Michelle Baranek v. Carolyn W. Colvin, No. 2:2014cv08554 - Document 17 (C.D. Cal. 2015)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER by Magistrate Judge Suzanne H. Segal. It is ORDERED that the Judgment be entered REVERSING the decision of the Commissioner and REMANDING this matter for further proceedings consistent with this decision. (See document for further details). (sbou)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Michelle Baranek v. Carolyn W. Colvin Doc. 17 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MICHELLE BARANEK, Case No. CV 14-8554 (SS) Plaintiff, 12 v. 13 MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER 15 CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, 16 Defendant. 14 17 I. 18 INTRODUCTION 19 20 Michelle Baranek (“Plaintiff”) seeks review of the final 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 decision of the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration (“the Commissioner”) denying her application for Disability pursuant to Insurance 28 Benefits U.S.C. § (“DIB”). 636(c), to The the parties consented, jurisdiction of the undersigned United States Magistrate Judge. \\ \\ Dockets.Justia.com 1 2 For the reasons stated below, the decision of the Commissioner is REMANDED for further proceedings. 3 4 II. 5 PROCEDURAL HISTORY 6 7 Plaintiff filed an application for Disability Insurance 8 (“DIB”) on October 25, 2010. (Administrative Record (“AR”) 65). 9 Plaintiff alleged disability beginning on March 14, 2008, due to 10 severe chronic pelvic and abdominal pain, severe endometriosis, 11 severe 12 hemangiomas, 13 arthritis/arthrosis 14 hiatal 15 initially denied on June 9, 2011 and denied on reconsideration on 16 November 10, 2011. 17 Plaintiff requested a hearing before an administrative law judge. 18 (AR 107-08). 19 (“ALJ”) 20 Hearing”), at which Plaintiff was represented by counsel. 21 37, 39). 22 Zachariah Baranek and Vocational Expert (“VE”) David Van Winkle. 23 (AR 37-64). 24 17, 2012, finding that Plaintiff was not disabled within the 25 meaning of the Social Security Act. 26 requested review of the ALJ’s decision on January 7, 2013, which 27 the Appeals Council denied on September 15, 2014. endosalpingiosis, and (AR torn cystitis, fatty non-alcoholic hernia. Mary instertitial cartilage 65-66). liver in the Plaintiff’s (AR 96-99, 101-05). right liver disease, knee application and was On November 17, 2011, A hearing was held before Administrative Law Judge L. Everstine on November 27, 2012 (“the ALJ (AR Plaintiff testified at the hearing, as did her husband The ALJ issued an unfavorable decision on December 28 2 (AR 14-25). Plaintiff (AR 1-10). As 1 2 a result, the ALJ’s decision became the final decision of the Commissioner. Plaintiff filed this action on May 6, 2015. 3 4 III. 5 THE FIVE STEP SEQUENTIAL EVALUATION PROCESS 6 7 To qualify disability claimant impairment that prevents him from engaging in substantial gainful 10 activity and that is expected to result in death or to last for a 11 continuous period of at least twelve months. 12 157 13 423(d)(1)(A)). 14 of performing the work he previously performed and incapable of 15 performing any other substantial gainful employment that exists 16 in the national economy. 17 (9th Cir. 1999) (citing 42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(2)(A)). (9th Cir. 1998) physical or must 9 721 determinable a demonstrate 715, medically benefits, 8 F.3d a for mental Reddick v. Chater, (citing 42 U.S.C. § The impairment must render the claimant incapable Tackett v. Apfel, 180 F.3d 1094, 1098 18 19 To decide if a claimant is entitled to benefits, an ALJ 20 conducts a five-step inquiry. 21 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520, 416.920. The steps are: 22 23 (1) Is the claimant presently engaged in substantial 24 gainful activity? 25 not disabled. 26 If so, the claimant is found If not, proceed to step two. (2) Is the claimant’s impairment severe? 27 claimant is found not disabled. 28 to step three. 3 If not, the If so, proceed 1 (3) Does the claimant’s impairment meet or equal one 2 on the list of specific impairments described in 3 20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1? 4 so, the claimant is found disabled. 