Joni James v. Michael J Astrue, No. 5:2011cv01877 - Document 15 (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. (SEE ORDER FOR FURTHER DETAILS) (lmh)

Download PDF

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JONI JAMES, 12 13 14 Plaintiff, v. 15 MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, 16 Defendant. 17 ) Case No. ED CV 11-1877 JCG ) ) ) ) MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ) ORDER ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 18 19 Joni James ( Plaintiff ) challenges the Social Security Commissioner s 20 decision denying her application for disability benefits. In particular, Plaintiff 21 contends that the Administrative Law Judge ( ALJ ) failed to properly develop the 22 record pertaining to her depression. (Joint Stip. at 3-5.) The Court agrees with 23 Plaintiff. 24 [T]he ALJ has a special duty to fully and fairly develop the record and to 25 assure that the claimant s interests are considered. Smolen v. Chater, 80 F.3d 1273, 26 1288 (9th Cir. 1996) (citing Brown v. Heckler, 713 F.2d 441, 443 (9th Cir.1983)). 27 Specifically, if the evidence is ambiguous or inadequate to permit a proper 28 evaluation of a claimant s impairments, the ALJ has a duty to conduct an 1 appropriate inquiry. Smolen, 80 F.3d at 1288. In cases of mental impairments, 2 such as Plaintiff s depression, the ALJ s duty to clarify and develop the record is 3 especially important. DeLorme v. Sullivan, 924 F.2d 841, 849 (9th Cir. 1991). 4 Here, the ALJ failed to fulfill this duty. Specifically, the record pertaining to 5 Plaintiff s depression appears to contain significant gaps, and was thus inadequate to 6 properly evaluate disability. Two reasons guide the Court s determination. 7 First, the Court notes that the existing medical reports from Plaintiff s treating 8 physician, Dr. Le Ha, make no mention of depression. (See AR at 184-93.) This is 9 so despite a letter from Dr. Ha stating that Plaintiff has a history of and is currently 10 being treated for depression, among other things. (AR at 224.) This, in itself, 11 should have raised ample suspicion that the record was incomplete. 12 Second, what sets this conclusion to rest is the origin of the records. That is, 13 the majority of the existing reports from Dr. Ha were obtained through a document 14 request from the California Department of Social Services seeking reports solely 15 pertaining to Plaintiff s left eye impairment. (See AR at 184.) Predictably, then, 16 documents concerning Plaintiff s depression would not have been produced. Thus, 17 at minimum, the ALJ should have reapproached Dr. Ha for additional records 18 concerning Plaintiff s depression. Accordingly, the Court determines that the ALJ 19 did not satisfy her independent duty to fully and fairly develop the record. 20 Notably, this error was not harmless. See Batson v. Comm r of Soc. Sec., 359 21 F.3d 1190, 1197 (9th Cir. 2004) (harmless errors do not warrant reversal). In short, 22 the ALJ concluded that Plaintiff s depression [has] been treated and [does] not 23 cause any work-related limitations without the benefit of a complete record 24 pertaining to that very impairment. (AR at 13.) Additionally, the absent records 25 were from Plaintiff s treating physician, Dr. Ha, who is entitled to significant 26 weight. See Lester v. Chater, 81 F.3d 821, 830 (9th Cir. 1995). Thus, the inclusion 27 of these records could have dramatically altered the ALJ s disability analysis and 28 perhaps even resulted in a finding of disability. 2 1 This Court has discretion to remand or reverse and award benefits. McAllister 2 v. Sullivan, 888 F.2d 599, 603 (9th Cir. 1989). Where no useful purpose would be 3 served by further proceedings, or where the record has been fully developed, it is 4 appropriate to exercise this discretion to direct an immediate award of benefits. See 5 Benecke v. Barnhart, 379 F.3d 587, 595-96 (9th Cir. 2004). Moreover, where there 6 are outstanding issues that must be resolved before a determination can be made, or 7 it is not clear from the record that the ALJ would be required to find plaintiff 8 disabled if all the evidence were properly evaluated, remand is appropriate. See id. 9 at 594. 10 Here, the Court cannot determine disability based on the record before it. 11 Therefore, on remand, the ALJ shall seek additional records, if there be any, from 12 Dr. Ha and his employer, the Metropolitan Family Medical Clinic. The scope of this 13 request should include documents pertaining to Plaintiff s depression, but need not 14 be so narrow. 15 Based on the foregoing, IT IS ORDERED THAT judgment shall be entered 16 REVERSING the decision of the Commissioner denying benefits and 17 REMANDING the matter for further administrative action consistent with this 18 decision.1/ 19 20 21 Dated: September 26, 2012 22 ____________________________________ 23 Hon. Jay C. Gandhi 24 United States Magistrate Judge 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 9-11, 11-12, 13-15.) 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.