Tonya T. Cooley v. Michael J. Astrue, No. 2:2010cv03432 - Document 23 (C.D. Cal. 2011)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER by Magistrate Judge Margaret A. Nagle. IT IS ORDERED that the decision of the Commissioner is REVERSED, and this case is REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with this Memorandum Opinion and Order. (mz)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 TONYA T. COOLEY, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, ) Commissioner of Social Security, ) ) Defendant. ) ___________________________________) NO. CV 10-03432-MAN MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER 17 18 Plaintiff filed a Complaint on May 12, 2010, seeking review of the 19 denial by the Social Security Commissioner (the Commissioner ) of 20 plaintiff s application for a period of disability, disability insurance 21 benefits ( DIB ), and social security income ( SSI ). On June 21, 2010, 22 the parties consented, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), to proceed before 23 the undersigned United States Magistrate Judge. 24 Joint Stipulation on April 25, 2011, in which: 25 reversing the Commissioner s decision and remanding this case for the 26 payment 27 proceedings; and defendant requests that the Commissioner s decision be 28 affirmed or, alternatively, remanded for further administrative of benefits or, alternatively, for The parties filed a plaintiff seeks an order further administrative 1 proceedings. 2 submission without oral argument. The Court has taken the parties Joint Stipulation under 3 4 SUMMARY OF ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS 5 6 Plaintiff, who was born on May 20, 1960, filed an application for 7 a period of disability, DIB, and SSI.1 8 25.) 9 to (Administrative Record ( A.R. ) Plaintiff claims to have been disabled since January 24, 2005, due a neck injury, carpal tunnel syndrome in both wrists, disc 10 deterioration and spurs, and depression. 11 Plaintiff has past relevant work experience as a restaurant manager and 12 waitress. (A.R. 28, 43, 123, 176.) (A.R. 30.) 13 14 After the Commissioner denied plaintiff s claim initially and upon 15 reconsideration (A.R. 25, 43-47, 54-58), plaintiff requested a hearing 16 (A.R. 65-66). 17 counsel, appeared and testified at a hearing before Administrative Law 18 Judge Helen Hesse (the ALJ ). 19 Jensen (an orthopedic surgeon) and vocational expert Stephen Berry also 20 testified. 21 (A.R. 25-32), and the Appeals Council subsequently denied plaintiff s 22 request for review of the ALJ s decision (A.R. 6-9). 23 now at issue in this action. 24 /// 25 /// On November 19, 2008, plaintiff, who was represented by (Id.) (A.R. 663-86.) Medical expert Joseph On April 22, 2009, the ALJ denied plaintiff s claim That decision is 26 27 28 1 On the alleged disability onset date, plaintiff was 44 years old, which is defined as a younger individual. (A.R. 30 (citing 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1563, 416.963).) 2 1 SUMMARY OF ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION 2 3 The ALJ found that plaintiff has not engaged in substantial gainful 4 activity since January 24, 2005, the alleged onset date of her claimed 5 disability. 6 insured status requirements of the Social Security Act through December 7 31, 2010. 8 severe impairments: multi level cervical degenerative disc disease C5- 9 6 and C6-7 with bulging, neural foraminal narrowing and left sided 10 radiculopathy, left shoulder impingement and tendonitis, and bilateral 11 carpal tunnel syndrome with status post carpal tunnel release with 12 improvement and left median nerve slowing. 13 determined that plaintiff does not have an impairment or combination of 14 impairments that meets or medically equals one of the listed impairments 15 in 20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1 (20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1525, 16 404.1526, 416.925, 416.926). (A.R. 27.) (Id.) The ALJ further found that plaintiff met the The ALJ determined that plaintiff has the following (A.R. 27.) The ALJ also (A.R. 28.) 