-RNB Terry Joseph Cattano v. Michael J. Astrue et al, No. 2:2010cv09210 - Document 25 (C.D. Cal. 2011)

Court Description: ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF UNITEDSTATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE by Judge David O. Carter for Report and Recommendation (Issued) 19 : IT THEREFORE IS ORDERED that Judgment be entered reversing the 11 decision of the Commissioner of Social Security, and remanding this matter for 12 further administrative proceedings consistent with the Report and Recommendation. (rla)

Download PDF
o 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 TERRY JOSEPH CATTANO, 12 13 14 15 vs. Plaintiff, MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of Social Security, Case No. CV 10-09210-DOC (RNB) ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE Defendant. 16 17 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ยง 636, the Court has reviewed all the records and files 18 herein, the Report and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge, the 19 objections thereto filed by both plaintiffand the Commissioner, and the responses to 20 each other's objections filed by both plaintiff and the Commissioner. 21 Having made a de novo determination of those portions of the Report and 22 Recommendation to which objections have been made, the Court accepts the 23 Magistrate Judge's findings and recommendations with the following caveat. With 24 respect to the Magistrate Judge's finding that the ALJ did provide a specific and 25 legitimate reason for not crediting Dr. Hamilton's February 2009 assessment, plaintiff 26 is correct that the reason cited by the Magistrate Judge on which the ALJ had relied 27 (i.e., Dr. Hamilton's failure to treat plaintiffuntil after plaintiffs date last insured of 28 December 31,2007) was not supported by the substantial evidence ofrecord. Despite 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 the indication in Dr. Hamilton's February 2009 assessment that his length of contact 2 with plaintiff had been one year, Dr. Hamilton in fact had been treating plaintiff on 3 an ongoing basis since as early as December 2003. However, based on its own 4 review of the ALJ decision, the Court concurs with the Commissioner that the 5 foregoing reason was not the only reason upon which the ALJ relied for not crediting 6 Dr. Hamilton's February 2009 assessment. 7 Commissioner in his response to plaintiffs objections, the Court concurs with the 8 Commissioner that reversal is not warranted based on the ALl's alleged error in 9 failing to properly credit Dr. Hamilton's assessment. For the reasons stated by the 10 IT THEREFORE IS ORDERED that Judgment be entered reversing the 11 decision of the Commissioner of Social Security, and remanding this matter for 12 further administrative proceedings consistent with the Report and Recommendation. 13 14 DATED: ~k-4 2,' 2&// 15 16 17 18 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2

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.