Johnny Henry Beckham v. Michael J Astrue, No. 2:2011cv07668 - Document 15 (C.D. Cal. 2012)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM AND OPINION 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) (bem)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JOHNNY HENRY BECKHAM, 12 Plaintiff, 13 14 v. 15 MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, 16 Defendant. 17 ) Case No. CV 11-7668 JCG ) ) ) ) MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ) ORDER ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 18 19 Johnny Henry Beckham ( Plaintiff ) challenges the Social Security 20 Commissioner s ( Defendant ) decision denying his application for disability 21 benefits. Specifically, Plaintiff contends that the Administrative Law Judge ( ALJ ) 22 improperly rejected the opinion of his treating physician, Dr. Gabriel Rubanenko. 23 (Joint Stip. at 3-6, 16-17.) The Court agrees with Plaintiff for the reasons discussed 24 below. As a general rule, more weight should be given to the opinion of a treating 25 26 source than to the opinion of doctors who do not treat the claimant. Lester v. 27 Chater, 81 F.3d 821, 830 (9th Cir. 1995). This is so because a treating physician is 28 employed to cure and has a greater opportunity to know and observe the patient as 1 an individual. Sprague v. Bowen, 812 F.2d 1226, 1230 (9th Cir. 1987). 2 Where the treating doctor s opinion is contradicted by another doctor, the 3 [ALJ] may not reject this opinion without providing specific and legitimate reasons 4 supported by substantial evidence in the record[.] Lester, 81 F.3d at 830 (internal 5 quotation marks and citation omitted). The ALJ can meet the requisite specific and 6 legitimate standard by setting out a detailed and thorough summary of the facts and 7 conflicting clinical evidence, stating his interpretation thereof, and making findings. 8 Magallanes v. Bowen, 881 F.2d 747, 751 (9th Cir. 1989) (internal quotation marks 9 and citation omitted). 10 A. The ALJ s Rejection of Dr. Rubanenko s Treating Opinion 11 As a preliminary matter, the Court notes that the ALJ s decision does not 12 clearly reject Dr. Rubanenko s opinion, much less provide reasons for doing so. On one hand, presumably some of the work restrictions assigned by Dr. 13 14 Rubanenko1/ were rejected because they are not reflected in the ALJ s Residual 15 Functional Capacity ( RFC ) determination.2/ For instance, entirely omitted from 16 the RFC determination are Dr. Rubanenko s requirements that Plaintiff be allowed 17 to shift positions at will, take unscheduled hourly breaks, and be absent more than 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 1/ According to Dr. Rubanenko, Plaintiff can occasionally lift and/or carry 10 pounds, stand and/or walk for at least two of an eight hour day, sit for less than six of an eight hour day, and reach only occasionally. (See AR at 1247-49.) Further, Plaintiff must be allowed to shift positions at will, take unscheduled hourly breaks, and be absent for more than three days per month. (Id.) As for postural restrictions, Plaintiff must never bend, climb, crouch, balance, or crawl, and can only occasionally kneel. (Id.) 2/ The ALJ found that Plaintiff has the [RFC] to perform light exertional level 25 work . . . with the capacity to lift/carry 20 pounds occasionally and 10 pounds 26 frequently, stand/walk for two hours in an eight-hour workday with frequent breaks in standing, sit for six hours in an eight-hour workday, perform postural activities 27 occasionally with the upper extremities, and climb on an occasional basis, and the 28 claimant cannot engage in bilateral reaching above the shoulder level. (AR at 24.) 2 1 three times per month. (Compare AR at 1247-49 with AR at 24.) That Dr. 2 Rubanenko s opinion was rejected is a conclusion also suggested by the ALJ s 3 different limitations regarding Plaintiff s abilities to sit and lift. (Compare AR at 4 1247-49 (limiting Plaintiff to sitting for less than six hours of an eight hour day, and 5 occasionally lifting and/or carrying 10 pounds) with AR at 24 (limiting Plaintiff to 6 sitting for at least six hours of an eight hour day, and lifting and/or carrying 20 7 pounds).) 8 Yet, despite apparently rejecting Dr. Rubanenko s opinion, the ALJ s decision 9 never voiced a single criticism of the opinion. Indeed, to the contrary, the ALJ gave 10 the opinion great weight and even credited it as a longitudinal perspective on 11 [Plaintiff s] health. (AR at 26.) Given these facts, the ALJ either rejected Dr. 12 Rubanenko s opinion, or simply failed to fully consider it when determining 13 Plaintiff s RFC. Rather than find error at this point, the Court will instead give the 14 ALJ the benefit of doubt and assume that some portion of Dr. Rubanenko s opinion 15 was rejected. 