Gordon v. Berryhill, No. 5:2018cv07172 - Document 30 (N.D. Cal. 2019)
Court Description: ORDER REVERSING DECISION OF COMMISIONER AND REMANDING FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS. Re: Dkt. No. 19 . Signed by Judge Nathanael Cousins on 12/12/2019. (lmh, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/12/2019)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Gordon v. Berryhill Doc. 30 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 Case No. 18-cv-07172-NC M.G., 11 United States District Court Northern District of California Plaintiff, 12 v. 13 ANDREW M. SAUL, 14 Defendant. 15 ORDER REVERSING DECISION OF COMMISSIONER AND REMANDING FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS Re: Dkt. No. 19 16 Plaintiff M.G. appeals from Social Security Commissioner Andrew M. Saul’s1 17 18 denial of her application under Title XVI of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 1391 et 19 seq. See Dkt. No. 19. Because the ALJ erred by discounting the opinions of Plaintiff’s 20 treating physicians and Plaintiff submitted additional relevant evidence that should have 21 been considered, the Court reverses the Commissioner’s decision and REMANDS this 22 case for further proceedings. 23 I. Background 24 On December 2, 2015, Plaintiff applied for disability insurance benefits alleging 25 disability beginning July 2, 2012. See Dkt. No. 10 (“AR”) at 36, 380. She claimed that 26 27 28 1 On June 4, 2019, the United States Senate confirmed Andrew M. Saul as the Commissioner of Social Security. See P.N. 94, 116th Congress (2019). Accordingly, the Court substitutes Saul for the Defendant and directs the Clerk of the Court to update the case caption. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 25(d). Dockets.Justia.com 1 she could not work because of sacral radiculopathy, degenerative disc disease, sciatica, 2 perineural cyst, and bilateral sacroiliac joint fusion. See id. at 395. On October 5, 2017, an ALJ held a hearing (see id. at 53–83) and issued her United States District Court Northern District of California 3 4 decision on February 1, 2018 (see id. at 36–48). The ALJ found that Plaintiff had not 5 engaged in substantial gainful activity since July 2, 2012, and suffered severe impairments. 6 Id. at 38. Those impairments, however, did not meet the severity of any impairments listed 7 in Social Security regulations. Id. at 39. The ALJ further found that Plaintiff had the 8 residual functional capacity to performed limited, light work. Id. at 39–40. And, taking 9 Plaintiff’s vocational background into account, the ALJ found that she could perform past 10 relevant work as a psychiatrist or work in other occupations, such as a case manager. Id. at 11 46–47. The ALJ thus concluded that Plaintiff was not disabled. Id. at 47. After the ALJ issued her decision, Plaintiff appealed to the Appeals Council (see id. 12 13 at 1–4) and submitted additional evidence in support (see id. at 15–27, 84–273). The 14 Appeals Council found that Plaintiff’s newly-filed evidence did not show a reasonable 15 probability that it would change the outcome of her application and denied her request. Id. 16 at 1–2. Plaintiff now seeks judicial review of the Commissioner’s final decision. See Dkt. 17 Nos, 1, 19. 18 II. 19 Discussion Plaintiff argues that the Commissioner’s decision should be reversed because (1) 20 the Appeals Council failed to consider additional evidence; and (2) the ALJ erred by 21 giving her treating physicians’ opinions little weight. See Dkt. No. 19-1 at 3. 22 In her appeal to the Appeals Council, Plaintiff submitted medical records and 23 reports from her medical providers. See AR at 84–273. Those records ranged in date from 24 January 2014 to April 28, 2018. Id. Defendants argue that the Appeals Council properly 25 declined to consider that evidence because it was duplicative, and Plaintiff failed to show 26 good cause for her late disclosure. See Dkt. No. 24 at 3–6. 27 28 The Court disagrees. Although some of the medical records could have been produced earlier, Plaintiff was represented at her hearing by a different attorney who, as 2 United States District Court Northern District of California 1 noted by the ALJ, had a “recurring pattern” of failing to timely submit relevant records. 