler, 779 F.2d 528, 531 (9th Cir. 1985). The ALJ may employ ordinary techniques of credibility evaluation and may take into account prior inconsistent statements or a lack of candor by the witness. Fair v. Bowen, 885 F.2d 597, 604 n.5 (9th Cir. 1989). The ALJ may also rely, in part, on his own observations. See Han v. Bowen, 882 F.2d 1453, 1458 (9th Cir. 1989). However, the ALJ cannot substitute his observations for medical diagnoses. Marcia v. Sullivan, 900 F.2d 172, 177 n.6 (9th Cir. 1990).
In this case, the ALJ addressed credibility issues in his analysis of plaintiff's residual functional capacity. (Tr. at 26.) The ALJ provided a brief summary of plaintiff's written statements and hearing testimony, noted that the reports written by plaintiff's mother were consistent with plaintiff's statements, and found that plaintiff's medically determinable impairments "could have been reasonably expected to produce some of the alleged symptoms, but that [plaintiff's] and his mother's statements concerning the intensity, persistence and limiting effects of these symptoms for the period of issue are not entirely credible." (Tr. at 26.) The ALJ did not identify the symptoms that could have been reasonably expected from the medically determinable impairments or the symptoms that could not have been reasonably expected. Nor did the ALJ specify the statements he found credible as opposed to those he did not find credible.
In apparent support of his finding that the statements of plaintiff and his mother were not entirely credible, the ALJ cited medical evidence, including an MRI dated June 8, 1998, which the ALJ described as showing degenerative disc disease with mild and minimal abnormalities but no significant nerve root impingement, and an MRI dated November 13, 2000, which the ALJ represented as showing "no worsening." (Tr. at 26, citing Ex. B-1F/2 [tr. at 277] & Ex. B14F/41 [tr. at 454].) The ALJ cited medical records which he described as prescribing conservative treatment, imposing minimal restrictions on plaintiff's activities, and recommending against surgery. The ALJ also noted that plaintiff did not undergo surgery until more than two years after his last date insured and asserted that plaintiff was declared able to perform sedentary work less than one year after surgery. The ALJ then determined plaintiff's residual functional capacity by rejecting Dr. Yee's opinions and giving great weight to the opinion of an examining neurologist who performed an orthopedic evaluation of plaintiff in August 2000. (Tr. at 26-27.)
The court finds that the ALJ's analysis violates the applicable legal standard by rejecting plaintiff's subjective complaints based on apparent lack of objective medical evidence. The medical records cited by the ALJ in his decision were either not fairly represented or were taken out of context. In any event, the records cited do not demonstrate that plaintiff's subjective complaints are not credible when all impairments and symptoms are considered. The ALJ's citation to plaintiff's statements about daily activities is unavailing, as the limited activities described by plaintiff do not demonstrate plaintiff's ability to work. As has long been recognized, claimants need not be "utterly incapacitated to be eligible for benefits." Fair, 885 F.2d at 603. See also Webb, 433 F. 3d at 688; Vertigan v. Halter, 260 F.3d 1044, 1050 (9th Cir. 2001) ("This court has repeatedly asserted that the mere fact that a plaintiff has carried on certain daily activities, such as grocery shopping, driving a car, or limited walking for exercise, does not in any way detract from her credibility as to her overall disability."). In addition, "'it is a questionable practice to chastise one with a mental impairment for the exercise of poor judgment in seeking rehabilitation.'" Nguyen v. Chater, 100 F.3d 1462, 1465 (9th Cir. 1996) (quoting Blankenship v. Bowen, 874 F.2d 1116, 1124 (6th Cir. 1989)).
In the complete absence of any evidence of malingering by plaintiff, the ALJ has not given clear and convincing reasons for finding plaintiff's statements "not entirely credible." Although the ALJ found the statements of plaintiff's mother "not entirely credible," he gave no reason germane to the particular witness in making that finding. The ALJ's rejection of plaintiff's testimony is grounded in large part on the erroneous rejection of plaintiff's depression as a severe impairment and his rejection of the treating physician's opinions. The court finds that the ALJ's decision regarding the credibility of plaintiff and his mother is not supported by substantial evidence in the record and that plaintiff is entitled to summary judgment on this claim as well.
IV. Plaintiff's Ability to Perform Other Work
Upon finding a claimant unable to return to his past relevant work, the burden shifts to the Commissioner to prove that the claimant is capable of engaging in other jobs that exist in substantial numbers in the national economy. Bruton v. Massanari, 268 F.3d 824, 828 (9th Cir. 2001). If the ALJ relies on the testimony of a vocational expert, the ALJ must question the expert in a manner that properly takes into account all limitations on the claimant's ability to engage in work-related functions, including non-exertional limitations. Moisa v. Barnhart, 367 F.3d 882, 887 (9th Cir. 2004); Tackett, 180 F.3d at 1103-04; Holohan v. Massanari, 246 F.3d 1195, 1208-09 (9th Cir. 2001). "While the ALJ need not include all claimed impairments in his hypotheticals, he must make specific findings explaining his rationale for disbelieving any of the claimant's subjective complaints not included in the hypothetical." Light, 119 F.3d at 793.
In this case, the ALJ found plaintiff able to engage in other jobs in the national economy on the basis of the vocational expert's response to two hypothetical questions, the first of which was as follows:
I'd like for you to consider for me, please, a 38-year-old individual with a high school education and that past work [as a construction foreman and frame carpenter]. Further consider that this individual is capable of lifting 20 pounds occasionally, and 10 pounds frequently. He's capable of standing and walking in combination for at least six hours in a work day, and capable of sitting without limit, were not required to stand or walk [sic]. He can, cannot climb ladders or scaffolding, although he can climb stairs. Should not work at heights, or around vibration, or around hazardous moving machinery. Those are the only limits. (Tr. at 875.) The vocational expert responded that such an individual could work at light, unskilled jobs such as sewing machine operator, small parts assembler, and inserting machine operator. (Id.)
The ALJ's second hypothetical question was as follows:
Same age, education, and vocational background, now capable of lifting 10 pounds occasionally, and capable of moving small objects throughout the work day. Now capable of standing and walking in combination no more than 30 minutes at a time, total not to exceed two hours in a day, and capable of sitting the remainder of the day without limit. With the same non-exertional restrictions I've given you in hypothetical number one, are there any jobs at that level, too?
(Tr. at 875-76.) The vocational expert responded that an individual described in the ALJ's second hypothetical could work at sedentary jobs such as table worker, ampule sealer, and electronics loader. (Tr. at 876.)
