Moustafa Metwally v. Michael J. Astrue, No. 5:2012cv00429 - Document 16 (C.D. Cal. 2012)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER by Magistrate Judge Ralph Zarefsky. (mz)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
O 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MOUSTAFA METWALLY, Plaintiff, 12 13 14 vs. MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of Social Security, 15 Defendant. 16 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CASE NO. ED CV 12-00429 RZ MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER 17 Plaintiff s chronic myeloid leukemia is in remission, and the oncologist has 18 advised Plaintiff to continue taking an oral chemotherapy called Gleevec to keep it that 19 way. Plaintiff asserts that taking the medication causes pain and dizziness, and that these 20 side effects disable him. The Administrative Law Judge found, however, that Plaintiff was 21 not disabled, and that disagreement forms the basis for Plaintiff s first argument for 22 reversal in this court. 23 Plaintiff points to a statement from his oncologist, made on February 25, 2010, 24 that the chemotherapy pills cause severe back pain, which in turn causes Plaintiff to take 25 pain medication, and that these medications collectively produce dizziness, all of which 26 render Plaintiff unable to work. [AR 483] The Administrative Law Judge gave little 27 weight to the statement that the chemotherapy caused back pain, because, she said, it was 28 inconsistent with two progress notes stating that standing and walking do not affect the 1 claimant s back pain, as well as lumbar MRIs that were normal. [AR 21] 2 The Administrative Law Judge misread the record. 3 As support for her determination that the treating oncologist s opinion was 4 inconsistent with treating notes, the Administrative Law Judge referenced Exhibits 15F/2- 5 3, 9 and 12. Whereas the Administrative Law Judge stated that these pages of the exhibit 6 indicated that standing and walking do not affect the claimant s back pain [AR 21], the 7 exhibit states that Pt c/o severe low back pain, Patient is experiencing . . . radicular 8 pain in right and left leg, Pain radiates to the foot bilateral, genitals, groin and leg; and 9 then, Patient indicates . . . standing doesn t change condition and walking improves 10 condition. [AR 484] Thus, far from saying that standing and walking do not affect the 11 claimant s back pain, as the Administrative Law Judge did, the record indicates that 12 Plaintiff felt a great deal of pain and that standing did not change the fact that Plaintiff felt 13 a great deal of pain; walking, however (like narcotics), did improve his condition. The next 14 page of the exhibit, also cited by the Administrative Law Judge, states (under the objective 15 assessment) that Plaintiff s gait and station examination reveals moving slowly due to 16 lower back pain and with the appearance of discomfort; it also states that Plaintiff s 17 lumbar range of motion shows flexion with pain, and bending on both sides is normal 18 with pain, as is Plaintiff s rotation. [AR 485] Pages 9 and 12 of the exhibit, also cited 19 by the Administrative Law Judge as a basis for discrediting the treating physician s 20 statement, contain the same statements as to lumbar range of motion, bending and rotation, 21 all with pain. [AR 491, 494] 22 The Administrative Law Judge s references to the MRI results do accurately 23 reflect that the MRI s were normal. [AR 502, 587] But the treating oncologist did not say 24 that Plaintiff s back pain was caused by a disc problem; he stated that it was a consequence 25 of the oral chemotherapy. The fact that Plaintiff did not have a disc problem appearing on 26 an MRI therefore does not discredit the statement of the treating oncologist as to pain 27 caused by the chemotherapy. 28 -2- 1 The Administrative Law Judge also stated that she preferred the opinions of 2 the testifying medical expert and the State agency physicians, none of whom examined 3 Plaintiff, much less treated him. The State agency physicians filled out a form in July 4 2009, only five months after Plaintiff s diagnosis, basing the proposed residual functional 5 capacity on Plaintiff s expected ability to perform light work after his cancer treatment 6 would have ended. [AR 313] It is hard to see how this mid-treatment opinion could 7 gainsay the assessment of the treating physician, after a year s treatment had concluded, 8 that the continuing chemotherapy caused pain and the pain medications caused dizziness. 9 The Administrative Law Judge also said that she preferred the opinions of 10 both the testifying medical expert and the State agency physicians because they were 11 consistent with the medical evidence. The evidence she cited, however, usually omitted 12 the statements of Plaintiff s pain (including the objective manifestations of that pain, 13 mentioned above). The evidence did show improvement of Plaintiff s cancer, leading to 14 remission, but the Administrative Law Judge did not address the fact that Plaintiff 15 continued to take the oral chemotherapy (presumably to keep the cancer in remission), and 16 that the oral chemotherapy affected Plaintiff s pain levels. 17 It is clear that the law requires that the opinion of a treating physician be given 18 greater weight than that of a non-treating, examining physician, and certainly greater 19 weight than that of non-examining physicians like the testifying expert and the state agency 20 physicians. Holohan v. Massanari, 246 F.3d 1195, 1201-03 (9th Cir. 2001). Also, of 21 course, the opinion of a specialist, like an oncologist, should receive greater weight than 22 that of a non-specialist. Id.; 20 C.F.R. ยง 404.1527(d)(5). And, although an Administrative 23 Law Judge may reject the opinion of a treating physician, she must provide specific and 24 legitimate reasons for doing so. Lester v. Chater, 81 F.3d 821, 830-31 (9th Cir. 1996). 25 The above discussion of the Administrative Law Judge s review of the record 26 makes clear that she did not have specific and legitimate reasons for rejecting the treating 27 physician s opinion. Nor does this fact change because the main symptom was pain. The 28 law is clear that, where an impairment reasonably could be expected to produce pain, a -3- 1 claimant s description of unexpected pain levels may be rejected only for specific and 2 legitimate reasons sometimes the cases even say only for clear and convincing evidence. 3 Bunnell v. Sullivan, 947 F.2d 341 (9th Cir. 1991) (en banc); Smolen v. Chater, 80 F.3d 4 1273 (9th Cir. 1996). This is also the case when a claimant asserts that medications have 5 produced injurious side effects. Varney v. Secretary of Health and Human Services, 846 6 F.2d 581, 585-86 (9th Cir. 1988). Here, although she discounted the extent of the pain, the 7 Administrative Law Judge did find that Plaintiff s impairment could reasonably be 8 expected to cause the alleged symptom. [AR 21] In going the next step and discrediting 9 Plaintiff on the basis of inconsistencies that, as indicated, were not inconsistencies, the 10 Administrative Law Judge committed further error. 11 Because of the Court s handling of this issue, it is not necessary to address the 12 other matters that Plaintiff raises. There remains, however, the question of remedy. In this 13 case there is little to be gained by remanding for the Administrative Law Judge to take 14 another look at the doctor s views or the claimant s testimony as to pain, dizziness, and 15 their impact on the ability to work. Those should be credited as true, see Benecke v. 16 Barnhart, 379 F.3d 587, 593 (9th Cir. 2004), and the testimony makes clear that therefore 17 Plaintiff is entitled to benefits. The period for which he is entitled to benefits is not so 18 clear, however. The record contains evidence, cited by the Administrative Law Judge, that 19 at some point, after twelve months had passed, the same treating oncologist who stated that 20 Plaintiff s pain and dizziness from the chemotherapy were debilitating concluded that the 21 pain and dizziness were under control. [AR 21, citing AR 605, 614] Thus, the matter is 22 remanded for the Commissioner to determine the period during which Plaintiff was entitled 23 to receive benefits. 24 IT IS SO ORDERED. 25 DATED: November 7, 2012 26 27 28 RALPH ZAREFSKY UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE -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.
