Raymond E Otto v. Michael J Astrue

Filing 19

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER by Magistrate Judge John E. McDermott, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the decision of the Commissioner of Social Security is REVERSED and REMANDED for further proceedings in accordance with this Memorandum Opinion and Order and with law. (lmh)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 11 RAYMOND E. OTTO, 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. 14 MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, 15 Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant. 16 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No. EDCV 11-1925-JEM MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER REVERSING DECISION OF THE COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY AND REMANDING FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS 17 PROCEEDINGS 18 19 On December 6, 2011, Raymond E. Otto (“Plaintiff”) filed a Complaint seeking review 20 of the decision by the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration (“Commissioner”) 21 finding, in a continuing disability review, that his disability had ceased as of February 1, 2008. 22 The Commissioner filed an Answer on March 16, 2012. On July 12, 2012, the parties filed a 23 Joint Stipulation (“JS”). The matter is now ready for decision. 24 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), both parties consented to proceed before the 25 undersigned Magistrate Judge. After reviewing the pleadings, transcripts, and administrative 26 record (“AR”), the Court concludes that the Commissioner’s decision must be reversed and 27 remanded for further proceedings in accordance with this Memorandum Opinion and Order 28 and with law. BACKGROUND 1 2 On January 6, 1992, Plaintiff filed an application for Social Security Disability 3 Insurance benefits. (JS 1.) In January 1992, Plaintiff was deemed disabled since February 4 1, 1988, due to schizophrenia and antisocial personality disorder. (AR 294.) 5 In a continuing disability review in 2008, Plaintiff was determined to have experienced 6 medical improvement and his benefits were terminated as of February 1, 2008. (AR 430.) 7 Plaintiff filed an appeal of this determination and a disability hearing officer determined that 8 Plaintiff was no longer disabled. (AR 330-41.) Plaintiff timely requested a hearing which was 9 held before Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) David Ganly on February 23, 2010. (AR 342, 10 600-39.) Plaintiff appeared and testified at the hearing but was not represented by counsel. 11 (AR 602.) A medical expert and psychological expert also testified at the hearing. (AR 61012 30.) The ALJ issued a decision on April 9, 2010, upholding the cessation of benefits based 13 on medical improvement. (AR 34-41.) On October 13, 2011, the Appeals Council denied 14 review of the ALJ’s decision. (AR 9-12.) DISPUTED ISSUES 15 16 As reflected in the Joint Stipulation, there are two disputed issues: whether the ALJ 17 properly assessed the medical evidence, and whether the ALJ properly evaluated Plaintiff’s 18 credibility. 19 20 STANDARD OF REVIEW Under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), this Court reviews the ALJ’s decision to determine whether 21 the ALJ’s findings are supported by substantial evidence and free of legal error. Smolen v. 22 Chater, 80 F.3d 1273, 1279 (9th Cir. 1996); see also DeLorme v. Sullivan, 924 F.2d 841, 846 23 (9th Cir. 1991) (ALJ’s disability determination must be supported by substantial evidence and 24 based on the proper legal standards). 25 Substantial evidence means “‘more than a mere scintilla,’ but less than a 26 preponderance.” Saelee v. Chater, 94 F.3d 520, 521-22 (9th Cir. 1996) (quoting Richardson 27 v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389, 401 (1971)). Substantial evidence is “such relevant evidence as a 28 2 1 reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.” Richardson, 402 U.S. 2 at 401 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). 3 This Court must review the record as a whole and consider adverse as well as 4 supporting evidence. Robbins v. Soc. Sec. Admin., 466 F.3d 880, 882 (9th Cir. 2006). 