Cabrun E Watson v. Michael J Astrue, No. 2:2007cv05223 - Document 18 (C.D. Cal. 2008)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM AND OPINION by Magistrate Judge Rosalyn M. Chapman: IT IS ORDERED that: (1) plaintiffs request for relief is granted; and (2) the Commissioners decision is reversed, and the action is remanded to the Social Security Administration for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion and Order, pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), and Judgment shall be entered accordingly. (jy)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 CABRUN E. WATSON, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, ) Commissioner of Social Security, ) ) Defendant. ) ___________________________________) No. CV 07-5223-RC OPINION AND ORDER 17 18 Plaintiff Cabrun E. Watson filed a complaint on August 29, 2007, 19 seeking review of the Commissioner s decision denying his application 20 for disability benefits. 21 January 16, 2008, and the parties filed a joint stipulation on 22 March 18, 2008. The Commissioner answered the complaint on 23 24 BACKGROUND 25 I 26 On August 30, 2004 (protective filing date), plaintiff applied 27 for disability benefits under the Supplemental Security Income program 28 ( SSI ) of Title XVI of the Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1382(a), claiming an 1 inability to work since June 14, 2002, due to shortness of breath, 2 lung problems, and right ankle pain. 3 ( A.R. ) 64-67, 76. 4 December 17, 2004. 5 administrative hearing, which was held before Administrative Law Judge 6 Robert A. Evans ( the ALJ ) on August 1, 2006. 7 On October 23, 2006, the ALJ issued a decision finding plaintiff is 8 not disabled. 9 Appeals Council, which denied review on June 20, 2007. Certified Administrative Record The plaintiff s application was denied on A.R. 49-54. A.R. 15-26. The plaintiff then requested an A.R. 55-57, 199-215. The plaintiff appealed the decision to the A.R. 4-11. 10 II 11 12 The plaintiff, who was born on February 3, 1966, is currently 42 13 years old. A.R. 65. He has an eleventh-grade education, and 14 previously worked as a janitor and loader/unloader. 15 83, 203, 208. A.R. 77, 80, 82- 16 17 DISCUSSION 18 III 19 The Court, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), has the authority to 20 review the Commissioner s decision denying plaintiff disability 21 benefits to determine if his findings are supported by substantial 22 evidence and whether the Commissioner used the proper legal standards 23 in reaching his decision. 24 1172 (9th Cir. 2008); Carmickle v. Comm r, Soc. Sec. Admin., 533 F.3d 25 1155, 1159 (9th Cir. 2008). Stubbs-Danielson v. Astrue, 539 F.3d 1169, 26 27 28 The claimant is disabled for the purpose of receiving benefits under the Act if he is unable to engage in any substantial gainful 2 1 activity due to an impairment which has lasted, or is expected to 2 last, for a continuous period of at least twelve months. 3 1382c(a)(3)(A); 20 C.F.R. § 416.905(a). 4 burden of establishing a prima facie case of disability. 5 Shalala, 66 F.3d 179, 182 (9th Cir. 1995), cert. denied, 517 U.S. 1122 6 (1996); Smolen v. Chater, 80 F.3d 1273, 1289 (9th Cir. 1996). 42 U.S.C. § The claimant bears the Roberts v. 7 8 9 The Commissioner has promulgated regulations establishing a fivestep sequential evaluation process for the ALJ to follow in a 10 disability case. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920. In the First Step, the ALJ 11 must determine whether the claimant is currently engaged in 12 substantial gainful activity. 13 Second Step, the ALJ must determine whether the claimant has a severe 14 impairment or combination of impairments significantly limiting him 15 from performing basic work activities. 16 so, in the Third Step, the ALJ must determine whether the claimant has 17 an impairment or combination of impairments that meets or equals the 18 requirements of the Listing of Impairments ( Listing ), 20 C.F.R. § 19 404, Subpart P, App. 1. 