Isabel M Hernandez v. Carolyn W Colvin, No. 5:2013cv00415 - Document 19 (C.D. Cal. 2013)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM AND OPINION by Magistrate Judge Victor B. KentonThis Memorandum Opinion will constitute the Courts findings of fact and conclusions of law. After reviewing the matter, the Court concludes that for the reasons set forth, the decision of the Commissioner must be reversed and the matter remanded for further hearing consistent with this Memorandum Opinion. (rh)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA WESTERN DIVISION 7 8 9 10 11 ISABEL M. HERNANDEZ, 12 Plaintiff, 13 14 v. 15 CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, 16 Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No. ED CV 13-00415-VBK MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER (Social Security Case) 17 18 This matter is before the Court for review of the decision by the 19 Commissioner of Social Security denying Plaintiff s application for 20 disability benefits. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §636(c), the parties have 21 consented that the case may be handled by the Magistrate Judge. The 22 action arises under 42 U.S.C. §405(g), which authorizes the Court to 23 enter judgment upon the pleadings and transcript of the Administrative 24 Record ( AR ) before the Commissioner. The parties have filed the 25 Joint Stipulation ( JS ), and the Commissioner has filed the certified 26 AR. 27 Plaintiff raises the following issues: 28 1. Whether the Administrative Law Judge ( ALJ ) properly 1 considered 2 including the opinions of the treating physician; 3 2. the relevant medical evidence of record, Whether the ALJ s conclusions at Step Four of the sequential 4 evaluation process are supported by substantial evidence; 5 and 6 3. 7 8 Whether the ALJ properly considered Plaintiff subjective complaints and properly assessed Plaintiff s credibility. (JS at 3.) 9 10 This Memorandum Opinion will constitute the Court s findings of 11 fact and conclusions of law. After reviewing the matter, the Court 12 concludes 13 Commissioner must be reversed and the matter remanded. that for the reasons set forth, the decision of the 14 15 I 16 THE ALJ FAILED TO EVALUATE RELEVANT OPINIONS 17 OF EXAMINING PHYSICIANS, AND DID NOT EVALUATE 18 THE OPINION OF TREATING PHYSICIAN DR. HAI 19 In Plaintiff s first issue, she asserts that the ALJ failed to 20 properly consider the medical evidence, including the opinions of her 21 treating physician, Dr. Hai. 22 On June 3, 2006, Plaintiff suffered a work-related injury in 23 which she fell and injured her head and lower back. (AR 404.) In 24 connection with her Workers Compensation ( WC ) case, she submitted to 25 an Agreed Medical Examination ( AME ) on January 23, 2007 by Dr. Kent, 26 a neurologist. (AR 255-279.) 27 shoulder girdle tenderness, as well as tenderness to percussion of the 28 lumbar spine and palpation of the lumbar paraspinous musculature. (AR Dr. Kent found diffuse cervical and 2 1 272.) 2 ... at the neck, waist, and bilateral shoulders. (Id.) He found that 3 Plaintiff s visual acuity with a corrective lens is diminished, 4 particularly on the left. (Id.) 5 He objectively found considerably diminished range of motion Based on subjective complaints and also his objective 6 examination, Dr. Kent precluded Plaintiff from very heavy work with 7 regard to the lumbar spine and from protracted flexion and extension 8 with regard to the cervical spine. (AR 277.) 9 As Plaintiff acknowledges, Dr. Kent utilized WC terminology. 10 This does not mean, however, that Dr. Kent s opinion could be simply 11 ignored, as it was by the ALJ in this case. 12 13 14 As noted by Judge Wistrich in his opinion in Booth v. Barnhart, 181 F.Supp.2d 1099 (C.D. Cal. 2002): Workers compensation disability ratings are not 15 controlling in disability cases decided under the Social 16 Security Act, and the terms of art used in the California 17 workers compensation guidelines are not equivalent to 18 Social 19 Chater, 93 F.3d 540, 544 (9th Cir. 1996); Desrosiers v. 20 Secretary of Health and Human Services, 846 F.2d 573, 576 21 (9th Cir. 1988); see also Coria v. Heckler, 750 F.2d 245, 247 22 (3rd Cir. 1984)( The ALJ correctly noted that there are 23 different statutory tests for disability under workers 24 compensation statutes and under the Social Security Act. ); 25 20 C.F.R. 26 (Id. at 1104.) Security disability terminology. See Macri v. §§404.1504, 416.904. 