Bartlett v. Saul, No. 2:2019cv00261 - Document 19 (E.D. Wash. 2020)
Court Description: ORDER Granting, In Part, 13 Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment and Remanding for Additional Proceedings. Signed by Magistrate Judge John T. Rodgers. (MO, Courtroom Deputy)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Bartlett v. Saul Doc. 19 Case 2:19-cv-00261-JTR ECF No. 19 filed 07/27/20 PageID.654 Page 1 of 13 1 2 3 4 FILED IN THE U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 5 6 Jul 27, 2020 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON SEAN F. MCAVOY, CLERK 10 11 12 WILLIAM B., No. 2:19-CV-00261-JTR Plaintiff, 13 14 15 16 17 18 v. ANDREW M. SAUL, COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, ORDER GRANTING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND REMANDING FOR ADDITIONAL PROCEEDINGS Defendant. 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 BEFORE THE COURT are cross-motions for summary judgment. ECF No. 13, 17. Attorney Rosemary Schurman represents William B. (Plaintiff); Special Assistant United States Attorney Jacob Peter Phillips represents the Commissioner of Social Security (Defendant). The parties have consented to proceed before a magistrate judge. ECF No. 6. After reviewing the administrative record and the briefs filed by the parties, the Court GRANTS IN PART Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment; DENIES Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment; and REMANDS the matter to the Commissioner for additional proceedings pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). ORDER GRANTING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S MOTION . . . - 1 Dockets.Justia.com Case 2:19-cv-00261-JTR 1 2 ECF No. 19 filed 07/27/20 PageID.655 Page 2 of 13 JURISDICTION Plaintiff filed an application for Supplemental Security Income on 3 September 15, 2017, alleging disability since January 23, 2008,1 due to 4 schizophrenia and bipolar disorder. Tr. 72. The application was denied initially and 5 upon reconsideration. Tr. 96-99, 103-05. Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Moira 6 Ausems held a hearing on March 27, 2019, Tr. 30-70, and issued an unfavorable 7 decision on April 23, 2019, Tr. 15-24. Plaintiff requested review of the ALJ’s 8 decision from the Appeals Council. Tr. 169, 254-59. The Appeals Council denied 9 the request for review on June 12, 2019. Tr. 1-6. The ALJ’s April 2019 decision is 10 the final decision of the Commissioner, which is appealable to the district court 11 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). Plaintiff filed this action for judicial review on July 12 26, 2019. ECF No. 1. 13 14 STATEMENT OF FACTS Plaintiff was born in 1984 and was 33 years old as of the filing of his 15 application. Tr. 23. He had a traumatic childhood, including being abused by his 16 alcoholic mother and the death of his brother. Tr. 265, 291, 364. Plaintiff spent 17 time living with his grandparents, in foster care, and in juvenile detention. Tr. 266, 18 291, 364. He dropped out of school and completed his GED. Tr. 266, 292, 364. In 19 2009 his infant daughter died from SIDS. Tr. 265, 291, 389. He has a minimal 20 work history, with no job lasting longer than a few months. Tr. 266, 292, 365. He 21 has been incarcerated or homeless for much of his adult life, living in the woods in 22 order to stay away from other people. Tr. 41, 53, 227, 332, 334, 356, 441, 544. 23 24 25 STANDARD OF REVIEW The ALJ is responsible for determining credibility, resolving conflicts in medical testimony, and resolving ambiguities. Andrews v. Shalala, 53 F.3d 1035, 26 27 28 1 Plaintiff later amended his alleged onset date to the date of filing of his application. Tr. 33. ORDER GRANTING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S MOTION . . . - 2 Case 2:19-cv-00261-JTR ECF No. 19 filed 07/27/20 PageID.656 Page 3 of 13 1 1039 (9th Cir. 1995). The ALJ’s determinations of law are reviewed de novo, with 2 deference to a reasonable interpretation of the applicable statutes. McNatt v. Apfel, 3 201 F.3d 1084, 1087 (9th Cir. 2000). The decision of the ALJ may be reversed 4 only if it is not supported by substantial evidence or if it is based on legal error. 