The ALJ's hypothetical questions did not include any mental limitations or any of the limitations found by Dr. Yee on plaintiff's ability to do sedentary work. Counsel posed modified hypothetical questions to the vocational expert, first adding a limitation to simple, routine, repetitive tasks. The vocational expert testified that the individual could still perform the light work jobs and the sedentary ones because all of the jobs identified were unskilled, simple and routine. (Tr. at 876-77.) Next, counsel added a limitation on plaintiff's ability to complete a normal work day, specifying that plaintiff's speed and accuracy would be limited to 80 to 85 percent of normal for two thirds of an eight-hour work day and to less than 80 percent for the remaining one third of the day. (Tr. at 877-78.) In response to this inquiry, the vocational expert testified that there would be no jobs the individual could perform. (Tr. at 878.) Finally, counsel asked the vocational expert what the workplace tolerance would be for absenteeism for a person in an entry level unskilled job. (Tr. at 879.) The vocational expert testified that it would vary by employer but the average would be one day per month. (Id.)
The undersigned finds that the vocational expert's testimony in response to the flawed hypothetical questions posed by the ALJ has no evidentiary value. See Embry v. Bowen, 849 F.2d 418, 422 (9th Cir. 1988); Gallant v. Heckler, 753 F.2d 1450, 1456 (9th Cir. 1984). On the other hand, the modified hypothetical questions posed by plaintiff's counsel are supported by substantial evidence in the record. The limitations on plaintiff's ability to complete a normal work day and maintain an appropriate pace are supported by Dr. Goldfields' opinion in June 2000 that plaintiff was slightly disabled in numerous work functions, including his ability to deal with stress, maintain an appropriate work pace, and perform at a consistent pace. Such limitations, as well as the likelihood of absenteeism, are also supported by Dr. Lopez's opinions in April 2002 that there had likely been a level of partial psychiatric disability from 1995 onward, that plaintiff was incapable of withstanding the pressures of an eight-hour a day/five-day a week work week due to numerous work function impairments, including impaired ability to maintain a work pace appropriate to a given work load, and inability to complete a full workday approximately twice per month. The vocational expert's testimony provided in response to counsel's modified hypothetical questions demonstrates that, when the effects of plaintiff's severe mental impairment are considered, there are no jobs in the national economy that plaintiff can perform.
The decision whether to remand a case for additional evidence or to simply award benefits is within the discretion of the court. Ghokassian v. Shalala, 41 F.3d 1300, 1304 (9th Cir. 1994); Pitzer v. Sullivan, 908 F.2d 502, 506 (9th Cir. 1990). The Ninth Circuit has stated that, "[g]enerally, we direct the award of benefits in cases where no useful purpose would be served by further administrative proceedings, or where the record has been thoroughly developed." Ghokassian, 41 F.3d at 1304 (citing Varney v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 859 F.2d 1396, 1399 (9th Cir. 1988)). This rule recognizes the importance of expediting disability claims. Holohan, 246 F.3d at 1210; Ghokassian, 41 F.3d at 1304; Varney, 859 F.2d at 1401.
Here, the record has been adequately developed to allow the court to find plaintiff disabled by determining that his depression is a severe impairment, by crediting Dr. Yee's opinions, and by crediting the testimony and reports of plaintiff and his mother. No useful purpose would be served by further administrative proceedings, and the disability application at issue was filed more than nine years ago. In addition, the Appeals Council's remand order already provided an opportunity for further development of the record. The vocational expert's testimony affirmatively in responses to the properly modified hypothetical questions establishes that plaintiff was unable to perform a significant number of jobs in the national economy prior to his date last insured.
For all of these reasons, this matter will be remanded with the direction to award benefits on the ground that plaintiff was under a disability as defined by the Social Security Act prior to June 30, 2000, plaintiff's last date insured. See Moore, 278 F.3d at 925 (remanding for payment of benefits where the ALJ improperly rejected the testimony of the plaintiff's examining physicians); Ghokassian, 41 F.3d at 1304 (awarding benefits where the ALJ "improperly discounted the opinion of the treating physician").
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment (Doc. No. 20) is granted;
2. Defendant's cross-motion for summary judgment (Doc. No. 21) is denied;
3. The decision of the Commissioner of Social Security is reversed; and
4. This case is remanded with the direction to award benefits from December 23, 1997.
Our website includes the main text of the court's opinion but does not include the
docket number, case citation or footnotes. Upon purchase, docket numbers and/or
citations allow you to research a case further or to use a case in a legal proceeding.
Footnotes (if any) include details of the court's decision.
Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.
Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.
LRC, Inc. About Us


text:
Isoniazid 300Mg contains following Salts:-
Isoniazid - Drug Information
Typical usage: :Acute leukemia, Mycobacterial infection, Prophylaxis of TB, Tuberculosis, Vestibular disorders.
Probable Side Effects: :Nausea, Vomiting, Tachycardia, Convulsions, Coma, Seizures, Urinary retention, Dizziness, Hyperreflexia, Slurred speech.
Drug Interaction: Your doctor or pharmacist may already be aware of any possible drug interactions and may be monitoring you for them. Do not start, stop, or change the dosage of any medicine before checking with your doctor or pharmacist first.
Mechanism of Action: Isoniazid is a prodrug and must be activated by bacterial catalase. Specficially, activation is associated with reduction of the mycobacterial ferric KatG catalase-peroxidase by hydrazine and reaction with oxygen to form an oxyferrous enzyme complex. Once activated, isoniazid inhibits the synthesis of mycoloic acids, an essential component of the bacterial cell wall. At therapeutic levels isoniazid is bacteriocidal against actively growing intracellular and extracellular Mycobacterium tuberculosis organisms. Specifically isoniazid inhibits InhA, the enoyl reductase from Mycobacterium tuberculosis, by forming a covalent adduct with the NAD cofactor. It is the INH-NAD adduct that acts as a slow, tight-binding competitive inhibitor of InhA.
Pregnancy Impact: Animal reproduction studies have shown an adverse effect on the fetus and there are no adequate and well-controlled studies in humans, but potential benefits may warrant use of the drug in pregnant women despite potential risks.
Impact During Lactation: There is positive evidence of risk to a breastfed infant or to breastmilk production, but the benefits of use in breastfeeding mothers may be acceptable despite the risk to the infant (e.g. if the drug is needed in a life-threatening situation or for a serious disease for which safer drugs cannot be used or are ineffective).
