Laurie A Halley v. Carolyn W Colvin

Filing 15

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER by Magistrate Judge Patrick J. Walsh. The Court concludes that the ALJ erred and remands the case to the Agency for further proceedings. See Order for details. (dml)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

LAURIE A. HALLEY,
Plaintiff,

11
12
13

v.

14

CAROLYN W. COLVIN,
Acting Commissioner of the
Social Security Administration,

15

Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. SA CV 14-1527-PJW
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

16
17

Plaintiff appeals a decision by Defendant Social Security

18

Administration (“the Agency”), denying her application for Disability

19

Insurance Benefits.

20

(“ALJ”) erred when she rejected without explanation the medical

21

expert’s opinion that Plaintiff would be restricted to “occasional

22

neck motion.”

23

Court concludes that the ALJ erred and remands the case to the Agency

24

for further proceedings.

25

She claims that the Administrative Law Judge

(Joint Stip. at 1-9.)

For the following reasons, the

Plaintiff suffers from degenerative disc disease in her neck.

26

(Administrative Record (“AR”) 48.)

According to the medical expert,

27

as a result, she has to avoid “extremes of motion” with her head and

28

is limited to only “occasional neck motion.

(AR 52.)

According to

1

the vocational expert, if Plaintiff is limited to only occasional neck

2

motion, she cannot work.

3

(AR 81.)

The ALJ gave “significant weight” to the medical expert’s opinion

4

and adopted his limitations practically verbatim, with the exception

5

of the limitation on occasional neck motion.

6

Plaintiff contends that this departure amounts to a rejection of the

7

medical expert’s opinion on that issue and complains that the ALJ

8

failed to explain why she deviated.

9

ALJ’s decision not to adopt this limitation was dispositive because,

10

had the ALJ accepted the medical expert’s opinion that Plaintiff was

11

restricted to only occasional neck motion, she would have had to

12

conclude that Plaintiff was disabled.

13

the significance of the departure, the ALJ had an obligation to

14

explain why.

15

The Agency disagrees.

(AR 25, 29, 51-52.)

Plaintiff emphasizes that the

Plaintiff argues that, due to

It notes that the residual functional

16

capacity finding is a disability determination reserved for the ALJ,

17

not a medical decision for the doctors.

18

argues that, as such, the ALJ was not required to explain why she

19

failed to adopt the medical expert’s view.

20

that the ALJ explained her departure when she addressed two other

21

doctors’ findings concerning repetitive cervical spine movements.

22

The Court sides with Plaintiff.

(Joint Stip. at 10.)

It

Alternatively, it claims

The ALJ adopted the medical

23

expert’s opinion in formulating the residual functional capacity with

24

the exception of the medical expert’s restriction on neck movements.

25

(AR 29.)

26

Where, as here, the omission is dispositive, she had an obligation to

27

explain the basis for her finding.

28

385 Fed. App’x 739, 741 (9th Cir. 2010) (concluding ALJ committed

The ALJ never explained why she omitted this limitation.

See, e.g., Van Sickle v. Astrue,

2

1

error by finding consultative medical opinions “highly probative” but

2

failing to include limitations contained in those opinions in residual

3

functional capacity determination or to explain why he rejected them)

4

(citing Widmark v. Barnhart, 454 F.3d 1063, 1066 (9th Cir. 2006)).

5

remand, the ALJ should take another look at this issue and explain the

6

basis for the head and neck limitations.

7

IT IS SO ORDERED.

8

DATED: February 12, 2016.

9
10

_______________________________
PATRICK J. WALSH
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

S:\PJW\Cases-Social Security\HALLEY, L 1527\Memorandum Opinion and Order.wpd

3

On