5 Where evidence is susceptible to more than one rational interpretation, the ALJ’s decision 6 must be upheld. Morgan v. Comm’r of the Soc. Sec. Admin., 169 F.3d 595, 599 (9th Cir. 7 1999). “However, a reviewing court must consider the entire record as a whole and may not 8 affirm simply by isolating a ‘specific quantum of supporting evidence.’” Robbins, 466 F.3d at 9 882 (quoting Hammock v. Bowen, 879 F.2d 498, 501 (9th Cir. 1989)); see also Orn v. Astrue, 10 495 F.3d 625, 630 (9th Cir. 2007). THE SEQUENTIAL EVALUATION 11 12 The Social Security Act defines disability as the “inability to engage in any substantial 13 gainful activity by reason of any medically determinable physical or mental impairment which 14 can be expected to result in death or . . . can be expected to last for a continuous period of 15 not less than 12 months.” 42 U.S.C. §§ 423(d) (1)(A), 1382c(a)(3)(A). “Once a claimant has 16 been found to be disabled, . . . a presumption of continuing disability arises in [the claimant’s] 17 favor” and the Commissioner “bears the burden of producing evidence sufficient to rebut the 18 presumption of continuing disability.” Bellamy v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 755 F.2d 19 1380, 1381 (9th Cir. 1985). 20 A recipient whose condition has improved medically so that he is able to engage in 21 substantial gainful activity is no longer disabled. 42 U.S.C. § 1382c(a)(4); 20 C.F.R. §§ 22 404.1594, 416.994; Flaten v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 44 F.3d 1453, 1459 (9th Cir. 23 1995). A medical improvement is 24 any decrease in the medical severity of [a recipient’s] impairment(s) which was 25 present at the time of the most recent favorable medical decision that [the 26 recipient was] disabled or continued to be disabled. A determination that there 27 has been a decrease in medical severity must be based on changes 28 3 1 (improvement) in the symptoms, signs and/or laboratory findings associated 2 with [the recipient's] impairment(s). 3 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1594(b)(1), 416.994(b)(1)(i) (internal citation omitted). 4 To determine if a claimant continues to be disabled, the ALJ must follow a seven- or 5 eight-step sequential evaluation process.1 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1594, 416.994. 6 The first step for a Disability Insurance benefits claim is to determine whether the 7 claimant is presently engaging in substantial gainful activity. Parra v. Astrue, 481 F.3d 742, 8 746 (9th Cir. 2007). If so, the claimant is no longer disabled. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1594(f)(1). 9 The second step for a Disability Insurance benefits claim and the first step for a 10 Supplemental Security Income benefits claim (“step two”) is to determine whether the 11 claimant has an impairment or combination of impairments which meets or medically equals 12 an impairment listed in 20 C.F.R. Pt. 404, Subpt. P, Appendix I of the Social Security 13 regulations. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(d), 416.920(d). If so, the claimant’s disability continues. 14 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1594(f)(2), 416.994(b)(5)(i). 15 At step three, the ALJ must determine if medical improvement has occurred which 16 results in a decrease in the medical severity of the claimant's impairments. 20 C.F.R. §§ 17 404.1594(f)(3), 416.994(b)(5)(ii). If so, the analysis proceeds to the fourth step. If not, the 18 analysis proceeds to the fifth step. 19 At step four, the ALJ must determine if any medical improvement is related to the 20 ability to work. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1594(f)(4), 416.994(b)(5)(iii). 21 At step five, the ALJ must determine if an exception to medical improvement applies. 22 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1594(f)(5), 416.994(b)(5)(iv). If certain exceptions apply, the analysis 23 proceeds to the next step. If other exceptions apply, the claimant is no longer disabled. If no 24 25 1 26 27 28 As explained below, a claim for Disability Insurance benefits involves one more step than does a claim for Supplemental Security Income benefits. For convenience, the Court will refer to the steps as they are numbered for a Disability Insurance benefits claim. Although his initial application was for Disability Insurance benefits, Plaintiff appears to have received both types of benefits. (See AR 34-41, 608.) 