Jesus Barajas Cerda v. Michael J Astrue, No. 2:2012cv06535 - Document 22 (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 details) (bem)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JESUS BARAJAS CERDA, 12 Plaintiff, 13 14 v. 15 CAROLYN W. COLVIN, ACTING COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL 1/ SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, 16 Defendant. 17 ) Case No. CV 12-6535 JCG ) ) ) ) MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ) ORDER ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 18 Jesus Barajas Cerda ( Plaintiff ) challenges the Social Security 19 20 Commissioner s decision denying his applications for disability and supplemental 21 security benefits. Specifically, Plaintiff contends, among other things, that the 22 Administrative Law Judge ( ALJ ) improperly rejected the opinion of his treating 23 physicians, Drs. Thomas Grogan, M.D., and Stanley Katz, M.D. (Joint Stip. at 4-5, 24 11-16, 20-21.) The Court agrees with Plaintiff for the reasons stated below. 25 / / / 26 / / / 27 28 1/ Carolyn W. Colvin is substituted as the proper defendant herein. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 25(d). 1 A. Contradicted Opinion of a Treating Physician 2 3 An ALJ Must Provide Specific and Legitimate Reasons to Reject the As a general rule, more weight should be given to the opinion of a treating 4 source than to the opinion of doctors who do not treat the claimant. Lester v. 5 Chater, 81 F.3d 821, 830 (9th Cir. 1995); accord Benton v. Barnhart, 331 F.3d 6 1030, 1036 (9th Cir. 2003). This is so because a treating physician is employed to 7 cure and has a greater opportunity to know and observe the patient as an individual. 8 Sprague v. Bowen, 812 F.2d 1226, 1230 (9th Cir. 1987). 9 Where the treating doctor s opinion is contradicted by another doctor, the 10 [ALJ] may not reject this opinion without providing specific and legitimate reasons 11 supported by substantial evidence in the record[.] Lester, 81 F.3d at 830 (citation 12 omitted). The ALJ can meet the requisite specific and legitimate standard by 13 setting out a detailed and thorough summary of the facts and conflicting clinical 14 evidence, stating his interpretation thereof, and making findings. Magallanes v. 15 Bowen, 881 F.2d 747, 751 (9th Cir. 1989) (citation omitted). 16 B. The ALJ Failed to Provide Specific and Legitimate Reasons for 17 Rejecting the Opinions of Drs. Grogan and Katz 18 1. 19 Dr. Grogan Here, the ALJ provided three reasons for rejecting the opinions of Dr. Grogan, 20 but failed to provide specific and legitimate reasons for doing so. (See 21 Administrative Record ( AR ) at 21-22.) 22 First, the ALJ noted that Dr. Grogan found the same exertional limitations on 23 November 19, 2009 and April 7, 2010 and, presumably, that his findings were 24 suspect as a result. (Id. at 21.) However, the Physical Capacities Evaluations 25 completed by Dr. Grogan during Plaintiff s examination on November 19, 2009 and 26 April 7, 2010 were not identical by any means, and appear to diverge after section 27 IV of the form. On November 19, 2009, for example, Dr. Grogan found that 28 Plaintiff was not limited in his ability to use his feet for leg controls, (id. at 296), but 2 1 on April 7, 2010, Dr. Grogan found that Plaintiff could not use his feet in this way. 2 (Id. at 291.) In addition, on November 19, 2009, Dr. Grogan found that Plaintiff 3 could occasionally bend, squat, crawl, climb, and reach. (Id. at 296.) However, on 4 April 7, 2010, Dr. Grogan reported that Plaintiff could occasionally bend and reach, 5 but could never squat, crawl, or climb. (Id. at 291.) The fact that some of the 6 categories reported in the evaluations remained unchanged over the course of 7 treatment, while some limitations reportedly worsened, is not an indication that Dr. 8 Grogan s findings are suspect. Rather, the consistency in these categories indicates 9 that Plaintiff s condition did not improve. Accordingly, this is not a legitimate 10 reason for rejecting the treating physician s opinion. 