5 Tackett v. Apfel, 180 F.3d 1094, 1097 (9th Cir. 1999). Substantial evidence is 6 defined as being more than a mere scintilla, but less than a preponderance. Id. at 7 1098. Put another way, substantial evidence is such relevant evidence as a 8 reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. Richardson v. 9 Perales, 402 U.S. 389, 401 (1971). If the evidence is susceptible to more than one 10 rational interpretation, the Court may not substitute its judgment for that of the 11 ALJ. Tackett, 180 F.3d at 1097; Morgan v. Commissioner of Social Sec. Admin., 12 169 F.3d 595, 599 (9th Cir. 1999). If substantial evidence supports the 13 administrative findings, or if conflicting evidence supports a finding of either 14 disability or non-disability, the ALJ’s determination is conclusive. Sprague v. 15 Bowen, 812 F.2d 1226, 1229-1230 (9th Cir. 1987). Nevertheless, a decision 16 supported by substantial evidence will be set aside if the proper legal standards 17 were not applied in weighing the evidence and making the decision. Brawner v. 18 Secretary of Health and Human Services, 839 F.2d 432, 433 (9th Cir. 1988). 19 20 SEQUENTIAL EVALUATION PROCESS The Commissioner has established a five-step sequential evaluation process 21 for determining whether a person is disabled. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(a); Bowen v. 22 Yuckert, 482 U.S. 137, 140-142 (1987). In steps one through four, the burden of 23 proof rests upon the claimant to establish a prima facie case of entitlement to 24 disability benefits. Tackett, 180 F.3d at 1098-1099. This burden is met once a 25 claimant establishes that a physical or mental impairment prevents the claimant 26 from engaging in past relevant work. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(a)(4). If a claimant 27 cannot perform past relevant work, the ALJ proceeds to step five, and the burden 28 shifts to the Commissioner to show (1) the claimant can make an adjustment to ORDER GRANTING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S MOTION . . . - 3 Case 2:19-cv-00261-JTR ECF No. 19 filed 07/27/20 PageID.657 Page 4 of 13 1 other work; and (2) the claimant can perform specific jobs that exist in the national 2 economy. Batson v. Commissioner of Social Sec. Admin., 359 F.3d 1190, 1193- 3 1194 (2004). If a claimant cannot make an adjustment to other work in the national 4 economy, the claimant will be found disabled. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(a)(4)(v). 5 ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION 6 On April 23, 2019, the ALJ issued a decision finding Plaintiff was not 7 8 9 disabled as defined in the Social Security Act. Tr. 15-24. At step one, the ALJ found Plaintiff had not engaged in substantial gainful activity since the application date. Tr. 17. 10 At step two, the ALJ determined Plaintiff had the following severe 11 impairments: bipolar disorder, antisocial personality disorder, attention deficit 12 hyperactivity disorder, post-traumatic stress disorder, and history of polysubstance 13 abuse disorder in full sustained remission with the exception of cannabis use 14 disorder. Id. 15 At step three, the ALJ found Plaintiff did not have an impairment or 16 combination of impairments that met or medically equaled the severity of one of 17 the listed impairments. Tr. 19-20. 18 19 20 21 22 23 The ALJ assessed Plaintiff’s Residual Functional Capacity (RFC) and found he could perform work at all exertional levels, but he was limited to work that: does not require the performance of more than simple routine tasks or tasks that have high quotas or fast-paced production requirements, and that do not involve more than occasional brief superficial interaction with the general public or require more than infrequent adaptation to unforeseen changes. 24 25 Tr. 20. 26 At step four, the ALJ found Plaintiff had no past relevant work. Tr. 23. 27 At step five, the ALJ found that, considering Plaintiff’s age, education, work 28 experience and residual functional capacity, there were jobs that existed in ORDER GRANTING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S MOTION . . . - 4 Case 2:19-cv-00261-JTR ECF No. 19 filed 07/27/20 PageID.658 Page 5 of 13 1 significant numbers in the national economy that Plaintiff could perform, 2 specifically identifying the representative occupations of housekeeping cleaner, 3 cafeteria attendant, and dining room attendant. Tr. 23. The ALJ alternatively found 4 that, even if Plaintiff were further limited to work with no public contact, there 5 would still be jobs that he could perform, including cannery worker and price 6 marker. Tr. 23-24. 7 The ALJ thus concluded Plaintiff was not under a disability within the 8 meaning of the Social Security Act at any time from the date the application was 9 filed through the date of the decision. Tr. 24. 