Erin Kathleen O'Donnell v. Michael J. Astrue, No. 5:2012cv01261 - Document 18 (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 ERIN KATHLEEN O DONNELL, 12 Plaintiff, 13 14 v. 15 CAROLYN W. COLVIN, ACTING COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL 1/ SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, 16 Defendant. 17 ) Case No. ED CV 12-1261 JCG ) ) ) ) MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ) ORDER ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 18 Erin Kathleen O Donnell ( Plaintiff ) challenges the Social Security 19 20 Commissioner s ( Defendant ) decision denying her application for disability 21 benefits. Specifically, Plaintiff asserts that the Administrative Law Judge ( ALJ ) 22 improperly assessed her Residual Functional Capacity ( RFC ). (Joint Stip. at 4.) 23 This determination, so Plaintiff contends, was not adequately supported by the 2/ 24 record. (Id.) The Court agrees, albeit on narrower grounds. 25 26 27 28 1/ Carolyn W. Colvin is substituted as the proper defendant herein. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 25(d). 2/ As part of her discussion, Plaintiff alludes to numerous, distinct theories of error, including the improper assessment of medical evidence and the failure to call a 1 In assessing a claimant s RFC, the ALJ must include a narrative discussion 2 describing how the evidence supports each conclusion, citing specific medical facts 3 (e.g., laboratory findings) and nonmedical evidence (e.g., daily activities, 4 observations). Social Security Ruling ( SSR ) 96-8P, 1996 WL 374184, at *7. 5 The ALJ s discussion must also explain how any material inconsistencies or 6 ambiguities in the evidence . . . were considered and resolved. Id. 7 Here, the ALJ found Plaintiff able to perform the full range of light work. 8 (AR at 24.) To support this RFC determination, the ALJ needed to address 9 Plaintiff s abilities to lift and carry weight. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1567(b) (light work 10 requires the ability to lift and carry 20 pounds occasionally and 10 pounds 11 frequently). The ALJ s decision contains no such discussion and thus falls below 12 the standards mandated by SSR 96-8P. 13 This is so despite the ALJ s extensive treatment of the record, which 14 Defendant reviews at length. (See Joint Stip. at 11-12.) True, the ALJ did cite 15 evidence painting a benign picture of Plaintiff s impairments, but such general 16 evidence does not speak to the specific issue of Plaintiff s ability to lift and carry 17 weight.3/ Accordingly, for the reasons stated above, the ALJ erred in assessing 18 19 Plaintiff s RFC. The Court thus determines that the ALJ s decision is not supported 20 21 medical advisor. (See Joint Stip. at 4-7, 12-13.) For present purposes, these issues 22 need not be resolved. 23 24 25 26 27 28 3/ Without belaboring the record, the Court highlights a few of the ALJ s observations here. Regarding the medical evidence, the ALJ found it generally unremarkable. (See AR at 22.) One record, for instance, revealed a satisfactory range of motion of all joints and extremities, no reported muscle spasm[s], no low back tenderness, no arthritic stigmata, and no neurological deficits. (Id.) Similarly, a radiographic study showed only mild degenerative changes in Plaintiff s cervical spine. (Id.) As for Plaintiff s treatment history, it apparently consisted only of regular exercise and a prescription for Nortriptyline. (Id.) 2 1 by substantial evidence. Mayes v. Massanari, 276 F.3d 453, 458-59 (9th Cir. 2001). 2 With error established, this Court has discretion to remand or reverse and 3 award benefits. McAllister v. Sullivan, 888 F.2d 599, 603 (9th Cir. 1989). Where no 4 useful purpose would be served by further proceedings, or where the record has been 5 fully developed, it is appropriate to exercise this discretion to direct an immediate 6 award of benefits. See Benecke v. Barnhart, 379 F.3d 587, 595-96 (9th Cir. 2004). 7 But where there are outstanding issues that must be resolved before a determination 8 can be made, or it is not clear from the record that the ALJ would be required to find 9 plaintiff disabled if all the evidence were properly evaluated, remand is appropriate. 10 See id. at 594. 11 On remand, the ALJ shall obtain, if necessary, additional information and 12 clarification regarding Plaintiff s impairments. On the basis of this information, the 13 ALJ shall then redetermine Plaintiff s RFC with sufficient detail as required by SSR 14 96-8P. 15 Based on the foregoing, IT IS ORDERED THAT judgment shall be entered 16 REVERSING the decision of the Commissioner denying benefits and 17 REMANDING the matter for further administrative action consistent with this 18 decision.4/ 19 20 Dated: May 23, 2013 21 ____________________________________ 22 Hon. Jay C. Gandhi United States Magistrate Judge 23 24 25 26 27 4/ In light of the Court s remand instructions, it is unnecessary to address 28 Plaintiff s remaining contention. (See Joint Stip. at 13-16, 19-20.) 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.