Keith Berman v. Andrew Saul, No. 2:2019cv07079 - Document 25 (C.D. Cal. 2021)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER REVERSING COMMISSIONER by Magistrate Judge Jean P. Rosenbluth. (es)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Keith Berman v. Andrew Saul Doc. 25 1 2 3 4 5 ` 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 KEITH B.,1 Plaintiff, 12 13 v. 14 ANDREW SAUL, Commissioner of Social Security, 15 Defendant. 16 ) Case No. CV 19-7079-JPR ) ) ) MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER ) REVERSING COMMISSIONER ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 17 18 I. PROCEEDINGS 19 Plaintiff seeks review of the Commissioner’s final decision 20 denying his application for Social Security disability insurance 21 benefits (“DIB”). 22 the undersigned under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). 23 the Court on the parties’ Joint Stipulation, filed June 25, 2020, 24 which the Court has taken under submission without oral argument. The parties consented to the jurisdiction of The matter is before 25 26 27 28 1 Plaintiff’s name is partially redacted in line with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5.2(c)(2)(B) and the recommendation of the Committee on Court Administration and Case Management of the Judicial Conference of the United States. 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 For the reasons stated below, the Commissioner’s decision is 2 reversed. 3 II. BACKGROUND Plaintiff was born in 1965. 4 (Administrative Record (“AR”) 5 63.) 6 estate and jewelry sales and as an advisor for an internet 7 security company. 8 9 He completed three years of college and worked in real (AR 200.) On November 9, 2015, Plaintiff applied for DIB, alleging that he had been unable to work since November 4, 2015, because 10 of anxiety, mood, personality, bipolar, major-depressive, and 11 attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorders; spinal stenosis; 12 bulging and herniated discs; and disc tears. 13 208-15.) 14 hearing before an Administrative Law Judge. 15 A hearing was held on July 5, 2018, at which Plaintiff, who was 16 represented by counsel, testified, as did a vocational expert. 17 (See AR 38-61.) 18 ALJ found that based on Plaintiff’s age, education, work 19 experience, and ability to perform light work, he could adjust to 20 other work as a garment bagger, basket filler, or cleaner and 21 polisher. 22 from the Appeals Council, including with his appeal an MRI taken 23 three months after the ALJ’s decision; the council denied review 24 on June 20, 2019. 25 III. STANDARD OF REVIEW 26 (AR 182, 195, 199, After his application was denied, he requested a (AR 72, 76, 78-79.) In a written decision issued July 30, 2018, the (AR 32-33; see AR 23-33.) (AR 1-7, 240-44.) Plaintiff requested review This action followed. Under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), a district court may review the 27 Commissioner’s decision to deny benefits. 28 decision should be upheld if they are free of legal error and 2 The ALJ’s findings and 1 supported by substantial evidence based on the record as a whole. 2 See Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389, 401 (1971); Parra v. 3 Astrue, 481 F.3d 742, 746 (9th Cir. 2007). 4 means such evidence as a reasonable person might accept as 5 adequate to support a conclusion. 6 Lingenfelter v. Astrue, 504 F.3d 1028, 1035 (9th Cir. 2007). 7 is “more than a mere scintilla but less than a preponderance.” 8 Lingenfelter, 504 F.3d at 1035 (citing Robbins v. Soc. Sec. 9 Admin., 466 F.3d 880, 882 (9th Cir. 2006)). Substantial evidence Richardson, 402 U.S. at 401; It “[W]hatever the 10 meaning of ‘substantial’ in other contexts, the threshold for 11 such evidentiary sufficiency is not high.” 12 139 S. Ct. 1148, 1154 (2019). 13 evidence supports a finding, the reviewing court “must review the 14 administrative record as a whole, weighing both the evidence that 15 supports and the evidence that detracts from the Commissioner’s 16 conclusion.” 17 1998). 