Louis Barron v. Michael J. Astrue, No. 5:2010cv01075 - Document 17 (C.D. Cal. 2011)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION and ORDER by Magistrate Judge Marc L. Goldman: For the reasons discussed below,the decision of the Commissioner is REVERSED and the matter REMANDED forfurther proceedings consistent with this opinion. (See document for details.) (rla)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Louis Barron v. Michael J. Astrue Doc. 17 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA EASTERN DIVISION 10 11 12 LOUIS BARRON, 13 Plaintiff, 14 v. 15 MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of Social Security, 16 17 Defendant. 18 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No. EDCV 10-1075-MLG MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER 19 20 Plaintiff Louis Barron seeks judicial review of the Commissioner’s 21 denial of his application for Supplemental Security Income (“SSI”) 22 benefits under the Social Security Act. For the reasons discussed below, 23 the decision of the Commissioner is REVERSED and the matter REMANDED for 24 further proceedings consistent with this opinion. 25 26 27 28 I. Factual and Procedural History Plaintiff was born on April 4, 1968 and was 41 years old at the time of the administrative hearing. (Administrative Record (“AR”) 9, Dockets.Justia.com 1 116.) He has a tenth grade education with no other specialized trade or 2 vocational training. (AR 125.) Plaintiff has past work experience as a 3 hand packager. (AR 15, 147.) 4 Plaintiff filed an application for SSI benefits on February 13, 5 2008, alleging that he had been disabled since January 1, 2008, due to 6 back and knee pain, degenerative spondylosis and major depressive 7 disorder. (AR 45-46.) Plaintiff’s application was denied initially on 8 May 9, 2008 (AR 48-51), and upon reconsideration on July 7, 2008 (AR 55- 9 57.) An administrative hearing was held on June 23, 2009 (AR 18-26) and 10 again on August 4, 2009 before Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) Joseph 11 D. Schloss (AR 27-44). Plaintiff, represented by counsel, testified, as 12 did a Vocational Expert (“VE”). 13 On October 14, 2009, ALJ Schloss denied Plaintiff’s application for 14 benefits. (AR 9-16.) The ALJ found that Plaintiff had not engaged in 15 substantial gainful activity during the time period at issue. (AR 11.) 16 The ALJ further found that the medical evidence established that 17 Plaintiff suffered from the following severe impairments: degenerative 18 disc disease of the lumbar spine, obesity and old head injury. (Id.) The 19 ALJ found that Plaintiff’s impairments did not meet, or were not 20 medically equal to, one of the impairments listed in 20 C.F.R., Part 21 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1. (Id.) The ALJ concluded that Plaintiff 22 retained the residual functional capacity (“RFC”) to “perform light work 23 as defined in 20 CFR 416.967(b). Specifically, he is capable of lifting 24 and/or 25 standing and/or walking 2 hours in an 8-hour workday; sitting 6 hours in 26 an 27 occasionally; and occasionally performing postural activities such as 28 climbing, balancing and squatting. He cannot climb ladders, ropes, or carrying 8-hour 20 workday; pounds occasionally pushing and and pulling 2 10 with pounds lower frequently; extremities 1 scaffolds. He is capable of performing simple repetitive tasks.” (AR 2 12.) The ALJ found that Plaintiff was unable to perform his past 3 relevant work as a hand packager. (AR 15.) However, the ALJ found, based 4 on the VE’s testimony, that there were jobs that exist in significant 5 numbers in the national economy that Plaintiff could perform, such as 6 electronics worker, garment sorter, small items assembly and product 7 inspector. (AR 16.) 