Price of Isoniazid 300Mg : Rs.15.00
|Dispatches by
|Next Day
|Isoniazid 300 mg
|Salt Information
|Therapeutic Class
|Brand Name
|Low Cost Standard Therapeutics (Locost)
|Pack Size
|10 Tablet
Use spaces to separate tags. Use single quotes (') for phrases.
FAQ on Isoniazid 300Mg
There are no product questions yet.
We guarantee to ship your order next day after order has been submitted
Customer Service
Please contacts us and our customer service team will answer all your questions
Easy Returns
If you are not satisfied with your order - send it back within 14 days after day of purchase!
Substitutes of Isoniazid 300Mg
Rs.1.00Novartis India
Rs.1.00Indoco Pharma
Rs.1.00Lupin Labs
Chloroquin Phosphate 250mg 10TabletRs.1.00Tosc International
Rs.1.00Lark Laboratories
Rs.1.00Cyper Drugs & Pharma
Rs.1.00Shalina Laboratories
Rs.1.00Orchid Chemicals & Pharma
Rs.1.00Low Cost Standard Therapeutics (Locost)
Rs.1.00Taj Pharma
- Mail Today
- Bio Spectrum
- The Financial Chronicle
- Business Standard
- News Informer
- Pharmabiz
- Business Standard
- News Prelease
- Biznews Index
- Shafaqna
- Newsgrey
- 15 Minute News
- Biz Radar
- VNI India
- Khari News
- Hunt News
- Dharmpath
- Express Pharma
- Silicon India
- The Hindu
- Your Story
- Stratos Invest
- EPL India
- Tropical
- Tenuz
- Hindustan Times
- The Times of India

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Exclusive Village Location. Gated pool. Read our fab reviews! Watch our Video.
***Book 2017 NOW for only 10% deposit. (9 wks already booked!). We've advertised with Owners Direct for over 12 yrs and we're also one of the few villas on Ibiza fully registered with a Tourist licence; for your total peace of mind because your holiday experience matters to us***
Looking for a stylish villa in a peaceful location minutes from rolling hills and pine clad valleys, yet only steps away from a pretty village with wonderful restaurants, Tapas bars & speciality shops? Well you won't need Phil and Kirstie from 'Location, Location, Location,' as 'Number 21 Ibiza' gives you all this from its position on a quiet lane in the centre of San Jose village, and you won't need to drive miles up a dirt track to get to it! Stylish, full of light and uncluttered (so don't bring Ann Maurice, the House Doctor) you'll see why it was chosen to feature in a top interior design magazine (Google for more info).
This spacious villa has plenty of room for families or groups of friends to socialise, but has private areas where couples can be alone together or you can take a break from the teenagers! For fans of Can't Cook, Won't Cook, the village's bakery and deli at the end of the lane has vital supplies of delicious croissants and fresh dishes every day. With a bus service, village amenities and taxis all minutes away, many of our guests save on the cost, and stress, of hiring a car.
If you want a taste of the real Ibiza then stay in this lovely local village with it's 'local' prices, yet be within easy reach of the hedonistic nightlife, trendy beach bars or family friendly restaurants and activities. What more could you wish for?
Up to 6 adults; May/June - £2500. Early July - £2750. Late July/August - £3300. September - £2500
** add £100 each for a 7th or 8th adult.
2 Cots/highchairs provided FOC
Owner managed, legally registered villa (ensures complete protection for you and no additional fees)
Owners website for discounts, deals and to help you plan your holiday
4 double bedrooms - 3 bathrooms - 1 outdoor shower (hot and cold)
Car not required (fabulous village location with bus service and taxis)
Private pool (gated; so safe for toddlers) with pool towels provided
Full air conditioning (all rooms)
5 minutes stroll from San Jose village - 7 restaurants, 6 café bars & an excellent 'local food' takeaway within 5min walk
10 minute drive to a choice of several stunning beaches
Free WiFi (with use of chromebook)
Roof terrace with stunning 360 degree views, sun loungers & funky furniture
Professionally lit garden & pool for evenings
BBQ and dining area seating up to 10, poolside dining area for up to 8
Fabulously family friendly villa; cot, highchair, baby monitor/bath/gate/bowls/cutlery/toy box /child locks etc. supplied FOC
2 bottles of Cava, cold drinks, tea, coffee & chocolate truffles on arrival
Quality pool towels, shower gel and soap supplied
Hammock, 6 sun loungers (+4 more on roof terrace) & 3 large beanbags (great to lie on!)
UK TV, DVDs, books, games, Bluetooth speaker & iPod docking station
Loo roll, dishwasher tablets, kitchen roll and herbs and condiments provided throughout your stay
3 Hairdryers & GHDs hair straighteners
Chill out area with beanbags & 'Buddha water feature'
'Bag drop' facility for early/late flights (not usually a facility offered by other villas)
Boarding passes and club tickets printed out for you
Fresh lemons and herbs from the garden
Within easy reach of KM5, Blue Marlin, Jockey Club, Ushuaia etc.
Airport bus service to and from the village and bus service to Ibiza Town, San Antonio and beaches
Supermarkets, Butchers, Doctor, Chemist, Kiddies playground all on hand.
Emergency walk in clinic (Spanish health service) 10 minutes walk
Book with confidence - 13yrs renting with many returning guests and we're a legally registered villa - so important for your piece of mind.
**Book with us before end Jan 2017 and avoid the Owners Direct travellers fee applied to other villas (happy to explain)
**Take a look at our own website for more photos, deals and discounts plus lots of information about Ibiza and San Jose village to help you plan your holiday. Click the link under the FACILITIES tab above, or go to www.number21ibiza.com
For an online enquiry just click 'enquire', go via our website or just call the real me for a chat! I'm more than happy to help with any questions or additional information as I want to make booking your holiday an easy and happy experience. Being 'owners that care' we know how important it is to choose the right villa for your summer holiday.
2017 will be our 13th year of renting to holidaymakers so we like to feel you're in safe hands!
Top Traveller Review
Wonderful experience!
*This was copied from an email received from David who had difficulty posting a review direct to OD*.
About the Owner
We have been proud to run 'Number 21 Ibiza' privately to holidaymakers for the past 13yrs (being one of the first in Ibiza to advertise on Owners Direct!).