16 17 18 B. The ALJ Did Not Provide Specific and Legitimate Reasons for Rejecting Dr. Rubanenko s Opinion In light of the ambiguity described above, it is not surprising that the ALJ did 19 not offer any clear reasons supporting his rejection of Dr. Rubanenko s opinion. As 20 to this deficiency, Defendant asserts that the ALJ need not state his reasoning 21 explicitly, but rather it is the Court that must draw inferences from the ALJ s 22 decision. (Joint Stip. at 11-12.); Magallanes, 881 F.2d at 755. 23 Defendant s contention is true, however, only if those inferences are there to 24 be drawn. Magallanes, 881 F.2d at 751. In other words, there must be some basis 25 in the language of the decision from which the Court may build upon. See id. at 755 26 ( we are not deprived of our faculties for drawing specific and legitimate inferences 27 from the ALJ's opinion. It is proper for us to read the paragraph discussing [a 28 treating physician s] findings . . . and draw inferences [from it] (emphasis added)). 3 1 Here, as Defendant points out, ample reasons exist in the record to reject Dr. 2 Rubanenko s opinion. (See Joint Stip. at 12-15.) After all, Doctors Siciarz, Vu, and 3 Ahmed all assigned numerous work limitations that differ from Dr. Rubanenko s 4 and would support the ALJ s RFC determination. (See AR at 75-99, 1175-79, 11805 85.) For instance, all three physicians found, as the ALJ did, that Plaintiff can lift 6 and/or carry 20 pounds occasionally and 10 pounds frequently. (AR at 77, 1178, 7 1181.) Similarly, Doctors Vu and Ahmed, like the ALJ, limited Plaintiff to sitting 8 for up to six hours, while Dr. Siciarz did not even restrict Plaintiff s sitting. (AR at 9 77-78, 1178, 1181.) 10 Nevertheless, absent some basis in the ALJ s decision, the Court cannot infer 11 any of these reasons. In his decision, the ALJ merely restated the opinions of 12 Doctors Siciarz, Vu, and Ahmed without discussing their merits or relation to Dr. 13 Rubanenko s work limitations. (See AR at 24-26.) At best, the ALJ vaguely 14 concurred with these contrary opinions as a whole and without any specificity. For 15 example, the ALJ found Dr. Siciarz s opinion to be generally consistent with Dr. 16 Ahmed s. (AR at 25.) Further, the ALJ generally concur[red] with the testimony 17 of Dr. Vu because the record generally support[ed] it. (AR at 26.) This mere 18 mentioning of contrary opinions provides no basis for any specific inferences 19 regarding Dr. Rubanenko s opinion. Thus, the Court is unable to find any specific 20 and legitimate reasons supporting the ALJ s credibility determination here. 21 Accordingly, the Court determines that the ALJ improperly discredited the 22 opinion of Dr. Rubanenko. 23 C. Remand is Warranted 24 With error established, this Court has discretion to remand or reverse and 25 award benefits. McAllister v. Sullivan, 888 F.2d 599, 603 (9th Cir. 1989). Where no 26 useful purpose would be served by further proceedings, or where the record has been 27 fully developed, it is appropriate to exercise this discretion to direct an immediate 28 award of benefits. See Benecke v. Barnhart, 379 F.3d 587, 595-96 (9th Cir. 2004). 4 1 But where there are outstanding issues that must be resolved before a determination 2 can be made, or it is not clear from the record that the ALJ would be required to find 3 plaintiff disabled if all the evidence were properly evaluated, remand is appropriate. 4 See id. at 594. 5 Here, in light of the ALJ s error, Dr. Rubanenko s credibility must be properly 6 assessed and explained. Therefore, on remand, the ALJ shall reevaluate the opinions 7 of Dr. Rubanenko and either credit them as true, or provide valid reasons for any 8 portion that is rejected. 9 Based on the foregoing, IT IS ORDERED THAT judgment shall be entered 10 REVERSING the decision of the Commissioner denying benefits and 11 REMANDING the matter for further administrative action consistent with this 12 decision.3/ 13 14 Dated: October 30, 2012 15 ____________________________________ 16 Hon. Jay C. Gandhi United States Magistrate Judge 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 3/ In light of the Court s remand instructions, it is unnecessary to address Plaintiff s remaining contentions. (See Joint Stip. at 17-18, 26-27, 27-28, 33-34, 3428 35, 37.) 27 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.