8 not disabled within the meaning of the Social Security Act. (Id.) Accordingly, the ALJ concluded that Plaintiff was 9 On June 30, 2010, the Appeals Council denied review (AR 1-3), and 10 Plaintiff timely commenced this action for judicial review. On January 11 20, 2011, the parties filed a Joint Stipulation (“Joint Stip.”) of 12 disputed facts and issues. Plaintiff contends that the ALJ erred by 13 failing to properly consider the opinion of the consulting internal 14 medicine examiner. (Joint Stip. 2.) Plaintiff requests that the Court 15 reverse and remand for an award of benefits, or in the alternative, 16 reverse and remand for a new administrative hearing. (Joint Stip. 8-9.) 17 The Commissioner requests that the ALJ’s decision be affirmed. (Joint 18 Stip. 9.) 19 After reviewing the parties’ respective contentions and the record 20 as a whole, the Court finds Plaintiff’s contention regarding the ALJ’s 21 error in failing to properly consider the opinion of the examining 22 physician 23 proceedings consistent with this opinion. to be meritorious and remands this matter for further 24 25 II. Standard of Review 26 Under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), a district court may review the Social 27 Security Commissioner’s decision to deny benefits. The Court must uphold 28 the Social Security Administration’s disability determination unless it 3 1 is not supported by substantial evidence or is based on legal error. 2 Ryan v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 528 F.3d 1194, 1198 (9th Cir. 2008)(citing 3 Stout v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 454 F.3d 1050, 1052 (9th Cir. 4 2006)). Substantial evidence means more than a scintilla, but less than 5 a preponderance; it is evidence that “a reasonable person might accept 6 as adequate to support a conclusion.” Lingenfelter v. Astrue, 504 F.3d 7 1028, 1035 (9th Cir. 2007)(citing Robbins v. Soc. Sec. Admin., 466 F.3d 8 880, 882 (9th Cir. 2006)). To determine whether substantial evidence 9 supports a finding, the reviewing court “must review the administrative 10 record as a whole, weighing both the evidence that supports and the 11 evidence that detracts from the Commissioner’s conclusion.” Reddick v. 12 Chater, 157 F.3d 715, 720 (9th Cir. 1996). “If the evidence can support 13 either affirming or reversing the ALJ’s conclusion,” the reviewing court 14 “may not substitute [its] judgment for that of the ALJ.” Robbins, 466 15 F.3d at 882. 16 17 III. Discussion 18 Plaintiff contends that the ALJ improperly disregarded the report 19 of Dr. Sharam Pourrabbani, an examining internal medicine physician. 20 (Joint Stip. 3.) More specifically, Plaintiff claims that the ALJ erred 21 by adopting the opinion of a non-examining state agency physician 22 without providing any reasons for implicitly rejecting the examining 23 physician’s report. (Id.) The Court agrees. 24 After examining Plaintiff on January 17, 2007, Dr. Pourrabbani 25 found that Plaintiff had various 26 limitation in fine and gross manipulation of the left hand due to an 27 abnormality of the thumb and (2) Plaintiff could only “rarely” perform 28 certain postural activities, such as kneeling, bending, stooping or 4 functional limitations: (1) a 1 climbing. (AR 227.) The opinion of the state agency reviewing physician, 2 Dr. Yvonne Post, D.O., differed because it did not include the handling 3 limitations found by Dr. Pourrabbani. (AR 302.) Dr. Post’s report also 4 differed by concluding that Plaintiff could perform postural activities 5 frequently, rather than rarely. (Id.) 6 The Commissioner is directed to weigh medical opinions based in 7 part on their source, specifically, whether proffered by treating, 8 examining, or non-examining professionals. Lester v. Chater, 81 F.3d 9 821, 830-31 (9th Cir. 1995). Generally, more weight is given to the 10 opinion of a treating professional, who has a greater opportunity to 11 know and observe the patient as an individual, than the opinion of a 12 non-treating professional. See id.; Smolen v. Chater, 80 F.3d 1273, 1285 13 (9th Cir. 1996). The Commissioner must also consider whether a medical 14 opinion is supported by clinical findings and is contradicted by other 15 medical 16 uncontradicted opinion of a treating or examining medical professional 17 only 18 evidence in the record. See