17 18 19 After reviewing the record, the ALJ determined that plaintiff has the residual functional capacity ( RFC ) to: 20 21 perform light work as defined in 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1567(b) and 22 416.967(b) 23 occasionally and 10 pounds frequently, sitting for 6 hours out 24 of an 8 hour day, and standing/walking for 6 hours out of an 25 eight hour day with a change of position at normal workday 26 breaks; 27 ladders/scaffolds or crawling; occasional climbing stairs, 28 bending, which no permits walking balancing, over lifting uneven stooping, 3 and carrying surfaces; kneeling, and no 20 pounds climbing crouching; 1 frequent 2 manipulation/manual dexterity/fingering with the left hand; no 3 reaching at or above shoulder level with the bilateral upper 4 extremities; occasional range of motion of the neck from side 5 to side or up and down; and no working at unprotected heights 6 or being around dangerous or fast moving machinery. handling/gross manipulation and frequent fine 7 8 (A.R. 28.) 9 10 The ALJ concluded that plaintiff was unable to perform her past 11 relevant work. (A.R. 30.) 12 education, work experience, RFC, as well as the testimony of the 13 vocational expert, the ALJ found that jobs exist in the national economy 14 that plaintiff could perform, including those of information clerk, 15 cashier, 16 concluded that plaintiff has not been under a disability, as defined in 17 the Social Security Act, from January 24, 2005, through the date of her 18 decision. and sales However, having considered plaintiff s age, attendant. (A.R. 31.) Accordingly, the ALJ (A.R. 32.) 19 20 STANDARD OF REVIEW 21 22 Under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), this Court reviews the Commissioner s 23 decision to determine whether it is free from legal error and supported 24 by substantial evidence in the record as a whole. 25 F.3d 625, 630 (9th Cir. 2007). 26 evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a 27 conclusion. 28 a mere scintilla but not necessarily a preponderance. Orn v. Astrue, 495 Substantial evidence is such relevant Id. (citation omitted). 4 The evidence must be more than Connett v. 1 Barnhart, 340 F.3d 871, 873 (9th Cir. 2003). While inferences from the 2 record can constitute substantial evidence, only those reasonably drawn 3 from the record will suffice. 4 1066 (9th Cir. 2006)(citation omitted). Widmark v. Barnhart, 454 F.3d 1063, 5 6 Although this Court cannot substitute its discretion for that of 7 the Commissioner, the Court nonetheless must review the record as a 8 whole, weighing both the evidence that supports and the evidence that 9 detracts from the [Commissioner s] conclusion. Desrosiers v. Sec y of 10 Health and Hum. Servs., 846 F.2d 573, 576 (9th Cir. 1988); see also 11 Jones v. Heckler, 760 F.2d 993, 995 (9th Cir. 1985). 12 responsible for determining credibility, resolving conflicts in medical 13 testimony, and for resolving ambiguities. 14 1035, 1039 (9th Cir. 1995). The ALJ is Andrews v. Shalala, 53 F.3d 15 16 The Court will uphold the Commissioner s decision when the evidence 17 is susceptible to more than one rational interpretation. 18 Barnhart, 400 F.3d 676, 679 (9th Cir. 2005). 19 review only the reasons stated by the ALJ in his decision and may not 20 affirm the ALJ on a ground upon which he did not rely. 21 at 630; see also Connett, 340 F.3d at 874. 22 the Commissioner s decision if it is based on harmless error, which 23 exists only when it is clear from the record that an ALJ s error was 24 inconsequential to the ultimate nondisability determination. Robbins 25 v. Soc. Sec. Admin., 466 F.3d 880, 885 (9th Cir. 2006)(quoting Stout v. 26 Comm r, 454 F.3d 1050, 1055 (9th Cir. 2006)); see also Burch, 400 F.3d 27 at 679. 28 /// 5 Burch v. However, the Court may Orn, 495 F.3d The Court will not reverse 1 DISCUSSION 2 3 Plaintiff makes the following claims: (1) the ALJ improperly 4 evaluated plaintiff s excess pain testimony; and (2) the ALJ erred at 5 step 5 by improperly relying on the vocational expert s opinion that 6 certain job positions would accommodate neck motion limitations when the 7 Dictionary of Occupational Titles (the DOT ) was silent on the matter. 8 (Joint Stipulation ( Joint Stip. ) at 1-32.) 9 10 11 II. The ALJ Failed To Give Clear And Convincing Reasons For Finding Plaintiff s Excess Pain Testimony To Be Not Credible. 