5 proceed to step four. 6 If If not, (4) Is the claimant capable of performing his past 7 work? 8 If not, proceed to step five. 9 If so, the claimant is found not disabled. (5) Is the claimant able to do any other work? 10 not, the claimant is found disabled. 11 If claimant is found not disabled. If so, the 12 13 Tackett, 180 F.3d at 1098-99; see also Bustamante v. Massanari, 14 262 F.3d 949, 953-54 (9th Cir. 2001) (citing Tackett); 20 C.F.R. 15 §§ 404.1520(b)-404.1520(f)(1) & 416.920(b)-416.920(f)(1). 16 17 The claimant has the burden of proof at steps one through 18 four and the Commissioner has the burden of proof at step five. 19 Bustamante, 262 F.3d at 953-54. 20 affirmative duty to assist the claimant in developing the record 21 at every step of the inquiry. 22 claimant meets his burden of establishing an inability to perform 23 past 24 perform some other work that exists in “significant numbers” in 25 the national economy, taking into account the claimant’s residual 26 functional 27 Tackett, 180 F.3d at 1098, 1100; Reddick, 157 F.3d at 721; 20 28 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(f)(1), 416.920(f)(1). work, the Commissioner capacity, age, Additionally, the ALJ has an Id. at 954. must show education, 4 If, at step four, the that and the work claimant can experience. The Commissioner may do 1 so by the testimony of a vocational expert or by reference to the 2 Medical-Vocational Guidelines appearing in 20 C.F.R. Part 404, 3 Subpart P, Appendix 2 (commonly known as “the grids”). 4 v. Apfel, 240 F.3d 1157, 1162 (9th Cir. 2001) (citing Tackett). 5 When 6 nonexertional limitations, the grids are inapplicable and the ALJ 7 must take the testimony of a vocational expert. 8 216 F.3d 864, 869 (9th Cir. 2000) (citing Burkhart v. Bowen, 856 9 F.2d 1335, 1340 (9th Cir. 1988)). a claimant has both exertional Osenbrock (strength-related) and Moore v. Apfel, 10 11 IV. 12 THE ALJ’S DECISION 13 14 The ALJ employed the five-step sequential evaluation process 15 and concluded that Plaintiff was not disabled within the meaning 16 of the Social Security Act. 17 that 18 employment since her alleged disability onset date of March 14, 19 2008. Plaintiff had not (AR 14). been At step one, the ALJ found engaged in substantial gainful (AR 16). 20 21 At step two, the ALJ found that Plaintiff had the severe 22 impairments of history of endometriosis with multiple surgeries 23 for 24 hemangiomas of the liver, obesity, depression and anxiety. 25 Plaintiff also alleged right knee arthritis and torn cartilage, 26 hiatal 27 cystitis. 28 not lysis of hernia, show adhesions, a cystocele, (AR 16-17). that nonalcoholic these fatty endosalpingiosis liver and disease, Id. interstitial However, objective medical evidence did impairments 5 more than minimally affected 1 Plaintiff’s 2 consequently found they were not severe impairments. 3 ALJ also found that endosalpingiosis and interstitial cystitis 4 were not medically determinable impairments because there were no 5 objective findings in the record confirming the diagnoses, and an 6 individual’s 7 insufficient to establish the existence of an impairment. 8 17). ability own to perform statements work activities, regarding her and the ALJ (Id.). The symptoms were (AR 9 10 At step three, the ALJ found that Plaintiff did not have an 11 impairment or combination of impairments that met or medically 12 equaled the severity of one of the listed impairments in 20 13 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1 (20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(d), 14 404.1525, 15 listing 5.05 1 in making this determination. 16 is no longer a listing for obesity, the ALJ also considered 17 Plaintiff’s obesity in her assessment of Plaintiff’s impairments 18 and their relationships to the listings’ requirements. (Id.). 19 The mental 20 impairments 21 listings 22 Plaintiff’s 23 “marked’ limitation or one “marked” limitation and “repeated” 24 episodes of extended decompensation, and therefore the “paragraph ALJ 404.1526). also found did 12.04 (Id.). that the not meet or and The 12.06. 2 mental ALJ severity medically (Id.). impairments did not specially (Id.). of considered Though there Plaintiff’s equal the The ALJ cause at criteria found least of that two 25 26 27 28 1 Listing 5.05 covers chronic liver disease. 20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1. 