4 1 exceptions apply, the claimant’s disability continues. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1594(d)-(e), 2 416.994(b)(3)-(4). 3 At step six, the ALJ must determine whether the claimant's impairments in 4 combination are severe. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1594(f)(6), 416.994(b)(5)(v). If not, the claimant is 5 no longer disabled. 6 At step seven, the ALJ must assess the claimant's residual functional capacity2 and 7 determine if he or she can perform past relevant work. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1594(f)(7), 8 416.994(b)(5)(vi). If so, the claimant is no longer disabled. 9 At step eight, the ALJ must determine whether the claimant can perform any other 10 substantial gainful activity. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1594(f)(8), 416.994(b)(5)(vii). If so, the 11 claimant is no longer disabled. If not, the claimant’s disability continues. 12 THE ALJ’S DECISION 13 The ALJ determined that the most recent favorable medical decision finding that 14 Plaintiff continued to be disabled was the determination dated June 3, 1994. (AR 36.) At 15 step one, the ALJ found that Plaintiff had not engaged in substantial gainful activity as of 16 February 1, 2008. (AR 36.) At step two, the ALJ found that Plaintiff did not have an 17 impairment that meets or medically equals one of the listed impairments. (AR 36.) At steps 18 three and four, the ALJ determined that medical improvement had occurred as of February 1, 19 2008, and that the improvement was related to Plaintiff’s ability to work. (AR 36-37.) The 20 ALJ implicitly determined at step five that no exception indicating nondisability or continuing 21 disability applied. (See AR 37.) At step six, the ALJ found that Plaintiff’s impairment of 22 schizophrenia continued to be severe. (AR 37.) The ALJ determined that Plaintiff 23 possessed the RFC to perform medium work except for work around dangerous, unguarded 24 moving machinery or work at unprotected heights, and that Plaintiff was mentally limited to 25 “object[-]oriented tasks, not requiring contact with the general public or the responsibility for 26 2 27 28 Residual functional capacity (“RFC”) is what one “can still do despite [his or her] limitations” and represents an assessment “based on all the relevant evidence.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1545(a)(1), 416.945(a)(1). 5 1 the safety of others.” (AR 37.) In determining this RFC, the ALJ made an adverse credibility 2 determination. (AR 38-39.) The ALJ found that plaintiff had no past relevant work but was 3 capable of performing a significant number of jobs in the national economy. (AR 39-40.) 4 The ALJ therefore concluded that Plaintiff was no longer disabled. (AR 41.) 5 DISCUSSION 6 The ALJ Did Not Properly Assess the Medical Evidence 7 Plaintiff argues that the ALJ failed to assess accurately the opinions of two examining 8 physicians, internist Dr. Singh and psychiatrist Dr. Yang. The Court agrees. 9 10 A. Relevant Law In evaluating medical opinions, the case law and regulations distinguish among the 11 opinions of three types of physicians: (1) those who treat the claimant (treating physicians); 12 (2) those who examine but do not treat the claimant (examining physicians); and (3) those 13 who neither examine nor treat the claimant (non-examining, or consulting, physicians). See 14 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527, 416.927; see also Lester v. Chater, 81 F.3d 821, 830 (9th Cir. 1995). 15 In general, an ALJ must accord special weight to a treating physician’s opinion because a 16 treating physician “is employed to cure and has a greater opportunity to know and observe 17 the patient as an individual.” Magallanes v. Bowen, 881 F.2d 747, 751 (9th Cir. 1989) 18 (citation omitted). If a treating source’s opinion on the issues of the nature and severity of a 19 claimant’s impairments is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory 20 diagnostic techniques, and is not inconsistent with other substantial evidence in the case 21 record, the ALJ must give it “controlling weight.