Roberto Augustine Felix v. Michael J Astrue, No. 2:2011cv10353 - Document 18 (C.D. Cal. 2012)

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

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ROBERTO AUGUSTINE FELIX, 12 Plaintiff, 13 14 v. 15 MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, 16 Defendant. 17 ) Case No. CV 11-10353 JCG ) ) ) ) MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ) ORDER ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 18 19 Roberto Augustine Felix ( Plaintiff ) challenges the Social Security 20 Commissioner s ( Defendant ) decision denying his application for disability 21 benefits. Specifically, Plaintiff asserts that the Administrative Law Judge ( ALJ ) 22 failed to include in his residual functional capacity ( RFC ) determination the 23 opinions of certain physicians he purported to accept. (Joint Stip. at 3-10.) 24 Defendant concedes error, and thus the Court need only determine the remedy that 25 is, whether to remand this case for further administrative proceedings, or to reverse 26 and direct an immediate award of benefits. (See Joint Stip. at 6.) The decision of whether to reverse or remand is within the court s discretion. 27 28 McAllister v. Sullivan, 888 F.2d 599, 603 (9th Cir. 1989). Where no useful purpose 1 would be served by further proceedings, or where the record has been fully 2 developed, it is appropriate to exercise discretion to direct an immediate award of 3 benefits. See Benecke v. Barnhart, 379 F.3d 587, 595-96 (9th Cir. 2004). But where 4 there are outstanding issues that must be resolved before a determination can be 5 made, or it is not clear from the record that the ALJ would be required to find 6 plaintiff disabled if all the evidence were properly evaluated, remand is appropriate. 7 See id. at 594. 8 Here, at least two outstanding issues remain. 9 First, the ALJ s error, as even Plaintiff admits, can be interpreted as either an 10 incomplete RFC determination, or a partial rejection of the physician opinions. (See 11 Joint Stip. at 3 (stating ALJ improperly rejected, misstated, and/or omitted 12 opinions).) On one hand, the RFC may simply be incomplete because the ALJ 13 omitted the physician opinions, and yet seemingly approved of them, giving one 14 great weight and finding another to be consistent with his RFC. (AR at 20.) 15 Alternatively, the omissions may indicate that the opinions were partially rejected 16 because the ALJ after discussing the substance of each opinion in detail 17 produced an RFC without ever outwardly accepting each opinion in whole. The 18 Court finds no reliable indication either way, and will not venture into that terrain on 19 a whim. 20 Second, even if the Court were to revise the RFC to reflect the omitted 21 opinions, the existing testimony of the vocational expert would not be responsive to 22 the new RFC. Thus, before disability can be determined, the vocational expert must 23 testify anew. Remand is, therefore, necessary. 24 Accordingly, on remand, the ALJ shall reevaluate the opinions of the treating 25 and examining physicians and either credit them as true, or provide specific and 26 legitimate reasons for any portion that is rejected. In addition, if necessary, the ALJ 27 shall obtain additional information and clarification regarding Plaintiff's 28 impairments. On the basis of this information, the ALJ shall then redetermine 2 1 Plaintiff s RFC. 2 Based on the foregoing, IT IS ORDERED THAT judgment shall be entered 3 REVERSING the decision of the Commissioner denying benefits and 4 REMANDING the matter for further administrative action consistent with this 5 decision.1/ 6 7 8 Dated: August 29, 2012 9 10 ____________________________________ 11 Hon. Jay C. Gandhi United States Magistrate Judge 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 1/ In light of the Court s remand instructions, it is unnecessary to address 28 Plaintiff s remaining contentions. (See Joint Stip. at 10-14, 17.) 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.