20 Fourth Step, the ALJ must determine whether the claimant has 21 sufficient residual functional capacity despite the impairment or 22 various limitations to perform his past work. 23 If not, in Step Five, the burden shifts to the Commissioner to show 24 the claimant can perform other work that exists in significant numbers 25 in the national economy. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(b). If not, in the 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(c). 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(d). If If not, in the 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(f). 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(g). 26 27 28 Applying the five-step sequential evaluation process, the ALJ found plaintiff has not engaged in substantial gainful activity since 3 1 his alleged onset date, June 14, 2002. 2 found plaintiff has mild degenerative joint disease of the right 3 elbow and right forearm, right ankle chronic strain, and status post 4 laparotomy and splenectomy for gunshot wound, which are severe 5 impairments (Step Two); however, he does not have an impairment or 6 combination of impairments that meets or equals a Listing. 7 Three). 8 relevant work. 9 perform a significant number of jobs in the national economy; 10 (Step One). The ALJ then (Step The ALJ next determined plaintiff cannot perform his past (Step Four). Finally, the ALJ found plaintiff can therefore, he is not disabled. (Step Five). 11 IV 12 13 A Social Security [recipient] has a statutory right, which may 14 be waived, to be represented by counsel before an ALJ. Graham v. 15 Apfel, 129 F.3d 1420, 1422 (11th Cir. 1997) (per curiam); Skinner v. 16 Astrue, 478 F.3d 836, 841 (7th Cir. 2007); Mendoza v. Barnhart, 436 17 F. Supp. 2d 1110, 1114 (C.D. Cal. 2006); 42 U.S.C. § 406. 18 [l]ack of counsel does not affect the validity of the hearing unless 19 the plaintiff can demonstrate prejudice or unfairness in the 20 administrative proceedings. 21 Cir. 1985) (quoting Vidal v. Harris, 637 F.2d 710, 714-15 (9th Cir. 22 1981)); Mendoza, 436 F. Supp. 2d at 1115. 23 is whether the administrative proceeding was fair, not whether 24 plaintiff properly waived his right to counsel. 25 975 F.2d 558, 561-62 (9th Cir. 1992); Mendoza, 436 F. Supp. 2d at 26 1115; see also Hall v. Sec y of Health, Educ. & Welfare, 602 F.2d 27 1372, 1378 (9th Cir. 1979) ( [E]ven if [claimant] did not completely 28 understand his right to representation by counsel, he would not be However, Key v. Heckler, 754 F.2d 1545, 1551 (9th 4 Thus, the pertinent issue Higbee v. Sullivan, 1 entitled to relief absent a showing of prejudice, or unfairness in the 2 proceedings. ). 3 In Social Security cases, the ALJ has a special duty to fully 4 5 and fairly develop the record and to assure that the claimant's 6 interests are considered. 7 omitted); Widmark v. Barnhart, 454 F.3d 1063, 1068 (9th Cir. 2006); 8 see also Higbee, 975 F.2d at 561 (per curiam) ( We have long 9 recognized that the ALJ is not a mere umpire at [an administrative 10 hearing], but has an independent duty to fully develop the record. 11 . . . ). 12 counsel, it is incumbent upon the ALJ to scrupulously and 13 conscientiously probe into, inquire of, and explore for all the 14 relevant facts. 15 587 F.2d 988, 991 (9th Cir. 1978)); Celaya v. Halter, 332 F.3d 1177, 16 1183 (9th Cir. 2003). 17 especially diligent in ensuring that favorable, as well as 18 unfavorable, facts and circumstances are elicited. 19 at 561. Smolen, 80 F.3d at 1288 (citation When, as here, a recipient or claimant is not represented by Higbee, 975 F.2d at 561 (quoting Cox v. Califano, To satisfy this requirement, the ALJ must be Higbee, 975 F.2d 20 21 At the administrative hearing, plaintiff testified he was 22 examined at the Hubert H. Humphrey Comprehensive Health Center ( HHH ) 23 in 2004, and subsequently received extensive medical treatment, 24 including surgery, while in prison from January 3, 2005, to July 14, 25 2006. 