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(d)(2), 416.927(d)(2). 22 Where a treating doctor’s opinion is not contradicted by another doctor, it may be 23 rejected only for “clear and convincing” reasons. Lester, 81 F.3d at 830. However, if the 24 treating physician’s opinion is contradicted by another doctor, such as an examining 25 physician, the ALJ may reject the treating physician’s opinion by providing specific, legitimate 26 reasons, supported by substantial evidence in the record. Id. at 830-31; see also Orn, 495 27 F.3d at 632; Thomas v. Barnhart, 278 F.3d 947, 957 (9th Cir. 2002). Where a treating 28 6 1 physician's opinion is contradicted by an examining professional’s opinion, the Commissioner 2 may resolve the conflict by relying on the examining physician’s opinion if the examining 3 physician’s opinion is supported by different, independent clinical findings. See Andrews v. 4 Shalala, 53 F.3d 1035, 1041 (9th Cir. 1995); Orn, 495 F.3d at 632. Similarly, to reject an 5 uncontradicted opinion of an examining physician, an ALJ must provide clear and convincing 6 reasons. Bayliss v. Barnhart, 427 F.3d 1211, 1216 (9th Cir. 2005). If an examining 7 physician’s opinion is contradicted by another physician’s opinion, an ALJ must provide 8 specific and legitimate reasons to reject it. Id. However, “[t]he opinion of a non-examining 9 physician cannot by itself constitute substantial evidence that justifies the rejection of the 10 opinion of either an examining physician or a treating physician”; such an opinion may serve 11 as substantial evidence only when it is consistent with and supported by other independent 12 evidence in the record. Lester, 81 F.3d at 830-31; Morgan, 169 F.3d at 600. 13 14 15 B. Analysis 1. Dr. Singh Dr. Singh performed an internal medicine examination on January 24, 2008. (AR 551- 16 55.) He diagnosed Plaintiff with obesity, hypertension (well controlled with medication), 17 hyperlipidemia, hyperthyroidism, and schizophrenia. He opined that Plaintiff could stand and 18 walk for about four hours with breaks in a workday, sit without restriction, and lift and carry 19 25 pounds occasionally and 10 pounds frequently. (AR 555.) The ALJ acknowledged these 20 limitations (AR 39) but adopted less restrictive limitations for Plaintiff’s RFC without 21 explaining why he discounted Dr. Singh’s findings. (AR 37, 39.) Thus, the ALJ implicitly 22 rejected Dr. Singh’s opinion without providing any reasons for doing so. This was error. 23 The Commissioner attempts to defend the ALJ’s implicit rejection of Dr. Singh’s 24 opinion by arguing that the ALJ reasonably relied on the testimony of the medical expert, Dr. 25 Landau. (JS 11-12.) However, “an ALJ may reject the testimony of an examining, but non26 treating physician, in favor of a nonexamining, nontreating physician when he gives specific, 27 legitimate reasons for doing so, and those reasons are supported by substantial record 28 7 1 evidence.” Lester, 81 F.3d at 831 (quotation marks, alteration, and emphasis omitted). The 2 ALJ gave no such reasons in this case, and the Court may not affirm the ALJ’s decision on 3 grounds not specified by the ALJ. See Ceguerra v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 933 4 F.2d 735, 738 (9th Cir. 1991) (“A reviewing court can evaluate an agency’s decision only on 5 the grounds articulated by the ALJ.”). Accordingly, remand is warranted for the ALJ to 6 reevaluate Dr. Singh’s opinion. 7 8 2. Dr. Yang Dr. Yang performed a psychiatric evaluation of Plaintiff on January 13, 2008. (AR 9 546-50.) He diagnosed Plaintiff with “Adjustment Disorder, Anxious,” and opined that Plaintiff 10 could “follow one and two part instructions” and “adequately remember and complete simple 11 tasks.” (AR 549.) The ALJ acknowledged Dr. Yang’s opinion but did not include these 12 limitations in Plaintiff’s RFC. (AR 39.) Instead, the ALJ found that Plaintiff was limited to 13 “object[-]oriented tasks” and could not have “contact with the general public or the 14 responsibility for the safety of others.” (AR 37.) Thus, the ALJ implicitly rejected Dr. Yang’s 15 opinion that Plaintiff could only follow one- and two-part instruction and remember and 16 complete simple tasks. The ALJ committed legal error by not providing any reasons for 17 rejecting these limitations. 