2 Listing 12.04 covers affective disorders and listing 12.06 covers anxiety-related disorders. 20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1. 6 1 B” 2 determined that the evidence did not establish the presence of 3 “paragraph 4 Plaintiff had the residual functional capacity to perform light 5 work as defined in 20 C.F.R. 404.1567(b), except she was limited 6 to unskilled work. 7 specified that she had considered all of Plaintiff’s symptoms and 8 the 9 consistent criteria were C” extent not satisfied. criteria. to (AR 19). which with (AR the (AR 18). 17-18). The ALJ The then ALJ also found that In reaching this decision, the ALJ they could objective reasonably medical be accepted evidence and as other 10 evidence, based on the requirements of 20 C.F.R. § 416.929 and 11 SSRs 96-4p and 96-7p. 12 considered opinion evidence in her finding, in accordance with 13 the requirements of 20 C.F.R. § 416.927 and SSRs 96-2p, 96-5p, 14 96-6p and 06-3p. (Id.). The ALJ also stated that she (Id.). 15 16 In assessing Plaintiff’s credibility, the ALJ followed a 17 two-step process in which she first determined whether there was 18 an 19 impairment(s) that could reasonably be expected to produce the 20 Plaintiff’s pain or other symptoms. 21 underlying impairment(s) 22 intensity, persistence 23 symptoms 24 Plaintiff’s 25 Plaintiff’s medically determinable impairments could reasonably 26 be expected to cause the alleged symptoms. 27 the 28 intensity, underlying ALJ to medically determinable had and determine also found that persistence and (Id.). shown, limiting the functioning. been extent (Id.). Here, 7 she mental evaluated of which the ALJ the Plaintiff’s they limited found (AR 21). statements effects or Next, after the effects to Plaintiff’s limiting physical However, regarding of these that the symptoms 1 were not credible to the extent that they were incompatible with 2 Plaintiff’s RFC. (Id.). 3 4 The ALJ reviewed Plaintiff’s subjective complaints and found 5 inconsistencies that 6 suggested that her pain is not as severe or limiting as she 7 claims. 8 pain is so severe that she spends most of the day in bed and 9 cannot (Id.). perform diminished her overall credibility and Although Plaintiff alleges that her abdominal routine daily activities, the ALJ found that 10 objective 11 (Id.). 12 imaging tests of Plaintiff’s abdomen were largely normal, and 13 physical examinations revealed only mild to moderate tenderness 14 and often no abnormalities at all. 15 state that she “looks well” and is in no distress. 16 ALJ also noted that, although Plaintiff told the Agency that she 17 spent most of her day in bed and only got up to use the bathroom, 18 she has made conflicting statements to doctors that she could 19 ride 20 program. 21 visited 22 conservative 23 Plaintiff’s 24 medications, 25 dependence 26 However, the ALJ did opine that Plaintiff “does experience some 27 abdominal pain associated with her history of endometriosis and a medical evidence does not support her statement. Despite Plaintiff’s complaints of severe abdominal pain, bike, walk, (Id.). a number climb The of ALJ and on also specialists, medical treatment stairs (Id.). and there narcotics some affected 28 8 (Id.). a home that, Plaintiff has only her having received Additionally, consisted evidence The exercise despite (Id.). primarily is perform opined treatment. has Treatment notes also of that oral pain Plaintiff’s functioning. (Id.). 1 her liver impairments...this pain is not as severe or as limiting 2 as she claims.” (Id.). 3 4 The ALJ also questioned statements from Plaintiff’s husband 5 at the hearing regarding her limitations. 6 husband testified that Plaintiff’s pain would prevent her from 7 working 8 statements were consistent with Plaintiff’s, the ALJ found them 9 unpersuasive because they were unsupported by objective medical for “even an hour per day.” (Id.). (Id.). Plaintiff’s Although his 10 evidence. 11 suggested that Plaintiff’s pain was not as severe or limiting as 12 she claimed. (Id.). The ALJ opined that the evidence as a whole (Id.). 13 14 The ALJ also reviewed the specific findings of Plaintiff’s 15 physicians and questioned objective medical evidence. (Id. at 16 22). 17 examining physician Taylor, who opined that Plaintiff could stand 18 and walk for no more than six hours in an eight hour day, but 19 could sit without limitation. 