Ott v. Astrue
Filing
19
Order by Magistrate Judge Nandor J. Vadas granting 12 Motion for Summary Judgment.(njvlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/4/2013)
1
2
3
4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
6
EUREKA DIVISION
7
8
LINDA LEE OTT,
Case No. 12-cv-04597-NJV
Plaintiff,
9
v.
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
AND REMANDING CASE FOR
FURTHER PROCEEDINGS
10
11
CAROLYN W. COLVIN,
United States District Court
Northern District of California
Defendant.
Re: Dkt. Nos. 12, 13
12
13
Before her death, Linda Lee Ott applied for Title II Social Security Disability benefits.
14
Her application was denied initially and on reconsideration. Ms. Ott died on July 22, 2009, and
15
16
17
her husband (“Claimant”) was substituted for her and continued the proceedings before the Social
Security Administration (“SSA”). Claimant requested a hearing before an administrative law
judge (“ALJ”), which took place on January 13, 2011. See Administrative Record (“AR”) at 85.
18
The ALJ denied benefits, and the Appeals Council affirmed that decision, making it the final
19
decision of the Commissioner. Claimant appeals to this court. Both parties having consented to
20
the jurisdiction of a magistrate judge (Doc. Nos. 4 & 5), this court may decide Claimant‟s motion
21
for summary judgment.
22
For the reasons below, the court will grant Claimant‟s motion and remand the case for
23
further proceedings consistent with this order.
24
BACKGROUND
25
A.
Ms. Ott’s Application For Disability.
26
Ms. Ott complained for years about numerous symptoms, including pain in her chest,
27
incontinence, constipation, nausea and vomiting, tingling and numbness in her extremities, and
28
1
chronic pain. Despite the numerous examinations, consultations, and tests she underwent, no
2
physician was ever able to diagnose the physiological basis for Ms. Ott‟s principal complaints. In
3
2007, Ms. Ott cut back her work as a nurse because of chronic pain and vomiting. AR 359.
When Ms. Ott stopped working altogether in April 2008 (AR 363), she applied for
4
5
disability benefits, claiming she was unable to work because of “gallbladder problems,
6
radiculopathy, chronic [] pain, anorexia, anemia, h. pylori, blood clots, bilateral weakness in
7
extremities, anxiety and depression.” See AR 137. The SSA reviewed Ms. Ott‟s claim for
8
disability benefits, identifying her primary diagnosis as “Sprains and Strains - All Types” and her
9
secondary diagnosis as “Anxiety Disorders.” AR 132. The SSA concluded that Ms. Ott had “a
history of nausea and vomiting along with weight loss. We have determined that this impairment
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
does not meet or equal the listing of impairments. Though you do have discomfort, the evidence
12
shows you are still able to move about . . . in a satisfactory manner.” AR 138. Ms. Ott was found
13
not disabled initially and on reconsideration. AR 132-132, 137-148 (discomfort and limited
14
strength, but can continue to perform light work). Claimant requested a hearing before the ALJ.
15
B.
Testimony Of The Medical Expert Before The ALJ.
16
At the beginning of the hearing, the ALJ explained that he “thought it was necessary to
17
have the assistance of a medical expert” to analyze Ms. Ott‟s records. AR 91. Dr. Gerber was
18
selected as the medical expert (“ME”). However, Dr. Gerber never received all of Ms. Ott‟s
19
medical records. AR 93. He testified based only on his review of the first 17 exhibits, when the
20
AR included 25 exhibits of medical records. AR 90-91.
21
Based on his review of the incomplete medical records, Dr. Gerber testified that “there‟s a
22
history of gastritis and degenerative disc disease involving the cervical and the lumbar spine.” AR
23
94-95. He found no cause for, and no independent confirmation in the record of, Ms. Ott‟s reports
24
of chronic nausea and vomiting. AR 95-96. On the contrary, he found a “striking inconsistency
25
between the complaint and the lack of any metabolic or laboratory abnormality, and a lack of any
26
change in body weight for a three-year period of time.” AR 98; see also AR 96 (“The weight
27
going back to 2006 was 120 . . . And in June of „09 it was 120”), AR 103-104 (reiterating that
28
there was no objective evidence of nausea and vomiting in AR: “My testimony relates to the
2
1
objective material in the file. I can‟t argue with a subjective report of symptoms”), AR 107. Dr.