It was always a dream to buy a property in the San Jose area as we felt it was the perfect location with it's beautiful beaches, views & countryside but it proved hard going to find one we could afford! Thankfully we got very lucky after 2 yrs searching (we already lived here having moved from Manchester) & stumbled on a villa at the edge of the village itself. We felt it would be perfect for guests as they had no need to be tied to a car, yet they could holiday in the 'real Ibiza' & experience village life. That became one of our unique selling points & guests have found it a boon to be close to shops & restaurants.
The villa had the benefit of a gated pool area – one of the first in Ibiza & still pretty unique to find. We decided to capitalise on this by making it very child friendly & set out to make family stays as stress-free as we could!
The final thing we did was to create zones that couples/teenagers could escape to, as we saw that many villas just had the usual 'round the pool' area to relax. We made use of the roof terrace with it's fabulous views, the huge balcony, home to our popular 'pod', we created a chill out area with beanbags, somewhere you can catch the breeze whilst enjoying the views, & finally...a hammock, under a shady tree. Hopefully one will be YOUR heavenly spot! We also created a website; number21ibiza.com so that you can get the best out of planning your holiday. Do take a look (even if you book elsewhere!)
With a background in Customer Service (Jaki) & accountancy (Stephen) we hope we've brought our skills together to give our guests a wonderful holiday experience at a value for money price. We reinvest in the villa each year & there's always something new for our returning guests to spot. It's been a wonderful 13 years of greeting lovely people, many who return. Will you be one?
Guestbook comments from the owner
Love your beautiful villa; impressed by the small touches so carefully thought of. I want to adopt it as my 2nd home! Az & friends 9.8
A massive thank you! Your fantastic villa exceeded our expectations & was perfect. Thanks too for ensuring we'd everything we needed; basic supplies, supermarket trip, booking taxis. You couldn't have made it easier! Mark & friends 6.8
This year was the most stress free holiday we've ever been on; not only due to the most amazing villa, & believe us when we say the pictures do not do it justice, but also due to the owners to whom we're eternally grateful for going out of their way to meet every request. The village was everything you needed & more, with cafes & shops a plenty. If you've never tried a villa holiday this is the perfect 'dipping your toe in the water'. The only problem is once you arrive you'll never want to leave or try anywhere else! Macfarlane/Leach families 28.7
We dropped really lucky with the villa & village - perfect! Amanda 14.7
10 Reviews
5 based on 10 holidaymaker reviews
Wonderful experience!
It was the photo of the pod that grabbed our attention and it didn't disappointing in real life. It was my favourite snoozing spot post lunch! Being a group of couples the location was spot on for us. We wanted to be away from the resorts (too old for the noise now!) but not remote so we read the reviews and decided this villa was perfect, and it was. The village has plenty to offer and we found some lovely beaches within easy reach. It was a very relaxing week of bbq's, sunbathing and occasionally eating out. Though the villa is so lovely we didn't go out as much as planned! The owners were lovely, very efficient during the booking process and they met us when we arrived to make sure we were happy with everything, which we were. The villa was beautifully furnished, clean and well equipped. The chilled cava was a lovely surprise! It really felt like we were staying in a boutique hotel. All in all we had a fabulous experience here!
Best yet!
We spent ages searching as although we down-priced from our rental villa the previous year, we still wanted a stylish place with individuality. There wasn't a huge selection as most places need a car (we only wanted to hire one for 3 days this time), however this one stood out for us when we saw the level of facilities and quality furnishings. The booking process was excellent with all my many questions answered quickly by the owner. Their website was really informative about the village and Ibiza, so that was a huge help when planning where to visit. San Jose village was an unexpected delight. A real find with it's restaurants and shops. The villa was very well cared for and had individuality with thoughtful touches like tea lights for all the lovely lanterns. We arrived after an early morning flight, were delighted and settled in for a wonderfully relaxing holiday with perfect weather. We all felt pretty good about finding this place as we got so much more than we'd imagined for the price (we're a group of 6 and had been looking at 3 beds). The only downside is we have just checked for our holiday this September and it is booked so we have missed out. I just hope we manage to secure it for 2016.
So good we're going back!
We have just booked again after staying in this villa 3 summers ago and noticed that reviews can now be left. For anyone hesitating we would say go for it. We had one of our best family holidays ever at this villa and that's why we are booking again. It instantly felt like home to us and we relaxed straight away. The village makes self catering easy as there are supermarkets and a really good butcher and the owners are easily on hand should anything go wrong. Unfortunately we had a handbag stolen but Stephen took us down to the police station and translated for us making it stress free. Things like that are a real help when you don't speak the language. Jacquie also recommended a restaurant for our birthday celebration, and booked it for us. It was one of the best nights we have had. We didn't hire a car, but still managed to get out to a couple of beaches. This time round we will hire one for a couple of days so we can see a bit more of the island. We are counting the days down already! See you soon!
Great Villa, Great Location, Great Choice
We've had a fab holiday in the village of San Jose, definitely recommend it. The decision was between a villa near Cala Vadella beach and this one in the village, we can honestly say we made the best choice for our family. The owner had explained that the village had everything we needed so a car wasn't really necessary, she was right.
It has character too and we loved to watch the old Spanish people on their evening stroll around the village or coming out of the church service straight to the bar! We particularly enjoyed the live music one bar had in the evenings.
Cala Vadella beach was reachable by bus so we didn't feel we missed out. The 'other' villa was on quite a steep road so it would have been a hike to and from the beach which wouldn't have pleased us. Our favourite beach though was Cala Tarida. We ventured to Ibiza Town twice; once early morning as we wanted to walk up the old walled town (fab views!) and then again one evening when we were blown away by the people, bars, shops - everything really. You have to go.
Other nights we settled in for a BBQ and just relaxed. The mint from the herb garden was very welcome for the home made mojitos and it was nice to be able to pick a lemon off the tree for the G&Ts. The teenagers enjoyed relaxing on the roof terrace away from the adults
All in all we had a great mix of relaxing days and nights and getting out and about. The villa was everything we wanted the owners were helpful suggesting where to go and with directions. Their customer service was first class all the way through and the whole experience stress-free
We like to try different places for our holidays but Ibiza and this villa may just drag us back!