10 ISSUES 11 The question presented is whether substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s 12 decision denying benefits and, if so, whether that decision is based on proper legal 13 standards. 14 Plaintiff contends the Commissioner erred by (1) improperly assessing the 15 medical opinions; and (2) making RFC findings and step five findings that are 16 contrary to law and fact. 17 18 19 DISCUSSION 1. Medical opinion evidence Plaintiff contends the ALJ erred by improperly assessing the medical 20 opinions. Specifically, he asserts the ALJ erred in rejecting consistent opinions 21 from multiple providers which were supported by the record as a whole. ECF No. 22 13 at 5. 23 For claims filed on or after March 27, 2017, new regulations apply that 24 change the framework for how an ALJ must weigh medical opinion evidence. 25 Revisions to Rules Regarding the Evaluation of Medical Evidence, 2017 WL 26 168819, 82 Fed. Reg. 5844 (Jan. 18, 2017); 20 C.F.R. § 416.920c. The new 27 regulations provide the ALJ will no longer give any specific evidentiary weight to 28 medical opinions or prior administrative medical findings, including those from ORDER GRANTING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S MOTION . . . - 5 Case 2:19-cv-00261-JTR ECF No. 19 filed 07/27/20 PageID.659 Page 6 of 13 1 treating medical sources. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920c(a). Instead, the ALJ will consider 2 the persuasiveness of each medical opinion and prior administrative medical 3 finding, regardless of whether the medical source is an Acceptable Medical Source. 4 20 C.F.R. § 416.920c(c). The ALJ is required to consider multiple factors, 5 including supportability, consistency, the source’s relationship with the claimant, 6 any specialization of the source, and other factors (such as the source’s familiarity 7 with other evidence in the file or an understanding of Social Security’s disability 8 program). Id. The regulations make clear that the supportability and consistency of 9 the opinion are the most important factors, and the ALJ must articulate how she 10 considered those factors in determining the persuasiveness of each medical opinion 11 or prior administrative medical finding. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920a(b). The ALJ may 12 explain how she considered the other factors, but is not required to do so, except in 13 cases where two or more opinions are equally well-supported and consistent with 14 the record. Id.2 15 16 17 18 19 Supportability and consistency are further explained in the regulations: (1) Supportability. The more relevant the objective medical evidence and supporting explanations presented by a medical source are to support his or her medical opinion(s) or prior administrative medical finding(s), the more persuasive the medical opinions or prior administrative medical finding(s) will be. 20 21 (2) Consistency. The more consistent a medical opinion(s) or prior administrative medical finding(s) is with the evidence from other 22 23 2 The parties disagree over whether Ninth Circuit case law continues to be 24 controlling in light of the amended regulations, specifically whether an ALJ is still 25 required to provide specific and legitimate reasons for discounting a contradicted 26 opinion from a treating or examining physician. ECF No. 13 at 6-7; ECF No. 17 at 27 2-9. The Court finds resolution of this question unnecessary to the disposition of 28 this case. ORDER GRANTING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S MOTION . . . - 6 Case 2:19-cv-00261-JTR 1 2 ECF No. 19 filed 07/27/20 PageID.660 Page 7 of 13 medical sources and nonmedical sources in the claim, the more persuasive the medical opinion(s) or prior administrative medical finding(s) will be. 3 4 20 C.F.R. § 416.920c(c). 5 a. Dr. Islam-Zwart 6 Plaintiff attended a consultative psychological exam with Dr. Kayleen 7 Islam-Zwart for the Department of Social and Health Services, in August 2017. Tr. 8 260-68. Dr. Islam-Zwart diagnosed Plaintiff with antisocial personality disorder, 9 ADHD, PTSD, unspecified bipolar disorder, and marijuana use disorder. Tr. 261. 10 She opined Plaintiff had marked limitations in handling detailed instructions, 11 performing within a schedule, maintaining regular attendance, being punctual, 12 communicating and performing effectively, maintaining appropriate behavior, and 13 completing a normal workweek. Tr. 261. 