2
Gerber stressed the absence of any “independent, objective confirmation of significant vomiting.”
3
AR 98.
4
Dr. Gerber testified that there appeared to be “a strong psychological component” to Ms.
5
Ott‟s symptoms. AR 99-100. He also noted that Ms. Ott was taking “rather potent narcotic
6
medications for unclear reasons” and while these prescriptions could cause her symptoms, “it‟s not
7
clear from the record” whether this was the case. AR 99-100, 107-108.
8
9
Based on his review of the 17 exhibits he received (1/F through 17/F), Dr. Gerber found
evidence of degenerative disc disease in the cervical spine, and opined that this would have
imposed light limitations in Ms. Ott‟s functional ability. AR 96-97. Ms. Ott‟s treating physician
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
(Dr. Clark) had opined that Ms. Ott was limited to lifting/carrying less than 10 pounds and to
12
standing/walking less than two hours in an eight-hour workday due to cervical neuritis. See AR
13
313-314. Dr. Gerber disagreed, testifying that “there was no basis for this opinion.” AR 97.
14
When asked whether MRI results that revealed bulging in Ms. Ott‟s lumbar area evidenced lower
15
extremity weakness, Dr. Gerber testified that “an MRI does not determine weakness. It just
16
demonstrates the degenerative disc disease, but there were no findings on neurologic
17
examinations.” AR 110-111; see also AR 112 (“I testified previously that there was degenerative
18
disc disease of the spine. However there were no neurologic abnormalities that were documented
19
at the time”).
20
The eight exhibits Dr. Gerber did not receive, and thus could not opine about, consist of
21
medical records dated between November 2005 (Ex. 25/F) and June 2009 (Ex. 21/F). The missing
22
exhibits include the complete records of Ms. Ott‟s visits to a pain expert (Dr. Connie Basch)
23
between March 2006 and May 2007 (Ex. 19/F). These records document Ms. Ott‟s complaints of
24
chronic pain, vomiting, and side effects of the numerous medications that she took throughout this
25
period. As described in further detail below, the missing records also include notes by different
26
treaters who observed Ms. Ott vomiting. Finally, the missing records also include additional MRI
27
results, which found abnormalities in Ms Ott‟s cervical spine that “could cause a right C6
28
radiculopathy.” AR 752-53; see also AR 754 (“This could cause a radiculopathy of the right C6
3
1
nerve root”).
The ALJ asked the expert to testify about Ms. Ott‟s medical condition based solely on
2
3
exhibits 1-17, without considering the evidence contained in exhibits 18-25. In particular, the ALJ
4
asked Dr. Gerber to identify a physiological basis for Ms. Ott‟s impairments, whether Ms. Ott met
5
any listed impairment, whether he concurred with Dr. Clark‟s assessment of Ms. Ott‟s limitations,
6
and to formulate an opinion regarding Ms. Ott‟s limitations. AR 95-108. The ALJ did not
7
continue the hearing to allow the expert to review the missing documents, nor did he supplement
8
the expert‟s testimony by using post-hearing interrogatories. The ALJ did not explain on the
9
record why he did not need the ME‟s assistance with respect to exhibits 18-25. The Claimant‟s
10
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
12
13
14
15
attorney did not cross-examine the expert on the contents of exhibits 18-25.
C.
The ALJ’s Decision.
The ALJ applied the five-step sequential evaluation set out at 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520 to
determine whether Ms. Ott was disabled.
At step one, the ALJ found that Ms. Ott had not engaged in substantial activity between the
alleged onset date of April 29, 2008 and her death on July 22, 2009. AR 32.
16
At step two, he found that Ms. Ott had a number of severe impairments: “degenerative disc
17
disease, status-post gallbladder removal, anemia, tuberculosis, gastritis, gram-negative bacterimia,
18
fibromyalgia, bronchitis and urinary tract infection.” AR 32. He found that Ms. Ott did not suffer
19
from any severe mental impairment. AR 33.
