Tracey M. Clark v. Carolyn W. Colvin

Filing 21

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER by Magistrate Judge Jay C. Gandhi. IT IS ORDERED THAT judgment shall be entered REVERSING the decision of the Commissioner denying benefits and REMANDING the matter for further administrative action consistent with this decision. (See Order for details) (bem)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

TRACEY M. CLARK,

12
13
14

Plaintiff,
v.

15

CAROLYN W. COLVIN, ACTING
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL
SECURITY ADMINISTRATION,

16

Defendant.

17

) Case No. ED CV 13-0557 JCG
)
)
)
) MEMORANDUM OPINION AND
) ORDER
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

18
19

Tracey M. Clark (“Plaintiff”) challenges the Social Security Commissioner’s

20 decision denying her application for disability benefits. Specifically, Plaintiff
21 contends that the Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) improperly rejected the opinion
22 of her examining physician. (Joint Stip. at 9-12.) The Court agrees with Plaintiff for
23 the reasons stated below.
24
25
26

A.

The ALJ Failed to Provide Specific and Legitimate Reasons for
Rejecting Dr. Robert F. Steinberg’s Examining Opinion

An ALJ may reject the controverted opinion of an examining physician only

27 for “specific and legitimate reasons that are supported by substantial evidence.”
28 Carmickle v. Comm’r, Soc. Sec. Admin., 533 F.3d 1155, 1164 (9th Cir. 2008)

1 (quoting Lester v. Chater, 81 F.3d 821, 830-31 (9th Cir. 1995)).
2

Here, the ALJ provided one reason for rejecting Dr. Steinberg’s opinion. The

3 Court addresses, and rejects, it below.
4

The ALJ improperly rejected Dr. Steinberg’s opinion as internally

5 inconsistent. (See Administrative Record (“AR”) at 30.) In particular, Dr. Steinberg
6 opined that Plaintiff “could not stand or walk for any significant time on a sustained
7 basis,” even though she “had not been walking with any aids during the physical
8 exam.” (Id. at 31.) However, the Court does not find any inconsistency here. Dr.
9 Steinberg restricted Plaintiff as he did because Plaintiff moved “slowly due to pain,”
10 “[h]er pain occurs on a daily basis, and movement and positioning will affect the
11 pain.” (Id. at 1085, 1090.) An ambulative device would not necessarily alleviate
12 Plaintiffs’s pain and, moreover, none of Plaintiff’s physicians suggest that it would.
13 It is thus inappropriate for the ALJ to make such an assumption. (See generally AR;
14 Day v. Weinberger, 522 F.2d 1154, 1156 (9th Cir. 1975) (ALJ may not make his
15 own medical assessment beyond that demonstrated by the record).) Accordingly,
16 there is no inconsistency in Dr. Steinberg’s opinion.1/
For the reasons stated above, the Court determines that the ALJ improperly

17

18 discredited the opinion of Plaintiff’s examining physician. The Court thus
19 determines that the ALJ’s decision is not supported by substantial evidence. Mayes
20 v. Massanari, 276 F.3d 453, 458-59 (9th Cir. 2001).
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

1/

The Commissioner also argues that the ALJ rejected Dr. Steinberg’s opinion
as inconsistent with the treatment records. (Joint Stip. at 22.) However, the Court’s
review is limited to the reasons actually cited by the ALJ in his decision. See Orn v.
Astrue, 495 F.3d 625, 630 (9th Cir. 2007) (“We review only the reasons provided by
the ALJ in the disability determination and may not affirm the ALJ on a ground
upon which he did not rely.”). Because, the ALJ did not put forth any such
argument in his decision, the Court may not consider it here. (See generally AR at
26-33.)

28
2

1

B.

Remand is Warranted

2

With error established, this Court has discretion to remand or reverse and

3 award benefits. McAllister v. Sullivan, 888 F.2d 599, 603 (9th Cir. 1989). Where no
4 useful purpose would be served by further proceedings, or where the record has been
5 fully developed, it is appropriate to exercise this discretion to direct an immediate
6 award of benefits. See Benecke v. Barnhart, 379 F.3d 587, 595-96 (9th Cir. 2004).
7 But where there are outstanding issues that must be resolved before a determination
8 can be made, or it is not clear from the record that the ALJ would be required to find
9 plaintiff disabled if all the evidence were properly evaluated, remand is appropriate.
10 See id. at 594.
Here, in light of the ALJ’s error, the credibility of Dr. Steinberg must be

11

12 properly assessed. Therefore, on remand, the ALJ shall reevaluate his opinion and
13 either credit it as true, or provide valid reasons for any portion that is rejected.
Based on the foregoing, IT IS ORDERED THAT judgment shall be entered

14

15 REVERSING the decision of the Commissioner denying benefits and
16 REMANDING the matter for further administrative action consistent with this
17 decision.2/
18
19 Dated: February 19, 2014
20

____________________________________

21

Hon. Jay C. Gandhi
United States Magistrate Judge

22
23
24
25
26
27

2/

In light of the Court’s remand instructions, it is unnecessary to address
28 Plaintiff’s remaining contentions. (See Joint Stip. at 12-15, 25-29, 36-40.)
3