LaFonce Eugene Walker v. Michael J. Astrue, No. 5:2012cv00727 - Document 23 (C.D. Cal. 2013)

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. (bem)

Download PDF

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 LAFONCE EUGENE WALKER, 12 Plaintiff, 13 14 v. 15 CAROLYN W. COLVIN, ACTING COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL 1/ SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, 16 Defendant. 17 ) Case No. ED CV 12-0727 JCG ) ) ) ) MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ) ORDER ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 18 LaFonce Eugene Walker ( Plaintiff ) challenges the Social Security 19 20 Commissioner s decision denying his application for disability benefits. 21 Specifically, Plaintiff contends that the Administrative Law Judge ( ALJ ) 22 improperly rejected the opinion of Dr. Roger Tilton, the consultative examiner. 23 (Joint Stip. at 5-10.) The Court agrees with Plaintiff for the reasons stated below. A. 24 The ALJ Failed to Provide Specific and Legitimate Reasons for Rejecting Dr. Tilton s Examining Opinion 25 An ALJ may reject the controverted opinion of an examining physician only 26 27 28 1/ Carolyn W. Colvin is substituted as the proper defendant herein. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 25(d). 1 for specific and legitimate reasons that are supported by substantial evidence. 2 Carmickle v. Comm r, Soc. Sec. Admin., 533 F.3d 1155, 1164 (9th Cir. 2008) 3 (quoting Lester v. Chater, 81 F.3d 821, 830-31 (9th Cir. 1995)). 4 Here, although the ALJ cited Dr. Tilton s opinion as consistent with his 5 Residual Functional Capacity ( RFC ) determination, the two differ in significant 6 respects. (AR at 474.) For instance, Dr. Tilton, as part of his functional assessment, 7 found that Plaintiff was moderately limited in both his abilities to maintain 8 regular attendance in the work place, and to perform work activities without 9 special or additional supervision. (AR at 526.) Neither of these restrictions, 10 however, were incorporated into Plaintiff s RFC. (See AR at 464-65.) 11 And therein lies the error. By not adopting Dr. Tilton s recommended 12 limitations, the ALJ implicitly rejected them. Contildes v. Chater, 225 F.3d 661 (9th 13 Cir. 2000). To justify this, the ALJ needed to provide specific and legitimate 14 reasons, and yet no discussion even touched upon these aspects of Dr. Tilton s 15 opinion. (See AR at 460-79); see also Carmickle, 533 F.3d at 1164. Without 16 anything more, the ALJ s decision does not pass muster. 17 Accordingly, for the reasons stated above, the Court determines that the ALJ 18 improperly discredited Dr. Tilton s examining opinion.2/ The Court thus concludes 19 that the ALJ s decision is not supported by substantial evidence. Mayes v. 20 Massanari, 276 F.3d 453, 458-59 (9th Cir. 2001). 21 B. Remand is Warranted 22 With error established, this Court has discretion to remand or reverse and 23 award benefits. McAllister v. Sullivan, 888 F.2d 599, 603 (9th Cir. 1989). Where no 24 25 2/ Plaintiff also argues that the ALJ erred by limiting him to simple tasks, 26 when Dr. Tilton actually found him restricted to simpl[e] one or two [step] job instructions. (Joint Stip. at 6.) This very argument, however, has been plainly 27 addressed and rejected by the Ninth Circuit. See Stubbs-Danielson v. Astrue, 28 539 F.3d 1169, 1174 (9th Cir. 2008). 2 1 useful purpose would be served by further proceedings, or where the record has been 2 fully developed, it is appropriate to exercise this discretion to direct an immediate 3 award of benefits. See Benecke v. Barnhart, 379 F.3d 587, 595-96 (9th Cir. 2004). 4 But where there are outstanding issues that must be resolved before a determination 5 can be made, or it is not clear from the record that the ALJ would be required to find 6 plaintiff disabled if all the evidence were properly evaluated, remand is appropriate. 7 See id. at 594. 8 Here, in light of the ALJ s error, the credibility of Dr. Tilton must be properly 9 assessed. Therefore, on remand, the ALJ shall reevaluate his opinions and either 10 credit them as true, or provide valid reasons for any portion that is rejected. 11 Based on the foregoing, IT IS ORDERED THAT judgment shall be entered 12 REVERSING the decision of the Commissioner denying benefits and 13 REMANDING the matter for further administrative action consistent with this 14 decision. 15 16 Dated: July 24, 2013 17 ____________________________________ 18 Hon. Jay C. Gandhi 19 United States Magistrate Judge 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3

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.