Willietta French v. Michael J Astrue, No. 5:2012cv01798 - Document 22 (C.D. Cal. 2013)
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 details) (bem)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 WILLIETTA FRENCH, 12 Plaintiff, 13 14 v. 15 CAROLYN W. COLVIN, ACTING COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL 1/ SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, 16 Defendant. 17 ) Case No. ED CV 12-1798 JCG ) ) ) ) MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ) ORDER ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 18 Willietta French ( Plaintiff ) challenges the Social Security Commissioner s 19 20 ( Defendant ) decision denying her application for disability benefits. Specifically, 21 Plaintiff contends, among other things, that the Administrative Law Judge ( ALJ ) 22 improperly rejected the lay evidence of her sister, Antoinette French, and her niece, 23 Shadonna Nixon. (Joint Stip. at 24-36.) The Court agrees with Plaintiff for the 24 reasons discussed below. 25 / / / 26 / / / 27 28 1/ Carolyn W. Colvin is substituted as the proper defendant herein. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 25(d). 1 2 3 A. The ALJ Failed to Provide Germane Reasons for Rejecting Ms. French s and Ms. Nixon s Lay Evidence [L]ay testimony as to a claimant s symptoms or how an impairment affects 4 [their] ability to work is competent evidence and therefore cannot be disregarded 5 without comment. Stout v. Commissioner, 454 F.3d 1050, 1053 (9th Cir. 2006) 6 (internal quotation marks, ellipses, and citation omitted) (emphasis in original). 7 Appropriately, then, an ALJ may discount evidence provided by a lay witness only if 8 he provides reasons that are germane to each witness. Id. (citing Dodrill v. 9 Shalala, 12 F.3d 915, 919 (9th Cir. 1993)). Further, the reasons germane to each 10 witness must be specific. Stout, 454 F.3d at 1054. 11 Here, the ALJ provided four reasons for rejecting the Third Party Function 12 Reports ( Reports ) completed by Ms. French and Ms. Nixon. (Administrative 13 Record ( AR ) at 415.) The Court addresses, and rejects, each below. 14 First, the ALJ rejected Ms. French s and Ms. Nixon s Reports because they 15 are not medical professionals or otherwise qualified to diagnose severe impairments 16 or to assess their effect on the claimant s ability to perform work related activities. 17 (AR at 415.) But lay witness evidence serves a different purpose than medical 18 evidence and is specifically authorized by the Code. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1513 19 (discussing different uses for medical and non-medical sources). Unlike medical 20 evidence, which is used to establish whether [a claimant has] a medically 21 determinable impairment, lay testimony show[s] the severity of [that] impairment[] 22 and how it affects [a claimant s] ability to work. Id. §§ 404.1513(a), (d)(4) 23 (emphasis added). The Ninth Circuit has expressly held that lay witnesses are 24 competent to provide opinions on how a claimant s impairments bear on her ability to 25 work. See Bruce v. Astrue, 557 F.3d 1113, 1116 (9th Cir. 2009) ( A lay person, [] 26 though not a vocational or medical expert, [is] not disqualified from rendering an 27 opinion as to how [a claimant s] condition affects his ability to perform basic work 28 activities. ) Finally, because this reason would apply to all lay witnesses, it is not 2 1 germane to Ms. French or Ms. Nixon particularly. 2 Second, the ALJ rejected the lay evidence of Ms. French and Ms. Nixon 3 because neither of them mentions [Plaintiff s] drug use. (AR at 415.) However, 4 the stated purpose of the Report, provided by the Social Security Administration 5 itself, is to gather information regarding [h]ow the disabled person s illnesses, 6 injuries, or conditions limit her activities. (See id. at 106, 576.) The Report does 7 not focus on the illnesses, injuries, or conditions themselves. (See id. at 106-21, 5768 83.) Nor does it ask, either explicitly or implicitly, about a claimant s drug use. (Id.) 9 Rather, the Report asks very specific questions relating to a claimant s daily routine. 10 (Id.) For instance, the Report asks about a claimant s hygiene regimen, whether she 11 is able to do housework or prepare meals, and if she leaves the house to go shopping 12 or socialize. (Id.) As such, it appears unreasonable for the ALJ to expect Ms. Nixon 13 or Ms. French to include information relating Plaintiff s drug use. Accordingly, this 14 reason fails. 15 Third, the ALJ rejected Ms. French s and Ms. Nixon s lay evidence because 16 both the sister and niece are on SSI. (Id. at 415.) While it is true that both Ms. 17 Nixon and Ms. French are disabled and receive benefits, the ALJ does not explain 18 how this fact bears on their credibility as witnesses. In fact, the Ninth Circuit has 19 previously held that rejection on such grounds is improper. See Bruce, 557 F.3d at 20 1116 (holding that the fact that claimant s wife had applied for SSI should not 21 disqualify her from rendering an opinion regarding her husband s ability to work. 22 Nor did it have any apparent bearing on her credibility. ). Thus, as to this ground, 23 the ALJ s analysis falls short. 24 Fourth, and finally, the ALJ rejected Ms. Nixon s and Ms. French s Reports 25 because they are related to Plaintiff and live in the same household. (AR at 415.) 26 This however, amounts to a wholesale dismissal of any family member who offers 27 lay evidence. See Smolen v. Chater, 80 F.3d 1273, 1289 (9th Cir. 1996). As such, 28 [t]he fact that a lay witness is a family member cannot be a ground for rejecting his 3 1 or her testimony. Id. at 1289; see Regenettir v. Comm r of Social Sec. Admin, 166 2 F.3d 1294, 1298 (9th Cir. 1999). Indeed, an eyewitness who interacts with the 3 claimant on a daily basis is in a unique position to know whether the claimant is truly 4 in pain or merely malingering. Dodrill, 12 F.3d at 919. As such, this reason is not 5 specific to either Ms. Nixon or Ms. French, and is likewise insufficient. 6 For the reasons state above, the ALJ erred in rejecting Ms. Nixon s and Ms. 7 French s lay evidence. Accordingly, the Court finds that substantial evidence did not 8 support the ALJ s decision. See Mayes v. Massanari, 276 F.3d 453, 458-59 (9th Cir. 9 2001). 10 B. Remand is Warranted 11 With error established, this Court has discretion to remand or reverse and 12 award benefits. McAllister v. Sullivan, 888 F.2d 599, 603 (9th Cir. 1989). Where no 13 useful purpose would be served by further proceedings, or where the record has been 14 fully developed, it is appropriate to exercise this discretion to direct an immediate 15 award of benefits. See Benecke v. Barnhart, 379 F.3d 587, 595-96 (9th Cir. 2004). 16 But where there are outstanding issues that must be resolved before a determination 17 can be made, or it is not clear from the record that the ALJ would be required to find 18 plaintiff disabled if all the evidence were properly evaluated, remand is appropriate. 19 See id. at 594. 20 Here, there are outstanding issues which must be resolved before a final 21 determination can be made. On remand, the ALJ shall reconsider the Reports 22 completed by Ms. Nixon and Ms. French, and either credit them or provide germane 23 reasons for rejecting it. 24 Based on the foregoing, IT IS ORDERED THAT judgment shall be entered 25 REVERSING the decision of the Commissioner denying benefits and 26 REMANDING the matter for further administrative action consistent with this 27 28 4 1 decision.2/ 2 3 Dated: December 18, 2013 4 5 ____________________________________ 6 Hon. Jay C. Gandhi United States Magistrate Judge 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 2/ In light of the Court s remand instructions, it is unnecessary to address 28 Plaintiff s remaining contentions. (See Joint Stip. at 5-24, 38-53.) 5
]]>
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.
