Marcos Silva v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration, No. 8:2016cv00441 - Document 18 (C.D. Cal. 2016)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER OF REMAND by Magistrate Judge Charles F. Eick. Plaintiff's and Defendant's motions for summary judgment are denied and this matter is remanded for further administrative action consistent with this Opinion. (sp)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Marcos Silva v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration Doc. 18 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 MARCOS JESUS SILVA, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) COMMISSIONER OF ) SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, ) ) Defendant. ) ____________________________________) NO. SA CV 16-441-E MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER OF REMAND 17 18 Pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. section 405(g), IT IS 19 HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s and Defendant’s motions for summary 20 judgment are denied, and this matter is remanded for further 21 administrative action consistent with this Opinion. 22 23 PROCEEDINGS 24 25 Plaintiff filed a complaint on March 8, 2016, seeking review of 26 the Commissioner’s denial of benefits. The parties consented to 27 proceed before a United States Magistrate Judge on April 5, 2016. 28 Plaintiff filed a motion for summary judgment on July 14, 2016. Dockets.Justia.com 1 Defendant filed a cross-motion for summary judgment on July 27, 2016. 2 The Court has taken the motions under submission without oral 3 argument. See L.R. 7-15; “Order,” filed March 15, 2016. 4 5 BACKGROUND AND SUMMARY OF ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION 6 7 Plaintiff alleges disability since April 1, 2013 (Administrative 8 Record (“A.R.”) 202). Dr. Murali Raju, Plaintiff’s treating 9 physician, opined, inter alia, that Plaintiff’s “lumbar degenerative 10 disc disease” limits Plaintiff to standing and walking no more than 11 four hours during an eight hour workday and would cause Plaintiff to 12 be absent from work “[a]bout twice a month” (A.R. 448-51). 13 vocational expert testified that a person so limited could not perform 14 any job (AR. 88-89). A 15 16 An Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) found Plaintiff suffers from 17 severe “degenerative disc disease of the cervical and lumbar spine” 18 (A.R. 24). 19 residual functional capacity to perform a restricted range of light 20 work, including the capacity to stand or walk for six hours out of an 21 eight hour workday (A.R. 26). 22 described above, the ALJ stated: However, the ALJ also found that Plaintiff retains the In rejecting the opinions of Dr. Raju 23 24 I give little weight to Dr. Raju’s opinion that the claimant 25 should be absent from work about twice a month and less 26 weight to the opinion that the claimant would be limited to 27 standing and walking 4 hours. 28 consistent with the overall evidence of record. This assessment is not 2 Although 1 the claimant complained that his medication caused 2 drowsiness, he acknowledged that he was able to prepare 3 sandwiches on a daily basis, read, shop, and drive (A.R. 4 30). 5 6 The Appeals Council denied review (A.R. 1-7). 7 8 STANDARD OF REVIEW 9 10 Under 42 U.S.C. section 405(g), this Court reviews the 11 Administration’s decision to determine if: (1) the Administration’s 12 findings are supported by substantial evidence; and (2) the 13 Administration used correct legal standards. 14 Commissioner, 533 F.3d 1155, 1159 (9th Cir. 2008); Hoopai v. Astrue, 15 499 F.3d 1071, 1074 (9th Cir. 2007); see also Brewes v. Commissioner, 16 682 F.3d 1157, 1161 (9th Cir. 2012). 17 relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to 18 support a conclusion.” 19 (1971) (citation and quotations omitted); see also Widmark v. 20 Barnhart, 454 F.3d 1063, 1066 (9th Cir. 2006). See Carmickle v. Substantial evidence is “such Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389, 401 21 22 If the evidence can support either outcome, the court may 23 not substitute its judgment for that of the ALJ. 24 Commissioner’s decision cannot be affirmed simply by 25 isolating a specific quantum of supporting evidence. 26 Rather, a court must consider the record as a whole, 27 weighing both evidence that supports and evidence that 28 detracts from the [administrative] conclusion. 3 But the 1 Tackett v. Apfel, 180 F.3d 1094, 1098 (9th Cir. 1999) (citations and 2 quotations omitted). 3 4 DISCUSSION 5 6 A treating physician’s opinions “must be given substantial 7 weight.” Embrey v. Bowen, 849 F.2d 418, 422 (9th Cir. 1988); see 8 Rodriguez v. Bowen, 876 F.2d 759, 762 (9th Cir. 1989) (“the ALJ must 9 give sufficient weight to the subjective aspects of a doctor’s 10 opinion. . . . This is especially true when the opinion is that of a 11 treating physician”) (citation omitted); see also Garrison v. Colvin, 12 759 F.3d 995, 1012 (9th Cir. 2014) (discussing deference owed to the 13 opinions of treating and examining physicians). 14 treating physician’s opinions are contradicted, as here, “if the ALJ 15 wishes to disregard the opinion[s] of the treating physician he . . . 