Fabia Regalado v. Michael J Astrue, No. 2:2012cv04968 - Document 18 (C.D. Cal. 2013)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER by Magistrate Judge Jay C. Gandhi. IT IS ORDERED THAT judgment shall be entered REVERSING the decision of the Commissioner denying benefits and REMANDING the matter for further administrative action consistent with this decision. (See Order for further details) (bem)

Download PDF

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 FABIAN REGALADO, 12 Plaintiff, 13 14 v. 15 CAROLYN W. COLVIN, ACTING COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL 1/ SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, 16 Defendant. 17 ) Case No. CV 12-4968 JCG ) ) ) ) MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ) ORDER ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 18 Fabian Regalado ( Plaintiff ) challenges the Social Security Commissioner s 19 20 ( Defendant ) decision denying his application for disability benefits. Specifically, 21 Plaintiff contends that the Administrative Law Judge ( ALJ ) improperly rejected 22 the lay testimony of his brother, Victor Palencia. (Joint Stip. at 6, 21-22.) The 23 Court agrees with Plaintiff for the reasons discussed below. A. 24 The ALJ Failed to Provide Germane Reasons for Rejecting Mr. Palencia s Lay Testimony 25 [L]ay testimony as to a claimant s symptoms or how an impairment affects 26 27 28 1/ Carolyn W. Colvin is substituted as the proper defendant herein. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 25(d). 1 [their] ability to work is competent evidence and therefore cannot be disregarded 2 without comment. Stout v. Commissioner, 454 F.3d 1050, 1053 (9th Cir. 2006) 3 (internal quotation marks, ellipses, and citation omitted) (emphasis in original). 4 Appropriately, then, an ALJ may discount the testimony of a lay witness only if he 5 provides specific reasons that are germane to each witness. Id. (citing Dodrill v. 6 Shalala, 12 F.3d 915, 919 (9th Cir. 1993).) 7 Here, the ALJ appears to have misunderstood the nature and substance of Mr. 8 Palencia s testimony. In just two sentences, the ALJ disregarded Mr. Palencia as 9 not an acceptable medical source, and his testimony as not based on objective 10 diagnostic evidence. 2/ (AR at 27.) But lay witnesses are not medical sources. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1513 11 12 (discussing different uses for medical and non-medical sources). Unlike medical 13 evidence, which is used to establish whether [a claimant has] a medically 14 determinable impairment, lay testimony show[s] the severity of [that] 15 impairment[] and how it affects [the claimant s] ability to work. Id. § 404.1513(a) 16 and (d)(4) (emphasis added). Recognizing this difference, the Ninth Circuit has 17 expressly rejected the notion that lay testimony need be supported, or even relevant 18 to the medical record. Bruce v. Astrue, 557 F.3d 1113, 1116 (9th Cir. 2009). Thus, for the reasons state above, the ALJ erred in rejecting Mr. Palencia s 19 20 testimony. Accordingly, the Court finds that substantial evidence did not support the 21 ALJ s decision. See Mayes v. Massanari, 276 F.3d 453, 458-59 (9th Cir. 2001). 22 B. Remand is Warranted 23 With error established, this Court has discretion to remand or reverse and 24 award benefits. McAllister v. Sullivan, 888 F.2d 599, 603 (9th Cir. 1989). Where no 25 2/ Defendant appears to discuss reasons for the ALJ s credibility determination that are not actually stated by the ALJ. (See Joint Stip. at 15.) The Court limits its 27 discussion here, as it must, to only those reasons asserted by the ALJ in his decision. 28 See Connett v. Barnhart, 340 F.3d 871, 874 (9th Cir. 2003). 26 2 1 useful purpose would be served by further proceedings, or where the record has been 2 fully developed, it is appropriate to exercise this discretion to direct an immediate 3 award of benefits. See Benecke v. Barnhart, 379 F.3d 587, 595-96 (9th Cir. 2004). 4 But where there are outstanding issues that must be resolved before a determination 5 can be made, or it is not clear from the record that the ALJ would be required to find 6 plaintiff disabled if all the evidence were properly evaluated, remand is appropriate. 7 See id. at 594. 8 Here, there are outstanding issues which must be resolved before a final 9 determination can be made. On remand, the ALJ shall reconsider Mr. Palencia s 10 testimony, and either credit it or provide germane reasons for rejecting it. 11 Based on the foregoing, IT IS ORDERED THAT judgment shall be entered 12 REVERSING the decision of the Commissioner denying benefits and 13 REMANDING the matter for further administrative action consistent with this 14 decision.3/ 15 16 Dated: April 30, 2013 17 ____________________________________ 18 Hon. Jay C. Gandhi United States Magistrate Judge 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 3/ In light of the Court s remand instructions, it is unnecessary to address 28 Plaintiff s remaining contentions. (See Joint Stip. at 4-8, 20-23.) 3

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.