14 The ALJ accorded this opinion “no significant probative value.” She found 15 the opinion was “without support from her narrative report,” and was inconsistent 16 with her own objective findings as well as the longitudinal medical record, which 17 the ALJ found did not document marked limitations. Tr. 22. The ALJ also found 18 Dr. Islam-Zwart’s comments regarding Plaintiff’s limited work history and history 19 of incarceration to be beyond the limitations caused by his severe impairments. Id. 20 The Court finds the ALJ’s analysis is not supported by substantial evidence. 21 With respect to supportability, the ALJ’s discussion of Dr. Islam-Zwart’s opinion 22 omits several findings that were supportive of her opinion, such as her observations 23 that Plaintiff was constantly moving and restless, distractible, struggled with focus, 24 and did not wait for instructions to be completed. Tr. 266-67. The Ninth Circuit has 25 noted that psychiatric reports may appear subjective due to the relative imprecision 26 of psychiatric methodology. Buck v. Berryhill, 869 F.3d 1040, 1049 (9th Cir. 27 2017). Simply because Plaintiff did well on portions of the mental status exam 28 ORDER GRANTING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S MOTION . . . - 7 Case 2:19-cv-00261-JTR ECF No. 19 filed 07/27/20 PageID.661 Page 8 of 13 1 does not negate the other abnormal findings, as well as Dr. Islam-Zwart’s 2 professional assessments. 3 The ALJ also took two comments in the report out of context. The ALJ 4 found Dr. Islam-Zwart’s reflection on Plaintiff’s work history and incarceration to 5 be beyond the limitations caused by Plaintiff’s mental impairments. Tr. 22. 6 However, the greater context of the paragraph indicates the doctor was listing these 7 factors as examples of his long history of mood disorder and acting out behaviors. 8 Tr. 267. This formulation is supported by another note that indicates chronic 9 engagement in illegal activity and an inability to sustain consistent work are 10 symptoms of his antisocial personality disorder. Tr. 379. The ALJ also took issue 11 with Dr. Islam-Zwart’s finding that Plaintiff indicated difficulty interacting with 12 others despite a page earlier noting he reported to be good at socializing. Tr. 22. 13 The ALJ failed to recount the entire sentence, which reads “He notes that he is 14 good at socializing, but does not really like to interact with people.” Tr. 266 15 (emphasis added). The report also documents Plaintiff’s problems interacting with 16 others without violence and difficulty controlling his anger. Tr. 264-66. The ALJ’s 17 interpretation of the report as being internally inconsistent or unsupported is not 18 supported by substantial evidence. 19 With respect to consistency, the ALJ failed to discuss the medical opinion’s 20 consistency with the rest of the record with any specificity. Tr. 22. The ALJ stated 21 only that the opinion was inconsistent with “the longitudinal medical record, which 22 does not document marked limitations.” Id. On the previous page of the decision 23 the ALJ noted objective mental status findings that were “largely normal or 24 essentially benign.” Tr. 21. However, many of these citations, while including 25 some normal findings, also include abnormal findings. Tr. 294-95 (depressed 26 mood, weak performance on abstract thought and reasoning, insight and judgment 27 outside of normal limits); 279-80 (noting Plaintiff presented as lethargic, guarded, 28 suspicious, rigid, and tense, with rambling speech, poor comprehension, and ORDER GRANTING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S MOTION . . . - 8 Case 2:19-cv-00261-JTR ECF No. 19 filed 07/27/20 PageID.662 Page 9 of 13 1 tangential/slowed/black and white thoughts); 315 (Plaintiff presenting as fully 2 oriented, but agitated, angry, threatening, combative, and disheveled); 326 (normal 3 mood and fully oriented, but with mildly impaired concentration, judgement, and 4 insight). The ALJ’s citation to normal mental status exams during Plaintiff’s 5 treatment in the final months leading up to the hearing omits reference to treatment 6 notes where Plaintiff was furious with his treatment providers and cursed at them, 7 stormed out of sessions, and made threats of violence. Tr. 432, 436-37, 441-43, 8 548. While ALJs obviously must rely on examples to support their findings, the 9 data points they choose must in fact constitute examples of a broader development. 10 Garrison v. Colvin, 759 F.3d 995, 1018 (9th Cir. 2014). The Court finds the ALJ’s 11 examples do not reflect the record as a whole, which shows repeated instances of 12 Plaintiff’s aggression, delusions, difficulty concentrating, and suicidal ideation. Tr. 13 227, 328, 334, 336-37, 356, 365-66, 373-74, 432, 436-37, 441-43, 543, 548. 