16 must make findings setting forth specific, legitimate reasons for 17 doing so that are based on substantial evidence in the record.” 18 Winans v. Bowen, 853 F.2d 643, 647 (9th Cir. 1987) (citation, 19 quotations and brackets omitted); see Rodriguez v. Bowen, 876 F.2d at 20 762 (“The ALJ may disregard the treating physician’s opinion, but only 21 by setting forth specific, legitimate reasons for doing so, and this 22 decision must itself be based on substantial evidence”) (citation and 23 quotations omitted). Even where the 24 25 The reasons the ALJ stated for rejecting Dr. Raju’s opinions 26 regarding Plaintiff’s alleged standing/walking limitations and 27 absenteeism do not comport with these authorities. 28 statement that Dr. Raju’s opinions were “not consistent with the 4 The ALJ’s 1 overall evidence of record” is impermissibly vague and unspecific. 2 See, e.g., Kinzer v. Colvin, 567 Fed. App’x 529, 530 (9th Cir. 2014) 3 (ALJ’s statements that treating physicians’ opinions “contrasted 4 sharply with the other evidence of record” and were “not well 5 supported by the . . . other objective findings in the case record” 6 held insufficient); McAllister v. Sullivan, 888 F.2d 599, 602 (9th 7 Cir. 1989) (“broad and vague” reasons for rejecting treating 8 physician’s opinions are insufficient); Embrey v. Bowen, 849 F.2d at 9 421 (“To say that the medical opinions are not supported by sufficient 10 objective findings or are contrary to the preponderant conclusions 11 mandated by the objective findings does not achieve the level of 12 specificity our prior cases have required. . . .”). 13 asserted ability “to prepare sandwiches . . . read, shop and drive” is 14 not inconsistent with the above-described opinions of Dr. Raju.1 Plaintiff’s 15 16 Defendant argues that other doctors “all opined that Plaintiff 17 was capable of medium work, with no such limitations . . .” 18 (Defendant’s Motion at 7). 19 doctors contradicted those of Dr. Raju, such contradiction triggers 20 rather than satisfies the requirement of stating “specific, legitimate 21 reasons.” 22 (9th Cir. 2007); Orn v. Astrue, 495 F.3d 625, 631-33 (9th Cir. 2007). To the extent the opinions of other See, e.g., Valentine v. Commissioner, 574 F.3d 685, 692 23 24 In light of the vocational expert’s testimony, the Court cannot 25 deem harmless the ALJ’s failure to state sufficient reasons for 26 rejecting Dr. Raju’s opinions. See generally Molina v. Astrue, 674 27 1 28 Indeed, it is uncertain whether the ALJ intended this statement to serve as a reason to reject Dr. Raju’s opinions. 5 1 F.3d 1104, 1115 (9th Cir. 2012) (an error “is harmless where it is 2 inconsequential to the ultimate disability determination”) (citations 3 and quotations omitted). 4 5 Remand is appropriate because the circumstances of this case 6 suggest that further administrative review could remedy the ALJ’s 7 error. 8 INS v. Ventura, 537 U.S. 12, 16 (2002) (upon reversal of an 9 administrative determination, the proper course is remand for McLeod v. Astrue, 640 F.3d 881, 888 (9th Cir. 2010); see also 10 additional agency investigation or explanation, except in rare 11 circumstances); Dominguez v. Colvin, 808 F.3d 403, 407 (9th Cir. 2015) 12 (“Unless the district court concludes that further administrative 13 proceedings would serve no useful purpose, it may not remand with a 14 direction to provide benefits”); Treichler v. Commissioner, 775 F.3d 15 1090, 1101 n.5 (9th Cir. 2014) (remand for further administrative 16 proceedings is the proper remedy “in all but the rarest cases”); 17 Garrison v. Colvin, 759 F.3d at 1020 (court will credit-as-true 18 medical opinion evidence only where, inter alia, “the record has been 19 fully developed and further administrative proceedings would serve no 20 useful purpose”); Harman v. Apfel, 211 F.3d 1172, 1180-81 (9th Cir.), 21 cert. denied, 531 U.S. 1038 (2000) (remand for further proceedings 22 rather than for the immediate payment of benefits is appropriate where 23 there are “sufficient unanswered questions in the record”). 24 remain significant unanswered questions in the present record. 25 example, it is not clear on the present record whether the ALJ would 26 be required to find Plaintiff disabled for the entire claimed period 27 of disability even if Dr. Raju’s opinions were fully credited. 28 Luna v. Astrue, 623 F.3d 1032, 1035 (9th Cir. 2010). 6 There For See 1 CONCLUSION 2 3 For all of the foregoing reasons,2 Plaintiff’s and Defendant’s 4 motions for summary judgment are denied and this matter is remanded 5 for further administrative action consistent with this Opinion. 6 7 LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY. 8 9 DATED: August 17, 2016. 10 11 /S/ CHARLES F. EICK UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2 The Court has not reached any other issue raised by Plaintiff except insofar as to determine that reversal with a directive for the immediate payment of benefits would not be appropriate at this time. “[E]valuation of the record as a whole creates serious doubt that [Plaintiff] is in fact disabled.” Garrison v. Colvin, 759 F.3d at 1021. 7
]]>
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.
