Rivera v. CSS

Filing 23

FINAL JUDGMENT and ORDER Regarding Plaintiff's Social Security Complaint, signed by Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean on 8/2/17. CASE CLOSED. (Gonzalez, R)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

SIMON PERAZA RIVERA,
Plaintiff,

12
v.

13
14

Case No. 1:16-cv-00439-EPG
FINAL JUDGMENT AND ORDER
REGARDING PLAINTIFF’S SOCIAL
SECURITY COMPLAINT

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL
SECURITY,

15
Defendant.
16
17

This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s complaint for judicial review of an

18

unfavorable decision of the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration regarding his

19

applications for supplemental security income and disability insurance benefits. The parties have

20

consented to entry of final judgment by the United States Magistrate Judge under the provisions

21

of 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) with any appeal to the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. (ECF Nos. 6,

22

8.)

23

At the hearing on August 2, 2017, the Court heard from the parties and, having reviewed

24

the record, administrative transcript, the briefs of the parties, and the applicable law, finds as

25

follows:

26

For the reasons announced by the Court on the record at the conclusion of the parties’ oral

27

argument on August 2, 2017, the Court finds that the decision of the Commissioner of Social

28

Security should be reversed and the case should be remanded for further proceedings.
1

1
The Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) gave great weight to Raman Verma, M.D., a

2
3

consulting examiner. AR 17, 323-330. However, the ALJ refused to incorporate limitations into

4

claimant’s residual functional capacity found by Dr. Verma regarding: 1) a 15-minute rest period

5

for every hour of standing and walking; 2) periodic alternating of sitting and standing to relieve

6

pain/discomfort; and 3) occasional stooping, kneeling, crouching and crawling. AR 329. As

7

discussed at the August 2, 2017 hearing, the ALJ erred because the reasons offered by the ALJ to

8

reject Dr. Verma’s exertional limitations, however, are not specific, legitimate, and supported by

9

substantial evidence.
Additionally, the ALJ erred by discrediting claimant’s testimony regarding his limitations

10
11

resulting from pain. “If the ALJ finds that the claimant's testimony as to the severity of her pain

12

and impairments is unreliable, the ALJ must make a credibility determination with findings

13

sufficiently specific to permit the court to conclude that the ALJ did not arbitrarily discredit

14

claimant's testimony.” Thomas v. Barnhart, 278 F.3d 947, 958 (9th Cir. 2002) (citing Bunnell v.

15

Sullivan, 947 F.2d 341, 345–46 (9th Cir.1991) (en banc)). The Court explained that, under

16

Thomas, it was appropriate for the ALJ to consider prior inconsistent statements about past use of

17

controlled substances as one factor in assessing the claimant’s credibility. See id. at 959.

18

However, the ALJ must evaluate that one factor in the context of other factors set forth in

19

Thomas. In the context of this case, the Court finds that Claimant’s past untruthfulness regarding

20

his drug and alcohol use, alone, was an insufficient basis to find that this testimony regarding the

21

extent of his pain and impairment was not credible. Accordingly, the ALJ’s findings regarding

22

the claimant’s testimony were not sufficiently specific and supported to warrant discrediting the

23

claimant’s testimony regarding pain limitations.1
On remand, the ALJ shall incorporate the exertional limitations found by Dr. Verma into

24
25

the claimant’s residual functional capacity finding, credit the testimony of the claimant regarding

26
1

27
28

It is noted that the Court is remanding based on the ALJ’s failure to incorporate the limitations found by Dr. Verma,
who found claimant to be credible and likely incorporated his findings based on both his objective findings and
claimant’s subjective statements. Therefore, it appears likely that no additional limitations need to be added to the
residual functional capacity finding based on the ALJ’s error in assessing claimant’s credibility.

2

1

his pain limitations as true, and consider the claimant’s advanced age in determining whether the

2

claimant is disabled. If necessary, the ALJ may hear additional testimony from a vocational

3

expert to reconsider its conclusion at step five.

4

Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s appeal from the administrative decision of

5

the Commissioner of Social Security and the case is remanded to the Social Security

6

Administration. The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to enter judgment in favor of Plaintiff

7

Robert Kenneth Odom and against Defendant Nancy A. Berryhill, Acting Commissioner of

8

Social Security.

9
IT IS SO ORDERED.
10
11

Dated:

August 2, 2017

/s/
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3