Rodolfo Ayala v. Michael J Astrue, No. 8:2012cv00607 - Document 19 (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. (See Order for details) 1 (bem)

Download PDF

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RODOLFO AYALA, 12 Plaintiff, 13 14 v. 15 CAROLYN W. COLVIN, ACTING COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL 1/ SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, 16 Defendant. 17 ) Case No. SA CV 12-0607 JCG ) ) ) ) MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ) ORDER ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 18 Rodolfo Ayala ( 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 opinions of his treating physicians. (Joint Stip. at 3-10, 12.) The Court agrees 23 with Plaintiff for the reasons stated 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/ 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 B. The ALJ Failed to Provide Specific and Legitimate Reasons for Rejecting the Opinions of Plaintiff s Treating Physicians 15 Here, the ALJ provided a single reason for rejecting the opinions of Plaintiff s 16 17 treating physicians: they all exceeded their roles by opin[ing] that [Plaintiff] was 18 disabled at various times. 2/ (AR at 16.) This reason alone, however, is insufficient 19 to discredit a treating opinion, much less multiple ones.3/ 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 2/ While the substance of Plaintiff s treating records was discussed at length, the ALJ s assessment of those records was limited to this single reason. (Compare AR at 14-16 with AR at 14.) Though Defendant alludes two additional reasons for the ALJ s assessment (i.e., Plaintiff s infrequent treatment history and the lack of any referrals to pain management), both are cited out of context. (Joint Stip. at 12.) Those two reasons serve to discredit Plaintiff s statements, not the treating physicians . (See AR at 14.) 3/ Curiously, in making this credibility assessment, the ALJ spoke of Plaintiff s treating physicians as a single class without differentiating exactly which opinions 28 were being discredited. (See AR at 16 ( [t]he claimant s treatment providers had 27 2 1 True, the issue of disability is a legal one, and a treating physician s beliefs 2 regarding it are not entitled to any deference. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(e). At the same 3 time, however, such beliefs bear little weight on the validity of an accompanying 4 medical assessment, which must be addressed separately. Boardman v. Astrue, 286 5 F. App x 397, 399 (9th Cir. 2008). The ALJ wholly failed to discuss the medical 6 value of the treating physicians opinions, and thus a finding of error is appropriate.4/ 7 Accordingly, for the reasons stated above, the Court determines that the ALJ 8 improperly discredited the opinions of his treating physicians. The Court thus 9 determines that the ALJ s decision is not supported by substantial evidence. Mayes 10 v. Massanari, 276 F.3d 453, 458-59 (9th Cir. 2001). 11 C. Remand is Warranted 12 With error established, this Court has discretion to remand or reverse and 13 award benefits. McAllister v. Sullivan, 888 F.2d 599, 603 (9th Cir. 1989). Where no 14 useful purpose would be served by further proceedings, or where the record has been 15 fully developed, it is appropriate to exercise this discretion to direct an immediate 16 award of benefits. See Benecke v. Barnhart, 379 F.3d 587, 595-96 (9th Cir. 2004). 17 But where there are outstanding issues that must be resolved before a determination 18 can be made, or it is not clear from the record that the ALJ would be required to find 19 plaintiff disabled if all the evidence were properly evaluated, remand is appropriate. 20 See id. at 594. 21 22 opined the claimant was disabled at various times since his initial injury to his right knee. ).) 23 4/ Contrary to Defendant s suggestions, this conclusion does not change simply 24 because the ALJ also gave significant weight to the opinions of the consultative 25 examiner and state agency consultant. (Joint Stip. at 10-11.) Under the specific and 26 legitimate standard, the ALJ must set forth his own interpretations [of conflicting medical evidence] and explain why they, rather than the doctors , are correct. 27 Embrey v. Bowen, 849 F.2d 418, 421-22 (9th Cir. 1988). No discussion of 28 conflicting medical evidence was made here. 3 1 Here, in light of the ALJ s error, the credibility of the treating physicians 2 opinions must be properly assessed. Therefore, on remand, the ALJ shall reevaluate 3 their opinions and either credit them as true, or provide valid reasons for any portion 4 that is rejected. 5 Based on the foregoing, IT IS ORDERED THAT judgment shall be entered 6 REVERSING the decision of the Commissioner denying benefits and 7 REMANDING the matter for further administrative action consistent with this 8 decision.5/ 9 10 Dated: July 29, 2013 11 ____________________________________ 12 Hon. Jay C. Gandhi United States Magistrate Judge 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 5/ In light of the Court s remand instructions, it is unnecessary to address 28 Plaintiff s remaining contentions. (See Joint Stip. at 12-16, 18-23, 26.) 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.