2 See AR at 55, 452. After the ALJ’s decision, Plaintiff obtained new counsel who 3 explained that the previous attorney failed to submit medical records for the period 4 between December 2016 and October 2017. Id. at 452. Plaintiff’s counsel submitted those 5 records in support of her appeal to the Appeals Council. Id. at 84–273, 452. 6 Although it is unclear whether attorney neglect qualifies as “good cause” (see 7 Burton v. Heckler, 724 F.2d 1415, 1417–18 (9th Cir. 1984) (“The good cause requirement 8 often is liberally applied, where . . . there is no indication that a remand for consideration 9 of new evidence will result in prejudice to the Secretary.”); but see Mayes v. Massanari, 10 276 F.3d 453, 463 (9th Cir. 2001) (“To demonstrate good cause, the claimant must 11 demonstrate that the new evidence was unavailable earlier.”)), the Appeals Council did not 12 cite lack of good cause as the reason for declining to consider the evidence. See AR at 2. 13 Instead, it stated that the evidence “[did] not show a reasonable probability that it would 14 change the outcome of the decision.” Id. But the ALJ specifically noted that no medical 15 records after December 2016 were submitted for her review. See id. at 42. The ALJ also 16 found that Plaintiff’s condition had improved by the end of 2016. See, e.g., id. at 44. 17 Plaintiff’s late-submitted medical records show, however, that she continued to receive 18 significant treatment for her pain throughout 2017 and 2018. Moreover, one month before 19 her hearing, Plaintiff underwent significant surgery to remove her spinal stimulator due to 20 an infection. See id. at 63. She testified that the stimulator had been “very helpful” and 21 “better than any medicine” for managing her pain. Id. at 65, 66. The records before the 22 ALJ, however, contained no information regarding Plaintiff’s condition after that surgery. 23 Next, the ALJ erred in giving little weight to the opinions of Dr. Hsieh. An ALJ 24 must provide “clear and convincing reasons that are supported by substantial evidence” to 25 reject uncontradicted opinions of a treating or examining doctor. Ryan v. Comm’r of Soc. 26 Sec., 528 F.3d 1194, 1198 (9th Cir. 2008) (quoting Bayliss v. Barnhart, 427 F.3d 1211, 27 1216 (9th Cir. 2005)). Contradicted opinions of a treating or examining doctor may be 28 rejected by “specific and legitimate reasons that are supported by substantial evidence.” 3 1 Id. Here, the ALJ failed to consider Plaintiff’s medical records in context and instead 2 isolated evidence of improvement. See Orn v. Astrue, 495 F.3d 625, 630 (9th Cir. 2007) 3 (“[A] reviewing court must consider the entire record as a whole and may not affirm 4 simply by isolating a specific quantum of supporting evidence.”). For example, the ALJ 5 noted that Plaintiff’s back pain appeared to improve after receiving injections. See AR at 6 44. But the improvements appear short-lived (see, e.g. id. at 135, 1344–53) and are often 7 accompanied by reports of other instances of pain or other symptoms like fecal 8 incontinence (see, e.g., id. at 1321). Moreover, the late-submitted evidence further shows 9 that Plaintiff’s pain continues to be an issue. See id. at 154. United States District Court Northern District of California 10 On the other hand, the ALJ did not err in giving little weight to Dr. Chen’s opinion. 11 Although the ALJ’s reasoning was brief, Dr. Chen’s opinion was written in 2013 and did 12 not consider much of the medical record available to the ALJ. 13 III. Conclusion 14 The Court REMANDS this case for further proceedings. On remand, the ALJ must 15 consider the evidence submitted to the Appeals Council (see id. at 84–273) and reweigh 16 opinion evidence accordingly. 17 IT IS SO ORDERED. 18 19 20 Dated: December 12, 2019 _____________________________________ NATHANAEL M. COUSINS United States Magistrate Judge 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 4
]]>
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.