18 or reversing,” the reviewing court “may not substitute its 19 judgment” for the Commissioner’s. 20 IV. 21 Biestek v. Berryhill, To determine whether substantial Reddick v. Chater, 157 F.3d 715, 720 (9th Cir. “If the evidence can reasonably support either affirming Id. at 720-21. THE EVALUATION OF DISABILITY People are “disabled” for Social Security purposes if they 22 are unable to engage in any substantial gainful activity owing to 23 a physical or mental impairment that is expected to result in 24 death or has lasted, or is expected to last, for a continuous 25 period of at least 12 months. 26 v. Sullivan, 966 F.2d 1255, 1257 (9th Cir. 1992). 42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(1)(A); Drouin 27 A. The Five-Step Evaluation Process 28 An ALJ follows a five-step sequential evaluation process to 3 1 assess whether someone is disabled. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4); 2 Lester v. Chater, 81 F.3d 821, 828 n.5 (9th Cir. 1995) (as 3 amended Apr. 9, 1996). 4 determine whether the claimant is currently engaged in 5 substantial gainful activity; if so, the claimant is not disabled 6 and the claim must be denied. In the first step, the Commissioner must § 404.1520(a)(4)(i). 7 If the claimant is not engaged in substantial gainful 8 activity, the second step requires the Commissioner to determine 9 whether the claimant has a “severe” impairment or combination of 10 impairments significantly limiting his ability to do basic work 11 activities; if not, a finding of not disabled is made and the 12 claim must be denied. 13 § 404.1520(a)(4)(ii) & (c). If the claimant has a “severe” impairment or combination of 14 impairments, the third step requires the Commissioner to 15 determine whether the impairment or combination of impairments 16 meets or equals an impairment in the Listing of Impairments 17 (“Listing”) set forth at 20 C.F.R., part 404, subpart P, appendix 18 1; if so, disability is conclusively presumed and benefits are 19 awarded. 20 § 404.1520(a)(4)(iii) & (d). If the claimant’s impairment or combination of impairments 21 does not meet or equal one in the Listing, the fourth step 22 requires the Commissioner to determine whether the claimant has 23 sufficient residual functional capacity (“RFC”)2 to perform his 24 25 26 27 28 2 RFC is what a claimant can do despite existing exertional and nonexertional limitations. § 404.1545(a)(1); see Cooper v. Sullivan, 880 F.2d 1152, 1155 n.5 (9th Cir. 1989). The Commissioner assesses the claimant’s RFC between steps three and four. Laborin v. Berryhill, 867 F.3d 1151, 1153 (9th Cir. 2017) (continued...) 4 1 past work; if so, he is not disabled and the claim must be 2 denied. 3 proving he is unable to perform past relevant work. 4 F.2d at 1257. 5 case of disability is established. 6 § 404.1520(a)(4)(iv). The claimant has the burden of Drouin, 966 If the claimant meets that burden, a prima facie Id. If that happens or if the claimant has no past relevant 7 work, the Commissioner bears the burden of establishing that the 8 claimant is not disabled because he can perform other substantial 9 gainful work available in the national economy, the fifth and 10 final step of the sequential analysis. § 404.1520(a)(4)(v). 11 B. The ALJ’s Application of the Five-Step Process 12 To start, the ALJ found that Plaintiff met “the insured 13 status requirements of the Social Security Act through December 14 31, 2019.” 15 not engaged in substantial gainful activity since November 4, 16 2015, the alleged onset date. 17 that during the relevant period, Plaintiff had the severe 18 impairments of “major depression with anxious features, attention 19 deficit disorder, degenerative disc disease, herniated nucleus 20 pulposus3 and stenosis of the lumbar spine4 and obesity.” (AR 25.) At step one, he found that Plaintiff had (Id.) At step two, he concluded (AR 21 22 2 (...continued) (citing § 416.920(a)(4)). 23 3 24 25 26 Herniated nucleus pulposus, also known as a herniated disc, “describes the condition when the intervertebral disc is injured, and its contents are bulging or protruding into the spinal canal.” Herniated Disc, USC Spine Ctr., https:// www.uscspine.com/conditions-treated/neck-disorders/herniated-disc (last visited Feb. 1, 2021). 