Richard Carter v. Michael J Astrue, No. 5:2012cv00317 - Document 15 (C.D. Cal. 2012)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER by Magistrate Judge Jay C. Gandhi. IT IS ORDERED THAT judgment shall be entered REVERSING the decision of the Commissioner denying benefits and REMANDING the matter for further administrative action consistent with this decision. 1 (bem)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RICHARD CARTER, 12 Plaintiff, 13 14 v. 15 MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, 16 Defendant. 17 ) Case No. ED CV 12-0317 JCG ) ) ) ) MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ) ORDER ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 18 19 Richard Carter ( Plaintiff ) challenges the Social Security Commissioner s 20 decision denying his application for disability benefits. Specifically, Plaintiff 21 contends that the Administrative Law Judge ( ALJ ) improperly rejected the opinion 22 of his treating physician, Dr. Mark Peterson. (Joint Stip. at 3-8.) The Court agrees 23 with Plaintiff for the reasons discussed below. 24 25 26 A. The ALJ Failed to Provide Specific and Legitimate Reasons for Rejecting Dr. Peterson s Treating Opinion As a general rule, more weight should be given to the opinion of a treating 27 source than to the opinion of doctors who do not treat the claimant. Lester v. 28 Chater, 81 F.3d 821, 830 (9th Cir. 1995). This is so because a treating physician is 1 employed to cure and has a greater opportunity to know and observe the patient as 2 an individual. Sprague v. Bowen, 812 F.2d 1226, 1230 (9th Cir. 1987). 3 Where the treating doctor s opinion is contradicted by another doctor, the 4 [ALJ] may not reject this opinion without providing specific and legitimate reasons 5 supported by substantial evidence in the record[.] Lester, 81 F.3d at 830 (internal 6 quotation marks and citation omitted). The ALJ can meet the requisite specific and 7 legitimate standard by setting out a detailed and thorough summary of the facts and 8 conflicting clinical evidence, stating his interpretation thereof, and making findings. 9 Magallanes v. Bowen, 881 F.2d 747, 751 (9th Cir. 1989) (internal quotation marks 10 and citation omitted). 11 Here, the ALJ gave four reasons for discrediting Dr. Peterson s treating 12 opinion. The Court discusses and rejects each in turn. 13 First, the ALJ found that Dr. Peterson s opinion was not supported by any 14 objective evidence. (Administrative Record ( AR ) at 54). Though this can be a 15 valid reason for rejecting a treating opinion, Burkhart v. Bowen, 856 F.2d 1335, 16 1339-40 (9th Cir. 1988), a brief review of the record reveals at least some support 17 for Dr. Peterson s findings. 18 For instance, numerous physicians have diagnosed Plaintiff with bipolar 19 disorder. (See AR at 218 (July 17, 2007 prison medical record indicating diagnosis 20 of Bipolar I Disorder ), AR at 241 (April 28, 2009 case analysis by Dr. Haroun 21 noting that Plaintiff takes [A]bili[f]y and Vistaril for bipolar [disorder] ), AR at 312 22 (June 30, 2009 diagnosis by Dr. Peterson).) Similarly, multiple sources corroborate 23 Dr. Peterson s conclusion that Plaintiff s poor memory and concentration are a result 24 of head trauma from a 1991 motorcycle accident. (See AR at 210 (Dr. Nigbor 25 indicating that the [m]ost reasonable explanation for [Plaintiff s difficulties with 26 concentration] is . . . head trauma ), AR at 215 (Dr. Benson noting that Plaintiff s 27 psychotic disorder is due to [h]ead [i]njury from a motorcycle accident).) 28 Notably, the ALJ failed to mention these portions of the record, and thus erred in 2 1 rejecting Dr. Peterson s opinion as unsupported by objective evidence. See Gallant 2 v. Heckler, 753 F.2d 1450, 1455-56 (9th Cir. 1984) (the ALJ must not reach a 3 conclusion first, and then attempt to justify it by ignoring competent evidence in the 4 record that suggests an opposite result ). 