Charles B Crockett v. Carolyn W Colvin, No. 2:2012cv08293 - Document 22 (C.D. Cal. 2013)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER by Magistrate Judge Ralph Zarefsky. (mz)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
O 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CHARLES B. CROCKETT, Plaintiff, 12 13 14 15 16 vs. CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CASE NO. CV 12-08293 RZ MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER 17 A workplace accident left Plaintiff Charles Crockett with a bad back, 18 consistently described by treating physicians as severe enough to require surgery. The 19 Administrative Law Judge concluded, however, that Plaintiff was not under a disability, 20 and that Plaintiff could perform some of his past relevant work, as well as other jobs that 21 existed in plentiful numbers in the economy. In reaching this conclusion, however, the 22 Administrative Law Judge committed several errors. 23 First, he erred in rejecting the opinions of Plaintiff s treating physician 24 William H. Mouradian. Dr. Mouradian examined and treated Plaintiff from August 2010 25 to December 2010 (as well as subsequent to the decision in this case). He stated that 26 Plaintiff had a ruptured disk, producing chronic pain at L4-L5, and that Plaintiff should not 27 lift any weight, that he could not stand or sit more than about 30 minutes, and that he 28 should not bend, climb, crouch, kneel, crawl or reach; that he could only occasionally 1 balance, handle and finger. [AR 315-319] The Administrative Law Judge had this to say 2 as to Dr. Mouradian: 3 4 In determining the claimant s residual functional capacity, the 5 undersigned has given significant weight to the opinion of the 6 State Agency physician, because his findings are both consistent 7 with and supported by the substantial medical evidence of 8 record. [citations omitted]. Dr. Mouradian s opinion (Exhibit 9 15F) is given less weight because it is not consistent with the 10 claimant s residual functional capacity, and is neither consistent 11 with nor supported by the substantial medical evidence of 12 record. In addition, there are very little treatment notes from 13 Dr. Mouradian, and his opinion is not fully substantiated by his 14 findings, and is rather conclusory. The opinion of Dr. Audell 15 that the claimant was temporarily totally disabled is reserved to 16 the undersigned. 17 numerous treating physicians since his injury, the undersigned 18 notes that few of them provided opinions regarding the 19 claimant s residual functional capacity. Yet one would expect 20 that had the claimant truly been limited to the extent alleged, his 21 treating physicians would have made a note of such limitations 22 in the medical records. (SSR 96-5p). While the claimant had 23 24 [AR 18] The opinion of a treating physician is given greater weight than the opinion of 25 other physicians. Aukland v. Massanari, 257 F.3d 1033, 1036 (9th Cir. 2001). In Orn v. 26 Astrue, 495 F.3d 625 (9th Cir. 2007), the Court of Appeals described the interaction 27 between an opinion from a consultant and an opinion from a treating physician: 28 -2- 1 When an examining physician relies on the same clinical 2 findings as a treating physician, but differs only in his or her 3 own conclusions, the conclusions of the examining physician are 4 not substantial evidence. 5 6 495 F.3d at 632. The Court went on to contrast that situation with the situation where the 7 examining physician made his own independent findings, in which case the findings can 8 stand as substantial evidence. The Court then explained that [i]ndependent clinical 9 findings can be either (1) diagnoses that differ from those offered by another physician and 10 that are supported by substantial evidence . . . or (2) findings based on objective medical 11 tests that the treating physician has not herself considered . . . . Id. (citations omitted). 12 Consistent with Orn, the Court of Appeals in Lester v. Chater, 81 F.3d 821, 13 831 (9th Cir. 1996), ruled that the opinion of a non-examining physician cannot by itself 14 constitute substantial evidence that justifies the rejection of either an examining physician 15 or a treating physician. Cases which do rely on the opinion of a non-examining consultant 16 nevertheless also say that there must be other evidence in the record with which the 17 advisor s opinion is consistent. See, e.g., Morgan v. Commissioner of Social Security 18 Administration, 169 F.3d 595, 600 (9th Cir. 1999). 19 The state physician here did not examine Plaintiff, but only reviewed records. 20 Even then, he did not review all the records, as he made his assessment in April 2010, prior 21 to Dr. Mouradian s treatment. He did not make any diagnosis different from any treating 22 physician, or make findings based on objective medical evidence that treating physicians 23 did not consult. [AR 297-303] Under Orn and Lester, it was error to give the consultant s 24 opinion greater weight than the treating physician s. 25 Nor, in any event, can the reasons given by the Administrative Law Judge 26 justify the rejection of Dr. Mouradian s opinion. The first reason was that it was not 27 consistent with Plaintiff s residual functional capacity. But of course one cannot reject an 28 opinion as to a person s capacity on the grounds that it is not consistent with his capacity. -3- 1 Nor is it accurate to say that it is not supported by the record or that his opinion is 2 somewhat conclusory. 