Jorge Alberto Zayas-Torres v. Michael J Astrue, No. 5:2011cv00616 - Document 22 (C.D. Cal. 2012)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER (Social Security Case) by Magistrate Judge Victor B. Kenton. For Reasons set Forth in this Order; this matter will be remanded for further hearing to reconcile the Commissioner's denial of benefits and a finding of non-disability as of November 12, 2009 with a later finding on November 13, 2009 that Plaintiff is disabled and should be awarded SSI benefits. IT IS SO ORDERED. 3 [SEE ORDER FOR DETAILS] (gr)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA WESTERN DIVISION 7 8 9 10 11 JORGE ALBERTO ZAYAS-TORRES, 12 Plaintiff, 13 14 15 v. MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of Social Security, 16 Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No. ED CV 11-00616-VBK MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER (Social Security Case) 17 18 This matter is before the Court for review of the decision by the 19 Commissioner of Social Security denying Plaintiff s application for 20 disability benefits. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §636(c), the parties have 21 consented that the case may be handled by the Magistrate Judge. The 22 action arises under 42 U.S.C. §405(g), which authorizes the Court to 23 enter judgment upon the pleadings and transcript of the Administrative 24 Record ( AR ) before the Commissioner. The parties have filed the 25 Joint Stipulation ( JS ), and the Commissioner has filed the certified 26 AR. 27 Plaintiff raises the following issues: 28 1. Whether the Court should remand for reconciliation of the 1 Administrative 2 subsequent allowance of benefits the date after the ALJ s 3 decision. 4 2. 5 6 Judge s ( ALJ ) decision with the Whether the ALJ gave proper consideration to the question of residual functional capacity. 3. 7 8 Law Whether the ALJ gave proper consideration to Plaintiff s testimony. (JS at 4.) 9 10 This Memorandum Opinion will constitute the Court s findings of 11 fact and conclusions of law. After reviewing the matter, the Court 12 concludes 13 Commissioner must be reversed and the matter remanded. that for the reasons set forth, the decision of the 14 15 I 16 THE COURT REMANDS FOR RECONCILIATION OF THE ALJ S DECISION 17 DENYING BENEFITS WITH THE CLOSE IN TIME SUBSEQUENT FINDING 18 OF DISABILITY AND ALLOWANCE OF BENEFITS BY THE COMMISSIONER 19 The final decision of the Commissioner in this case is based upon 20 a Decision of the ALJ following an evidentiary hearing. (AR 26-34.) 21 The ALJ s decision was issued on November 12, 2009, and found that 22 Plaintiff was not disabled from his onset date, January 30, 2007, 23 through the date of the decision. (AR 33.) 24 Following this determination, the Social Security Administration 25 awarded Supplemental Security Income benefits ( SSI ) to Plaintiff, 26 based upon a claim that he filed on February 17, 2010. 27 Award (AR 178-193) states that as of February 2010, Plaintiff met all 28 the rules to be eligible for SSI based on being disabled. (AR 178.) 2 This Notice of 1 Citing the Ninth Circuit s case in Luna v. Astrue, 623 F.3d 1032, 2 1035 (9th Cir. 2010), Plaintiff argues that the Court should remand 3 this matter to the Commissioner for reconciliation of the two claims. 4 (JS at 6.) 5 Plaintiff argues that, On June 26, 2011, the Social Security 6 Administration 7 disability benefits beginning May 2010 based upon an onset date of 8 November 13, 2009. 9 the holding of Luna v. Astrue, supra, is controlling here and mandates [Plaintiff] that (Exhibit I.) (JS at 5.) reconciliation by the he became entitled to The Court concludes that 10 remand 11 determination denying Plaintiff benefits based on a finding of non- 12 disability through November 12, 2009, and the second administrative 13 determination that found Plaintiff disabled as of November 13, 2009. 14 for advised Commissioner of the first In Luna, the ALJ had denied Luna s claims on January 27, 2006. 15 While Luna s complaint was pending in District Court, he filed a 16 second application for disability insurance benefits and SSI which was 17 granted on August 20, 2007. 18 found Luna disabled as of January 28, 2006, one day after the date 19 Luna was found to be not disabled based on his first application. (See 20 623 F.3d at 1034.) In the Notice of Award, the Commissioner 21 The Court of Appeal determined that the District Court s remand 22 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), which authorizes a remand upon a 23 showing of new material evidence, was applicable, and substantiated 24 the lower court s remand order. In so concluding, the appellate court 25 noted the District Court s finding that the Commissioner s award of 26 disability benefits was new and material evidence warranting remand 27 for further factual consideration because it commenced at or near the 28 time Luna was found not disabled based on the first application. 3 1 (Id.) 2 The Ninth Circuit panel in Luna distinguished a previous Circuit 3 decision rendered in Bruton v. Massanari, 268 F.3d 824 (9th Cir. 2001). 4 The Luna court noted that in Bruton, the record indicated that the 5 second application involved different medical evidence, a different 6 time period, and a different age classification. (Id.) 7 case, the Court made the following conclusion: In Luna s 8 We cannot conclude based on the record before us 9 whether the decisions concerning Luna were reconcilable or 10 inconsistent. 11 Luna s first application and the disability onset date 12 specified 13 application, but she may have presented different medical 14 evidence to support the two applications, or there might be 15 some other reason to explain the change. 16 uncertainty, remand for further factual proceedings was an 17 appropriate remedy. 18 in There was only one day between the denial of the award for her successful second Given this (623 F.3d at 1035, citation omitted.) 19 20 This case is more like Luna than Bruton. The relevant time 21 period between the first finding of non-disability (November 12, 2009) 22 and the finding of disability on November 13, 2009 was one day. 23 is close enough in time between the first and second decisions to 24 necessitate a remand for reconciliation, following the holding of 25 Luna. That 26 The Court s determination that Plaintiff s first issue has merit 27 relieves it of the necessity to address the second issue, which is 28 whether the ALJ gave proper consideration to Plaintiff s residual 4 1 functional capacity ( RFC ). 2 correctly 3 evaluations, principally one of a non-examining physician, Dr. Yee, 4 and the other by examining physician Dr. To. (See JS at 9, et seq.) 5 Presumably, the evaluations of both of these medical sources were 6 considered by the Commissioner in his determination that Plaintiff 7 qualified for disability as of November 13, 2009. 8 Court s Order that there must be a reconciliation of the first and 9 second decisions of necessity incorporates a requirement that there be 10 11 assessed The issue as framed is whether the ALJ Plaintiff s RFC based on differing medical Consequently, the a reconciliation of these differing medical opinions. The same is true as to Plaintiff s third issue, which questions 12 whether the ALJ gave proper consideration to his own testimony. 13 Again, it may very well be that Plaintiff s own subjective assessment 14 of his functional limitations was considered by the Commissioner in 15 rendering his second decision finding Plaintiff to be disabled. 16 Whether or not those subjective descriptions contained in Plaintiff s 17 second application were consistent with or differed from the content 18 of his testimony at the hearing before the ALJ concerning the first 19 application is, again, a matter which must be reconciled on remand. 20 For the foregoing reasons, this matter will be remanded for 21 further hearing to reconcile the Commissioner s denial of benefits and 22 a finding of non-disability as of November 12, 2009 with a later 23 finding on November 13, 2009 that Plaintiff is disabled and should be 24 awarded SSI benefits. 25 IT IS SO ORDERED. 26 27 28 DATED: May 9, 2012 /s/ VICTOR B. KENTON UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 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.
