Robin L Sykes v. Michael J Astrue, No. 5:2012cv01171 - Document 21 (C.D. Cal. 2013)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM AND 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. (See Order for details) (bem)

Download PDF

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ROBIN L. SYKES, 12 Plaintiff, 13 14 v. 15 CAROLYN W. COLVIN, ACTING COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL 1/ SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, 16 Defendant. 17 ) Case No. ED CV 12-1171 JCG ) ) ) ) MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ) ORDER ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 18 Robin Sykes ( Plaintiff ) challenges the Social Security Commissioner s 19 20 decision denying her applications for disability and supplemental security benefits. 21 Specifically, Plaintiff contends, among other things, that the decision of the 22 Administrative Law Judge ( ALJ ) was not supported by substantial evidence 23 because it did not account for the medical evidence presented to the Appeals Council 24 after the issuance of the ALJ s decision. (Joint Stip. at 4-8, 18-19.) The Court 25 agrees with Plaintiff for the reasons stated below. 26 / / / 27 28 1/ Carolyn W. Colvin is substituted as the proper defendant herein. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 25(d). 1 A. Newly Admitted Evidence 2 3 The District Court must Consider the Record as a Whole, Including Under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), this Court reviews the Commissioner s final 4 decision to determine if: (1) the Commissioner s findings are supported by 5 substantial evidence, and (2) the Commissioner used correct legal standards. See 6 Carmickle v. Comm r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 533 F.3d 1155, 1159 (9th Cir. 2008); 7 Hoopai v. Astrue, 499 F.3d 1071, 1074 (9th Cir. 2007). Substantial evidence is 8 such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a 9 conclusion. Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389, 401 (1971) (citation omitted). 10 To determine whether substantial evidence supports a finding, the reviewing court 11 must review the administrative record as a whole, weighing both the evidence that 12 supports and the evidence that detracts from the Commissioner s conclusion. 13 Reddick v. Chater, 157 F.3d 715, 720 (9th Cir. 1998). 14 Moreover, when the Appeals Council considers new evidence in deciding 15 whether to review a decision of the ALJ, that evidence becomes part of the 16 administrative record, which the district court must consider when reviewing the 17 Commissioner s final decision for substantial evidence. Taylor v. Comm r of Soc. 18 Sec. Admin., 659 F.3d 1228, 1232 (9th Cir. 2011). When the Appeals Council 19 declines review, the ALJ s decision becomes the final decision of the Commissioner, 20 and the district court reviews that decision for substantial evidence based on the 21 record as a whole. Brewes v. Comm r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 682 F.3d 1157, 1161-62 22 (9th Cir. 2012). 23 B. The ALJ s Decision Was Not Supported by Substantial Evidence 24 Here, the ALJ found that Plaintiff was not disabled based upon the medical 25 record as it existed at the time of the hearing. Specifically, the ALJ considered 26 records from the California Department of Corrections for the period in which 27 Plaintiff was on parole, as well as state agency reports and the findings of the 28 consultative psychiatrist. (AR at 31-32.) The ALJ gave the most weight to the 2 1 conclusions of the consultative examiner, who found that Plaintiff exhibited a 2 depressed and anxious mood but was otherwise normal. (Id. at 32, 262-68.) The 3 ALJ adopted the consultative examiner s diagnosis of borderline personality 4 disorder and found that Plaintiff had the residual functional capacity to perform her 5 past work as a housekeeper. (Id. at 28, 33, 267.) 6 The ALJ ignored the records from Plaintiff s inpatient drug treatment at Cedar 7 House Rehabilitation Center. Although sparse, these records support a diagnosis of 8 bipolar disorder and document Plaintiff s long history of mental instability. (Id. at 9 234, 235, 324.) Moreover, as noted by the ALJ, records from the Arrowhead 10 Regional Medical Center further support a diagnosis of bipolar disorder with 11 psychotic features. (Id. at 238, 240, 245, 250, 252, 320.) 12 More vital to the outcome of Plaintiff s applications are the records submitted 13 to the Appeals Council following the ALJ s decision. (Id. at 3-7); Taylor, 659 F.3d 14 at 1232 (Court may consider such evidence in deciding whether the ALJ s decision 15 was supported by substantial evidence). This newly submitted evidence brings 16 Plaintiff s mental health impairment into sharper focus and details the extent of her 17 psychiatric limitations. In particular, a Mental Disorder Questionnaire Form 18 completed by Romeo Villar, M.D., reveals a diagnosis of Schizoaffective Disorder, 19 Bipolar Type and Posttraumatic Stress Disorder. (Id. at 335.) Dr. Villar further 20 reported that Plaintiff has had a long history of mental disturbances; that she is 21 learning how to take care of her basic daily living skills; and has limitations in her 22 social functioning, concentration and task completion, and adaptation to work or 23 work-like situations. (Id. at 333-35 (emphasis added).) 24 Because the ALJ s decision did not consider this new evidence, the Court 25 finds that the decision denying benefits was not supported by substantial evidence. 26 C. Remand is Warranted 27 With error established, this Court has discretion to remand or reverse and 28 award benefits. McAllister v. Sullivan, 888 F.2d 599, 603 (9th Cir. 1989). Where no 3 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 a plaintiff disabled if all the evidence were properly evaluated, remand is 7 appropriate. See id. at 594. 8 Here, the ALJ must be given an opportunity to consider Plaintiff s claim in 9 light of the newly presented evidence. Therefore, on remand, the ALJ shall 10 reevaluate Plaintiff s application in light of the medical evidence as a whole, 11 including the evidence newly submitted to the Appeals Council. 12 Based on the foregoing, IT IS ORDERED THAT judgment shall be entered 13 REVERSING the decision of the Commissioner denying benefits and 14 REMANDING the matter for further administrative action consistent with this 15 decision.2/ 16 17 Dated: August 26, 2013 ____________________________________ 18 19 Hon. Jay C. Gandhi 20 United States Magistrate Judge 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 2/ In light of the Court s remand instructions, it is unnecessary to address 28 Plaintiff s remaining contentions. (See Joint Stip. at 5-15, 20-22.) 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.