26 records from HHH, A.R. 181-93, he did not obtain plaintiff s prison 27 medical records -- despite advising plaintiff he would hold the 28 administrative record open and try to obtain the records. A.R. 201-05. Although the ALJ obtained plaintiff s medical 5 A.R. 214- 1 15. In fact, there is absolutely no evidence in the administrative 2 record demonstrating the ALJ made any attempt to obtain plaintiff s 3 prison records.1 4 recognized the key is going to be . . . [plaintiff s] right hand, 5 and the prison medical records dealt with the problems with [the] 6 gunshot to that right hand. 7 that [t]he doctor at . . . Tehachapi [State Prison] said that 8 [plaintiff] would never use [his dominant right] hand again. 9 204. This is especially problematic because the ALJ A.R. 213. Moreover, plaintiff testified A.R. This, if true, clearly would assist plaintiff in showing he is 10 disabled. See A.R. 20-21, 211 (ALJ determined plaintiff had the 11 residual functional capacity to perform a limited range of light work; 12 however, vocational expert testified that if plaintiff had no 13 functional ability to use his right dominant hand, he could not work). 14 Thus, the ALJ failed to fully and fairly develop the record on behalf 15 of plaintiff.2 16 F.3d 1144, 1150 (9th Cir. 2001); see also Struck v. Astrue, 247 Fed. 17 Appx. 84, 86 (9th Cir. 2007) (ALJ failed to fully and fairly develop 18 record for unrepresented claimant when ALJ failed to request needed Celaya, 332 F.3d at 1183; Tonapetyan v. Halter, 242 19 1 20 21 22 23 24 25 In Tidwell v. Apfel, 161 F.3d 599 (9th Cir. 1999), the Ninth Circuit held an ALJ satisfied his duty to develop the record when he voiced his concerns [about a treating physician s opinions] to [claimant] and her counsel, requested an additional inquiry into the basis for [the] opinions and explained that he would keep the record open so that it could be supplemented by the responses from [the treating physician]. Id. at 602. Tidwell is inapposite here since, among other reasons, plaintiff was not represented by counsel, plaintiff explained he had no way of getting the prison records, A.R. 201, and the ALJ stated he would try and get the records. A.R. 214. 26 2 27 28 The ALJ also found plaintiff was not fully credible because [t]he record shows little in the way of treatment since the gunshot wound in June 2002[,] A.R. 24; however, plaintiff s prison medical records might remedy this deficiency. 6 1 hospital records, which ALJ recognized were vital to claimant s 2 claim).3 3 4 V 5 When the Commissioner does not apply the proper legal standards, 6 the Court has authority to affirm, modify, or reverse the 7 Commissioner s decision with or without remanding the cause for 8 rehearing. 9 1076 (9th Cir. 2002). 42 U.S.C. § 405(g); McCartey v. Massanari, 298 F.3d 1072, Generally when a court . . . reverses an 10 administrative determination, the proper course, except in rare 11 circumstances, is to remand to the agency for additional investigation 12 or explanation. 13 2004) (citations omitted); Moisa v. Barnhart, 367 F.3d 882, 886 (9th 14 Cir. 2004). 15 by counsel and the [ALJ] did not scrupulously and conscientiously 16 probe into, inquire of and explore for all relevant facts, the 17 interests of justice demand that the case be remanded. 18 F.2d at 715 (quoting Cox, 587 F.2d at 991); Tonapetyan, 242 F.3d at 19 1150-51. Benecke v. Barnhart, 379 F.3d 587, 595 (9th Cir. In this case, [s]ince the claimant was not represented Vidal, 637 20 21 ORDER 22 IT IS ORDERED that: (1) plaintiff s request for relief is 23 granted; and (2) the Commissioner s decision is reversed, and the 24 action is remanded to the Social Security Administration for further 25 proceedings consistent with this Opinion and Order, pursuant to 26 // 27 28 3 See Fed. R. App. P. 32.1(a); Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3(b). 7 1 sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), and Judgment shall be entered 2 accordingly. 3 4 DATE: December 12, 2008 5 6 /S/ Rosalyn M. Chapman ROSALYN M. CHAPMAN UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE R&R-MDO\07-5223.mdo 12/11/08 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 8
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