27 4 28 Spinal stenosis is a narrowing of the spinal canal. (continued...) 5 1 26.) At step three, he determined that Plaintiff’s impairments 2 did not meet or equal a Listing. (AR 27.) At step four, the ALJ found that Plaintiff had the RFC to 3 4 perform a “range of light work.” 5 could (AR 29.) Specifically, he 6 lift and/or carry twenty pounds occasionally, ten pounds 7 frequently, stand and/or walk six hours and sit six hours 8 in an eight-hour workday. 9 climb ramps, stairs, The claimant can occasionally ladders, ropes and scaffolds, 10 balance, stoop, kneel, crouch and crawl. 11 must avoid concentrated exposure to uneven terrain, 12 wetness, 13 machinery. 14 jobs — he can apply common sense understanding to carry 15 out detailed but uninvolved written or oral instructions 16 and he can deal with problems involving a few concrete 17 variables. The claimant can have no more than occasional 18 contact with the public. 19 20 unprotected heights and The claimant dangerous moving The claimant is limited to reasoning level 2 (Id.) In light of Plaintiff’s inability “to provide a clear 21 account of his past work,” among other things, the ALJ did not 22 make a finding on whether Plaintiff was able to perform his past 23 relevant work and instead “expedite[d] the claim to Step 5 of the 24 sequential evaluation.” (AR 32.) Because his “ability to 25 26 27 28 4 (...continued) Medical Definition of Spinal Stenosis, MedicineNet, https:// www.medicinenet.com/spinal_stenosis/definition.htm (last visited Feb. 1, 2021). 6 1 perform all or substantially all of the requirements” of light 2 work “ha[d] been impeded by additional limitations,” the ALJ 3 relied on the VE’s testimony to conclude that he could perform at 4 least three light, unskilled occupations available in substantial 5 numbers in the economy. (AR 33.) 6 Plaintiff not disabled. (Id.) 7 V. Accordingly, he found DISCUSSION 8 Plaintiff argues that the ALJ failed to (1) “fully and 9 accurately evaluate the medical evidence” or properly develop the 10 record concerning his physical ailments (J. Stip. at 3; see id. 11 at 4-8); (2) “assess Plaintiff’s ability to perform, on a 12 function by function basis, all of the exertional and 13 nonexertional functions required to perform light exertion” (id. 14 at 14 (emphasis in original); see id. at 3, 12-18); or (3) 15 properly evaluate his subjective symptom testimony (see id. at 3, 16 21-30). 17 ALJ’s failure to fully develop the record. 18 Court does not reach the other issues. As discussed below, remand is warranted based on the Accordingly, the 19 A. The ALJ Did Not Fully and Fairly Develop the Record 20 Plaintiff notes that the ALJ gave “no weight” to the only 21 medical-source opinion evaluating his functional limitations 22 based on his chronic low-back pain — the consulting examiner’s — 23 but then failed to obtain another consulting examination or call 24 a medical expert at his hearing, instead “making and relying on 25 his own medical assessment in determining Plaintiff’s residual 26 functional capacity.” 27 remand is warranted on this ground. (J. Stip. at 4-5.) 28 7 As explained below, 1 2 1. Applicable law An ALJ has a “duty to fully and fairly develop the record” 3 and “assure that [a] claimant’s interests are considered.” 4 Garcia v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 768 F.3d 925, 930 (9th Cir. 2014) 5 (citation omitted); see also Howard ex rel. Wolff v. Barnhart, 6 341 F.3d 1006, 1012 (9th Cir. 2003) (“In making a determination 7 of disability, the ALJ must develop the record and interpret the 8 medical evidence.”). 9 burden to produce evidence in support of his disability claim. But it nonetheless remains the claimant’s 10 See Mayes v. Massanari, 276 F.3d 453, 459 (9th Cir. 2001) (as 11 amended). 12 further is triggered only when there is ambiguous evidence or 13 when the record is inadequate to allow for proper evaluation of 14 the evidence.” 15 2010) (as amended May 19, 2011) (citation omitted); accord 16 Tonapetyan v. Halter, 242 F.3d 1144, 1150 (9th Cir. 2001). 