11 Second, the ALJ found that the opinions of Dr. Grogan are based on little 12 supporting evidence and are not supported by objective evidence. (Id. at 21, 22.) 13 However, Dr. Grogan s opinions are based on his face-to-face treatment of Plaintiff, 14 including physical examination, and results of an MRI. (Id. at 282-83, 290.) Thus, 15 this too is an insufficient reason to reject Dr. Grogan s opinions. 16 Finally, the ALJ rejected Dr. Grogan s opinions because he offered a 17 conclusion as to Plaintiff s disability, which is an issue reserved to the ALJ. (AR at 18 22.) It is true that a treating physician s statement on an issue reserved to the 19 Commissioner, such as the ultimate determination of whether a claimant is disabled, 20 is not binding on the ALJ or entitled to special weight. See McLeod v. Astrue, 640 21 F.3d 881, 885 (9th Cir. 2011); Ukolov v. Barnhart, 420 F.3d 1002, 1004 (9th Cir. 22 2005). However, the fact that a treating physician rendered an opinion on the 23 ultimate issue of disability does not relieve the Commissioner of the obligation to 24 state specific and legitimate reasons supported by substantial evidence for rejecting 25 the balance of a treating physician s opinion. Reddick v. Chater, 157 F.3d 715, 725 26 (9th Cir. 1998); Matthews v. Shalala, 10 F.3d 678, 680 (9th Cir. 1993). This reason, 27 therefore, was insufficient to reject the opinions of Dr. Grogan. 28 / / / 3 1 2 2. Dr. Katz As for Dr. Katz, the ALJ never specifically addressed his findings. While the 3 ALJ cites some of Dr. Katz s treatment records throughout the opinion, (AR at 20, 4 21), she never specifically addresses the weight, if any, that his findings are 5 afforded. Notably, Dr. Katz s treatment notes, particularly those from Plaintiff s 6 treatment in 2009, support a finding of significant spinal impairments and are 7 consistent with the findings of Dr. Grogan. The ALJ erred in failing to provide any 8 reasons for rejecting Dr. Katz s findings. 9 Accordingly, for the reasons stated above, the Court determines that the ALJ 10 improperly discredited the opinions of Drs. Grogan and Katz. The Court therefore 11 concludes that the ALJ s decision is not supported by substantial evidence. Mayes v. 12 Massanari, 276 F.3d 453, 458-59 (9th Cir. 2001). 13 C. Remand is Warranted 14 With error established, this Court has discretion to remand or reverse and 15 award benefits. McAllister v. Sullivan, 888 F.2d 599, 603 (9th Cir. 1989). Where no 16 useful purpose would be served by further proceedings, or where the record has been 17 fully developed, it is appropriate to exercise this discretion to direct an immediate 18 award of benefits. See Benecke v. Barnhart, 379 F.3d 587, 595-96 (9th Cir. 2004). 19 But where there are outstanding issues that must be resolved before a determination 20 can be made, or it is not clear from the record that the ALJ would be required to find 21 plaintiff disabled if all the evidence were properly evaluated, remand is appropriate. 22 See id. at 594. 23 Here, in light of the ALJ s error, the opinions of Drs. Grogan and Katz must 24 be properly assessed. Therefore, on remand, the ALJ shall reevaluate the treating 25 source opinions and either credit them as true, or provide valid reasons for any 26 portion that is rejected. 27 / / / 28 / / / 4 1 Based on the foregoing, IT IS ORDERED THAT judgment shall be entered 2 REVERSING the decision of the Commissioner denying benefits and 3 REMANDING the matter for further administrative action consistent with this 4 decision.2/ 5 6 Dated: August 27, 2013 7 ____________________________________ 8 Hon. Jay C. Gandhi 9 United States Magistrate Judge 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 2/ In light of the Court s remand instructions, it is unnecessary to address 28 Plaintiff s remaining contentions. (See Joint Stip. at 5-15, 20-22.) 5
]]>
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.
