Alfonso M Mejia v. Michael J Astrue, No. 8:2012cv01682 - Document 15 (C.D. Cal. 2013)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER by Magistrate Judge Marc L. Goldman: For the reasons stated below, the Commissioners decision is remanded for further proceedings. (See document for details.) Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that (1) the decision of t he Commissioner is REVERSED; (2) Plaintiff's request for remand is GRANTED; and (3) this action is REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with this Memorandum Opinion. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court serve copies of this Order and the Judgment herein on all parties or their counsel. (rla)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 SOUTHERN DIVISION 11 12 ALFONSO M. MEJIA, 13 Plaintiff, 14 15 16 v. CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting Commissioner of the Social Security Administration, 17 Defendant.1 18 19 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No. SACV 12-1682-MLG MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Plaintiff Alfonso M. Mejia ( Plaintiff ) seeks judicial review of 20 the Commissioner s final decision denying his applications for 21 disability insurance benefits ( DIB ) and supplemental security income 22 ( SSI ) pursuant to Titles II and XVI of the Social Security Act. For 23 the reasons stated below, the Commissioner s decision is remanded for 24 further proceedings. 25 26 27 28 1 The Acting Commissioner is hereby substituted as the defendant pursuant to Rule 25(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. No further action is needed to continue this case by reason of the last sentence of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). 1 I. Factual and Procedural Background 2 Plaintiff was born on August 15, 1968. (Administrative Record 3 ( AR ) at 34, 145). He has a limited education and past work experience 4 as a dishwasher. (AR at 34). 5 On May 22, 2007, Plaintiff filed an application for DIB, alleging 6 that he has been disabled since May 11, 2007. (AR at 145-52). On January 7 29, 2008, Plaintiff filed an application for SSI, alleging an onset of 8 disability date of August 19, 2007.2 (AR at 153-59). Plaintiff claimed 9 that the following conditions limited his ability to work: back 10 problems, diabetes, depression, arthritis, bipolar disorder, severe mood 11 swings, panic attacks, and anxiety attacks. (AR at 202, 217, 243). The 12 Social Security Administration denied Plaintiff s applications. (AR at 13 121-24, 126-35). 14 An administrative hearing was held before Administrative Law Judge 15 Milan M. Dostal ( the ALJ ) on February 17, 2011. (AR at 79-107). 16 Plaintiff was represented by counsel at the hearing, and testified in 17 his own behalf. (AR at 79-107). In a written decision dated March 11, 18 2011, the ALJ found that Plaintiff: had not engaged in substantial 19 gainful activity since his alleged onset date of disability (step one); 20 suffered from the severe impairments of disorder of the lumbar spine and 21 asthma (step two); (3) did not have any impairments that met or equaled 22 the criteria of a listed impairment (step 3); (4) had a residual 23 functional capacity ( RFC ) to perform the full range of work at all 24 exertional levels, except work involving exposure to dust, fumes, and 25 smoke, and was able to perform his past relevant work as a dishwasher 26 27 28 2 On September 22, 2009, Plaintiff filed a second set of applications for DIB and SSI. (AR at 168-78). Plaintiff alleged an onset of disability date of August 19, 2007. (AR at 168, 175). 2 1 (step 4); and (5) was able to perform other work that exists in 2 significant numbers in the economy, including work as a hand packager 3 and 4 concluded that Plaintiff was not under a disability from August 19, 5 2007, through the date of the decision. (AR at 35). small products assembler. (AR at 22-35). Therefore, the ALJ 6 On August 31, 2012, the Appeals Council denied review, and the 7 ALJ s decision became the final decision of the Commissioner. (AR at 1- 8 4). 