17 ALJ has broad discretion in determining whether to order a 18 consultative examination and should do so when “ambiguity or 19 insufficiency in the evidence . . . must be resolved.” 20 Massanari, 270 F.3d 838, 842 (9th Cir. 2001) (citation omitted); 21 see also § 404.1519a(b) (“We may purchase a consultative 22 examination to try to resolve an inconsistency in the evidence, 23 or when the evidence as a whole is insufficient to allow us to 24 make a determination or decision on your claim.”). 25 26 27 28 Moreover, the “ALJ’s duty to develop the record 2. McLeod v. Astrue, 640 F.3d 881, 885 (9th Cir. An Reed v. Relevant background a. Medical records relating to Plaintiff’s back On December 22, 2015, internal-medicine specialist Dr. Iqbal Teli examined Plaintiff and assessed “no physical restrictions.” 8 1 (AR 257; see AR 255.) Dr. Teli noted that Plaintiff’s chief 2 complaint was a history of low-back pain, “continuous” for “many 3 years” at a “6/10 intensity.” 4 acute distress” and a “normal” gait and stance, and he noted 5 Plaintiff’s ability to do a “full” squat, rise from a chair, and 6 get on and off the exam table “without difficulty.” 7 He reported full flexion, extension, and rotary movement in the 8 cervical and lumbar spine and full range of movement in the hips, 9 “shoulders, elbows, forearms, and wrists, bilaterally.” (AR 255.) Dr. Teli found “no (AR 255-56.) (AR 10 256.) 11 noted, but reflexes were equal in the upper and lower extremities 12 and strength was “5/5” in both. 13 apparently did not review any imaging, test results, or treatment 14 notes. 15 that Dr. Teli reviewed any medical records and even if he did, he 16 evaluated the claimant in December of 2015 and would have not had 17 the opportunity to review any of the records that were submitted 18 at the hearing level.”).) 19 “[T]enderness” and “mild spasm of the lower back” were (AR 256-57.) Dr. Teli (See AR 255-57; see also AR 29 (“[T]here is no evidence Treatment notes from palliative-medicine specialist Dr. 20 Perry Stein reflect that he treated Plaintiff for chronic back 21 pain from August 7, 2013, through January 26, 2017. 22 246-49, 259-315.) 23 pain and was “unable to don[] socks/shoes, underwear.” 24 Pain was described as “8/10” and was generally worse in the 25 morning. 26 on the right at 20 inches; positive left thoracic paraspinal- 27 muscle prominence; partially restricted range of motion of the 28 lumbosacral spine in all planes, particularly in the right (Id.) (AR 242, On August 7, 2013, he had “severe” lower-back (AR 246.) Dr. Stein reported positive straight-leg raising 9 1 rotation; and “all movements guarded.” 2 week, Plaintiff reported having pain relief at times but also 3 “breakthrough pain 10/10” with certain activities, “specifically 4 donning pants” in the morning. 5 behavior on transfers” and was “guarded.” 6 (Id.) (AR 247.) The following He showed “pain (Id.) On August 21, 2013, he reported “trying to stand at work” 7 because standing was better than sitting. 8 Percocet5 tablets reduced his pain to “4-5” from “6-8” of 10 for 9 about two hours. (Id.) (AR 248.) Two Dr. Stein found him “restricted in all 10 planes,” “specifically for [right] rotation/flexion,” and he had 11 spasms. 12 “globally pain [was] 6/10,” with the “worst [at] 9/10,” with “no 13 precipitating factors” but worse “first thing in the [morning].” 14 (AR 249.) 15 and “less guarded/stiff.” 16 and October 2013, Plaintiff reported that his pain level was up 17 and down, he had been doing physical therapy, and he found 18 temporary relief with stretching. 19 20 (Id.) On August 28, 2013, the doctor noted that But overall, Plaintiff “look[ed] less uncomfortable” (Id.) At appointments in September (AR 259-61.) On October 16, 2013, an MRI of Plaintiff’s lumbosacral spine found the following: 21 At the L5-S1 level, there is disc bulge with facet and 22 ligamentum flavum arthropathy.6 There is mild narrowing 23 24 25 26 27 28 5 Percocet is the brand name for oxycodone acetaminophen, an opioid based pain reliever. Percocet, WebMD, https:// www.webmd.com/drugs/2/drug-7277/percocet-oral/details (last visited Feb. 1, 2021). 