Richard Valles v. Michael J Astrue, No. 2:2012cv07361 - Document 15 (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

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RICHARD VALLES, 12 Plaintiff, 13 14 v. 15 CAROLYN W. COLVIN, ACTING COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL 1/ SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, 16 Defendant. 17 ) Case No. CV 12-7361 JCG ) ) ) ) MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ) ORDER ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 18 Richard Valles ( Plaintiff ) challenges the Social Security Commissioner s 19 20 decision denying his application for disability benefits. Specifically, Plaintiff 21 contends that the Administrative Law Judge ( ALJ ) improperly rejected the opinion 22 of his treating physician, Dr. Luis Albert. (Joint Stip. at 5-15.) The Court agrees 23 with Plaintiff for the reasons stated below. A. 24 An ALJ Must Provide Specific and Legitimate Reasons to Reject the Contradicted Opinion of a Treating Physician 25 As a general rule, more weight should be given to the opinion of a treating 26 27 28 1/ Carolyn W. Colvin is substituted as the proper defendant herein. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 25(d). 1 source than to the opinion of doctors who do not treat the claimant. Lester v. 2 Chater, 81 F.3d 821, 830 (9th Cir. 1995); accord Benton ex rel. Benton v. Barnhart, 3 331 F.3d 1030, 1036 (9th Cir. 2003). This is so because a treating physician is 4 employed to cure and has a greater opportunity to know and observe the patient as 5 an individual. Sprague v. Bowen, 812 F.2d 1226, 1230 (9th Cir. 1987). 6 Where the treating doctor s opinion is contradicted by another doctor, the 7 [ALJ] may not reject this opinion without providing specific and legitimate reasons 8 supported by substantial evidence in the record[.] Lester, 81 F.3d at 830 (internal 9 quotation marks and citation omitted). The ALJ can meet the requisite specific and 10 legitimate standard by setting out a detailed and thorough summary of the facts and 11 conflicting clinical evidence, stating his interpretation thereof, and making findings. 12 Magallanes v. Bowen, 881 F.2d 747, 751 (9th Cir. 1989) (internal quotation marks 13 and citation omitted). 14 15 16 B. The ALJ Failed to Provide Specific and Legitimate Reasons for Rejecting Dr. Albert s Treating Opinion Here, the ALJ provided two reasons for rejecting Dr. Albert s treating 17 opinion. (See Administrative Record ( AR ) at 33.) The Court addresses and 18 rejects both below. 19 First, the ALJ found that Dr. Albert failed to cite any specific diagnostic tests 20 to support his observations except for a few blood pressure readings. (AR at 33.) 21 This characterization, however, is inaccurate, as Dr. Albert also cited Plaintiff s 22 RBS, or random blood sugar, reading. (AR at 508); see 1 Dan J. Tennenhouse, 23 ATTORNEYS MEDICAL DESKBOOK § 5:20 (2012) (defining RBS). 24 That error aside, it is also not clear what other diagnostic tests should have 25 been cited. Dr. Albert diagnosed Plaintiff with only three conditions: diabetes, 26 hypertension, and morbid obesity. (AR at 507.) Presumably, Dr. Albert s references 27 to Plaintiff s blood pressure and blood sugar readings support his diagnoses of the 28 first two conditions. And as for Plaintiff s obesity, that condition can likely be 2 1 supported without any special tests indeed, perhaps all that is needed is just a brief 2 look at Plaintiff s weight measurements. (See, e.g., AR at 504 (329 pounds), 505 3 (307.5 pounds).) 4 In any event, it is the ALJ, not the Court, that must state, exactly, what is the 5 conflicting clinical evidence here. Magallanes, 881 F.2d at 751. By failing to 6 identify which observations were lacking objective support, the ALJ s reasoning 7 fails to satisfy the specific and legitimate standard. 8 Second, the ALJ discredited Dr. Albert s opinion for being presented on a 9 pre-drafted form 2/ with no explanation of any specific limitations. (AR at 33.) 10 As above, this characterization is not entirely true, as Dr. Albert, on several 11 occassions, substantiated his form-based assessments with written explanations. 12 (See, e.g., AR at 510 (noting loss of stability when bending/reaching for objects due 13 to loss of sensation in feet ), 512 (prohibiting low stress work because Plaintiff 14 becomes dizzy and fatigued when under stress ).) Dr. Albert s opinions are not 15 without support at least as described by the ALJ and thus they cannot be rejected 16 as conclusory. See Batson v. Comm r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 359 F.3d 1190, 1195 (9th 17 Cir. 2004) (an ALJ may reject treating opinions that are conclusory, brief, and 18 unsupported (emphasis added)). This reason, therefore, fails to pass muster. Accordingly, for the reasons stated above, the Court determines that the ALJ 19 20 improperly discredited Dr. Albert s treating opinion. The Court therefore concludes 21 that the ALJ s decision is not supported by substantial evidence. Mayes v. 22 Massanari, 276 F.3d 453, 458-59 (9th Cir. 2001). 23 \ \ \ C. 24 Remand is Warranted 25 26 2/ Curiously, the state agency medical consultant s opinion was given great weight, even though it, too, was presented on a pre-drafted, check-box form. (AR 28 at 31; see AR at 425-30.) 27 3 1 With error established, this Court has discretion to remand or reverse and 2 award benefits. McAllister v. Sullivan, 888 F.2d 599, 603 (9th Cir. 1989). Where no 3 useful purpose would be served by further proceedings, or where the record has been 4 fully developed, it is appropriate to exercise this discretion to direct an immediate 5 award of benefits. See Benecke v. Barnhart, 379 F.3d 587, 595-96 (9th Cir. 2004). 6 But where there are outstanding issues that must be resolved before a determination 7 can be made, or it is not clear from the record that the ALJ would be required to find 8 plaintiff disabled if all the evidence were properly evaluated, remand is appropriate. 9 See id. at 594. 10 Here, in light of the ALJ s error, the credibility of Dr. Albert must be properly 11 assessed. Therefore, on remand, the ALJ shall reevaluate his opinions and either 12 credit them as true, or provide valid reasons for any portion that is rejected. 13 Based on the foregoing, IT IS ORDERED THAT judgment shall be entered 14 REVERSING the decision of the Commissioner denying benefits and 15 REMANDING the matter for further administrative action consistent with this 16 decision.3/ 17 18 Dated: June 28, 2013 19 ____________________________________ 20 Hon. Jay C. Gandhi United States Magistrate Judge 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 5-15, 20-22.) 4

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.