Robert Allen Bush Jr. v. Michael J. Astrue, No. 5:2010cv01980 - Document 17 (C.D. Cal. 2011)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER by Magistrate Judge Patrick J. Walsh. For these reasons, the ALJ's decision is reversed and the case is remanded to the Agency for an award of benefits. IT IS SO ORDERED. **PLEASE REVIEW DOCUMENT FOR FULL AND COMPLETE DETAILS** (ca)

Download PDF

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 ROBERT ALLEN BUSH, JR., Plaintiff, 11 12 13 14 v. MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, COMMISSIONER OF THE SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Defendant. 15 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No. ED CV 10-1980-PJW MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER 16 17 Before the Court is a relatively simple and straightforward case. 18 As such, the Court will dispense with the usual verbiage of its Social 19 Security opinions and cut right to the chase. 20 that his back pain required him to lie down and take naps two to three 21 times a day for hours at a time. 22 43, 46-47.) Naturally, this precludes him from holding down a job. 23 (AR 54-55.) The Administrative Law Judge ( ALJ ) rejected Plaintiff s 24 testimony with standard, boilerplate language: Plaintiff testified (Administrative Record ( AR ) 39-40 25 After careful consideration of the evidence, the undersigned 26 finds that the claimant s medically determinable impairments 27 could reasonably be expected to cause the alleged symptoms; 28 however, the claimant s statements concerning the intensity, 1 persistence and limiting effects of these symptoms are credible 2 only to the extent that they are consistent with the above 3 residual functional capacity assessment. 4 5 (AR 13.) ALJs are precluded from rejecting a claimant s testimony based on 6 generalized findings. See Vazquez v. Astrue, 572 F.3d 586, 592 (9th 7 Cir. 2009) (holding ALJ s finding that applicant s claims were not 8 credible because they were not consistent with the objective medical 9 evidence was not specific enough to withstand scrutiny); see also 10 Lester v. Chater, 81 F.3d 821, 834 (9th Cir. 1995) ( General findings 11 are insufficient; rather, the ALJ must identify what testimony is not 12 credible and what evidence undermines the claimant s complaints. ). 13 As such, the ALJ s reliance on boilerplate language to discount 14 Plaintiff s testimony constitutes error. 15 The Agency disagrees. It contends that the ALJ was only required 16 to provide a specific reason for rejecting the claimant s testimony 17 and, so long as there is substantial evidence supporting that reason, 18 as it argues there is here, the Court must affirm the ALJ s decision. 19 (Joint Stip. at 8-9.) 20 in support of this position. 21 It cites Social Security Ruling ( SSR ) 96-7p (Joint Stip. at 9.) The Court rejects this argument for several reasons. To begin 22 with, the Agency has mischaracterized SSR 96-7p. 23 talks about the necessity of setting forth specific reasons for 24 discounting a claimant s claims of pain, it also makes clear that an 25 ALJ may not disregard them solely because they are not substantiated 26 by objective medical evidence. 27 Rulings are not binding on the courts, they are binding on the Agency. 28 See Bray v. Comm r of Soc. Security, 554 F.3d 1219, 1224 (9th Cir. SSR 96-7p. 2 Though that ruling Second, Social Security 1 2009) (explaining that social security rulings are binding on Agency 2 but do not carry the force of law ). 3 circuit is established by case law. 4 circuit is specific, clear, and convincing reasons. 5 Chater, 80 F.3d 1273, 1281 (9th Cir. 1996). 6 that specific is enough is rejected out of hand. 7 SSR 96-7p was controlling and even if it could be interpreted to mean 8 that an ALJ need only set forth specific reasons for rejecting 9 Plaintiff s testimony, she failed to do so here. The controlling law in this The controlling standard in this See Smolen v. The Agency s argument Finally, even if She set forth a 10 general reason for rejecting his testimony, i.e., it was inconsistent 11 with the ALJ s residual functional capacity assessment. 12 Thus, even under the Agency s own relaxed standard, the credibility 13 finding does not pass muster. 14 the ALJ s credibility finding is defective because it is general, not 15 specific, unclear, instead of clear, and wholly unconvincing. 16 (AR 13.) In the end, the Court concludes that The issue that remains is whether Plaintiff s testimony should be 17 credited as true and the case remanded to the Agency for award of 18 benefits. 19 Cir. 2007). 20 ALJ found that Plaintiff s back disorder could reasonably be expected 21 to cause the alleged symptoms. 22 testified that Plaintiff could not work if he had to lie down and take 23 naps during the day. 24 Plaintiff s testimony and the expert s testimony establishes that 25 Plaintiff is disabled and entitled to benefits. 26 for the ALJ to do except to calculate the amount and award benefits. See, e.g., Lingenfelter v. Astrue, 504 F.3d 1028, 1041 (9th The Court finds that that result is warranted here. (AR 11, 13.) (AR 54 55.) The The vocational expert Thus, the combination of 27 28 3 There is nothing more 1 2 For these reasons, the ALJ s decision is reversed and the case is remanded to the Agency for an award of benefits. 3 IT IS SO ORDERED. 4 DATED: November 28, 2011. 5 6 7 8 PATRICK J. WALSH UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 S:\PJW\Cases-Soc Sec\BUSH, 1980\memorandum opinion and order.wpd 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.