14 Defendant argues the record reflects objective findings throughout that 15 Plaintiff was cooperative and communicated effectively with normal speech, in 16 contrast to Dr. Islam-Zwart’s opinion that he had marked limitations in 17 communicating and maintaining appropriate behavior. ECF No. 17 at 12-13. 18 However, the ALJ did not invoke these factors in the context of evaluating Dr. 19 Islam-Zwart’s opinion. Tr. 22. The Court is constrained to review only the reasons 20 provided by the ALJ and may not affirm on a ground upon which the ALJ did not 21 rely. Orn v. Astru, 495 F.3d 625, 630 (9th Cir. 2007). 22 Finally, the ALJ did not discuss the consistency between Dr. Islam-Zwart’s 23 opinion and various other disabling opinions in the file, including Dr. Burdge’s 24 assessment agreeing with Dr. Islam-Zwart’s opinion and finding it supported by 25 the available medical evidence. Tr. 307. 26 The Court therefore finds the ALJ failed to adequately evaluate Dr. Islam- 27 Zwart’s opinion in terms of its consistency and supportability, as required by the 28 regulations. ORDER GRANTING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S MOTION . . . - 9 Case 2:19-cv-00261-JTR 1 2 ECF No. 19 filed 07/27/20 PageID.663 Page 10 of 13 b. Dr. Burdge Following Dr. Islam-Zwart’s consultative exam, Dr. Aaron Burdge reviewed 3 the available medical evidence for the Department of Social and Health Services. 4 Tr. 307. He reviewed three medical reports from 2008 to 2017. Id. He concluded 5 the diagnoses and functional limitations in Dr. Islam-Zwart’s opinion were 6 supported by the available objective medical evidence. Id. 7 The ALJ gave no significant probative value to this eligibility determination, 8 noting that Dr. Burdge “had the opportunity to review only a small portion of the 9 medical evidence of record” and had relied on evaluations from well before the 10 11 adjudicative period. Tr. 22. While a source’s familiarity with the other evidence in the claim is a factor 12 the ALJ may consider (20 C.F.R. § 416.920c(c)(5)), it is not the most relevant 13 factor. The ALJ failed to articulate how she considered the most relevant factors 14 of supportability and consistency, as required by the statute. 20 C.F.R. § 15 416.920c(b). Defendant argues that because Dr. Burdge reviewed only Dr. Islam- 16 Zwart’s opinion (which was sufficiently discounted) and evidence that pre-dated 17 the alleged onset date, the opinion was neither well-supported nor consistent with 18 the record. ECF No. 17 at 13-14. However, the ALJ did not rely on this rationale. 19 Furthermore, the Court finds the ALJ did not adequately discuss Dr. Islam-Zwart’s 20 opinion. Therefore, the ALJ erred. 21 22 c. MHLP Grey Plaintiff’s treating counselor, Sa’ovale Grey, completed a medical source 23 statement in November 2018. Tr. 445-47. She opined Plaintiff was markedly 24 impaired in understanding and remembering simple instructions and interacting 25 appropriately with the public, and moderately impaired in understanding and 26 remembering complex instructions and carrying out instructions. Tr. 445-46. She 27 noted that Plaintiff had only met with her agency three times, but had demonstrated 28 ORDER GRANTING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S MOTION . . . - 10 Case 2:19-cv-00261-JTR ECF No. 19 filed 07/27/20 PageID.664 Page 11 of 13 1 deficiencies in following and/or completing tasks due to his symptoms of PTSD 2 and schizoaffective disorder. Tr. 446. 3 The ALJ accorded no significant probative weight to this opinion. Tr. 22. 4 The ALJ found the opinion to be unsupported by sufficient objective evidence as 5 Ms. Grey had only recently begun treating Plaintiff, and the ALJ found Ms. Grey’s 6 treatment notes to be generally inconsistent with the opinion. Id. 7 While the ALJ offered sufficient analysis of the supportability factor, she 8 failed to articulate how she considered Ms. Grey’s opinion in terms of consistency 9 with the evidence from other medical and nonmedical sources, as required by the 10 11 12 revised regulations. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920c(b). Therefore, the ALJ erred. d. State agency doctors On initial and reconsideration review, state agency doctors offered their 13 opinions regarding Plaintiff’s functional abilities. Tr. 79-80, 90-92. They found 14 Plaintiff was capable of simple tasks, and could handle routine social interaction 15 with brief repetitive interactions with the public. Id. They found he would work 16 best in a stable, low-pressure setting. Id. 17 The ALJ found these opinions had significant probative value, finding them 18 supported by the longitudinal medical record documenting generally moderate 19 limitations, and consistent with the findings on mental status examinations 20 throughout the period. Tr. 22. 