12 13 Once a disability claimant produces objective evidence of an 14 underlying impairment that is reasonably likely to be the source of his 15 subjective symptom(s), all subjective testimony as to the severity of 16 the symptoms must be considered. 17 (9th Cir. 2004); Bunnell v. Sullivan, 947 F.2d 341, 345 (9th Cir. 18 1991)(en 19 (explaining how pain and other symptoms are evaluated). 20 ALJ makes a finding of malingering based on affirmative evidence 21 thereof, he or she may only find an applicant not credible by making 22 specific findings as to credibility and stating clear and convincing 23 reasons for each. 24 considered in weighing a claimant s credibility include: 25 claimant s reputation for truthfulness; (2) inconsistencies either in 26 the claimant s testimony or between the claimant s testimony and his 27 conduct; (3) the claimant s daily activities; (4) the claimant s work 28 record; and (5) testimony from physicians and third parties concerning banc); see also 20 Moisa v. Barnhart, 367 F.3d 882, 885 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(a), Robbins, 466 F.3d at 883. 6 416.929(a) [U]nless an The factors to be (1) the 1 the nature, severity, and effect of the symptoms of which the claimant 2 complains. 3 2002); see also 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c), 416.929(c). See Thomas v. Barnhart, 278 F.3d 947, 958-59 (9th Cir. 4 5 The ALJ found that plaintiff s medically determinable impairments 6 . . . could be expected to produce the alleged symptoms. (A.R. 29.) 7 Further, plaintiff. 8 Accordingly, the ALJ s reason for rejecting plaintiff s credibility must 9 be clear and convincing. the ALJ cited no evidence of malingering by 10 11 12 In finding plaintiff to be not entirely credible, the ALJ stated that: 13 14 [i]n terms of treatment, . . . [plaintiff] confirmed that she 15 had not undergone neck surgery, stating that she had a fear of 16 surgeries, but on the other hand, reported that a left 17 shoulder surgery was pending for December 2008. 18 that the results following her right carpal tunnel surgery 19 were okay, although she still had some numbness, but that her 20 left wrist was worse. 21 reportedly comfortable with just utilizing wrist splints. 22 [Plaintiff] has stated that she is unable to lift, push/pull, 23 grasp, turn her neck or use her hands, although the objective 24 evidence does not show that she is totally precluded from 25 performing these activities. She stated The record references that she was 26 27 (A.R. 29.) 28 found plaintiff to be not credible because: Thus, while not completely clear, it appears that the ALJ 7 (1) plaintiff s reason for 1 declining 2 inconsistent with her pending and prior surgeries; and (2) the objective 3 evidence does not show that plaintiff is totally precluded from lifting, 4 pushing/pulling, grasping, turning her neck, or using her hands, as 5 alleged. neck surgery - to wit, her fear of surgeries -- is 6 7 The ALJ s first ground for finding plaintiff to be not credible is 8 neither clear nor convincing. 9 hearing, plaintiff testified that she had declined neck surgery in the At the November 19, 2008 administrative 10 past, 11 Notwithstanding her fear, plaintiff testified that, because of the pain 12 she experiences, she has no choice but to have neck surgery. 13 675.) 14 neck surgery some time after her upcoming left shoulder surgery. because she had a fear of surgeries. (A.R. 668.) (A.R. While not yet scheduled, plaintiff indicated that she would have (Id.) 15 16 Contrary to the ALJ s finding, the Court does not find plaintiff s 17 prior refusal to undergo neck surgery due to her fear of surgeries to 18 be inconsistent with plaintiff s prior and pending surgeries. 