Darlen Lee v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration, No. 8:2009cv00104 - Document 13 (C.D. Cal. 2010)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AN ORDER by Magistrate Judge Ralph Zarefsky. (ib)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
O 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DARLEN LEE, Plaintiff, 12 13 14 vs. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, 15 Defendant. 16 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CASE NO. SA CV 09-00104 RZ MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER 17 The Commissioner found that Plaintiff suffered from back strain and carpel 18 tunnel syndrome. At various points in her Memorandum in Support of Complaint, Plaintiff 19 asserts that the Commissioner did not fully consider all her impairments. The Court finds 20 this to be a useful starting point in its analysis. 21 The record documents that, beyond the back strain and carpel tunnel syndrome 22 which the Administrative Law Judge found, Plaintiff had other impairments to the back. 23 These consisted of impairments to the thoracic spine [AR 176, 178] and to the lumbar 24 spine, including lumbar stenosis and lumbar radiculopathy [AR 309, 376 and 383] and 25 perhaps (if the Court is deciphering the physician s handwriting correctly), lumbar 26 spondylosis [AR 309]. The Court does not understand the Administrative Law Judge s 27 term strain, which suggests a muscular problem sometimes easily resolved with rest, to 28 include these other back problems. 1 The starting point of the five-step sequential analysis always is the 2 determination of whether the claimant is working; if a claimant is working, the analysis 3 stops there. 20 C.F.R. ยง 1520(a)(4)(i); Barnhart v. Thomas, 540 U.S. 20, 24-25 (2003). 4 Here, the Administrative Law Judge found that Plaintiff stopped working in February 2006. 5 [AR 42] In this Court, the Commissioner argues that the Administrative Law Judge need 6 not discuss each piece of evidence, and the fact that not all evidence was discussed is not 7 determinative, because Plaintiff was able to work notwithstanding additional impairments. 8 (Defendant s Memorandum in Support of Answer, 2-3, 9.) There are three problems with 9 this argument. First, it is not a position that the Administrative Law Judge himself took, 10 and the law is clear that the Court can review only the rationale supplied by the 11 Administrative Law Judge. Ceguerra v. Secretary of Health & Human Services, 933 F.2d 12 735, 738 (9th Cir. 1991). Second, at least some of the impairments were noted in 13 diagnoses after Plaintiff stopped working [AR 309]. Third, even impairments that surfaced 14 prior to the time Plaintiff stopped working, such as the lumbar radiculopathy [AR 378] can 15 worsen over time; thus, even though the problem was diagnosed before Plaintiff stopped 16 working, and even though Plaintiff received treatment, which the Administrative Law 17 Judge acknowledged [AR 45], Plaintiff continued to receive numerous facet joint injections 18 to address some of the lumbar problems, including after she had stopped working. [e.g., 19 AR 358-59] Perhaps she still would have been able to work; perhaps not; or perhaps she 20 would have been able to work with a more limited residual capacity, one which did not 21 provide that she could perform medium-level work. [AR 43] These are matters that need 22 to be explored, and were not. 23 Therefore, the action needs to be remanded. Because of this disposition of the 24 case, the Court does not address Plaintiff s arguments that the reasons advanced to discredit 25 Plaintiff s complaints of pain were inadequate, and that there is new and material 26 information bearing on Plaintiff s status. On remand, the Administrative Law Judge may 27 wish to address these matters. 28 -2- 1 2 The decision is reversed, and the matter is remanded to the Commissioner for further proceedings consistent with this Memorandum Opinion. 3 4 DATED: January 25, 2010 5 6 7 RALPH ZAREFSKY UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 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.