18 The Commissioner argues that the ALJ did not err because Dr. Yang did not intend 19 these functional abilities to be limitations, “but rather minimum standards.” (JS 13.) To 20 support this argument, the Commissioner points out that Dr. Yang assessed Plaintiff with a 21 Global Assessment of Functioning (“GAF”) score of 65, indicating “some mild symptoms.” 22 (JS 13 (citing AR 549).) But a GAF score is not determinative of mental disability for Social 23 Security purposes. See 65 Fed. Reg. 50746, 50764-65 (Aug. 21, 2000) (“[The GAF scale] 24 does not have a direct correlation to the severity requirements in our mental disorders 25 listings.”). Moreover, a more natural reading of Dr. Yang’s report is that he did intend for the 26 functional abilities to be limitations, not minimums. If he believed Plaintiff was capable of 27 performing more complex tasks, he likely would have said so. (See AR 549.) At best, Dr. 28 8 1 Yang’s report was ambiguous on this point, triggering the ALJ’s duty to develop the record 2 more fully. See Tonapetyan v. Halter, 242 F.3d 1144, 1150 (9th Cir. 2001). To the extent 3 the ALJ attempted to rely on the opinion of non-examining psychologist Dr. Glassmire to 4 justify the omission of Dr. Yang’s assessed limitations, such reliance was misplaced. Dr. 5 Glassmire offered his own unsupported gloss of Dr. Yang’s report: “Dr. Yang felt [Plaintiff] 6 could do one to two step instructions. . . . Dr. Yang didn’t have an opinion about complex 7 tasks in the report, simple tasks were noted to be okay.” (AR 626-27.) Thus, even had the 8 ALJ cited this testimony as a reason for relying on Dr. Glassmire’s rather than Dr. Yang’s 9 assessment, it would not constitute a specific and legitimate reason for doing so. See 10 Lester, 81 F.3d at 831. Accordingly, remand is warranted for the ALJ to reevaluate Dr. 11 Yang’s opinion.3 The ALJ Did Not Properly Discount Plaintiff’s Credibility 12 13 Plaintiff argues that the ALJ failed to provide legally sufficient reasons for discounting 14 the credibility of his subjective complaints. The Court agrees. 15 A. Relevant Law 16 The test for deciding whether to accept a claimant’s subjective symptom testimony 17 turns on whether the claimant produces medical evidence of an impairment that reasonably 18 could be expected to produce the pain or other symptoms alleged. Bunnell v. Sullivan, 947 19 F.2d 341, 346 (9th Cir. 1991); see also Reddick v. Chater, 157 F.3d 715, 722 (9th Cir. 1998); 20 Smolen, 80 F.3d at 1281-82 & n.2. The Commissioner may not discredit a claimant’s 21 testimony on the severity of symptoms merely because they are unsupported by objective 22 medical evidence. Reddick, 157 F.3d at 722; Bunnell, 947 F.2d at 343, 345. If the ALJ finds 23 24 25 26 27 28 3 The ALJ also may wish to consider obtaining an additional psychiatric evaluation of Plaintiff. The ALJ’s decision rests largely on the testimony of a non-examining psychologist and Dr. Yang’s report. Prior to this continuing disability review, Plaintiff had been deemed disabled due to schizophrenia and antisocial personality disorder since 1988. (AR 34, 36, 294). Yet Dr. Yang did not review any of Plaintiff’s prior records, and he did not indicate an awareness of Plaintiff’s history of these disorders. (AR 546-47; see AR 36.) In light of Plaintiff’s long history of disability from mental illness, it may be useful for an examining psychiatrist to review Plaintiff’s records. 9 1 the claimant’s symptom testimony not credible, the ALJ “must specifically make findings 2 which support this conclusion.” Bunnell, 947 F.2d at 345. These findings must be 3 “sufficiently specific to permit the court to conclude that the ALJ did not arbitrarily discredit 4 [the] claimant’s testimony.” Thomas, 278 F.3d at 958; see also Rollins v. Massanari, 261 5 F.3d 853, 856-57 (9th Cir. 2001); Bunnell, 947 F.2d at 345-46. Unless there is evidence of 6 malingering, the ALJ can reject the claimant’s testimony about the severity of her symptoms 7 only by offering “specific, clear and convincing reasons for doing so.” Smolen, 80 F.3d at 8 1283-84; see also Reddick, 157 F.3d at 722. The ALJ must identify what testimony is not 9 credible and what evidence discredits the testimony. Reddick, 157 F.3d at 722; Smolen, 80 10 F.3d at 1284. 