Albert Hamilton et al v. Michael J. Astrue, No. 5:2012cv00892 - Document 19 (C.D. Cal. 2013)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER by Magistrate Judge Jay C. Gandhi, IT IS ORDERED THAT judgment shall be entered AFFIRMING the decision of the Commissioner denying benefits. (SEE ORDER FOR FURTHER DETAILS) (lmh)

Download PDF

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 12 ALBERT HAMILTON, ON BEHALF OF A.H. III, Plaintiff, 13 v. 14 16 CAROLYN W. COLVIN, ACTING COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL 1/ SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, 17 Defendant. 15 ) Case No. ED CV 12-0892 JCG ) ) ) ) MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ) ORDER ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 18 Albert Hamilton ( Plaintiff ), on behalf of his minor son A.H. III ( A.H. ), 19 20 challenges the Social Security Commissioner s ( Defendant ) decision denying 21 A.H. s application for disability benefits. Specifically, Plaintiff argues that the Administrative Law Judge ( ALJ ) 22 23 failed to properly develop the record by not seeking clarification of a July 2, 2010 24 note by his treating physician, Dr. Martin J. Porcelli. (Joint Stip. at 3-6, 8.) 25 Consisting of only a single sentence, this note contains Dr. Porcelli s opinion that 26 A.H. is not capable of going to school for 99 months. (AR at 235.) According to 27 28 1/ Carolyn W. Colvin is substituted as the proper defendant herein. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 25(d). 1 Plaintiff, this note is puzzling and needs clarification. (Joint Stip. at 4.) 2 The Court addresses and rejects Plaintiff s contentions below. 3 [T]he ALJ has a special duty to fully and fairly develop the record and to 4 assure that the claimant s interests are considered. Smolen v. Chater, 80 F.3d 1273, 5 1288 (9th Cir. 1996) (citing Brown v. Heckler, 713 F.2d 441, 443 (9th Cir.1983)). If 6 the evidence is ambiguous or inadequate to permit a proper evaluation of a 7 claimant s impairments, the ALJ must also conduct an appropriate inquiry into 8 that deficiency. Id. at 1288. 9 Here, Dr. Porcelli s note is neither ambiguous nor inadequate. 10 On the issue of ambiguity, Plaintiff asserts that Dr. Porcelli s note is unclear 11 as to whether A.H. actually missed or is going to miss school, and whether 99 12 months was simply shorthand for a lot of school. (Joint Stip. at 4.) Or perhaps, 13 as Plaintiff further posits, Dr. Porcelli mistakenly wrote months when he meant 14 something else. (Id.) Two reasons belie Plaintiff s position here. 15 First, none of Plaintiff s interpretations are based on the plain language of Dr. 16 Porcelli s note, which clearly stated that A.H. is incapable of attending school for 17 99 months. (AR at 235.) That is, following the note s date, A.H. would have had to 18 miss classes for the next 99 months.2/ Second, regarding Plaintiff s claim that Dr. Porcelli mistakenly wrote 19 20 months, a finding of error is not appropriate simply because certain evidence may 21 be erroneous without any reason to believe so. Otherwise, reversals would be 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2/ Although the ALJ also stated that there was no evidence [Plaintiff] missed 99 months of school, the Court interprets this statement as meaning that no such evidence existed either before or after the date of Dr. Porcelli s note. (AR at 16.) This interpretation is especially appropriate considering that the ALJ issued his decision on May 13, 2011 nearly a year after Dr. Porcelli s note. (AR at 21.) Further, lest any doubts persist, that Dr. Porcelli s 2010 note is forward looking is also suggested by the presence of A.H. s school records from the years 2008 and 2009. (See AR at 196-215.) 2 1 available for the asking, provided that a claimant simply allege that a key piece of 2 evidence does not mean what it purports to mean. 3 Turning, then, to the issue of adequacy, there is no evidence that Dr. Porcelli s 4 note resulted in an improper evaluation of A.H. s impairments. Regardless of any 5 possible misinterpretations of the 99 months phrase, the ALJ s other reasons for 6 rejecting Dr. Porcelli s opinion remain intact. For instance, the ALJ discounted Dr. 7 Porcelli s note for not expressing any specific limitations. (AR at 16.) Further, as 8 the ALJ also noted, Dr. Porcelli s opinion that A.H. is having increasing difficulty 9 with . . . social encounters is undermined by A.H. s own testimony that he was 10 friendly with his classmates and had friends in and outside of school. (AR at 11 16; compare AR at 243 with AR at 41-42.) Plaintiff does not contest the validity of 12 these reasons, and thus, at most, alleges harmless error. See Batson v. Comm r of 13 Soc. Sec., 359 F.3d 1190, 1197 (9th Cir. 2004). 14 Therefore, for the reasons stated above, the Court finds that the ALJ made no 15 reversible error in developing the record with respect to Dr. Porcelli s July 2, 2010 16 note. 17 Accordingly, the Court determines that substantial evidence supported the 18 ALJ s decision that Plaintiff was not disabled. See Mayes v. Massanari, 276 F.3d 19 453, 458-59 (9th Cir. 2001). 20 Based on the foregoing, IT IS ORDERED THAT judgment shall be entered 21 AFFIRMING the decision of the Commissioner denying benefits. 22 23 Dated: April 29, 2013 24 ____________________________________ 25 Hon. Jay C. Gandhi 26 United States Magistrate Judge 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.