Lester, 81 F.3d at 831. evidence for “clear of and record. The convincing” Commissioner reasons may supported reject by the substantial 19 Although the ALJ discussed Dr. Pourrabbani’s opinion, he did not 20 state what weight he was giving the opinion. (AR 13.) Instead, the ALJ 21 merely 22 physician. (AR 14.) The ALJ failed to give any specific reasons for 23 relying upon the state agency reviewing physician’s report rather than 24 that of the examining physician, Dr. Pourrabbani, but merely stated that 25 the reviewing physician’s report was “well-supported” by the medical 26 evidence. (AR 14.) This is insufficient to satisfy the ALJ’s duty to 27 provide specific reasons for adopting or rejecting various medical 28 opinions. See Embrey v. Bowen, 849 F.2d 418, 421 (9th Cir. 1988) (“To stated that he was adopting 5 the opinion of the reviewing 1 say that the medical opinions are not supported by sufficient objective 2 findings or are contrary to the preponderant conclusions mandated by the 3 objective findings does not achieve the level of specificity our prior 4 cases have required ....”); see also McAllister v. Sullivan, 888 F.2d 5 599, 602 (9th Cir. 1989) (an ALJ errs in providing “broad and vague” 6 reasons for rejecting a treating physician’s opinion). 7 Nor can the Court say with confidence that this error was harmless. 8 See Stout v. Commissioner, 454 F.3d 1050, 1052 (9th Cir. 2006) (error is 9 not harmless unless the court “can confidently conclude that no 10 reasonable ALJ, when fully crediting the testimony, could have reached 11 a 12 conclusion that Plaintiff could perform a significant number of jobs in 13 the economy, including electronics worker (DOT 726.687-010), garment 14 sorter (DOT 222.687-014), small items assembly (DOT 739.687-086), and 15 product inspector (DOT 734.687-042), on the testimony of the VE. (AR 16, 16 42-43.) However, neither the handling nor postural limitations found by 17 Dr. Pourrabbani were included in the hypothetical to the VE. (AR 42.) 18 Dr. Pourrabbani’s limitation in the use of Plaintiff’s left hand for 19 fine and gross manipulation is inconsistent with each of the jobs 20 identified 21 handling. different disability by the VE determination”). because each Here, requires the ALJ frequent based to his constant 22 The Commissioner contends that the ALJ properly relied upon the 23 opinion of the state agency physician, rather than that of the examining 24 physician, because the state agency physician reviewed certain medical 25 records that were more recent than Dr. Pourrabbani’s January 2007 26 examination of Plaintiff. (Joint Stip. 6.) However, the ALJ did not 27 specifically state this as a reason for adopting the state agency 28 reviewing physician’s opinion over that of the examining physician. The 6 1 Court may review “only the reasons provided by the ALJ in the disability 2 determination and may not affirm the ALJ on a ground upon which he did 3 not rely.” Orn v. Astrue, 495 F.3d 625, 630 (9th Cir. 2007). In 4 addition, the Commissioner argues that the ALJ properly resolved any 5 possible conflicts between the opinions of Dr. Pourrabbani and the state 6 agency 7 Commissioner’s contention, the ALJ never specifically stated that he was 8 resolving any conflicts between the two medical opinions. Rather, the 9 ALJ merely noted that he was relying upon the state agency physician’s physician. and never (Joint Stip. addressed 5.) Pourrabbani’s report. (AR 14.) Again, the Court can only review the 12 reasons 13 justifications posited by the Commissioner. the ALJ, was not giving the to the 11 by he to opinion provided weight contrary 10 specifically the However, post Dr. hoc 14 15 IV. Conclusion 16 For the reasons discussed above, the decision of the Social 17 Security Commissioner is REVERSED and the matter is REMANDED for further 18 proceedings consistent with this opinion. 19 20 DATED: January 26, 2011 21 22 23 24 ____________________________ MARC L. GOLDMAN United States Magistrate Judge 25 26 27 28 7
]]>
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.