5 Second, the ALJ noted that Dr. Peterson s opinion was presented via a 6 checklist style form that included only conclusions regarding functional 7 limitations without any [supporting] rationale. (AR at 55). But to reject a treating 8 physician s opinion as conclusory, the ALJ must also determine that the opinion is 9 unsupported by the record. See Batson v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 359 F.3d 10 1190, 1195 (9th Cir. 2004) (an ALJ may reject treating opinions that are 11 conclusory, brief, and unsupported (emphasis added)). As discussed above, Dr. 12 Peterson s opinions are not without support, and thus they cannot be rejected as 13 conclusory. 14 Third, the ALJ found nothing in the medical treatment records to suggest that 15 any treating source considered whether [Plaintiff s] subjective symptoms may have 16 been motivated . . . by secondary gain. (AR at 54.) This assertion, however, could 17 be invoked against any treating physician supportive of their patient s claim for 18 disability benefits. Sinohui v. Astrue, 2011 WL 1042333, at *13 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 18, 19 2011). Further, the primary function of medical records is to promote 20 communication and recordkeeping for health care personnel-not to provide evidence 21 for disability determinations. Orn v. Astrue, 495 F.3d 625, 634 (9th Cir. 2007). In 22 light of this purpose, then, it is unreasonable to expect medical opinions to routinely 23 discuss a patient s motivations or other issues irrelevant to diagnosis and treatment. 24 Thus, here too, the ALJ lacked a valid reason for rejecting Dr. Peterson s opinion. 25 Fourth, the ALJ found that Dr. Peterson s opinion was offered as an 26 accommodation to [Plaintiff]. (AR at 54.) The Ninth Circuit, however, has 27 expressly rejected such reasoning in discrediting a treating physician s opinion, 28 holding that [t]he purpose for which medical reports are obtained does not provide 3 1 a legitimate basis for rejecting them. Lester, 81 F.3d at 832. Once again, then, the 2 ALJ lacked adequate grounds to reject Dr. Peterson s opinions. 3 Accordingly, for the reasons stated above, the ALJ improperly discredited the 4 treating opinion of Dr. Peterson. The Court thus determines that the ALJ's decision 5 is not supported by substantial evidence. Mayes v. Massanari, 276 F.3d 453, 458-59 6 (9th Cir. 2001). 7 B. Remand is Warranted 8 With error established, this Court has discretion to remand or reverse and 9 award benefits. McAllister v. Sullivan, 888 F.2d 599, 603 (9th Cir. 1989). Where no 10 useful purpose would be served by further proceedings, or where the record has been 11 fully developed, it is appropriate to exercise this discretion to direct an immediate 12 award of benefits. See Benecke v. Barnhart, 379 F.3d 587, 595-96 (9th Cir. 2004). 13 But where there are outstanding issues that must be resolved before a determination 14 can be made, or it is not clear from the record that the ALJ would be required to find 15 plaintiff disabled if all the evidence were properly evaluated, remand is appropriate. 16 See id. at 594. 17 Here, in light of the ALJ s error, Dr. Peterson s credibility must be properly 18 assessed. Therefore, on remand, the ALJ shall reevaluate the opinions of Dr. 19 Peterson and either credit them as true, or provide valid reasons for any portion that 20 is rejected. 21 \ \ \ 22 \ \ \ 23 \ \ \ 24 \ \ \ 25 \ \ \ 26 \ \ \ 27 \ \ \ 28 \ \ \ 4 1 Based on the foregoing, IT IS ORDERED THAT judgment shall be entered 2 REVERSING the decision of the Commissioner denying benefits and 3 REMANDING the matter for further administrative action consistent with this 4 decision.1/ 5 6 Dated: November 27, 2012 7 ____________________________________ 8 Hon. Jay C. Gandhi United States Magistrate Judge 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 1/ In light of the Court s remand instructions, it is unnecessary to address Plaintiff s remaining contentions. (See Joint Stip. at 11-13, 15-17, 17-19, 20-23, 2728 31.) 27 5
]]>
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.