20 that Plaintiff could lift and carry twenty pounds occasionally 21 and 22 occasionally. 23 and 24 Plaintiff, indicating that she must avoid vibration and extreme 25 cold. 26 Plaintiff’s conditions are exacerbated by vibration or extreme 27 cold, and the ALJ accordingly granted the opinions some weight. 28 (Id.). The ALJ gave great weight to the opinion of state agency ten pounds Dodson frequently, (Id.). imposed (Id.). (Id.). and could Dr. Taylor also opined crawl and kneel only State agency reviewing physicians Betcher additional environmental restrictions on However, there is no evidence in the record that The ALJ also gave just some weight to the opinion of 9 1 hepatic 2 restricted Plaintiff from contact sports and heavy activity but 3 did not fully explain what activities Plaintiff may do despite 4 her impairments. 5 consistent 6 recommendations. specialist and examining (Id.). with physician Ahmed because he The ALJ ultimately assessed limitations the medical evidence and Dr. Taylor’s (Id. at 24). 7 8 9 The ALJ physician, also Deanna gave the Price, opinion little of Plaintiff’s treating (Id. 22-23). weight. at 10 Although Dr. Price had seen Plaintiff on many occasions, the ALJ 11 opined 12 evidence and her own examination reports. 13 described 14 greater 15 carrying and other postural tasks than Dr. Price noted. 16 The ALJ also noted that, despite Dr. Price’s restrictions on 17 Plaintiff, she did not describe any significant abnormalities in 18 Plaintiff’s 19 well.” 20 were so severe that they would interfere with the attention and 21 concentration needed to complete work tasks, however no doctor 22 had 23 attention 24 completing simple work tasks. 25 there 26 manage stress or adhere to a schedule. 27 \\ 28 \\ that her the opinions medical capacity otherwise was and no inconsistent evidence for showing sitting, presentation (Id.). were and the medical (Id. at 23). that standing, often with The ALJ Plaintiff opined walking, that she has a lifting, (Id.). “look[ed] Dr. Price also opined that Plaintiff’s symptoms noted that concentration objective Plaintiff that had would difficulties prevent her with from (Id.). The ALJ also found that evidence 10 that Plaintiff (Id.). struggled to 1 The ALJ reviewed the findings of examining psychologist Mair 2 and state agency reviewing psychiatrist Walls. 3 found 4 difficulties, but her ability to complete a normal workweek was 5 moderately 6 objective evidence does not suggest that Plaintiff’s depression 7 and anxiety inhibit her ability to complete a normal workweek. 8 (Id.). 9 opinion that Plaintiff impaired. Despite some could perform (Id.). this weight because work However, incongruence, other the (Id.). tasks the ALJ portions Dr. Mair ALJ gave of it without found Dr. that Mair’s were well- 10 supported 11 Plaintiff had a “more than moderate” limitation in persistence, 12 but 13 medications. 14 reiterated much of Dr. Mair’s opinion, and gave the opinion some 15 weight. by could the evidence. complete a (Id.). (Id.). normal workday Dr. and Walls week noted when that taking The ALJ opined that Dr. Walls’s opinion (Id.). 16 17 At step four, the ALJ found that Plaintiff was unable to 18 perform past relevant work as an accountant, a bookkeeper and an 19 office manager. 20 jobs exceeded Plaintiff’s RFC because they were performed at the 21 skilled level, and Plaintiff was restricted to unskilled work. 22 (Id.). (Id. at 24). The ALJ found that all of these 23 24 At step five, the ALJ found that, considering Plaintiff’s 25 age, education, work experience and RFC, she could perform jobs 26 that 27 (Id.). 28 experience exist in The significant ALJ and RFC considered in numbers in Plaintiff’s conjunction 11 with the national age, the economy. education, work Medical-Vocational 1 Guidelines, 20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 2, (“the 2 grids) to arrive at this finding. 3 Plaintiff was “not disabled” under the grids because she is able 4 to substantially perform the full range of light work, despite 5 her non-exertional limitation to unskilled work. 6 Because 7 erosion” in her ability to perform light work, the ALJ found that 8 Plaintiff 9 Security Act. the limitation was not to (Id.). unskilled disabled within work the The ALJ found that is meaning (Id. at 24-25). only of a the “slight Social (Id. at 25). 