6 Ligamentum flavum arthropathy is disease of the ligaments that connect the laminae of adjacent vertebrae from the cervical (continued...) 10 1 of 2 osteophyte complex7 which touches the exiting right L5 3 root after it exits the neural foramen. 4 At the L4-L5 level, there is a degenerated disc with loss 5 of T2 signal. 6 ligamentum 7 stenosis of the canal. 8 right greater than left without mass effect [sic] on the 9 exiting nerve roots. 10 11 the canal. There is a far right lateral disc There is diffuse bulge with facet and flavum arthropathy. There is moderate There is foraminal narrowing8 (AR 262-63.) Almost a year later, on September 9, 2014, Dr. Stein 12 reported that since his last visit, Plaintiff had received three 13 spinal injections, with an “excellent response” to the first and 14 “less response” to the second and third. 15 back pain had become “severe” for three to four weeks before the 16 appointment, and he also had “severe leg pain.” 17 noted that another doctor had “stopped” Plaintiff’s prescription (AR 264.) His lower- (Id.) It was 18 19 6 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 (...continued) to sacral spine. Ligamentum Flavum, Physiopedia, https:// www.physio-pedia.com/Ligamentum_flavum (last visited Feb. 1, 2021). 7 Disc osteophyte complex denotes disc protrusion or bone spurs that narrow the spinal canal. Spinal Stenosis & Myleopathy, University of Southern California Spine Center, https://www.uscspine.com/conditions-treated/neck-disorders/ spinal-stenosis-myleopathy/ (last visited Feb. 1, 2021). 8 Foraminal stenosis, or narrowing, is a type of spinal stenosis caused by narrowing or tightening in the small openings between the bones in the spine, called the foramina. What is Foraminal Stenosis?, Healthline, https://www.healthline.com/ health/foraminal-stenosis (last visited Feb. 1, 2021). 11 1 2 narcotics after a positive “urine drug test [for] THC.” (Id.) At appointments through the end of 2014, Plaintiff reported 3 “some days good others bad,” with a “good” day at a pain level of 4 six of 10. 5 February 26, 2015, with severe pain, and Dr. Stein gave him a 6 prescription for hydrocodone, which he finished in about seven 7 days and then struggled without medication. 8 appointment on March 24, 2015, he reported “excru[c]iating pain” 9 in his lower back starting on March 21, which medications had (AR 265-68.) He called the doctor’s office on (AR 267.) 10 been relieving up until that point. 11 2015, he “[d]id not have an adequate response to oxycodone,”9 12 which “didn’t make him pain free,” and he ran out in 10 days. 13 (AR 269.) 14 (AR 268.) At an On April 23, On May 21, 2015, Dr. Stein’s impression was “chronic pain 15 inadequate pain relief on current regimen.” 16 “pain behavior” with transfers and “some tenderness to percussion 17 of lumbar spine.” 18 acupuncture. 19 pain responsive only to opioid analgesics” and reported that he 20 had “tried multiple therapeutic interventions including [physical 21 therapy] . . . [and] mind body approaches.” (Id.) (Id.) (AR 270.) He noted He increased fentanyl10 and recommended On June 25, 2015, Dr. Stein noted “chronic (AR 271.) Plaintiff 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 9 Oxycodone is a potentially habit-forming opioid pain reliever. See Oxycodone, MedlinePlus, https://medlineplus.gov/ druginfo/meds/a682132.html (last visited Feb. 1, 2021). 10 Fentanyl is used to treat breakthrough pain (sudden episodes of pain that occur despite round-the-clock pain medication) in adult patients who are taking another opiate pain medication and who are tolerant of narcotic pain medication. Fentanyl, MedlinePlus, https://medlineplus.gov/druginfo/meds/ a605043.html (last visited Feb. 1, 2021). 12 1 believed “fentanyl patches were helpful but only for two days.” 2 (Id.) 3 texted because he had run out of oxycodone and fentanyl and the 4 pharmacy would dispense only 10 patches. 5 displayed withdrawal symptoms, acute anxiety, and chronic pain, 6 and the doctor “offered outpatient detox, Suboxone,11 but [he] 7 declined.” 8 and Dr. Stein counseled that he would not escalate the dosage. 