19 unlike plaintiff s other surgeries, there are controverted medical 20 opinions regarding whether plaintiff should undergo surgery on her neck.2 First, 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2 A.R 263 (05/13/05 - Kevin Shamlou, M.D. recommends that plaintiff not . . . have the surgery unless she cannot bear the symptoms ); A.R. 531 (07/25/07 - Gregory Carlson, M.D. (an orthopedic surgeon) did not feel that [plaintiff] is a surgical candidate ); A.R. 604 (08/28/07 - John H. Freeman, M.D. noted that Dr. Coufal . . . recommended surgery in the past[, but Dr. Freeman is] recommending a reevaluation by Dr. Coufal at this point ; two Agreed Medical Experts ( AME ), not identified, recommended surgery; and one AME, not identified, recommended against surgery); A.R. 583 (02/04/08 - Daniel A. Levine, M.D. recommends, in a neurological consultation, that plaintiff see Srinath Samudrala, M.D. for a definitive neurological opinion regarding surgery); A.R. 645 (07/01/08 - Dr. Freeman recommends surgery; feels [plaintiff] needs surgery on her neck first 8 1 Second, 2 surgery, including, inter alia, a 20-30% risk of nonunion of plaintiff s 3 bones 4 Significantly, it was noted that, if plaintiff develops nonunion, she 5 might require a posterior stabilization [procedure] - i.e., another 6 surgery. 7 entirely successful. 8 plaintiff reported numbness in her right wrist and a worsening in her 9 left wrist. there because are of (Id.) substantial plaintiff s risks involved history of in plaintiff s smoking. (A.R. neck 662.) Third, plaintiff s prior surgeries have not been Following her carpal tunnel release surgeries, (A.R. 29, 596, 598.) In fact, medical examiner Dr. Mark 10 Mandel, M.D. noted that plaintiff s grip strength readings have not 11 improved since surgery. 12 plaintiff s 13 plaintiff s prior refusal to undergo neck surgery, particularly in view 14 of the fact that, notwithstanding her fear, plaintiff testified that she 15 would be having neck surgery. pending left (A.R. 545.) shoulder Lastly, it is unclear how surgery is inconsistent with 16 17 Accordingly, in view of the controverted opinions regarding 18 plaintiff s neck surgery and the significant risks involved therein, the 19 results of plaintiff s prior wrist surgeries, as well as plaintiff s 20 testimony that she would undergo neck surgery, plaintiff s prior refusal 21 to undergo neck surgery because of her fear of surgeries does not appear 22 to be inconsistent with her prior and pending surgeries. Therefore, the 23 ALJ s reasoning does not constitute a clear and convincing reason for 24 25 26 27 28 and then surgery on the shoulder ); A.R. 661-62 (10/07/09 -- Dr. Samudrala recommends surgery, but notes that plaintiff has a 20-30% risk of nonunion because of her history of smoking). 9 1 finding plaintiff to be not credible.3 2 3 The ALJ s second reason for discrediting plaintiff is also neither 4 clear nor convincing. 5 has stated that she is unable to lift, push/pull, grasp, turn her neck 6 or use her hands, although the objective evidence does not show that she 7 is totally precluded from performing these activities (A.R. 29.) 8 an 9 objective initial matter, evidence In his decision, the ALJ notes that plaintiff the ALJ fails undermines to identify plaintiff s specifically alleged As what limitations. 10 Reddick v. Chater, 157 F.3d 715, 722 (9th Cir. 1998)(noting that 11 [g]eneral findings are insufficient; rather, the ALJ must identify what 12 testimony is not credible and what evidence undermines the claimant s 13 complaints )(citation and internal citations omitted); see also Dodrill 14 3 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 While recognizing that a court may review only the reasons provided by the ALJ in the disability determination and may not affirm the ALJ on a ground upon which he did not rely, in this case, it appears that the ALJ may have rejected plaintiff s credibility, in part, because plaintiff failed to undergo a recommended treatment - i.e., neck surgery. Orn, 495 F.3d at 630. It is well established that the failure to follow a prescribed treatment that would ameliorate an impairment, without good reason, is a valid basis for denying benefits. