Tony Holloway v. Michael J. Astrue
Filing
21
(CORRECTED AS TO THE CASE NAME ONLY) MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER by Magistrate Judge Ralph Zarefsky. Re Document 19 . (ib)
O
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
TONY L. HOLLOWAY,
12
13
14
15
16
Plaintiff,
vs.
MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner
of Social Security,
Defendant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
CASE NO. CV 10-05765 RZ
[Corrected as to case name only]
MEMORANDUM OPINION
AND ORDER
17
In this action to review an adverse disability decision by the Social Security
18
Commissioner, Plaintiff Tony L. Holloway principally complains that the Administrative
19
Law Judge misapplied the doctrine of administrative res judicata. Plaintiff complains that
20
the prior disability decision is not part of the administrative record, so that the conclusion
21
that administrative res judicata applies cannot be evaluated.
22
In the abstract, that might be a good argument. But there is no dispute that,
23
in the prior determination, the Commissioner found that Plaintiff was capable of light work,
24
even if the explication of the evidence contained in the prior decision is not a matter of this
25
record. In the current decision, the Administrative Law Judge found that Plaintiff is
26
capable of medium work. [AR 23] Thus, the Administrative Law Judge in the present
27
matter found that Plaintiff was capable of more physically strenuous work now than earlier
28
1
when Plaintiff also was found not to be disabled. If the Administrative Law Judge erred
2
in applying the doctrine of administrative res judicata, the error was without consequence.
3
The question instead is whether substantial evidence supports the decision that
4
the Administrative Law Judge did make. The finding that Plaintiff could perform medium
5
work rested on the examination by the consulting physician Dr. Enriguez. [AR 25]
6
Plaintiff points out, however, that there were subsequent radiological tests, and asserts that
7
Dr. Enriguez’s assessment cannot stand as substantial evidence backing the Administrative
8
Law Judge’s finding recommendation. The Commissioner disagrees, but the Court finds
9
the Commissioner’s arguments unpersuasive.
10
First, the Commissioner asserts that it is the doctor’s examination that counts,
11
not the subsequent imaging studies. (Defendant’s Memorandum at 5:16-18.) The case it
12
cites for that proposition, Tonapetyan v. Halter, 242 F.3d 144, 149 (9th Cir. 2001), does
13
not support the argument. Nor does it make sense that, if there are later studies that might
14
affect a physician’s evaluation, that the studies could simply be ignored because the
15
physician had made his evaluation without them.
16
Second, the Commissioner asserts that the Administrative Law Judge did
17
consider the imaging studies, and that his consideration is sufficient because he is the
18
arbiter of the facts. (Defendant’s Memorandum at 5:18-20.) But, while he may be the
19
arbiter of facts, he is not a doctor. A medical expert needs to evaluate medical studies, not
20
a lay person. Manso-Pizarro v. Secretary of Health and Human Services, 76 F.3d 15, 17
21
(1st Cir. 1996); Day v. Weinberger, 522 F.2d 1154, 1156 (9th Cir. 1975). Based on a
22
physician’s assessment of the studies, an administrative law judge can make findings, but
23
that was not done here.
24
///
25
///
26
///
27
///
28
///
-2-
1
Hence, the record is left incomplete, and further evaluation is needed.
2
Accordingly, the matter is reversed, and remanded for further consideration consistent with
3
this memorandum.
4
IT IS SO ORDERED.
5
6
DATED: September 28, 2011
7
8
9
RALPH ZAREFSKY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-3-
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?