Katrina Barnes v. Michael J Astrue, No. 5:2010cv01118 - Document 18 (C.D. Cal. 2011)
Court Description: ORDER AFFIRMING DECISION OF COMMISSIONER by Magistrate Judge Robert N. Block. (rla)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
1 O 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 KATRINA BARNES, ) Case No. EDCV 10-1118 RNB ) Plaintiff, ) ) ORDER AFFIRMING DECISION OF vs. ) COMMISSIONER ) MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, ) Commissioner of Social Security, ) ) Defendant. ) ) ) _____________________________ 18 19 The Court now rules as follows with respect to the two disputed issues listed 20 in the Joint Stipulation.1 21 // 22 23 24 1 As the Court advised the parties in its Case Management Order, the 25 decision in this case is being made on the basis of the pleadings, the administrative 26 record ( AR ), and the Joint Stipulation ( Jt Stip ) filed by the parties. In accordance with Rule 12(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Court has determined 27 which party is entitled to judgment under the standards set forth in 42 U.S.C. ยง 28 405(g). 1 1 A. Reversal is not warranted based on the ALJ s alleged failure to properly 2 consider Dr. Leonard s opinion. 3 The Court disagrees with plaintiff that the ALJ failed to state whether he 4 accepted or rejected Dr. Leonard s opinion. In stating that he concurred in the 5 assessment of Dr. Glassmire that the treatment record is inconsistent with the findings 6 of the treating physician at Exhibit 24F that indicated that the claimant would have 7 serious difficulty performing even simple tasks and that the claimant could not 8 perform any work on a sustained full time basis because of her mental impairments 9 (see AR 12), it is clear that the ALJ was rejecting the opinion of Dr. Leonard reflected 10 on the two-page Work Capacity Evaluation (Mental) form dated May 13, 2009. (See 11 AR 484-85.) It also is clear from the ALJ s statement why he was rejecting Dr. 12 Leonard s opinion. 13 The law is well established in this Circuit that the Commissioner need not 14 accept a treating physician s opinion that is brief, conclusory, and inadequately 15 supported by clinical findings. See, e.g., Batson v. Commissioner of Social Security 16 Administration, 359 F.3d 1190, 1195 (9th Cir. 2004); Thomas v. Barnhart, 278 F.3d 17 947, 957 (9th Cir. 2002); Magallanes v. Bowen, 881 F.2d 747, 751 (9th Cir. 1989); 18 see also Crane v. Shalala, 76 F.3d 251, 253 (9th Cir. 1996) (holding that an ALJ may 19 reject check-off forms that do not contain an explanation of the bases for their 20 conclusions). 21 Here, the Work Capacity Evaluation (Mental) form dated May 13, 2009 was 22 a check-off form that did not contain any explanation of the bases for Dr. Leonard s 23 conclusions. Moreover, the Court s review of the 2008 and 2009 progress/treatment 24 notes of Dr. Leonard that pre-dated Dr. Leonard s May 13, 2009 opinion substantiates 25 the assessment of Dr. Glassmire that the ALJ adopted. Those progress/treatment 26 notes evidence mental status examinations by Dr. Leonard (including one on the same 27 date that Dr. Leonard filled out her evaluation form) at which Dr. Leonard 28 consistently found that plaintiff s appearance, moods, affect, attention/concentration, 2 1 and speech were appropriate, and that plaintiff s medications were effective. (See 2 AR 482 (5/1/08), AR 481 (5/21/08), AR 480 (6/24/08), 479 (7/23/08), 474 (9/4/08), 3 472 (9/18/08), 471 (10/2/08), 469 (10/21/08), 465 (1/7/09), 463 (2/11/09), 506 4 (3/24/09), 502 (4/9/09), 496 (5/13/09).) 5 The Court therefore finds and concludes that reversal is not warranted based 6 on the ALJ s alleged failure to properly consider Dr. Leonard s opinion. 7 8 B. Reversal is not warranted based on the ALJ s alleged failure to properly 9 consider the lay witness statements of plaintiff s sister. 10 For the reasons stated by the Commissioner (see Jt Stip at 32-33), the Court 11 finds and concludes that reversal is not warranted based on the ALJ s alleged failure 12 to properly consider the lay witness statements of plaintiff s sister, as reflected on the 13 Function Report form dated March 18, 2008 (see AR 150-57). 14 15 ******************* IT THEREFORE IS ORDERED that Judgment be entered affirming the 16 decision of the Commissioner and dismissing this action with prejudice. 17 18 DATED: May 2, 2011 19 20 21 ROBERT N. BLOCK UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 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.