11 B. Analysis 12 In this case, the ALJ found that Plaintiff’s “medically determinable impairment could 13 reasonably be expected to produce the alleged symptoms; however, [Plaintiff’s] statements 14 concerning the intensity, persistence and limiting effects of these symptoms are not credible 15 to the extent they are inconsistent with the above [RFC] assessment.” (AR 38.) Because 16 the ALJ did not find that Plaintiff was malingering,4 he was required to provide clear and 17 convincing reasons for discounting his credibility. The ALJ did not do so. 18 The ALJ provided three reasons for discounting Plaintiff’s credibility. First, the ALJ 19 stated that Plaintiff’s “testimony at the hearing was inconsistent with the objective medical 20 record as well as the information provided by his examining sources as noted above.” (AR 21 39.) An ALJ may consider whether the objective medical evidence supports a claimant’s 22 allegations, but this “cannot form the sole basis for discounting [subjective] testimony.” 23 Burch v. Barnhart, 400 F.3d 676, 681 (9th Cir. 2005). Even if this were a clear and 24 convincing reason to discount Plaintiff’s credibility in this case, it does not suffice because 25 the other two reasons provided by the ALJ are not legitimate. 26 Next, the ALJ wrote that Plaintiff’s “motivation to work is highly questionable especially 27 in light of the fact that he has spent much of his adult life incarcerated or in substance abuse 28 4 Dr. Glassmire testified that there was no evidence of malingering. (AR 629.) 10 1 programs.” (AR 39.) The ALJ does not discuss any evidence of Plaintiff’s history of 2 incarceration or participating in substance abuse programs aside from this statement. 3 Moreover, Plaintiff was found to have been disabled by the Administration since 1988, 4 accounting for his scant employment history. In addition, the ALJ did not consider whether 5 Plaintiff’s mental illness contributed to his alleged history of substance abuse and 6 incarceration. Given that Plaintiff was considered to be disabled from 1988 until his 2008 7 continuing disability review, his minimal employment history does not clearly and 8 convincingly detract from his credibility. 9 Finally, the ALJ discounted Plaintiff’s credibility because “[d]espite being aware of his 10 mental issues, he chooses to avoid psychiatric treatment and the use of psychiatric 11 medication.” (AR 39.) An ALJ may properly discount a claimant’s credibility where there is 12 “an unexplained, or inadequately explained, failure to seek treatment or follow a prescribed 13 course of treatment.” Fair v. Bowen, 885 F.2d 597, 603 (9th Cir. 1989). Here, however, 14 Plaintiff did explain his failure to seek treatment. He testified that he does not receive any 15 mental treatment “by choice”: “. . . I cannot stand psychiatrists. All they want to do is put 16 pills down my throat which either zombifies me, makes me want to sleep all day or it wires 17 me up.” (AR 618.) He added that he never thought any mental health professionals were 18 doing him any good. (AR 627-28.) Moreover, “it is a questionable practice to chastise one 19 with a mental impairment for the exercise of poor judgment in seeking rehabilitation.” 20 Nguyen v. Chater, 100 F.3d 1462, 1465 (9th Cir. 1996) (quotation mark and citation omitted). 21 Thus, Plaintiff’s failure to seek treatment for his mental illness does not clearly and 22 convincingly detract from his credibility. 23 Remand is warranted for the ALJ to reassess Plaintiff’s credibility. 24 25 26 27 28 11 ORDER 1 2 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the decision of the Commissioner of Social Security is 3 REVERSED and REMANDED for further proceedings in accordance with this Memorandum 4 Opinion and Order and with law. 5 LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY. 6 7 DATED: August 2, 2012 8 /s/ John E. McDermott JOHN E. MCDERMOTT UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 12

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?