After much website searching we chose Can Alegre for a special family holiday to celebrate my 70th birthday. The villa was perfect for all ages from the youngest aged 7 to me as the oldest. We loved the spacious well equipped rooms, the lovely garden pool and the outside eating and relaxing areas. The villa is in a great location being a couple of minutes walk from the village which has an amazing range of food shops, deli's, restaurants, bars etc - better than we have around us in London! We went to all the nearby beaches and all were fantastic - none of them more than 10 or so minutes away by car. Best of all was the attention we received from the villa's owners Stephen and Jaki - from our first enquiry through to our leaving the villa at the end of our holiday they couldn't have been more helpful. All their recommendations for places to visit, beaches, restaurants etc were spot on and they were always on hand to help us, in particular when our granddaughter picked up an ear infection and needed medical attention on a Sunday. They were perfect hosts. It will be hard to have to wait for the next big birthday celebration before we return. In summary we had a fabulous holiday in a villa that exceeded all of our very high expectations.
The best yet!
Being Ibiza veterans (10 years now) we look forward to our hard earned holiday every year. We're quite picky and for the past 5 years we have been staying at Can Alegre. It more than meets our requirements and frankly we feel relieved to have found it as many villas just don't live up to the hype. Jaki is attentive throughout the booking process, always on had to help and quick to answer questions, sadly not always the case in our experience.
We originally chose the villa after a bad experience of staying in a place on a dirt track and taxis refused to go up it. So it seemed a good location; close to the village yet with countryside views. The welcome we had on our first stay made us instantly feel at ease with the property and owner, and within the hour we cracked open the bottle of cava left chilled for us and was lounging on the 'pod' looking at the mountain view.
Over the years we've come to think of it as a home from home. There's everything you could need for your holiday...and the kitchen is better equipped than our own! The owners attend to the small things too like stocking up with spices, condiments and such like. It was the first villa we didn't actually have to buy loo roll! After I mentioned that Jaki put it on their advert!! When we had our children we really appriciated the gated pool as we can throw open the doors on the lounge and not have to worry about the little ones running off. As parents...we can relax.
The location is super being within a few minutes of a village with plenty of eateries and shops. We're regulars at Destino's tapas bar and would recommend it to anyone. The village butcher is also superb. Toni does the most amazing burgers...and his sausages aren't bad!
This villa has taken us from the days when we used to frequent places like KM5 and Blue Marlin to now where our priority is the kids (there's even a toy box!).
If you're looking for owners who care, a villa that has a lovely décor, is clean and well equipped and is in a location that gives you a break from driving try this one! In 5 years we've never once been disappointed.
From the Owner
"Perfect for groups of friends, couples, families and mixed age groups. Having the village a 5 minute stroll away makes holidaying together easy; no relying on a dedicated driver, and teenagers can stroll off safely on their own to explore. We deliberately created outside zones where you can get away from the group and have privacy or just listen to your own music. The roof terrace is popular with sunbathers and teenagers, whilst the balcony with it lounging furniture is perfect for the adults. And if you're holidaying with toddlers then our gated lounge terrace is perfect. Toddlers can play safely outside without the worry of the pool being accessible. So parents can relax. After all...that's what holidays are all about!"
Activity and Interests
Special interest holidays:
Around the village of San Jose and the rest of Ibiza there are numerous bike paths and walks that can be enjoyed.
The town hall has provided information on the routes available so just call in for a leaflet.
We can advise on the historic sites dotted around the island, should that take your interest.
The villa is perfectly placed for easy access to the beaches of Ibiza including the white sands of Las Salinas where all the famous people head for (12 minutes by car/taxi), trendy Cala Jondal with stylish restaurants like Blue Marlin or the snorkelers' favourite Cala Moli (5 minutes by car).
Buses run through the village to Cala Vadella beach & San Antonio where you can catch water ferries to Cala Conta, Cala Tarida or Cala Bassa.
Tip: Order a paella from the deli to enjoy on the beach!
The airport is 10 mins away by car/taxi. Car hire isn't essential when staying at the villa as buses run hourly to both San Antonio and Ibiza Town ànd the village has 2 supermarkets, bars, shops and restaurants. Should you wish to hire a car it can be organised from Companies at the Airport or San Antonio. Taxis are easy to flag down in the village or try the bookable services. An airport bus runs through the village during summer from San Antonio (in July/August 'til 2.30am).
Cosmopolitan Ibiza town is 15 minutes by car/bus and apprx €18 in a taxi, whilst San Antonio and the airport are 10 minutes away by car/bus.
Beaches 10 minutes drive.
As Ibiza is a small island most places are only a short drive away. Being travel writers we can offer tips on where to go, what to see and how to get there; a quiet beach in August? Fabulous restaurants that won't cost the earth? Buy club tickets online? No need to pour over guide books, just ask! We're more than happy to help.
Further Details:
do take a look at our own website we have created for you. It has a wealth of information about the villa, village and Ibiza, plus lots more photos.
Click on the link provided or google 'number21ibiza' or go direct to; number21ibiza.promotemyplace.com/
Prices and Availability
Rental rates
|Rental Period
|Minimum Price
|Additional Nights
|Weekend Night
|Event Price
Winter rate
5 Nov 2016 - 29 Apr 2017
7 night minimum stay
for 7 nights
Low season
6 May 2017 - 30 Jun 2017
Changeover Day: Saturday
7 night minimum stay
for 7 nights
Mid season
1 Jul 2017 - 14 Jul 2017
Changeover Day: Saturday
7 night minimum stay
for 7 nights
High season
15 Jul 2017 - 1 Sep 2017
Changeover Day: Saturday
7 night minimum stay
for 7 nights
Super September!
2 Sep 2017 - 23 Sep 2017
7 night minimum stay
for 7 nights
Additional pricing information
|No additional mandatory fees
|Refundable Damage Deposit
|Stay tax
|£1 per night, per person. This amount will be due to the owner upon arrival. Does not apply to children under 16 years.
Booking Notes:
***Please note our prices are for groups of 6 adults or less (our typical group size). For the 7th or 8th adult please add £100 per person***
Book with confidence; it's our 13th year renting with many returning guests (check our joining date in the contact box!) and we are a legally registered villa which is very important for peace of mind
In 2016 the Balearic govt. introduced a tourist tax of approx €1.50 per day, we're not sure if this will be active in 2017 but please be aware.
The villa is cleaned for arrival, for 2 week stays the villa is cleaned and bedding changed on the mid holiday Saturday.
All baby equipment; cots, bedding, highchair, stair gate, bath, baby monitor, bowls and cutlery is provided FOC. so please ask
n.b. free bag drop available from 10.30am on arrival day and storage available on departure day FOC
Changeover Day:
We rent Saturday to Saturday. Check in is 3pm & departure 10am (to allow for cleaning). Departure time can't be changed but if arriving on an earlier flight or leaving on a later one we can store your suitcases so you don't have to worry about them.
