Zandria Perkins Morris v. Michael J Astrue, No. 8:2008cv01083 - Document 22 (C.D. Cal. 2009)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER by Magistrate Judge Ralph Zarefsky. The decision of the Commissioner is affirmed. (mz)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
O 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 12 ZANDRIA PERKINS MORRIS O/B/O T.M., Plaintiff, 13 14 15 16 17 vs. MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CASE NO. SA CV 08-01083 (RZ) MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER 18 The Court remanded this matter once before, so that the Administrative Law 19 Judge could consider the lay testimony of Plaintiff, the mother of the applicant, in 20 accordance with Stout v. Commissioner, 454 F.3d 1050 (9th Cir. 2006). Plaintiff now 21 returns to this Court after a further denial of the application for Supplemental Security 22 Income, but now does not challenge the Administrative Law Judge s consideration of 23 Plaintiff s mother s testimony. Instead, Plaintiff now makes two different arguments. 24 First, Plaintiff argues that the Administrative Law Judge did not address the 25 report of a psychiatrist that said that Plaintiff s child had limited insight and judgment, and 26 that assigned her a rating of 46 on the American Psychiatric Association s Global 27 Assessment of Functioning Scale. The document specifically referred to, appearing at page 28 802 of the Administrative Record, is difficult to read, but it appears as if the Administrative 1 Law Judge did, in fact consider it, for he discussed the later-received medical records 2 which included this one. [AR 338] Thereafter, he proceeded to discuss the medical 3 evidence, and whether Plaintiff s child was functionally disabled. [AR 338-44] This 4 discussion fulfilled his obligation. 20 C.F.R. ยง 416.926a. 5 It is true that the Administrative Law Judge did not mention specifically the 6 GAF score. However, while the GAF score is relevant, it is a summary measure, and the 7 Administrative Law Judge discussed at length the kinds of behaviors Plaintiff s child 8 exhibited, and whether she met the functional limitations required for a finding of child 9 disability. Plaintiff cites no case law that requires that an administrative law judge 10 specifically discuss a GAF under similar circumstances. 11 Second, Plaintiff claims that the Administrative Law Judge failed to develop 12 the record, because he did not follow up on Plaintiff s recent testimony about trips to the 13 emergency room and heart problems. An administrative law judge has an obligation to 14 develop the record further only if the record is ambiguous or a decision cannot be made on 15 the basis of the current record. Mayes v. Massanari, 276 F.3d 453,459-60 (9th Cir. 2001) 16 (citing Tonapetyan v. Halter, 242 F.3d 1144, 1150 (9th Cir. 2001). That was not the case 17 here. Plaintiff gave no indication of where or when the visits to the hospital occurred, even 18 though she was represented by counsel at the hearing, and in this Court Plaintiff still gives 19 no indication of how any further record development would alter the Administrative Law 20 Judge s decision. The record was sufficient for the Administrative Law Judge to make his 21 decision. In accordance with the foregoing, the decision of the Commissioner is 22 23 24 affirmed. DATED: July 1, 2009 25 26 27 RALPH ZAREFSKY UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 28 -2-
]]>
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.