9 (Id.) On July 23, 2015, Dr. Stein noted that Plaintiff had (Id.) (AR 272.) Plaintiff Plaintiff chose to resume pain medications, On August 18, 2015, the doctor still diagnosed “chronic 10 pain” and reported that Plaintiff had been “feeling somewhat 11 better lately,” but “psychosocially patient [wa]s a disaster” — 12 “[l]iving in a hotel,” “[b]roke,” and “borrow[ing] money from 13 kids” but “not using illicit drugs” or drinking. 14 Chronic lower-back pain continued at appointments in September 15 through November 2015, during which Plaintiff reported “severe 16 pain,” “exacerbated by bending,” and the doctor observed 17 “frequent breath holding and grunting” and counseled him to “lose 18 weight, exercise, avoid a[nxiety], engage in mind/body approach, 19 relaxation.” 20 “in severe pain,” had run out of oxycodone, and reported that 21 fentanyl patches helped for only three days. 22 (AR 274-76.) (AR 273.) On December 15, 2015, Plaintiff was (AR 277.) On February 25, 2016, Plaintiff reported “pain 10/10” and 23 demonstrated “pain behavior intermittently especially [with] 24 transfers.” (AR 278.) On March 22, 2016, Plaintiff “look[ed] 25 26 27 28 11 Suboxone is the brand name for a combination of buprenorphine and naloxone and is used to treat adults who are dependent on opioids. Patient Information for Suboxone, Suboxone, https://www.suboxone.com/ (last visited Jan. 11, 2021.) 13 1 better” and had his “sense of humor back,” “transfers [and] gait 2 [were] more fluid, less guarded,” “no adverse consequences as a 3 result of opioid regimen,” muscle spasms were still reported, and 4 oxycodone and fentanyl prescriptions were renewed. 5 July 14, 2016, Plaintiff reported that his symptoms waxed and 6 waned and he hadn’t taken opioids for two weeks, but he later 7 began texting the doctor for pain medications “multiple times” 8 and characterized his lower-back pain as “12/10” on August 30. 9 (AR 280.) (AR 279.) On On November 22, 2016, lower-back pain was “worse than 10 ever,” and on December 29 it was “on and off,” with fentanyl 11 helping “a bit.” 12 reported “a bad couple of weeks,” and Dr. Stein noted that he had 13 “resisted mind/body approaches” and acupuncture was “too 14 expensive, not covered.” 15 functional assessment of Plaintiff’s limitations, if any, 16 stemming from his back pain. 17 (AR 281-82.) On January 26, 2017, Plaintiff (AR 283.) Dr. Stein never prepared a The ALJ gave “no weight” to Dr. Teli’s opinion “because it 18 [wa]s inconsistent with the objective medical evidence showing 19 degenerative disc disease, herniated nucleus pulposus, and spinal 20 stenosis.” 21 treatment notes showing consistent back pain complaints and 22 clinical findings of decreased or pain range of motion, 23 tenderness to palpation and muscle spasms.” 24 “opportunity to review the entire record” and gain a “more 25 complete picture” of Plaintiff’s “medical history and treatment” 26 than Dr. Teli, the ALJ rejected the doctor’s opinion and “adopted 27 a more restricted residual functional capacity.” 28 (AR 29.) It was also “inconsistent with Dr. Stein’s (Id.) Citing his (Id.) Plaintiff submitted to the Appeals Council an MRI dated 14 1 October 18, 2018, three months after the ALJ’s decision, finding 2 slightly greater abnormalities than in the 2013 imaging. 3 Stip., Ex. at 1-2.) 4 did not “relate to the period at issue” and “[t]herefore did not 5 affect the decision about whether [he was] disabled . . . on or 6 before July 30, 2018.” 7 b. (J. The Appeals Council found that the new MRI (AR 2.) Plaintiff’s statements related to back pain In a Disability Report dated March 8, 2016, Plaintiff stated 8 9 that his “spinal stenosis and herniated discs and tears[] ha[d] 10 made it virtually impossible to remain in the same position for 11 more than a few minutes at a time.” 12 “every modality” “imaginable” other than surgery, which he had 13 been “warned against” by multiple doctors, with either no or only 14 “[t]emporary [m]inor relief.” 15 [his] medications,” and he described better and worse days, 16 “hover[ing] between a high 4 on the ‘blessing’ days to a 10+ on 17 the worst days.” (Id.) (AR 215.) He had tried His doctor had “ramped up (Id.) At the July 5, 2018 hearing, Plaintiff testified that he had 18 19 moved from New York to California in November 2017. 