Richard Trevino v. Michael J Astrue, No. 8:2012cv00185 - Document 15 (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
<![CDATA[
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RICHARD TREVINO, 12 Plaintiff, 13 14 v. 15 CAROLYN W. COLVIN, ACTING COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL 1/ SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, 16 Defendant. 17 ) Case No. SA CV 12-0185 JCG ) ) ) ) MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ) ORDER ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 18 Richard Trevino ( Plaintiff ) challenges the Social Security Commissioner s 19 20 ( Defendant ) decision denying his application for disability benefits. Specifically, 21 Plaintiff contends that the Administrative Law Judge ( ALJ ) improperly rejected 22 the opinion of his treating physician, Dr. Patrick Pan. (Joint Stip. at 17-20.) The 23 Court agrees with Plaintiff for the reasons discussed below. A. 24 An ALJ Must Provide Specific and Legitimate Reasons to Reject the Contradicted Opinion of a Treating Physician 25 As a general rule, more weight should be given to the opinion of a treating 26 27 28 1/ Following the resignation of Michael J. Astrue, Carolyn W. Colvin is substituted as the proper defendant herein. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 25(d). 1 source than to the opinion of doctors who do not treat the claimant. Lester v. 2 Chater, 81 F.3d 821, 830 (9th Cir. 1995); accord Benton ex rel. Benton v. Barnhart, 3 331 F.3d 1030, 1036 (9th Cir. 2003). This is so because a treating physician is 4 employed to cure and has a greater opportunity to know and observe the patient as 5 an individual. Sprague v. Bowen, 812 F.2d 1226, 1230 (9th Cir. 1987). 6 Where the treating doctor s opinion is contradicted by another doctor, the 7 [ALJ] may not reject this opinion without providing specific and legitimate reasons 8 supported by substantial evidence in the record[.] Lester, 81 F.3d at 830 (internal 9 quotation marks and citation omitted). The ALJ can meet the requisite specific and 10 legitimate standard by setting out a detailed and thorough summary of the facts and 11 conflicting clinical evidence, stating his interpretation thereof, and making findings. 12 Magallanes v. Bowen, 881 F.2d 747, 751 (9th Cir. 1989) (internal quotation marks 13 and citation omitted). 14 15 16 B. The ALJ Failed to Provide Specific and Legitimate Reasons for Rejecting Dr. Pan s Treating Opinion Here, the ALJ gave four reasons for discrediting Dr. Pan s treating opinion. 17 (See Administrative Record ( AR ) at 21.) The Court discusses and rejects each 18 of those reasons below. 19 First, the ALJ found Dr. Pan s opinion to be unsupported by his own records. 20 (AR at 21.) Specifically, the ALJ noted that Dr. Pan s treatment notes reveal 21 cursory mention of carpal tunnel syndrome. (Id.) But [t]he primary function of 22 medical records is to promote communication and recordkeeping for health care 23 personnel-not to provide evidence for disability determinations. We therefore do not 24 require that a medical condition be mentioned in every report to conclude that a 25 physician s opinion is supported by the record. Orn v. Astrue, 495 F.3d 625, 634 26 (9th Cir. 2007). Here, as even the ALJ has stated, Dr. Pan s records provide at least 27 some support for Plaintiff s diagnosis of carpal tunnel syndrome. (AR at 21; see AR 28 at 939, 943, 951.) In light of such evidence, this reason must be rejected. 2 1 Second, the ALJ found that Dr. Pan relied largely on [Plaintiff s] self-report 2 of symptoms. (AR at 21.) Granted, an ALJ may reject a treating opinion if it is 3 based to a large extent on a claimant s own statements that have been properly 4 discredited. Tommasetti v. Astrue, 533 F.3d 1035, 1041 (9th Cir. 2008). But, here, 5 no evidence supports a conclusion that Dr. Pan based his opinion, even partially, on 6 Plaintiff s complaints. Instead, the opposite appears to be true, as Dr. Pan had, in 7 fact, arranged for objective medical tests to be performed. (See AR at 945-46 8 (results from electrodiagnostic test).) In addition, Dr. Pan even referred Plaintiff to 9 an orthopedic surgeon, who performed a physical examination of Plaintiff and 10 confirmed Dr. Pan s diagnosis of carpal tunnel syndrome. (AR at 940-41 11 (orthopedic surgeon s report).) Thus, no grounds exist to support the ALJ s 12 conclusion that Dr. Pan s opinion simply mirrored Plaintiff s complaints. 13 Third, the ALJ appears to dispute the medical integrity of Dr. Pan s opinion. 14 Dr. Pan, for instance, found no sensory abnormalities with Plaintiff. (AR at 21; 15 see AR at 1006, 1012.) Similarly, Plaintiff was noted to have negative Phalen s 16 and Tinel s signs. (AR at 21; see AR at 1018.) An ALJ, however, cannot 17 substitute his own judgment for competent medical opinion, and he must not 18 succumb to the temptation to play doctor and make his own independent medical 19 findings. Banks v. Barnhart, 434 F. Supp.2d 800, 805 (C.D. Cal. 2006) (internal 20 quotation marks, alterations, and citations omitted). In other words, the role of the 21 ALJ here is not to analyze the results of medical tests, but to make findings based on 22 a comparison of conflicting medical opinions. See Magallanes, 881 F.2d at 751. 23 By exceeding its role, the ALJ thus failed to provide an adequate reason here. 24 Fourth, the ALJ found that Plaintiff s subjective complaints largely focused 25 on orthopedic symptoms, not carpal tunnel syndrome. (AR at 21.) Even so, 26 Plaintiff s subjective complaints have no bearing on Dr. Pan s medical opinion, 27 which, as established above, was based on objective medical techniques. This 28 reason, therefore, also fails to satisfy the specific and legitimate standard. 3 1 Accordingly, for the reasons stated above, the Court determines that the ALJ 2 improperly discredited the opinion of Dr. Pan. The Court thus determines that the 3 ALJ s decision is not supported by substantial evidence. Mayes v. Massanari, 276 4 F.3d 453, 458-59 (9th Cir. 2001). 5 C. Remand is Warranted 6 With error established, this Court has discretion to remand or reverse and 7 award benefits. McAllister v. Sullivan, 888 F.2d 599, 603 (9th Cir. 1989). Where no 8 useful purpose would be served by further proceedings, or where the record has been 9 fully developed, it is appropriate to exercise this discretion to direct an immediate 10 award of benefits. See Benecke v. Barnhart, 379 F.3d 587, 595-96 (9th Cir. 2004). 11 But where there are outstanding issues that must be resolved before a determination 12 can be made, or it is not clear from the record that the ALJ would be required to find 13 plaintiff disabled if all the evidence were properly evaluated, remand is appropriate. 14 See id. at 594. 15 Here, in light of the ALJ s error, Dr. Pan s credibility must be properly 16 assessed. Therefore, on remand, the ALJ shall reevaluate the opinions of Dr. Pan 17 and either credit them as true, or provide valid reasons for any portion that is 18 rejected. 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 \ \ \ 27 \ \ \ 28 \ \ \ 4 1 Based on the foregoing, IT IS ORDERED THAT judgment shall be entered 2 REVERSING the decision of the Commissioner denying benefits and 3 REMANDING the matter for further administrative action consistent with this 4 decision.2/ 5 6 Dated: February 20, 2013 7 ____________________________________ 8 Hon. Jay C. Gandhi United States Magistrate Judge 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 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 contention. (See Joint Stip. at 7-10.) 5
]]>
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.