27 28 Consequently, because Dr. Kent s opinion constituted relevant 3 1 evidence of Plaintiff s condition after her industrial accident, the 2 failure to the ALJ to address it at all constitutes significant error. 3 Dr. 4 translation into the Social Security context, along with certain 5 manipulative limitations, which required the same treatment. 6 Kent imposed certain lifting restrictions which required Plaintiff began treating with Dr. Edward Hai on April 13, 2010. 7 (AR 439.) 8 Ability to Do Work-related Activities (Physical). (AR 460-462.) 9 Hai imposed physical functional limitations which are not accounted 10 for in the ALJ s determination of Plaintiff s residual functional 11 capacity ( RFC ), which assesses Plaintiff as having the ability to 12 perform less than the full range of medium work due to an inability to 13 climb ladders, etc. (AR 14.) 14 conclusions, he accorded them little weight because they are not 15 supported by clinical or diagnostic evidence. (AR 17.) 16 is that Dr. Hai was Plaintiff s treating physician, and did perform 17 physical examinations on Plaintiff from April 2010 through at least 18 February 2011. (AR 439, 440, 443, 444, 449, 450, 451, 453.) 19 failed to acknowledge these diagnostic examinations, and indeed, if 20 the 21 supported by diagnostic evidence, he should have re-contacted Dr. Hai 22 to obtain clarification. ALJ Dr. Hai completed a document entitled Medical Opinion Re: believed that Dr. Dr. While the ALJ acknowledged Dr. Hai s Hai s functional But the fact assessment The ALJ was not 23 The ALJ also rejected Dr. Hai s opinion because, he stated, it 24 was not consistent with the remainder of the medical evidence. Such 25 an overly general assessment does not lend itself to judicial review, 26 and the Court finds it insufficient as a basis to sustain the 27 rejection of Dr. Hai s opinion. 28 The ALJ also failed to address 4 the opinions rendered by 1 Plaintiff s chiropractor, Dr. Trimble. 2 chiropractor is not an acceptable medical source. 3 404.1513. 4 not an acceptable medical source, it is an other source to be 5 considered. 6 Regulations provide that a See 20 C.F.R. § The regulations also indicate that while a chiropractor is See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1513(d)(1). Finally, the ALJ failed to assess the opinion of Dr. Cooper, 7 O.D., 8 impairments. (AR 434-436.) 9 impact on the determination of Plaintiff s RFC, and in particular, 10 who rendered an opinion regarding Plaintiff s visual The limitations assessed may well have an whether Plaintiff is capable of performing her past relevant work. 11 For the foregoing reasons, the matter must be remanded for a new 12 hearing so that a full evaluation can be made of all relevant medical 13 sources. 14 With regard to Plaintiff s second issue concerning the ALJ s 15 determination at Step Four, since the medical evidence must be 16 reevaluated, 17 Plaintiff s RFC, and therefore, the Step Four determination. this will potentially affect the determination of 18 As to the third issue, concerning Plaintiff s credibility, since 19 the matter will be remanded for a de novo hearing, Plaintiff s 20 credibility 21 credibility determination performed by this ALJ. 22 objective medical evidence will need to be reevaluated pursuant to 23 this Memorandum Opinion, determination of Plaintiff s credibility 24 regarding subjective complaints will also be similarly reevaluated. 25 The Court will note, however, that any credibility determination must 26 be more specific than the one utilized by the ALJ in this case, which 27 basically set forth a generic comparison of the objective medical 28 evidence, must without be determined identifying without it, 5 and reliance on the past Again, because the Plaintiff s subjective 1 complaints. 2 assessment. 3 4 5 That is an insufficient basis to perform a credibility For the foregoing reasons, this matter will be remanded for further hearing consistent with this Memorandum Opinion. IT IS SO ORDERED. 6 7 8 DATED: December 20, 2013 /s/ VICTOR B. KENTON UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 6
]]>
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.