9 Plaintiff commenced this action for judicial review on October 5, 10 2012. The parties filed a Joint Stipulation outlining the issues in 11 dispute on March 1, 2013. Plaintiff contends that the ALJ erred in 12 finding that Plaintiff s mental impairments are not severe, and by 13 failing to properly consider Plaintiff s limitations in lifting, bending 14 and 15 Stipulation at 4-12, 15-20). Plaintiff seeks remand for payment of 16 benefits or, in the alternative, remand for further proceedings. (Joint 17 Stipulation at 20). The Commissioner requests that the ALJ s decision be 18 affirmed. (Joint Stipulation at 21). The Joint Stipulation has been 19 taken under submission without oral argument. stooping, as determined by an examining physician. (Joint 20 21 22 II. Standard of Review Under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), a district court may review the 23 Commissioner s decision to deny benefits. The Commissioner s or ALJ s 24 findings and decision should be upheld if they are free from legal error 25 and are supported by substantial evidence based on the record as a 26 whole. 42 U.S.C. § 405(g); Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389, 401 27 (1971); Parra v. Astrue, 481 F.3d 742, 746 (9th Cir. 2007). Substantial 28 evidence means such evidence as a reasonable person might accept as 3 1 adequate to support a conclusion. Richardson, 402 U.S. at 401; 2 Lingenfelter v. Astrue, 504 F.3d 1028, 1035 (9th Cir. 2007). It is more 3 than a scintilla, but less than a preponderance. Lingenfelter, 504 F.3d 4 at 1035 (citing Robbins v. Soc. Sec. Admin., 466 F.3d 880, 882 (9th Cir. 5 2006)). To determine whether substantial evidence supports a finding, 6 the reviewing court must review the administrative record as a whole, 7 weighing both the evidence that supports and the evidence that detracts 8 from the Commissioner s conclusion. Reddick v. Chater, 157 F.3d 715, 9 720 (9th Cir. 1996). If the evidence can reasonably support either 10 affirming or reversing, the reviewing court may not substitute its 11 judgment for that of the Commissioner. Id. at 720-721. 12 13 III. Discussion 14 A. 15 Plaintiff contends that the ALJ erred in failing to find his mental 16 Severe Mental Impairment impairment severe at step two of the sequential evaluation process. 17 An impairment or combination of impairments may be found not 18 severe only if the evidence establishes a slight abnormality that has no 19 more than a minimal effect on an individual s ability to work. See 20 Webb v. Barnhart, 433 F.3d 683, 686 (9th Cir. 2005) (quoting Smolen v. 21 Chater, 22 non-severity 23 adjudication must continue through the sequential evaluation process. 24 Webb, 433 F.3d at 687; see Social Security Ruling ( SSR ) 85 28; SSR 25 96 3p. 80 F.3d is 1273, not 1290 clearly (9th Cir. 1996)). established by If a medical finding of evidence, 26 Here, the medical evidence did not clearly establish a finding 27 that Plaintiff s mental impairment was non-severe. The reports of two 28 doctors, a non-examining physician 4 and an examining psychologist, 1 identify significant functional limitations associated with Plaintiff s 2 mental impairments. 3 State agency medical consultant, Calmeze H. Dudley, M.D., completed 4 a psychiatric review 5 functional capacity form ( MRFC ) on behalf of Plaintiff in May 2008. 6 (AR at 753-65). Dr. Dudley determined that Plaintiff satisfied the 7 paragraph 8 (Affective Disorders). (AR at 756); see 20 C.F.R., Part 4, Subpart P, 9 App. 1, 12.04. In assessing Plaintiff s functional restrictions under 10 the paragraph B criteria, Dr. Dudley indicated that Plaintiff suffers 11 from moderate difficulties in maintaining concentration, persistence, 12 or pace. (AR at 764); see 20 C.F.R., Part 4, Subpart P, App. 1. In the 13 MRFC, Dr. Dudley further found that Plaintiff had moderate limitations 14 in the ability to maintain attention and concentration for extended 15 periods, and moderate limitations in the ability to understand, 16 remember or carry out detailed instructions. (AR at 753). A technique diagnostic form criteria of ( PRTF ) the and PRTF mental for residual Listing 12.04 17 Examining psychologist, Kathy Vandenburgh, Ph.D., also determined 18 that Plaintiff had functional limitations as a result of his mental 19 disorder. 20 evaluation in February 2008. (AR at 653-58). Dr. Vandenburgh diagnosed 21 Plaintiff with a learning disorder, NOS and polysubstance abuse, in 22 remission. (AR at 657). Plaintiff s test results and the clinical data 23 showed that Plaintiff s intellectual functioning was in the low average 24 range, and that his memory was in the low average range. (AR at 656-57). 25 Based 26 Vandenburgh concluded that Plaintiff had marked limitations in the 27 ability to complete complex tasks. (AR at 657-58). 