Georgia Abraham v. Michael J Astrue, No. 5:2011cv01327 - Document 15 (C.D. Cal. 2012)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER by Magistrate Judge Patrick J. Walsh: For the reasons set forth above, the Agency's decision is reversed and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this Memorandum Opinion and Order. (ca)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 GEORGIA ABRAHAM, Plaintiff, 11 12 13 v. 14 MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of the Social Security Administration, 15 Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No. ED CV 11-1327-PJW MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER 16 17 18 I. INTRODUCTION Plaintiff appeals a decision by Defendant Social Security 19 Administration ( the Agency ), denying her application for 20 Supplemental Security Income ( SSI ). 21 Administrative Law Judge ( ALJ ) erred in failing to: 1) properly 22 consider the examining psychiatrist s opinion; 2) correctly determine 23 Plaintiff s residual functional capacity; and 3) pose a complete 24 hypothetical question to the vocational expert. 25 8-12.) 26 erred in addressing the examining psychiatrist s opinion that 27 Plaintiff would have difficulty completing a workweek, which impacted 28 the residual functional capacity determination and the hypothetical She claims that the (Joint Stip. at 3-6, For the reasons discussed below, the Court finds that the ALJ 1 question to the vocational expert. 2 reversed and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent 3 with this Memorandum Opinion and Order. 4 As such, the Agency s decision is II. SUMMARY OF PROCEEDINGS 5 In November 2008, Plaintiff applied for SSI, alleging that she 6 was disabled as of 2006, due to bipolar disorder, depression, anxiety, 7 and obsessive-compulsive disorder. 8 124.) 9 (AR 60-66, 70-76.) (Administrative Record ( AR ) 120, Her application was denied initially and on reconsideration. She then requested and was granted a hearing 10 before an ALJ. On June 9, 2010, she appeared with counsel for the 11 hearing. 12 denying benefits. 13 Council, which denied review. (AR 26-57.) 14 On August 6, 2010, the ALJ issued a decision (AR 10-20.) Plaintiff appealed to the Appeals (AR 1-6.) This action followed. III. ANALYSIS 15 All of Plaintiff s claims hinge on her contention that the ALJ 16 failed to properly consider examining psychiatrist Ernest Bagner s 17 opinion that Plaintiff would have difficulty completing a workweek. 18 For the following reasons, the Court finds that the ALJ erred in this 19 regard and that remand is required to address this issue. 20 Dr. Bagner saw Plaintiff for a psychiatric evaluation on December 21 29, 2008, in connection with her application for benefits. (AR 273- 22 76.) 23 marked limitations in completing a normal workweek without interrup- 24 tion.1 Among other things, he found that she would have moderate to (AR 275.) 25 26 27 28 1 Dr. Bagner noted a history of mood swings and anxiety and that the psychiatric medications Plaintiff was taking provided minimal improvement. (AR 275.) He opined that she would have mild limitations interacting with supervisors, peers, and the public, maintaining concentration and attention, and completing simple tasks. 2 1 The ALJ seemed to accept Dr. Bagner s opinion and based her 2 residual functional capacity determination on it: The [residual 3 functional capacity finding] in this decision is generally consistent 4 with the medical source statement provided by Dr. Bagner. 5 However, she did not include in the residual functional capacity 6 determination any limitation for Plaintiff s inability to complete a 7 workweek and did not include this limitation in the hypothetical 8 question to the vocational expert. 9 error. (AR 16-17, 55-57.) (AR 275.) This was See Bolden v. Astrue, 2010 WL 3767968, at *4 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 10 22, 2010) (finding ALJ erred when he failed to take into account 11 doctors opinions that claimant would have moderate difficulty 12 completing a workweek). 13 rejected it. 14 contradicted by the non-examining physicians, she was required to 15 provide specific and legitimate reasons that were supported by 16 substantial evidence in the record. 17 830-31 (9th Cir. 1995). 18 error. 19 By ignoring this limitation, the ALJ tacitly For her to do so where, as here, the opinion was Lester v. Chater, 81 F.3d 821, The ALJ s failure to provide any reasons was The Agency disagrees. It contends that the ALJ took into account 20 Dr. Bagner s finding that Plaintiff would have difficulty completing a 21 workweek when she found that Plaintiff would have difficulty 22 maintaining concentration, persistence, and pace. 23 This argument is rejected. 24 attributes that relate to what a worker does once she gets to work. 25 They do not relate to the worker s ability to come to work every day, (Joint Stip. at 7.) Concentration, persistence, and pace are 26 27 28 (AR 275.) He also believed that she would have mild to moderate limitations handling normal stresses at work and completing complex tasks. (AR 275.) 3 1 which Plaintiff would apparently have difficulty doing. The ALJ s 2 failure to address this limitation mandates reversal and remand. 3 On remand, the ALJ should address Dr. Bagner s opinion that 4 Plaintiff would have moderate to marked limitations in completing a 5 workweek. 6 explain how this limitation translates into the residual functional 7 capacity finding. 8 provide an opinion as to whether someone who has moderate to marked 9 limitations in completing a workweek can hold down a job. 10 Assuming that she accepts Dr. Bagner s view, she should A vocational expert should then be consulted to If, on the other hand, the ALJ finds that Dr. Bagner s opinion 11 regarding Plaintiff s inability to complete a workweek should be 12 disregarded, she should explain why.2 13 IV. CONCLUSION 14 For the reasons set forth above, the Agency s decision is 15 reversed and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent 16 with this Memorandum Opinion and Order.3 17 IT IS SO ORDERED. 18 DATED: July 2, 2012. 19 20 PATRICK J. WALSH UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE S:\PJW\Cases-Soc Sec\ABRAHAM, 1327\Memo_Opinion.wpd 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2 Though not raised by the Agency in the brief, the Court notes that the ALJ did include a limitation for being off-task 20 percent of the time. (AR 56.) The Court finds, however, that that limitation does not translate into not coming to work every day, either; rather, it relates to not staying on task once getting to work. 3 The Court has considered Plaintiff s request that the case be remanded for an award of benefits. That request is denied. It is not clear from this record that Plaintiff is disabled and further proceedings are necessary to resolve that issue. Only after the issue of Plaintiff s assumed inability to complete a workweek is addressed will it become clear whether she is entitled to benefits. 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.