Notes on prices:
Price is for 7 nights rental in £'s (payment to a UK bank) for up to adults plus children - 50% deposit Required.
Booking Notes:
Prices based on 6 or less adults as this is our typical group size. For the 7th or 8th adult please add £100 per person.
50% deposit on booking, balance due 8 wks before arrival. A £400 damage deposit is payable with the final balance. On booking you'll receive a booking form/contract stating our full address & address.
BOOK YOUR 2017 HOLIDAY BEFORE JANUARY 20TH TO AVOID THE OD fee.
Owner's Cancellation Policy
- 0% refund for cancellations more than 0 days before check-in date.
- 12
- Available arrival
- 12
- Available
- 12
- Unavailable
From the Owner
"We have created a website for the villa; www.number21ibiza.com so that you can get the best out of planning your holiday...so do take a look at it (even if you book elsewhere!). There are plenty of tips and info plus links to car hire, bus timetables and private hire. With a background in Customer Service (Jaki) and accountancy (Stephen) we hope we've brought our skills together to give our guests a wonderful holiday experience at a value for money price. We reinvest in the villa each year and there's always something new for our returning guests to spot. It's been a wonderful 13 years of greeting lovely people, many who return as they also fall in love with Ibiza, and San Jose village. Hopefully you'll be one of them!"
Property Type
- villa
- Family
- Air Conditioning ...
- Hair Dryer
- Heating
- Internet ...
- Iron & Board
- Linens Provided
- Living Room ...
- Parking ...
- Towels Provided ...
- Tumble Dryer ...
- Washing Machine ...
- Wood Stove
- Coffee Maker ...
- Dishes & Utensils ...
- Dishwasher ...
- Freezer
- Kitchen ...
- Microwave
- Oven
- Pantry Items ...
- Refrigerator
- Hob
- Toaster
- Child's Highchair
- Dining ...
- Dining Area
- Books ...
- DVD Player ...
- Games ...
- Music Library ...
- Satellite / Cable ...
- Stereo ...
- Television ...
- Toys ...
Pool / Spa
- Private Pool ...
- children welcome ...
- non smoking only ...
- pets not allowed
- wheelchair inaccessible
Location Type
- mountain
- near the sea
- rural
- village
- bay
- churches
- duty free shops
- library
- marina
- naturist beach
- playground
- restaurants
- water parks
- winery tours
Leisure Activities
- beachcombing
- bird watching
- eco tourism
- horse riding
- paddle boating
- scenic drives
- sight seeing
- walking
Local Services & Businesses
- ATM/bank
- Babysitter
- fitness centre
- groceries
- hospital
- laundrette - serviced
- massage therapist
- medical services
Sports & Adventure Activities
- cycling
- fishing
- golf
- hiking
- jet skiing
- mountain biking
- paragliding
- sailing
- diving
- snorkelling
- bay fishing
- swimming
- tennis
- water skiing
- wind-surfing
Floor Area
- 280 m²
- Downstairs Bathroom - Toilet, Shower Enclosure, For the Twin/King bedroom. Walk in shower with 'rainhead'
- Bathroom shared between 2 bedrooms - Toilet, Bath with Shower, Lovely sunny bathroom with views to the countryside
- En-suite - Toilet, Bath with Shower, Bidet, Lovely sunny bathroom with fabulous views
- All these spacious bathrooms are supplied with Shower gel, hand wash, soap, 3 hairdryers, 1 set of GHDs, towels, flannels and bathmats. Water is solar powered so there's plenty of it, and pressure is good.
- 4 Bedrooms, Sleeps 8
- Master en-suite - 1 Large Double Bed, King sized bed with en-suite; Large balcony with views
- Double 'dream' bedroom - 1 Double Bed, Double bed; large balcony with views. Large shared bathroom
- Downstairs Bedroom - 2 Single Bed, Twin OR large King (pls ask!) own shower room, good views
- Upstairs Twin bedroom - 2 Single Bed, Fitted wardrobes, shared bathroom, views to the valley
- Description of sleeping capacity: Sleeps up to 8 (2 double bedrooms and *2 twin bedrooms) plus 2 cots. *Ground floor twin can be made up to a king sized bed...so please ask. Notes on bedrooms: All bedrooms are individually decorated. All have window shutters allowing you to 'black' out the rooms. All have air conditioning Quality cotton bed linen is used, along with pillow protectors (for your comfort)
- Balcony ...
- Terrace
- Golf ...
- Garden
- Barbecue ...
- Veranda
- Self-catering
Learn more about this holiday rental at the owner's website
- GOOD TO KNOW: We welcome you with chilled cava, cold drinks and chocolate truffles, along with kitchen & bathroom basics; no need to buy loo roll here!....The garden is walled with electronic gate and the pool is gated from the lounge, so is safe for toddlers.....ADULT GROUPS please note that the villa is in a quiet village setting, not a resort, so it's UNSUITABLE for parties/loud gathering, or playing loud music....We are totally family friendly with a wealth of facilities for babies and toddlers including a gated pool area; so you can relax. Family holidays at Number 21 is the easy option!...We have been welcoming holidaymakers to number21ibiza for the past 12 years and consider ourselves 'owners who care', so please feel confident in booking with us or contact me with any questions.


text:
First Look at Rihanna in Valerian and the City of a Thousand Planets
Director Luc Besson says Rihanna was his first choice for Valerian, and will be seen in the trailer coming tomorrow. Movie News
Director Luc Besson says Rihanna was his first choice for Valerian, and will be seen in the trailer coming tomorrow. Movie News
Sunday was the most tweeted day of the 2016 election. read more Hollywood Reporter
The acclaimed film director talked to THR at the New York premiere of Amazon's 'Crisis in Six Scenes' about whether he'll make more small-screen content and why he's continued to[…]
Hillary Clinton admirably kept her cool, while getting Donald Trump to blow his top, in their first of three televised debates. read more Hollywood Reporter
It's tough being a high-school superhero. read more Hollywood Reporter
Director Taika Waititi shares a photo from the set of Thor 3 as the production team gathers for the first day of shooting in Australia. Movie News
With 'Vinyl' canceled and 'Roadies' a disappointing mess, why can't television have a great drama based on rock 'n' roll? read more Hollywood Reporter
Tom Cruise and Cobie Smulders are ready for action in the upcoming sequel Jack Reacher: Never Go Back, in theaters this October. Movie News
During THR's annual Drama Actress Roundtable, Sarah Paulson reveals that Gap clothes were her first splurge, while Regina King recalls buying a car. read more Hollywood Reporter
In a new biography called Her Again, author Michael Schulman says that at 14, Streep decided to reinvent herself — and before she was an Oscar winner, she was homecoming[…]


text:
Walt's Homemade Soups
Made in our kitchens from scratch daily at both locations
Freshest Seafood
Seafood shipped directly to us from the fishermen of the Atlantic
Wine Tastings Every Week
Stop in to sample our amazing wine collection and rare vintages
Weekly Specials
Check out this week's specials
Grass Fed Beef
Walt Churchill's Markets features a wide selection of grass fed steaks, roasts and kebabs, and we'll always have the perfect cut for your gourmet dinner this evening. With no additives or fillers, and as always, preservative and hormone free, Churchill's grass fed beef is the best choice for health conscious meat eaters looking for a lean and flavorful cut of all natural beef.