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1530(b), 416.930(b). However, it is improper to deny benefits on the basis of declined surgery, when surgery is only a suggested rather than a prescribed course of treatment. Aguirre v. Astrue, 2009 WL 3346741, at *5, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 129988, at *13 (C.D. Cal. 2009); see Teter v. Heckler, 775 F.2d 1104, 1107 (10th Cir. 1985)(finding that a claimant s refusal to undergo surgical treatment is not a sufficient reason to deny benefits where surgery was at most recommended or suggested but not prescribed by a physician); see also Young v. Califano, 663 F.2d 469, 472-73 (9th Cir. 1980)(unwillingness to undergo a suggested surgery does not constitute a failure to follow prescribed treatment); 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1530(a)-(b), 416.930(a)-(b) ( In order to get benefits, you must follow treatment prescribed by your physician . . . [and i]f you do not follow the prescribed treatment without a good reason, we will not find you disabled. )(emphasis added). As noted supra, in this case, there are differing medical opinions regarding whether plaintiff should undergo surgery on her neck. Additionally, the medical evidence does not indicate that neck surgery was ever prescribed. Accordingly, to the extent the ALJ rejected plaintiff s credibility because plaintiff failed to follow her treatment by not undergoing neck surgery, the ALJ erred. 10 1 v. Shalala, 12 F.3d 915, 918 (9th Cir. 1993)(if the ALJ does not accept 2 a claimant s testimony he must make specific findings rejecting it). 3 Further, 4 plaintiff s subjective symptom testimony is not, by itself, a legally 5 sufficient basis for rejecting such testimony. 6 261 F.3d 853, 856 (9th Cir. 2001); Bunnell, 947 F.2d at 347 (noting that 7 [i]f an adjudicator could reject a claim of disability simply because 8 [plaintiff] fails to produce evidence supporting the severity of the 9 pain there would be no reason for an adjudicator to consider anything the failure of the medical record to corroborate fully Rollins v. Massanari, 10 other than medical findings ). 11 objective evidence does not support the extent of plaintiff s symptoms 12 cannot, 13 discrediting plaintiff s testimony. 14 581, 584 (9th Cir. 1988); Cotten v. Bowen, 799 F.2d 1403, 1407 (9th Cir. 15 1986); see also Burch, 400 F.3d at 681. by itself, Accordingly, the ALJ s finding that the constitute a clear and convincing reason for See Varney v. Secretary, 846 F.2d 16 17 Moreover, and significantly, the ALJ failed to address plaintiff s 18 testimony regarding the side effects of her pain medication4 (A.R. 675, 19 678) and her difficulties sitting for more than an hour and 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 4 An ALJ must consider the alleged side effects of a claimant s medications in the disability evaluation. See Erickson v. Shalala, 9 F.3d 813, 817-18 (9th Cir. 1993)(noting that an ALJ must consider all factors, including the side effects of medications, that might have a significant impact on an individual s ability to work )(citation omitted); see also Soc. Sec. Ruling 96-7p, 1996 WL 374186, at *2-*3, 1996 SSR LEXIS 4, at *7-*8 (noting that type, dosage, effectiveness, and side effects of any medication the individual takes or has taken to alleviate pain or other symptoms should be considered in the disability evaluation); 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(3)(iv), 416.929(c)(3)(iv). In this case, plaintiff s Adult Disability Report and testimony indicate that plaintiff s pain medication, Norco, causes her to feel drowsy/tired (A.R. 125) and lose focus (A.R. 678). Clearly these side effects could have a significant impact on plaintiff s ability to work, and thus, the ALJ s failure to consider them constitutes error. 11 1 standing/walking for more than 90 minutes without experiencing pain 2 (A.R. 676). 3 symptom 4 reason(s) for rejecting it, constitutes error. The ALJ s failure to address all of plaintiff s pain and testimony, much less articulate any clear and convincing 5 6 Accordingly, for the aforementioned reasons, the ALJ failed to give 7 clear and convincing reasons, as required, for discrediting plaintiff s 8 testimony.5 9 10 II. On Remand, Further Inquiry May Be Appropriate To Remedy Any 11 Potential Conflict Between the DOT And The Vocational Expert s 12 Testimony. 13 14 Based on the foregoing, there are several matters that the ALJ 15 needs to review and reconsider on remand. 16 conclusion regarding plaintiff s RFC and her capacity to perform other 17 work may change. 