Robert E Spring v. Michael J Astrue, No. 5:2011cv01804 - Document 17 (C.D. Cal. 2013)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER by Magistrate Judge Patrick J. Walsh. For these reasons, the Agency's decision is reversed and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this memorandum opinion and order. IT IS SO ORDERED. (ca)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 ROBERT E. SPRING, Plaintiff, 11 12 13 14 15 v. MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of the Social Security Administration, Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No. ED CV 11-1804-PJW MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER 16 17 I. INTRODUCTION 18 Before the Court is Plaintiff s appeal of a decision by Defendant 19 Social Security Administration ( the Agency ), denying his application 20 for Disability Insurance benefits ( DIB ). 21 Administrative Law Judge ( ALJ ) erred when he found that Plaintiff 22 was not credible and when he rejected the opinions of a treating and 23 an examining doctor. 24 concludes that the ALJ erred and remands the case to the Agency for 25 further consideration. 26 Plaintiff claims that the For the reasons explained below, the Court II. SUMMARY OF PROCEEDINGS 27 On December 13, 2005, Plaintiff applied for DIB, claiming that he 28 had been unable to work since October 27, 2004, due to a heart attack, 1 high blood pressure, cholesterol, and arterial stenosis. 2 (Administrative Record ( AR ) 147, 174.) 3 application initially and on reconsideration. 4 Plaintiff then requested and was granted a hearing before an ALJ. 5 60-62.) 6 testified at the hearing. 7 issued a decision denying benefits. 8 The Agency denied the (AR 35-36, 48-58.) (AR On March 25, 2008, Plaintiff appeared with counsel and (AR 796-827.) On April 25, 2008, the ALJ (AR 37-45.) Plaintiff appealed to the Appeals Council, which remanded the 9 case to the ALJ with instructions to clarify his treatment of the 10 treating and examining physicians opinions and his finding that 11 Plaintiff was not credible. 12 ALJ held a second hearing. 13 Plaintiff s counsel requested that Plaintiff s claim be amended to 14 seek disability benefits for a closed period from October 27, 2004 to 15 September 1, 2008, due to the fact that Plaintiff had returned to the 16 work force. 17 decision, again denying Plaintiff s application for benefits. 18 20.) 19 (AR 1-9.) (AR 29.) (AR 82-85.) (AR 26-34.) On November 10, 2009, the At the outset of the hearing, On January 6, 2010, the ALJ issued a second (AR 10- Plaintiff appealed to the Appeals Council, which denied review. He then commenced this action. 20 III. DISCUSSION 21 1. The ALJ s Credibility Evaluation 22 Plaintiff contends that the ALJ s credibility determination is 23 not supported by substantial evidence. 24 the following reasons, the Court agrees. 25 (Joint Stip. at 18-20.) For ALJs are tasked with judging the credibility of witnesses. 26 making these determinations, they may employ ordinary credibility 27 evaluation techniques. 28 1996). In Smolen v. Chater, 80 F.3d 1273, 1284 (9th Cir. Where a claimant has produced objective medical evidence of an 2 1 impairment which could reasonably be expected to produce the symptoms 2 alleged and there is no evidence of malingering, the ALJ can only 3 reject the claimant s testimony for specific, clear, and convincing 4 reasons that are supported by substantial evidence in the record. 5 at 1283-84; Thomas v. Barnhart, 278 F.3d 947, 959 (9th Cir. 2002). 6 Id. Plaintiff testified at the first hearing in March 2008 that he 7 was unable to work for more than three or four hours a day because of 8 aches and pain. 9 particularly bad in his hands, shoulders, and feet. (AR 802.) He testified that the pain was (AR 813.) He 10 also testified that he thought that some of the medication he was 11 taking -amounting to 25 to 30 pills a day--might be making his 12 symptoms worse. 13 hurt if he sat too long and that his shoulders and feet hurt if he 14 stood for more than an hour. 15 day, it took him an hour to get out of bed and, on a bad day, it took 16 him two hours. 17 disability application, Plaintiff noted that he experienced swelling 18 in his hands, legs, and feet and that he often fell asleep when he sat 19 down to work on his computer or to read a book. 20 complained that he had trouble walking a block or more because his 21 whole body hurt and he had trouble breathing. 22 (AR 802, 813-14.) (AR 818.) Plaintiff explained that his back (AR 816.) He explained that, on a good In a written statement submitted with his (AR 182.) He also (AR 191.) The ALJ found that there was no objective evidence to support 23 Plaintiff s claimed limitations. (AR 18-19.) He noted, for example, 24 that Plaintiff s claims of an inflammatory condition were not 25 supported by evidence of swelling in the joints, arms, or legs. 26 19.) 27 his pain responded to treatment, and his activities were self 28 limited. (AR He also pointed out that Plaintiff s motion remained intact, (AR 19.) He noted that Plaintiff s uric acid levels were 3 1 no higher than normal for more than 12 months and that there was no 2 nerve root impingement. 3 (AR 19.) The record does not seem to support any of these findings. Dr. 4 Glen Smith, Plaintiff s treating physician, noted swelling in 5 Plaintiff s hands, legs, and feet on a number of occasions. 6 (hand); 322 (legs/feet), 453 (hands).) 7 who examined Plaintiff in December 2007. 8 joints).) 9 motion was diminished in his shoulders, elbows, wrists, hands, hips, (AR 318 So did Dr. Robert Steinberg, (AR 444 (noting edema in Dr. Steinberg also observed that Plaintiff s range of 10 knees, ankles, and toes. 11 noted that Plaintiff s pain was suggestive of an inflammatory 12 arthritis, though Plaintiff did not exhibit any swelling on the day 13 Dr. Lee examined him. 14 (AR 444-46.) Rheumatologist Joo-Hyung Lee (AR 272.) The ALJ s finding that Plaintiff s pain responded to treatment is 15 a one-sided interpretation of the evidence. 