Artisan Breads to your doorstep
Walt Churchill's has brought the art back to rustic, artisan breads, combining all natural ingredients and unbleached, organic flours to create iconic and expertly crafted breads. Get away from the ultra-processed, artificial white breads and get back to basics, with our healthy, old world artisan breads coming directly from our baker's hands to yours.
WCM Party Trays
For your next party, celebration or event, choose from any of our 22 fresh made party trays. Walt Churchill's Market party platters are delicious and save you the time and hassle of preparing food yourself.


text:
BMW 6 Series Trim 645 650 M6, 2004-2010 (E63/E64)
There are no products matching the selection.
Category Navigation:
Recently Viewed Products
Free Shipping on Most Orders over $100.
Restrictions Apply
You have no items in your cart. Subtotal: $0.00
Questions? Call: 678.832.4666
Email: firstname.lastname@example.com
There are no products matching the selection.
Please wait...


text: The new location of Brook's Burgers in Naples opened last week. We went for lunch today. What a horrible experience. Took forever just getting a waitress's attention and the tables were not bussed and were dirty which we told her. She immediately came over with spray cleaner which she sprayed on the side of the table on which we would... More


text:
Mom, Where are we going? Crazy dear.
View Single Post
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Texas
Posts: 139
Airyn's Birthday
The 23rd is Airyn's Birthday. Chipmunk is scheduled to work from 3:30-10:30. Chipmunk has been scheduled to close this whole week. She typically is scheduled for 10:30 and gets off any where from 9:45-10:15.
Airyn talked to Chipmunk, and a few days later so did I about Airyn not bring her a lunch this day.
Thanksgiving is spent at a good friends house. We share great company, lively conversation, and wonderful food. So much food that we are all tired and overly stuffed by 9pm. Home we go, every one even Wolf falls asleep. At about 5:30am Airyn and Chipmunk wake up needing the bathroom, and are back and forth for about 30 mins. I'm trying to sleep, but they aren't being quite enough for me (light sleeper). Frustrating, but not surprising. They get back in bed, and at 6:30 Airyn is getting up telling Chipmunk he can't fall back to sleep. Gives me kisses, and heads into the kitchen. Well I can't sleep either. I sit up and grab my phone about to message Airyn saying happy birthday, but he walks in and grabs My laptop, and asks if I'm getting up, I just nod.
Airyn heads back into the other room to call his mom. He always calls her on his birthday, and wishes her a happy Birth day.
cute. Any way Chipmunk rolls over and says something about him being on the phone. I tell her yea, he may be on the phone for a while cause he's talking to his mom. She rolls back over to go back to sleep. I get dressed and follow Airyn to the kitchen.
I tell him that I was about to message him when he walked in the room. He's all smiles, and when he gets off the phone he checks on Chipmunk to see if she's sleeping or considering getting up. We sit down to play our PC game together, and he tells me she's going to sleep. So we are playing. About an hour or so later Airyn needs something out of the bedroom, and I'm wanting to use the bathroom. So we get up and Airyn notices that Chipmunk is awake, and goes to check on her. I Close the bathroom door to give them some privacy. I don't think anything of it. Airyn doesn't say anything about it either, and eventually we start getting sleepy again. So it's about 11am now and we head back to bed. Lay down, Chipmunk gets up and is being all pissy for some reason. She gets up and Airyn is asking her whats wrong. She says nothing, he says he's tired and is going to take a nap. And Chipmunk says, Whatever, she's obviously unhappy about something.
Airyn and I have no idea what she's upset about, and since she chose not to enlighten us we go to sleep. When we wake up at 2pm later she's sitting by the bed on her laptop. When we start moving around to get up she leaves the room, still being pissy and unwilling to talk to either of us. We get up and start getting dressed, coffee, food. Chipmunk tells Airyn that she wants to leave early so she can buy something at work before she gets started. Ok, I get my shoes on, and so does Airyn. Airyn and I are figure she just wants about 15 mins so we estimate a time, but as soon as we are dressed and ready Chipmunk says she wants to leave NOW (it's about 3pm). Ok out the door we go. Airyn offers to drive since I had not grabbed my ID or phone before Chipmunk was ready to walk out the door. Chipmunk walks out the door and heads down the stairs while Airyn and I are closing and locking up. This is unusual for her since she always waits beside Airyn while one or the other of us lock up. We park at her job, I let her out and she leaves without offering kisses to Airyn. Again this is not normal. She making it clear that she is pissed at Airyn on his birthday. Airyn tells me after she go out that she's upset cause she didn't get good sleep, and that him coming in the bedroom kept her from sleeping. I reminded him that he only checked on her twice, and that the second time was because she was awake. He tells me he didn't think he'd checked on her much at all, and shrugs. Then he tells me he pissed her off further when he told her that he knew they wouldn't get through his birthday with out her getting pissed at him.