21 As this claim is being remanded for further consideration of the 22 persuasiveness of other evidence in the file, the ALJ shall also reconsider the state 23 agency doctors’ findings and address their supportability and consistency with 24 other evidence in the record. 25 26 e. Dr. Brown and Dr. Neims Plaintiff attended two previous evaluations for the Department of Social and 27 Health Services, in 2008 and 2014. Tr. 272-90, 291-97. The ALJ found each 28 opinion was “too remote in time to be of any significant evidentiary value in ORDER GRANTING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S MOTION . . . - 11 Case 2:19-cv-00261-JTR ECF No. 19 filed 07/27/20 PageID.665 Page 12 of 13 1 assessing the claimant’s functioning from September 15, 2017, the application 2 date, to the present.” Tr. 22. 3 Plaintiff acknowledges that while remote evidence is often not considered 4 relevant, in this case the opinions are consistent with the later evidence and support 5 the notion that Plaintiff’s impairments are long-standing and will interfere with his 6 ability to work. ECF No. 13 at 17. 7 Medical opinions that predate the alleged onset of disability are of limited 8 relevance. See Fair v. Bowen, 885 F.2d 597, 600 (9th Cir.1989). Therefore, the 9 ALJ did not err in disregarding this evidence.3 10 11 2. RFC and step five findings Plaintiff argues that the RFC finding and subsequent job findings at step 5 12 are flawed due to the ALJ’s improper disregard of the medical evidence. ECF No. 13 13 at 18-19. As this claim is being remanded for further evaluation of the medical 14 evidence, the ALJ will be required to reassess the RFC and subsequent steps of the 15 sequential evaluation process. 16 CONCLUSION 17 Plaintiff argues the decision should be reversed and remanded for the 18 payment of benefits, as the record is fully developed and there are no further issues 19 to resolve. Defendant argues numerous conflicts exist among the various medical 20 opinions and other evidence precludes crediting any of the opinions as true. 21 The Court notes that the commentary to the revised regulations specifically 22 indicates that the intent in the new rules was “to make it clear that it is never 23 appropriate under our rules to ‘credit-as-true’ any medical opinion.” Revisions to 24 25 3 The Court notes that the ALJ did cite to these opinions in finding mental 26 status exams to be largely normal or benign through the adjudicative period. Tr. 21 27 (citing to Exhibits 1F/20-21, 1F/35-36). On remand, the Court urges the ALJ to be 28 consistent as to whether this evidence has probative value or not. ORDER GRANTING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S MOTION . . . - 12 Case 2:19-cv-00261-JTR ECF No. 19 filed 07/27/20 PageID.666 Page 13 of 13 1 Rules Regarding the Evaluation of Medical Evidence, 2017 WL 168819, 82 Fed. 2 Reg. 5844, 5858 (Jan. 18, 2017). 3 In this case, the Court finds that further development is necessary for a 4 proper determination to be made. The ALJ’s decision is not supported by 5 substantial evidence. On remand, the ALJ shall reevaluate each of the medical 6 opinions, specifically addressing the persuasiveness of each in compliance with the 7 new regulations. The ALJ shall take into consideration any additional evidence 8 presented and make findings at each of the five steps of the sequential evaluation 9 process. 10 Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED: 11 1. 12 13 14 15 16 Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 13, is GRANTED, IN PART. 2. Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 17, is DENIED. 3. The matter is REMANDED to the Commissioner for additional proceedings consistent with this Order. 17 4. An application for attorney fees may be filed by separate motion. 18 The District Court Executive is directed to file this Order and provide a copy 19 to counsel for Plaintiff and Defendant. Judgment shall be entered for Plaintiff and 20 the file shall be CLOSED. 21 IT IS SO ORDERED. 22 DATED July 27, 2020. 23 24 25 _____________________________________ JOHN T. RODGERS UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 26 27 28 ORDER GRANTING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S MOTION . . . - 13
]]>
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.