10 11 V. 12 STANDARD OF REVIEW 13 14 Under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), a district court may review the 15 Commissioner’s decision to deny benefits. “The court may set 16 aside the Commissioner’s decision when the ALJ’s findings are 17 based on legal error or are not supported by substantial evidence 18 in the record as a whole.” 19 1035 (9th Cir. 2001) (citing Tackett, 180 F. 3d at 1097); Smolen 20 v. Chater, 80 F.3d 1273, 1279 (9th Cir. 1996) (citing Fair v. 21 Bowen, 885 F.2d 597, 601 (9th Cir. 1989)). Auckland v. Massanari, 257 F.3d 1033, 22 23 “Substantial evidence is more than a scintilla, but less 24 than a preponderance.” 25 v. Chater, 112 F.3d 1064, 1066 (9th Cir. 1997)). 26 evidence which a reasonable person might accept as adequate to 27 support a conclusion.” 28 Smolen, 80 F.3d at Reddick, 157 F.3d at 720 (citing Jamerson It is “relevant Id. (citing Jamerson, 112 F.3d at 1066; 1279). To 12 determine whether substantial 1 evidence supports a finding, the court must “‘consider the record 2 as a whole, weighing both evidence that supports and evidence 3 that detracts from the [Commissioner’s] conclusion.’” 4 257 F.3d at 1035 (quoting Penny v. Sullivan, 2 F.3d 953, 956 (9th 5 Cir. 6 affirming 7 substitute its judgment for that of the Commissioner. Reddick, 8 157 F.3d at 720-21 (citing Flaten v. Sec’y of Health & Human 9 Servs., 44 F.3d 1453, 1457 (9th Cir. 1995)). 1993)). or If the evidence reversing that can reasonably conclusion, the Auckland, support court either may not 10 11 VI. 12 DISCUSSION 13 14 Plaintiff contends that the ALJ improperly rejected the 15 opinion of Plaintiff’s treating physician, that the ALJ’s finding 16 on Plaintiff’s RFC is incomplete and not supported by substantial 17 evidence and that the ALJ improperly rejected the testimony of 18 both 19 Complaint (“MSC”), Dkt. No. 14, at 2-3). 20 that 21 vocational expert at step five of the evaluation process because 22 Plaintiff 23 (Id.). 24 grids in determining Plaintiff’s disability status. 25 the ALJ’s decision should be reversed and this action remanded 26 for further proceedings. Plaintiff the ALJ has and erred her in husband. failing significantly severe (Memorandum to in Support of Plaintiff also contends obtain evidence non-exertional from a impairments. The Court agrees that the ALJ improperly relied on the 27 28 13 Therefore, 1 The 2 Plaintiff’s Disability Status ALJ Improperly Relied On The Grids In Determining 3 4 At step five of the sequential evaluation process, the 5 burden shifts to the Commissioner to show that “the claimant can 6 perform 7 economy,” 8 education and work experience. 9 1074-75 (9th Cir. 2007) (quoting Thomas v. Barnhart, 278 F.3d a significant taking number into of other jobs consideration in the claimant’s national RFC, age, Hoopai v. Astrue, 499 F.3d 1071, 10 947, 955 (9th Cir. 2002)). 11 are a significant number of other jobs in the national economy 12 that 13 vocational expert, or by using the grids. 14 1101 (citing Desrosiers v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 846 15 F.2d 573, 577-78 (Pregerson, J., concurring) (9th Cir. 1988)). 16 The grids “consist of a matrix of [the four factors] and set 17 forth 18 combination of these factors exist in significant numbers in the 19 national 20 21 the claimant rules that economy.” original) (quoting can The Commissioner can show that there perform identify whether Hoopai, Heckler by 499 v. taking requiring at Campbell, testimony of a Tackett, 180 F.3d at jobs F.3d the 1075 461 a specific (alteration U.S. 458, in 461-62 (1983)). 22 23 Where a claimant’s qualifications correspond to the job 24 requirements 25 conclusion as to whether work exists that the claimant could 26 perform.” Id. (quoting Heckler, 461 U.S. at 462). 27 completely and accurately represent the claimant’s limitations indicated by the 28 14 grids, the grids “direct a If the grids 1 and the claimant is able to perform the full range of jobs in a 2 given category, the ALJ may rely solely on the grids to show the 3 availability of jobs for the claimant. 4 1101-02. 5 qualifications, the ALJ can use the grids as a framework to 6 determine what work exists that the claimant can perform, or the 7 ALJ can rely on testimony from a vocational expert. 