We get home, and are talking about what we want to watch after the sun goes down, and decided to watch the second season of Game of Thrones. Mean while we are doing household chores (laundry, dishes). Then we go back to our game from the night before. I'm teasing Airyn about what I wanted to do with him, and how since I'm messy we'll need a towel and a shower. We're hugging and giggling, but not locking Wolf out of our room just yet. It's about 6pm now and we getting up and changing computers around so that we can watch our show on my laptop. We are in the kitchen warming up leftovers from Thanksgiving, and the phone rings. Airyn answers. It's Chipmunk who is telling him that she's about to walk home, she is getting off early because she's sick. She tried calling my cellphone, but got no answer. My phone was in the bedroom, I never thought to keep it close as she always messages Airyn. When we commented that she had not messaged Airyn she says she thought we were going out, and wouldn't be home where he could get the message. What? We never said anything out going out. We told her what was going on. I told her that Airyn didn't want me to take him out that he wanted me to set aside what I would have spent on a restaurant for getting him a new tablet. Whatever, we tell her we are on our way. Grab our shoe turn off the stove, and out the door. I get in the car, and now I'm unhappy kinda pissed actually. Airyn and I are both surprised Chipmunk is coming home, she wasn't sick when she left. I tell Airyn, "great, just great I finally get a chance to have more then 3 hours of your time, and here we are being interrupted for Chipmunk again." Airyn asks me to relax, and be calm. Reminds me it's his birthday, and that he just wants to have a good day. I tell him I'm not going to say anything else, but that I am frustrated. This was my first chance to get more then 3 hours.
We pick Chipmunk up, she says nothing. Back home she goes off to change into her onesie, and Airyn and I are back to heating up our food. Chipmunk had bought crackers and such saying she was having a hard time keeping anything down. She changes and joins us in the kitchen. Airyn makes Chipmunk some tea, and offers to make her the tomato soup with rice that she prefers to eat when she's sick. She tells him maybe, that she can't keep anything down. Then she sits in the floor with her tea, and some crackers. Airyn tells her we are going to go eat in the other room, and asks if she wants to join us. No answer from Chipmunk. We leave, Airyn asks what Chipmunk is doing, and I shrug. She eventually joins us in the bedroom. Airyn and I eat, and Chipmunk lounges in bed. Airyn asks if she's going to sleep. She doesn't know. Airyn and her are talking. Mostly Airyn is talking, and Chipmunk is responding with yes, no, maybe, I don't knows. I finish eating and take my plate to the kitchen. I don't want to go back in there. I'm unhappy that my day has been disrupted, that Airyn is now catering to Chipmunk, and her funk, sick mood. So I sit at my computer in the living room, and am goofing around on the internet. 20 to 30 mins later Airyn sticks his head out the door and tells me, "Some one is slacking off on their laundry duties." I tell him I assumed they needed privacy to talk. He shakes his head, so I join him and put up what laundry is Mine and his. Wolf's and Chipmunks are left in the laundry totes. Chipmunk tells him she'll put her things away tomorrow.
Chipmunk finally agrees to let Airyn make her tomato soup with rice, which he has asked if she wants half a dozen times. So we head back to the kitchen, make her soup, and all go sit at the computers. Airyn bring Chipmunks laptop in and set her up beside him. So he and I go back to the game we were playing before picking Chipmunk up. No more is said about cuddling, sex, or watching our TV show. Chipmunk wouldn't want to watch it she doesn't like horror, gore, scifi. She prefers romance, and drama. Eventually we move back to the bedroom. I tell Airyn that I need to be sleeping by 1am as I'm still getting up at 9am to spend the day with a lady I met online (this will be our second face to face meeting). It's after 11pm when we move to the bedroom, and Chipmunk crawls right into bed. Airyn takes the time to straighten out the blankets and make sure she has lots of covers. Then he and I are sitting together on our PC no longer playing anything together, just being close. I get up and give him hugs. he asks if I'm going to sleep. I tell him I'm going to try, but that I don't really want to. When I get into bed he comes over and tells me he enjoyed spending the day with me that he likes just having me home. It makes me sad, I want to be more then just his gaming buddy. I give him kisses, and nod I can't really say anything. Besides i agreed he should have a good day on his birthday.
Bi-sexual female
Married to my high school sweat heart (20 year relationship). Talked about Poly, but put the idea off and had a kid instead. Stumbled into an FFM (Vee) that became an FMF (Vee).
No longer dateing my husbands Girlfriend.
Airyn: My husband (Straight)
Chipmunk: My x-GF, My husbands GF (Straight)
Wolf: my Daughter with Airyn
Boots: Social/Friend dating (Bi) Married
History: Social/Friend dating (Bi) Married
View Public Profile
Find all posts by Numina


text:
ERIC Number: ED329913
Record Type: RIE
Publication Date: 1990-Nov
Pages: 24
Abstractor: N/A
Reference Count: N/A
Visions and Revisions: A Perspective on the Whole Language Controversy.
Gersten, Russell; Dimino, Joseph
Conversations with special educators indicates that many view the whole language approach as, at best, a fad and at worst, an assault on what they know about how to effectively teach students with disabilities. In the current atmosphere of increased interest in collaboration between special and general education to better meet the needs of students with handicaps, anxiety over the whole language movement is particularly intense. Calls for increased collaboration come at a time when philosophies of optimal reading instruction between special and general education are in stark conflict. Both direct instruction and the whole language movement can be distilled into images. Whole language proponents imagine a classroom where students are genuinely interested in all they read or have read to them. Teachers are always experimenting, and their freedom is reflected in the dynamic classroom atmosphere. Direct instruction presents an image of students learning in a highly interactive situation, one in which they experience consistent success and are provided immediate feedback when they encounter problems. The role of the teacher is, in part, to demystify the process of reading. Use of approaches based on the work of cognitive psychologists can be integrated into either instructional framework to address some of the nagging concerns raised about each model. Special educators should consider seriously the issues and criticisms raised by whole language authors. If nothing else, empirical research has enabled reading theorists to move beyond statements of philosophy and toward a serious analysis of what teachers really do with children. (Fifty-four references are attached.) (RS)
Publication Type: Speeches/Meeting Papers
Education Level: N/A
Audience: N/A
Language: English
Sponsor: Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services (ED), Washington, DC.
Authoring Institution: N/A
Identifiers: Direct Instruction; Reading Theories
Note: Version of a paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Reading Conference (40th, Miami, FL, November 27-December 1, 1990).


text:
Berghaus Women's Tech Tee LS Zip Neck Features:
Berghaus Women's Tech Tee LS Zip Neck is a fabulous lightweight and wicking baselayer which is designed to work in complete harmony with the rest of your layering system to generate maximum ventilation and performance. So whether you are tackling big winter routes in Scotland or in the Alps or heading off on a multi-day ski touring adventure the Women's Tech Tee LS Zip Neck from Berghaus could be the versatile baselayer you've been looking for.
This is the second one I have bought, excellent value for money and the sizing is perfect!
Great base layer which is excellent value for money. Sizing is great if a little on the generous side, this is the second one I have bought