20 His back pain had developed into sciatica on the left side, 21 limiting his ability to sit to between three and 45 minutes at a 22 time. 23 24 (AR 49.) (AR 54-55.) 3. Analysis Plaintiff argues that the ALJ failed to “fully and fairly 25 develop the record” because he gave “no weight” to the only 26 medical-source functional evaluation concerning his back pain, 27 failed to resolve the absence of record evidence by ordering a 28 consultative examination or calling an expert, and concluded 15 1 without explanation or support that Plaintiff could perform a 2 light range of work. 3 further contends that the ALJ’s assessment was contradicted by 4 the treatment notes indicating “very severe pain” and use of 5 “heavy-duty medications.” 6 (J. Stip. at 4-5 (citing AR 29).) He (Id. at 4; see id. at 5-8.) The ALJ gave “no weight” to Dr. Teli’s opinion finding no 7 physical limitations because he examined Plaintiff only in 8 December 2015 and did not review Dr. Stein’s treatment notes, the 9 2013 MRI, or any other tests or records. (See AR 29 (ALJ stating 10 that “there is no evidence that Dr. Teli reviewed any medical 11 records” (citing AR 255-57)), 257 (Dr. Teli noting that no “labs 12 [or] other testing” were “pending” and stating that he had 13 performed a “consultative examination” and “[n]o doctor-patient 14 relationship exist[ed] or [wa]s implied”).) 15 impairments, including “degenerative disc disease, herniated 16 nucleus pulposus and stenosis of the lumbar spine” (AR 26), 17 relying on Dr. Stein’s treatment notes and the 2013 MRI (see id. 18 (citing AR 285)). 19 work, he relied on no other doctor’s findings or opinion 20 considering Plaintiff’s functional limitations because none 21 existed. 22 medical evidence supported his physical-RFC finding was: “I have 23 given the consultative examiner’s assessment little weight, and 24 have adopted a more restricted residual functional capacity.” 25 (AR 29.) 26 rejected ever assessed Plaintiff’s physical functional abilities, 27 the record was inadequate and the ALJ had a duty to develop it The ALJ found severe But in fashioning Plaintiff’s RFC for light Indeed, the entirety of his explanation as to how the Because no doctor besides the one whose opinion the ALJ 28 16 1 further.12 2 of the record to allow for proper evaluation triggers a duty of 3 inquiry”); de Gutierrez v. Saul, No. 1:19-CV-00463-BAM, 2020 WL 4 5701019, at *5-6 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 24, 2020) (remanding because 5 ALJ rejected only medical opinions defining functional 6 limitations, then assessed RFC based on his own lay 7 interpretation of records); Zazueta v. Colvin, No. CV-14-1905-JC, 8 2014 WL 4854575, at *5 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 29, 2014) (same). 9 See McLeod, 640 F.3d at 886 (holding that “inadequacy When the record is inadequate, as here, an ALJ has 10 discretion to order a consultative examination.13 11 F.3d at 842; § 404.1519a. 12 not contained in the records,” a consultative examination is 13 “normally require[d].” 14 § 404.1519a(b)(1)). 15 record in this case, but the ALJ did not order one. 16 evaluated the MRI and lower-back-pain evidence himself. 17 Making these assessments without support from any physician’s 18 functional assessment was improper. 19 Sec. Admin., 659 F.3d 1228, 1235 (9th Cir. 2011) (holding that 20 ALJ may not substitute his layperson observations for physician See Reed, 270 When “additional evidence needed is Reed, 270 F.3d at 842 (quoting Such an evaluation could have clarified the Instead, he (AR 29.) See Taylor v. Comm’r of Soc. 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 12 Defendant undermines his own argument by pointing out that treatment notes such as Dr. Stein’s that “fail to specify a claimant’s functional limits” are “not useful” and “inadequate for determining RFC.” (J. Stip. at 9 (citing Ford v. Saul, 950 F.3d 1141, 1154 (9th Cir. 2020)).) 