18 second claim, to wit, that the ALJ erred at step 5 by relying on the 19 vocational expert s opinion that the jobs of information clerk, cashier, 20 and 21 limitations when the DOT was silent on the matter. sales As a result, the ALJ s Accordingly, the Court does not reach plaintiff s attendant would accommodate plaintiff s neck motion 22 23 Although the Court does not reach plaintiff s second claim, the 24 25 26 27 28 5 Moreover, while defendant proffers several reasons to explain the ALJ s credibility determination -- including, inter alia, plaintiff s lack of atrophy -- the Court cannot entertain these post hoc rationalizations. See, e.g., Connett, 340 F.3d at 874 (stating [w]e are constrained to review the reasons the ALJ asserts and [i]t was error for the district court to affirm the ALJ s credibility decision based on evidence that the ALJ did not discuss ). 12 1 Court notes that many district courts have construed the Ninth Circuit s 2 holding in Massachi v. Astrue, 486 F.3d 1149 (9th Cir. 2007) to mean 3 that where[, as in this case,] an expert opines on an issue about which 4 the DOT is silent, a conflict exists. 5 5776060, at *11-*12, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 141443, at *32-*33 (N.D. Cal. 6 2010)(holding that, because the DOT does not address sit/stand options, 7 the potential inconsistency between the vocational expert s testimony 8 and DOT warrant further inquiry on remand); see Valenzuela v. Astrue, 9 2009 WL 1537876, at *3-*4, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 46249, at *8-*9 (N.D. 10 Cal. 2009)(finding that further inquiry upon remand was appropriate when 11 a vocational expert s testimony that certain positions would accommodate 12 a sit/stand option was potentially in conflict with the DOT, which was 13 silent on the matter). 14 respect to neck motion limitations - limitations which the ALJ found 15 plaintiff to have - and there could be a potential inconsistency 16 between the vocational expert s testimony and the DOT, further inquiry 17 on remand may be appropriate. Smith v. Astrue, 2010 WL Therefore, because the DOT is silent with 18 19 III. Remand Is Required. 20 21 The decision whether to remand for further proceedings or order an 22 immediate award of benefits is within the district court s discretion. 23 Harman v. Apfel, 211 F.3d 1172, 1175-78 (9th Cir. 2000). 24 useful purpose would be served by further administrative proceedings, 25 or where the record has been fully developed, it is appropriate to 26 exercise this discretion to direct an immediate award of benefits. 27 at 1179 ( [T]he decision of whether to remand for further proceedings 28 turns upon the likely utility of such proceedings. ). 13 Where no Id. However, where 1 there 2 determination of disability can be made, and it is not clear from the 3 record that the ALJ would be required to find the claimant disabled if 4 all the evidence were properly evaluated, remand is appropriate. 5 at 1179-81. are outstanding issues that must be resolved before a Id. 6 7 Remand is the appropriate remedy to allow the ALJ the opportunity 8 to remedy the above-mentioned deficiencies and errors. 9 Benecke v. Barnhart, 379 F.3d 587, 593 (9th Cir. 2004)(remand for 10 further proceedings is appropriate if enhancement of the record would 11 be useful); McAllister v. Sullivan, 888 F.2d 599, 603 (9th Cir. 1989) 12 (remand appropriate to remedy defects in the record). See, e.g., 13 14 On remand, the ALJ must correct the above-mentioned deficiencies 15 and errors. 16 RFC in which case additional testimony from a vocational expert likely 17 will be needed to determine what work, if any, plaintiff can perform. 18 /// 19 /// 20 /// 21 /// 22 /// 23 /// 24 /// 25 /// 26 /// 27 /// 28 /// After so doing, the ALJ may need to reassess plaintiff s 14 1 CONCLUSION 2 3 Accordingly, for the reasons stated above, IT IS ORDERED that the 4 decision of the Commissioner is REVERSED, and this case is REMANDED for 5 further proceedings consistent with this Memorandum Opinion and Order. 6 7 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall serve 8 copies of this Memorandum Opinion and Order and the Judgment on counsel 9 for plaintiff and for defendant. 10 11 LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY. 12 13 DATED: June 27, 2011 14 15 16 MARGARET A. NAGLE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 15
]]>
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.