16 testified that, if he did not take pain pills, he found it hard to 17 function, he also testified that the pain just continues to get 18 worse. 19 nevertheless, he repeatedly emphasized that he continued to experience 20 pain, so much so that, at times, he felt like somebody [was] taking a 21 nail through me. 22 forth a basis for his finding that Plaintiff s activities were self 23 limited. 24 either. 25 (AR 814.) Although Plaintiff Clearly, the pills afforded him some relief, but, (AR 33, 816-17.) (AR 19.) Likewise, the ALJ did not set Thus, the Court cannot evaluate that finding, As to Plaintiff s uric acid levels, the ALJ did not explain what 26 impact they had on Plaintiff s condition and how the absence of high 27 uric acid levels for 12 months undermined Plaintiff s testimony 28 regarding his symptoms. Thus, the Court is not able to evaluate the 4 1 ALJ s finding regarding the uric acid level. Further, because the ALJ 2 had already found that Plaintiff s medically determinable impairments 3 could reasonably be expected to cause his alleged symptoms (AR 18), 4 the fact that Plaintiff lacked other signs of impairment was not a 5 proper basis for disbelieving his testimony. 6 Another reason cited by the ALJ for questioning Plaintiff s 7 testimony was that Plaintiff continued to work out of his house for a 8 time in 2007 and 2008 -while he was disabled--and attended a life 9 insurance seminar during this period. 10 (AR 18-19.) This rationale, too, is rejected. 11 Plaintiff testified that his work involved making phone calls 12 from his home for 30 minutes a day, two or three days a week, and 13 attending a meeting once every two weeks. 14 required him to sit for no more than one hour at a time. 15 Plaintiff s ability to perform at this level does not show that he was 16 capable of working 40 hours a week or that his claim that he could not 17 work full time was untrue. 18 (AR 800-01.) The work (AR 206.) The ALJ also focused on the fact that Plaintiff had returned to 19 the work force in September 2008, despite there being no evidence that 20 his condition had improved, thus implying that he had been capable of 21 working all along. 22 either. 23 employer who allowed Plaintiff to work mainly out of his home with 24 only occasional trips to the employer s stores to check on them. 25 30.) 26 and that his employer would not know if he fell asleep at his 27 computer, which sometimes happened. 28 that he would probably not be able to work if he had to go to an The Court does not find this evidence convincing, Plaintiff testified that his job in 2008 came from a former (AR Plaintiff testified that he could roll into work whenever 5 (AR 30, 32.) He also testified 1 office or drive on the freeway. 2 nothing in this testimony to suggest that Plaintiff was capable of 3 full-time work outside the home or that his earlier testimony that he 4 could not work full time outside the home was false. 5 (AR 32.) Thus, there is simply As for the life insurance seminar that Plaintiff attended, it is 6 not clear from the record when the seminar took place or what it 7 entailed. 8 discounting Plaintiff s testimony convincing. 9 As such, the Court does not find this reason for Finally, the ALJ found that Plaintiff was not credible because he 10 was only taking Excedrin for his joint pain, despite his claim that 11 muscle aches and pain were the main reasons that he could not work. 12 (AR 19.) 13 records show that -consistent with Plaintiff s testimony at the 14 hearing -throughout the period in question, he was taking Tramadol, a 15 prescription pain reliever prescribed for moderate to moderately 16 severe chronic pain for adults who require around-the-clock treatment 17 for an extended period of time.1 18 the ALJ s finding that Plaintiff was only taking Excedrin is not 19 supported by the record and is not a valid reason for questioning 20 Plaintiff s credibility. 21 This finding is contradicted by the record. The medical (AR 179, 196, 201, 235, 820.) Thus, Because the ALJ s reasons for rejecting Plaintiff s testimony are 22 not clear and convincing and/or are not supported by substantial 23 evidence in the record, remand is required on the credibility issue. 24 25 26 27 1 28 See The Physician s Desk Reference Pocket Guide to Prescription Drugs at www.pdr.net/drug-summary/ultram. 6 1 2. The Treating and Examining Doctors Opinions 2 Plaintiff contends that the ALJ erred in discounting the opinions 3 of treating physician Glen Smith and medical examiner Robert 4 Steinberg. 5 appeal, the Court would likely affirm the ALJ s findings with regard 6 to these doctors. 7 decision that he based his findings to some degree on the fact that 8 these doctors relied, in large measure, on Plaintiff s subjective 9 complaints, which the ALJ found were not credible. (Joint Stip. at 8-12.) But it is not. Were this the only issue on And it is obvious from the ALJ s (AR 16-18.) The 10 problem the Court has in addressing this issue is that it is not clear 11 how much the ALJ relied on the credibility finding in reaching his 12 decision to reject the doctors opinions. 13 with any certainty whether the ALJ would have reached the same 14 decision had he found Plaintiff s testimony credible. 15 reason, the Court remands this issue as well. 16 Comm r, 533 F.3d 1155, 1162 (9th Cir. 2008) (explaining, where valid 17 and invalid reasons are relied on by ALJ in resolving issue, court s 18 job is to determine whether outcome would have been the same had ALJ 19 not considered invalid reasons). 20 issue, the ALJ should address the doctors opinions if necessary. For this See Carmickle v. After reconsidering the credibility IV. CONCLUSION 21 22 Thus, the Court cannot say For these reasons, the Agency s decision is reversed and the case 23 is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this memorandum 24 opinion and order. 25 IT IS SO ORDERED. 26 DATED: March 26, 2013 27 28 PATRICK J. WALSH UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE S:\PJW\Cases-Soc Sec\SPRING, 1804\Memo_Opinion.wpd 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.
