Amy Rae Englert v. Carolyn W. Colvin, No. 2:2014cv08323 - Document 18 (C.D. Cal. 2015)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER by Magistrate Judge Douglas F. McCormick (mt)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Amy Rae Englert v. Carolyn W. Colvin Doc. 18 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 WESTERN DIVISION 11 AMY RAE ENGLERT, Plaintiff, 12 v. 13 14 15 CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, 16 Defendant. 17 18 ) Case No. CV 14-8323-DFM ) ) ) MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ) ) ORDER ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Plaintiff Amy Rae Englert appeals from the Commissioner’s denial of 19 her request for review regarding the ALJ’s determination of her alleged onset 20 date. Because the ALJ failed to fully develop the record regarding Plaintiff’s 21 alleged onset date, as discussed in detail below, the Commissioner’s decision is 22 reversed and the matter is remanded for further proceedings consistent with 23 this opinion. 24 I. 25 FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND 26 Plaintiff filed her applications for Supplemental Security Income and 27 Disability Insurance benefits on June 29, 2011, alleging disability due to 28 congestive heart failure. Administrative Record (“AR”) 121-23. In her Dockets.Justia.com 1 application, Plaintiff indicated that the onset date of her disability was March 2 15, 2011. AR 121. On April 24, 2013, the ALJ issued a fully favorable 3 decision, finding that Plaintiff was disabled from the alleged onset date 4 through the date of the decision. AR 12-17. 5 Plaintiff disagreed with the ALJ’s alleged onset date and sought review 6 from the Appeals Council, contending that her alleged onset date was March 7 30, 2008, rather than March 15, 2011. AR 6-7, 190. The Appeals Council 8 denied Plaintiff’s request for review. AR 1-5. This action followed. 9 II. 10 ISSUE PRESENTED 11 The parties dispute whether the ALJ erred in determining Plaintiff’s 12 alleged onset date of disability. See Joint Stipulation (“JS”) at 3. 13 III. 14 DISCUSSION 15 Plaintiff argues that the ALJ erred in concluding that her alleged onset 16 date was March 15, 2011. Plaintiff contends that conflicting information in the 17 record regarding the date of onset of disability triggered the ALJ’s duty to 18 further develop the record. JS at 3-5. 19 The ALJ has a “‘special duty to fully and fairly develop the record and to 20 assure that the claimant's interests are considered . . . even when the claimant 21 is represented by counsel.’” Celaya v. Halter, 332 F.3d 1177, 1183 (9th Cir. 22 2003) (quoting Brown v. Heckler, 713 F.2d 441, 443 (9th Cir. 1983)); see also 23 Tonapetyan v. Halter, 242 F.3d 1144, 1150 (9th Cir. 2001).This duty is 24 triggered “when there is ambiguous evidence or when the record is inadequate 25 to allow for proper evaluation of the evidence.” Mayes v. Massanari, 276 F.3d 26 453, 459-60 (9th Cir. 2001); see also Tonapetyan, 242 F.3d at 1150 27 (“Ambiguous evidence . . . triggers the ALJ’s duty to ‘conduct an appropriate 28 inquiry.’” (quoting Smolen v. Chater, 80 F.3d 1273, 1288 (9th Cir. 1996))). 2 1 Here, there was conflicting evidence in the record regarding Plaintiff’s 2 alleged onset date, which triggered the ALJ’s duty to further develop the 3 record. For example, Plaintiff’s application for disability insurance benefits 4 states that she was unable to work as of March 15, 2011, yet later states that 5 she last worked in 2008. Compare AR 121 with 122, 123 (“Estimated initial 6 date of illness. I filed for and used all available state disability benefits in 7 2008.”). Plaintiff later filed a disability report in which she stated that she 8 stopped working on February 2, 2008, and that her condition became severe 9 enough to keep her from working on March 30, 2008. AR 164. During the 10 administrative hearing, the ALJ stated that Plaintiff was claiming disability 11 beginning March 15, 2011. AR 48. However, later in the administrative 12 hearing, Plaintiff’s counsel stated that “[i]t’s our contention that she meets 13 listing 4.02(a) and (b) (3) for all relevant periods. Since 2008, she’s had 14 injection fraction below 30. We have as low as 13 percent. We have 20 to 25, 15 and the treating doctor says now that it’s at 18 percent.” AR 52 (emphasis 16 added). 17 Moreover, the medical records also indicate that Plaintiff was receiving 18 treatment for congestive heart failure before March 15, 2011. For instance, 19 Plaintiff’s treatment records dated September 5, 2010 reflect “a past medical 20 history significant for cardiomyopathy, that happened several years ago after 21 she went into cardiac arrest. Since then, she has been treated for congestive 22 heart failure.” AR 194. These medical records, which indicate that Plaintiff 23 was having ongoing treatment for a history of congestive heart failure, provide 24 support for Plaintiff’s contention that her alleged onset date was before 2011. 25 In addition, some of the medical evidence upon which the ALJ relied in 26 determining that Plaintiff was disabled dated from September 2010. See AR 15 27 (citing 191-95, 196-239, 293-310, 341-45, 346-51 (noting that Plaintiff had a 28 history of congestive heart failure)). 3 1 Accordingly, this record should have alerted the ALJ to the need to 2 conduct an “appropriate inquiry” to determine Plaintiff’s actual disability 3 onset date. See Tonapetyan, 242 F.3d at 1150; see also Stephens v. Colvin, No. 4 12-8041, 2013 WL 2456682, at *3 (C.D. Cal. June 5, 2013) (remanding for 5 further proceedings where “there was conflicting evidence in the record 6 regarding when Plaintiff’s disability began”). The ALJ, however, failed to 7 develop the record in this regard.1 8 IV. 9 CONCLUSION 10 For the reasons stated above, the decision of the Social Security 11 Commissioner is reversed and the matter is remanded for further proceedings 12 consistent with this opinion. 13 14 Dated: June 2, 2015 ______________________________ DOUGLAS F. McCORMICK United States Magistrate Judge 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 1 The Commissioner cites an oft-quoted decision for the proposition that advocates for disability claimants should not be “potted plants” during administrative hearings. JS at 6 (citing Solorzano v. Astrue, No. 11-369, 2012 WL 84527, at *6 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 10, 2012)). That line, however, involves a much different context, as counsel there failed to identify during the hearing what plaintiff later argued were “apparent conflicts” between the DOT and a vocational expert’s testimony. Solorzano, 2012 WL 84527, at *6. Here, by contrast, counsel’s failure to say anything about the date issue is saved by the ALJ’s duty to develop the record when such an ambiguity is evident. Nonetheless, the Court is frustrated with counsel’s failure, a failure that has now necessitated an appeal to this Court and a remand for further proceedings. 28 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.