28 // on Dr. these Vandenburgh findings administered and Plaintiff s 5 a complete learning psychological disability, Dr. 1 Dr. Dudley s and Dr. Vandenburgh s opinions establish that 2 Plaintiff s medically documented mental impairment had more than a 3 minimal effect on his ability to work, particularly with respect to 4 Plaintiff s ability to maintain concentration, persistence, or pace. See 5 Webb, 433 F.3d at 687. The ALJ, however, failed to cite any basis for 6 discounting these doctor s findings. 7 An ALJ is responsible for resolving conflicts in the medical 8 evidence. Andrews v. Shalala, 53 F.3d 1035, 1039 (9th Cir. 1995). The 9 opinion of an examining physician, however, cannot be disregarded by the 10 ALJ 11 substantial evidence in the record. Lester v. Chater, 81 F.3d 821, 830 12 (9th Cir. 1996). State agency psychologists are treated as expert, 13 non-examining sources in disability proceedings. The ALJ may not ignore 14 these opinions and must explain the weight given. SSR 96 6p. 15 without In the specific decision, and the legitimate ALJ reasons determined . that . . supported Plaintiff s by mental 16 impairments were not severe based on his assessment of Plaintiff s 17 limitations in the four broad functional areas described in paragraph 18 B 19 concentration, persistence and pace; and episodes of decompensation. (AR 20 at 24-25); 20 C.F.R., Part 4, Subpart P, Appendix 1; see also 20 C.F.R. 21 § 404.1520a(c)(3). The ALJ found that Plaintiff had mild limitations 22 in the second and third functional areas and no limitations in the 23 first and fourth areas. (AR at 24). With respect to the finding that 24 Plaintiff had only a mild limitation in concentration, persistence, 25 and pace, the ALJ cited excerpts from Dr. Vandenburgh s psychological 26 evaluation report. (AR at 24, 655). Specifically, the ALJ cited Dr. 27 Vandenburgh s findings that Plaintiff was able to focus on tasks, 28 needed little supervision to persist, and was able to recall five of the PRTF: activities of daily 6 living; social functioning; 1 digits forward . . . [and] three digits backward. (AR at 24, 655). 2 Also, the ALJ noted that another examining physician, Dr. Duong, found 3 that Plaintiff had difficulty completing serial 7 s correctly. (AR at 4 24, 860). 5 The ALJ erred in failing to provide reasons for discounting Dr. 6 Dudley s and Dr. Vandenburgh s opinions. Lester, 81 F.3d at 831; see 7 also SSR 96-6p. Although the ALJ discussed some of Dr. Vandenburgh s 8 findings 9 disregarding Dr. Vandenburgh s finding that Plaintiff has marked 10 limitations in the ability to complete detailed tasks. The ALJ also 11 failed to explain why he rejected Dr. Dudley s finding that Plaintiff 12 has moderate limitations in the area of concentration, persistence, or 13 pace. Thus, the ALJ s step two determination is not supported by 14 substantial evidence. in the decision, the ALJ provided no justification for 15 16 IV. Conclusion 17 This case will be reversed and remanded so that the ALJ may further 18 evaluate the medical evidence and make appropriate findings. See Bunnell 19 v. Barnhart, 336 F.3d 1112, 1115-16 (9th Cir. 2003) (where there are 20 outstanding issues that must be resolved before a determination of 21 disability can be made, and it is not clear from the record that the ALJ 22 would be required to find the claimant disabled if all the evidence were 23 properly evaluated, remand is appropriate).3 24 // 25 // 26 3 27 28 In light of this remand, the Court does not reach Plaintiff s remaining arguments. See Bunnell, 336 F.3d at 1115-16. The Court recommends, however, that the ALJ consider all of Plaintiff s arguments when determining the merits of his case on remand. 7 1 ORDER 2 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that (1) the decision of the 3 Commissioner is REVERSED; (2) Plaintiff s request for remand is GRANTED; 4 and (3) this action is REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with 5 this Memorandum Opinion. 6 7 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court serve copies of this Order and the Judgment herein on all parties or their counsel. 8 9 DATED: March 19, 2013 10 11 ______________________________ MARC L. GOLDMAN United States Magistrate Judge 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 8
]]>
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.