3 examinations and all the other types of expected medical documentation. An opinion based 4 on those matters cannot be said to be conclusory. Finally, the absence of notations in the 5 record as to Plaintiff s capacity to do work is not surprising. Doctors do not normally 6 evaluate a capacity to do work, unless they are asked; they focus on symptoms, diagnoses, 7 medications and the like. 8 9 The record contains MRI s, x-rays, reports of physical The second error the Administrative Law Judge committed was in his assessment of Plaintiff s credibility. The Administrative Law Judge repeated the 10 boilerplate language, found in all administrative decisions of the last several years that have 11 come before this Court, that [a]fter careful consideration of the evidence, the undersigned 12 finds that the claimant s medically determinable impairments could reasonably be expected 13 to cause the alleged symptoms; however the claimant s statements concerning the intensity, 14 persistence and limiting effects of these symptoms are not fully credible to the extent they 15 are inconsistent with the above residual functional capacity assessment. This is fairly 16 meaningless verbiage. 17 The Administrative Law Judge did say, however, that Plaintiff s statements 18 about the limitations on his ability to walk, sit and lift were not supported by objective 19 evidence, that it was not believable that he had to lie down daily since 2007, and that he has 20 no problem with ambulation. [AR 17] He elaborated on this statement by saying that 21 Plaintiff has normal lumbar spine range of motion, 5/5 strength in all major muscle groups 22 on the lower extremities, and his gait and posture are within normal limits. [AR 17] The 23 exhibits he referenced, however, do not really support this viewpoint. Exhibit 6F/4 does 24 say that Plaintiff had normal range of motion, but it adds with pain at the extremities on 25 motion. It also says that Plaintiff has 5/5 strength in all muscle groups of the lower 26 extremities. But as to the back, it says that Plaintiff is to get a discogram, and that if 27 positive, we will recommend disc replacement surgery . . . . [AR 243] The second 28 exhibit, 10F/3, agrees with the 5/5 assessment as to the lower extremities muscle groups, -4- 1 but shows the lumbar spine range of motion as limited, including Flexion: 60 degrees with 2 pain, and Extension: 0 degrees with pain. [AR 256] The third exhibit, 15F/10 from 3 Dr. Mouradian, whose records elsewhere the Administrative Law Judge said were 4 insufficient says that Plaintiff s use of arms with arisal from a chair were within normal 5 limits [AR 324], but on the next page states, under the category of Range of Motion 6 Pattern, that there is pain at flexion of 3/5, abnormal arisal and pain at 3/5, pain at arisal 7 with stability at 3/5, pain with slow speed stability at 3/5 and extension of 0 degrees. 8 [AR 325] Similarly, the Administrative Law Judge s comments about Plaintiff s 9 10 conservative treatment cannot be taken as impeaching Plaintiff s credibility. The 11 Administrative Law Judge said that Plaintiff received conservative treatment only and that, 12 despite recommendations, it was unclear whether Plaintiff intended to have surgery. [AR 13 17] But the doctors repeatedly described the conservative treatment as not working. ( As 14 the patient has clearly failed conservative management, including therapy, medication and 15 epidural injections . . . [AR 260]; Clearly he has failed conservative management . . . 16 [AR 256]; Mr. Crockett in my opinion has failed conservative management. [AR 341]) 17 And the record is clear that there were differing opinions as to what kind of surgery 18 Plaintiff should have disc replacement or fusion and whether there was coverage for 19 the surgery. Under the circumstances, the fact that Plaintiff tried conservative treatment 20 and had not undergone surgery as of the time of the hearing cannot fairly be held against 21 him. 22 Because of these two errors, the residual functional capacity was not supported 23 by substantial evidence, and the vocational expert s testimony, which depended on that 24 capacity s being accurate, also could not support the availability of work for a person in 25 Plaintiff s position. Under the circumstances, the Court need not address whether the 26 Administrative Law Judge erred in concluding that Plaintiff did not also have a severe 27 mental impairment. 28 -5- 1 In accordance with the foregoing, the decision of the Commissioner is 2 reversed. The matter is remanded to the Commissioner for further proceedings consistent 3 with this opinion, during which Dr. Mouradian s assessment is to be accepted. The Court 4 has been advised that Plaintiff has had surgery since the hearing, and undoubtedly the 5 parties will wish to bring that fact, and any similar relevant evidence to the attention of the 6 Commissioner. 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. 8 9 DATED: September 26, 2013 10 11 12 RALPH ZAREFSKY UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -6-
]]>
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.
