Joel Rodriguez v. Carolyn W. Colvin, No. 5:2014cv01820 - Document 19 (C.D. Cal. 2016)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER by Magistrate Judge Patrick J. Walsh. The Agency's decision denying Plaintiff's applications is hereby reversed and the case is remanded for further consideration. IT IS SO ORDERED. (See document for further details.) (sbou)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Joel Rodriguez v. Carolyn W. Colvin Doc. 19 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 JOEL RODRIGUEZ, 11 12 13 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Plaintiff, v. 14 CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting Commissioner of the Social Security Administration, 15 Defendant. Case No. ED CV 14-1820-PJW MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER 16 17 18 I. INTRODUCTION Plaintiff appeals a decision by Defendant Social Security 19 Administration (“the Agency”), denying his application for Social 20 Security Insurance (“SSI”) and Disability Insurance Benefits (“DIB”). 21 He claims that the Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) erred when she 22 relied on the vocational expert’s testimony to conclude that Plaintiff 23 could work and when she rejected the treating doctor’s opinion. 24 the following reasons, the ALJ’s decision is reversed and the case is 25 remanded for further proceedings. 26 27 28 II. For SUMMARY OF PROCEEDINGS In November 2011, Plaintiff applied for SSI and DIB, alleging that he had been disabled since October 2011, due to cirrhosis of the Dockets.Justia.com 1 liver, esophageal varices, hernia (groin), degenerative disc disease, 2 anemia, depression, and post-traumatic stress disorder. 3 tive Record (“AR”) 188-215.) 4 and on reconsideration and he requested and was granted a hearing 5 before an ALJ. 6 at the hearing. 7 denying benefits. 8 Council, which denied review. 11 His applications were denied initially In April 2013, he appeared with counsel and testified (AR 33-67.) Thereafter, the ALJ issued a decision (AR 9-20.) 9 10 Plaintiff appealed to the Appeals (AR 1-3.) III. A. (Administra- He then filed this action. ANALYSIS The Vocational Expert’s Testimony The ALJ determined that Plaintiff was not capable of performing 12 “fast-paced work such as assembly line work.” 13 limitation, she concluded that Plaintiff could perform his past work 14 as a user support analyst and as a telemarketer. 15 argues that the ALJ erred in reaching that conclusion because both 16 jobs could require him to “work quickly and at a fast pace,” which 17 would be inconsistent with a limitation on fast-paced work. 18 Stip. at 3-8.) 19 (AR 13.) Despite this (AR 19.) Plaintiff (Joint There is no merit to this argument. A user support analyst is someone who sits in an office and 20 answers telephone calls from computer users who are having trouble 21 operating their computers. 22 (“DOT”), No. 032.262-010. 23 in the DOT or in the record suggests that this is fast-paced work, 24 like on an assembly line. 25 DOT No. 299.357-014. 26 time limits for these jobs does not transform them into fast-paced, 27 assembly line work. 28 support in the law or the record--is rejected. See Dictionary of Occupational Titles Nothing about the description of this job The same is true for the telemarketing job, The fact that employers could impose quotas or Plaintiff’s argument to the contrary--void of any 2 1 B. 2 The Treating Doctor’s Opinion Plaintiff’s treating doctor, Dr. Diep Bui, opined that, as a 3 result of Plaintiff’s liver disease and hernia, he would have to lie 4 down every hour and would miss work more than three times per month. 5 (AR 439-41.) 6 from sitting, standing, or walking for more than two hours and 7 required him to change position every five minutes. 8 the ALJ accepted Dr. Bui’s findings, she would have had to conclude 9 that Plaintiff could not work. He also believed that these ailments prevented Plaintiff (AR 439.) Had But she rejected it because she found 10 that it was not supported by the objective medical evidence. 11 She highlighted the fact that X-rays of the spine, shoulder, and hip 12 showed mild, unremarkable changes. 13 examining doctor saw no evidence of “any significant kyphosis, 14 lordosis or noticeable scoliosis” and no pain upon palpation of the 15 muscle running along the spine. 16 and standing straight-leg testing was negative for both legs. 17 17.) 18 legitimate. 19 Court agrees. 20 (AR 17.) (AR 17.) (AR 17.) She pointed out that an And she noted that sitting (AR Plaintiff argues that the ALJ’s reasons were not specific and (Joint Stip. at 13.) For the following reasons, the All things being equal, ALJs are required to favor treating 21 doctors’ opinions over non-treating doctors’ opinions. 22 495 F.3d 625, 631 (9th Cir. 2007); see also Morgan v. Comm'r, 169 F.3d 23 595, 600 (9th Cir. 1999) (explaining that a treating physician’s 24 opinion “is given deference because ‘he is employed to cure and has a 25 greater opportunity to know and observe the patient as an 26 individual’”). 27 in favor of a conflicting opinion of an examining doctor for specific 28 and legitimate reasons that are supported by substantial evidence in Orn v. Astrue, But an ALJ may reject the opinion of a treating doctor 3 1 the record. 2 2007) (quoting Orn, 495 F.3d at 632). 3 Lingenfelter v. Astrue, 504 F.3d 1028, 1042 (9th Cir. Dr. Bui determined that Plaintiff was severely limited because of 4 his liver disease and hernia. 5 Bui’s opinion because she found that the X-rays, straight-leg testing 6 results, and absence of pain on palpation of his back were 7 inconsistent with Dr. Bui’s opinion. 8 ALJ’s analysis is that it was not based on the reasons Dr. Bui cited 9 for his opinion. (AR 439-41.) The ALJ rejected Dr. (AR 17.) The problem with the Dr. Bui did not conclude that Plaintiff’s 10 musculoskeletal ailments caused him to be impaired; he concluded that 11 Plaintiff’s liver disease and hernia did. 12 those issues. 13 relied on by Dr. Bui was in error. 14 may not exclude a physician’s testimony for a lack of objective 15 evidence of impairments not referenced by the physician. 16 ALJ must evaluate the physician’s assessment using the grounds on 17 which it is based.”). 18 and the case is remanded. The ALJ never addressed Her rejection of Dr. Bui’s opinion for reasons not See Orn, 495 F.3d at 635 (“An ALJ Rather, an For this reason, the ALJ’s finding is reversed 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 4 1 2 3 IV. CONCLUSION The Agency’s decision denying Plaintiff’s applications is hereby reversed and the case is remanded for further consideration.1 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. 5 DATED: March 25, 2016 6 _______________________________ PATRICK J. WALSH UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 S:\PJW\Cases-Social Security\RODRIGUEZ, J 1820\Memorandum Opinion and Order.wpd 25 26 27 28 1 Plaintiff requested (in the alternative) that the case be remanded for an award of benefits. (Joint Stip. at 19-20.) The Court finds that such relief is not warranted because it is not clear that Plaintiff is entitled to benefits. 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.