8 F.3d 9 vocational expert 10 exertional limitation, 11 claimant’s non-exertional limitations are sufficiently severe so 12 as to significantly limit the range of work permitted by the 13 claimant’s exertional limitations.” Id. (internal quotations and 14 alterations 15 sufficiently severe so as to limit the range of work permitted by 16 the 17 testimony is required. Id. at 1076. 18 limitations postural 19 limitations. at When the 1075. grids Although are an testimony pain, when If exertional not ALJ “the omitted). claimant’s do can a grids a Tackett, 180 F.3d at match use the the claimant are Hoopai, 499 grids inapplicable a without alleges non-exertional limitations, claimant’s a non- when limitation vocational a is expert’s Examples of non-exertional limitations, or environmental Tackett, 180 F.3d at 1102. 20 Here, 21 Plaintiff’s non-exertional impairments are 22 sufficiently severe so as to limit her capacities in ways not 23 contemplated 24 inapplicable. 25 perform light work, except she was limited to unskilled work. 26 (AR 19). 27 pain 28 activities. that by the The grids, ALJ found and the grids that Plaintiff are had therefore the RFC to Plaintiff alleges that she suffers severe abdominal prevents her (AR 173-75). from performing even routine daily Although the ALJ opined that “this 15 1 pain is not as severe or as limiting as she claims,” the ALJ also 2 noted 3 associated 4 impairments.” 5 accurately 6 pain is sufficiently severe so to as limit Plaintiff beyond her 7 exertional limitations, the testimony of a vocational expert is 8 necessary to determine Plaintiff’s ultimate disability status. 9 Tackett that “the claimant with her at history (AR 21). represent 1101-02; does experience of some abdominal endometriosis and her pain liver Because the grids do not completely and Plaintiff’s see also limitations, Penny, 2 and F.3d because at 958 her (“As a 10 consequence of the ALJ’s error in discrediting Penny’s complaints 11 of 12 vocational 13 national economy that Penny is capable of performing.”). pain, the Secretary grids to erroneously determine that relied there on the were jobs medical in the 14 15 Plaintiff was also diagnosed with depression and anxiety, 16 which limited her to unskilled work. 17 was limited to unskilled work, she was unable to perform the full 18 range of jobs classified as “light work.” (AR 25). 19 jobs existed in the national economy that she could perform. 20 Tackett, 21 depression is generally not a sufficiently severe non-exertional 22 limitation that significantly limits a claimant from doing work 23 beyond the exertional limitation, the ALJ found that Plaintiff’s 24 depression and anxiety did prevent her from doing the full range 25 of light work. 26 Plaintiff was only able to perform unskilled light work as a 27 result of her depression and anxiety. 180 F.3d at 1101-02. (AR 20). Although Hoopai, 499 F.3d at 1077. 28 16 Because Plaintiff mild Therefore, or See moderate The ALJ found that (AR 20). As such, the 1 ALJ improperly relied on the grids without the assistance of a 2 vocational expert. 3 4 Because the grids do not accurately and completely represent 5 Plaintiff’s limitations, the ALJ improperly relied on them in 6 determining that Plaintiff was “not disabled” at step-five of the 7 sequential 8 sufficiently severe non-exertional limitations, including pain, 9 depression and anxiety to make the grids inapplicable to the evaluation process. Plaintiff also suffers from 10 present case. 11 vocational expert to determine whether Plaintiff was disabled 12 under the Social Security Act. Therefore, the ALJ must hear testimony from a 13 14 VIII. 15 CONCLUSION 16 17 Consistent with the foregoing, it is ORDERED that the 18 Judgment be entered REVERSING the decision of the Commissioner 19 and REMANDING this matter for further proceedings consistent with 20 this decision. 21 order and the Judgment on counsel for both parties. The Clerk of the Court shall serve copies of this 22 23 DATED: October 26, 2015 24 /S/ __________ SUZANNE H. SEGAL UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 25 26 27 THIS DECISION IS NOT INTENDED FOR PUBLICATION IN LEXIS, WESTLAW OR ANY OTHER LEGAL DATABASE. 28 17
]]>
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.