13 An ALJ can also discharge his duty to develop the record fully and fairly by “subpoenaing the claimant’s physicians, submitting questions to the claimant’s physicians, continuing the hearing, or keeping the record open after the hearing to allow supplementation of the record.” Tonapetyan, 242 F.3d at 1150. 17 1 opinions); Day v. Weinberger, 522 F.2d 1154, 1156 (9th Cir. 1975) 2 (recognizing that ALJ is “not qualified as a medical expert”).14 3 Thus, the ALJ did not fully and fairly develop the record, 4 and remand is warranted on this ground. 5 B. Remand for Further Proceedings Is Appropriate 6 When an ALJ errs, as here, the Court “ordinarily must remand Leon v. Berryhill, 880 F.3d 7 . . . for further proceedings.” 8 1041, 1045 (9th Cir. 2017) (as amended Jan. 25, 2018); see also 9 Harman v. Apfel, 211 F.3d 1172, 1175-78 (9th Cir. 2000) (as 10 amended). 11 under the “credit as true” rule. 12 (citation omitted). 13 as a rare and prophylactic exception to the ordinary remand 14 rule[.]” 15 proceedings turns upon the likely utility of such proceedings,” 16 Harman, 211 F.3d at 1179, and when an “ALJ makes a legal error, 17 but the record is uncertain and ambiguous, the proper approach is 18 to remand the case to the agency,” Leon, 880 F.3d at 1045 19 (citation omitted). 20 The Court has discretion to do so or to award benefits Id. Leon, 880 F.3d at 1045 “[A] direct award of benefits was intended The “decision of whether to remand for further Here, further administrative proceedings would serve the 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 14 Contrary to Defendant’s assertion that Plaintiff has forfeited this argument (see J. Stip. at 10), the ALJ had an independent duty to develop the record regardless of Plaintiff’s arguments. See Vasquez v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., No. 18-cv-1042EPG, 2019 WL 3714565, at *3 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 6, 2019) (finding no waiver of argument that ALJ fashioned RFC without relying on any medical opinion because ALJ had independent duty to develop record). In any event, Plaintiff did argue to the agency that “this case was never reviewed by any State agency medical consultant (regarding the physical condition)” and therefore should be remanded. (AR 242.) 18 1 useful purpose of allowing the ALJ to fully develop the record. 2 See Tonapetyan, 242 F.3d at 1151. 3 management records from January 2017 to the date of the ALJ’s 4 decision and Plaintiff had health insurance for most of that time 5 (see AR 50), the Court has serious questions about whether his 6 low-back pain was disabling during any or all of the relevant 7 period. 8 his allegedly disabling back pain and Dr. Stein’s implicit 9 suggestions that he might have an opioid dependence (see, e.g., Because there are no pain- Moreover, Plaintiff’s failure to explore surgery despite 10 AR 272, 283) also counsel caution. 11 remand is appropriate. 12 1021 (9th Cir. 2014) (recognizing flexibility to remand for 13 further proceedings when “record as a whole creates serious doubt 14 as to whether the [plaintiff] is, in fact, disabled”).15 15 VI. 16 For these reasons, too, See Garrison v. Colvin, 759 F.3d 995, CONCLUSION Consistent with the foregoing and under sentence four of 42 17 U.S.C. § 405(g),16 IT IS ORDERED that judgment be entered 18 REVERSING the Commissioner’s decision, GRANTING Plaintiff’s 19 20 21 22 23 24 15 25 26 27 28 On remand, the ALJ can reassess Plaintiff’s subjective symptom statements and the RFC after obtaining a functional assessment of his physical limitations, if any. 16 That sentence provides: “The [district] court shall have power to enter, upon the pleadings and transcript of the record, a judgment affirming, modifying, or reversing the decision of the Commissioner of Social Security, with or without remanding the cause for a rehearing.” 1 request for remand, and REMANDING this action for further 2 proceedings consistent with this memorandum decision. 3 4 5 February 2, 2021 DATED: __________________ ______________________________ JEAN ROSENBLUTH U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 20
]]>
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.