20
At step three, the ALJ found that Ms. Ott did not have an impairment or combination of
21
impairments that met or medically equaled a listed impairment. AR 33. (The ALJ did not provide
22
the basis for his reasoning, but the court notes that Dr. Gerber testified that based on his review of
23
exhibits 1-17, Ms. Ott did not meet any listing. AR 95.) Before proceeding to step four, the ALJ
24
reviewed the record to determine Ms. Ott‟s residual functional capacity (“RFC”) before her death.
25
He concluded that she had the RFC to perform light work, with some limitations. AR 33-36. The
26
ALJ based his RFC finding on several grounds. First, he noted that no treating physician had
27
diagnosed a physiological basis for Ms. Ott‟s symptoms, and that her diagnostic tests were all
28
within normal limits. AR 34-35. Similarly, he pointed out that the Social Security
4
1
Administration‟s Consultative Examiner could find no physiological basis for Ms. Ott‟s
2
complaints. AR 34. The ALJ then summarized Dr. Gerber‟s testimony as follows:
3
The ME pointed out that although the claimant reported vomiting
“dozens and dozens” of times throughout the day for at least 3years, her reported weight at physical examinations was essentially
unchanged. . . . The slight but steady increase in the claimant‟s
weight is inconsistent with the reported inability to retain any fluids
or solids.
4
5
6
7
AR 34.
8
The ALJ addressed the opinion of her treating physician, Dr. Clark, who opined that Ms.
9
Ott “could not perform even sedentary exertional level work secondary to cervical neuritis, with
extreme limitations in all physical and postural movements.” AR 35 (citing F/6, AR 313-14). The
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
ALJ noted that Dr. Clark‟s opinion was “not supported by the clinical or diagnostic record in any
12
way[, and that] Dr. Clark offers no rationale to support his contentions.” AR 35. He found that
13
Ms. Ott‟s cervical MRI did not “support the extreme limitations asserted by Dr. Clark, . . . with
14
only a mild disc space narrowing at the C5-6 and a right-sided spur which „could‟ cause
15
radiculopathy.” AR 35 (citing F/11, AR 413). Similarly, he found that Dr. Clark‟s fibromyalgia
16
diagnosis was not supported by tests or trigger points. Id. He further noted that Dr. Clark‟s own
17
treatment notes report “repeated completely normal physical examinations.” AR 35. Although
18
the ALJ does not cite Dr. Gerber‟s testimony when critiquing Dr. Clark‟s opinion, the ALJ‟s
19
findings are consistent with Dr. Gerber‟s testimony, with the findings of the SSA consultant who
20
examined Ms. Ott in September 2008 (AR 308-12), and with the findings of the SSA non-
21
examining consultant who reviewed Ms. Ott‟s file in October 2008 (AR 315-20). The ALJ also
22
rejected, in part, Ms. Ott‟s pain and symptoms testimony. AR 34-35 (alleged paralysis
23
disappeared when she was distracted; all examinations normal; sleight but steady increase in
24
weight belied claim she could not retain fluids or solids over two-year period).
25
At step four, the ALJ found that Ms. Ott was unable to perform any past relevant work.
26
Finally, at step five, the ALJ found (based on the testimony of a vocational expert) that
27
there existed jobs in significant numbers in the national economy that the claimant could have
28
performed. Thus, he found Ms. Ott was not disabled.
5
1
As described above, the ALJ engaged the services of a medical expert to review and
2
interpret the medical records because he believed it was “necessary” to do so. AR 91. The ALJ‟s
3
decision denying disability benefits was based, in part, on the medical expert‟s testimony. AR 34.
4
The ALJ did not reconcile his stated need for medical expert testimony with the fact that the
5
medical expert testified based on an incomplete record.
LEGAL STANDARDS
6
The Commissioner‟s findings “as to any fact, if supported by substantial evidence, shall be
7
8
conclusive.” 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). A district court has a limited scope of review and can only set
9
aside a denial of benefits if it is not supported by substantial evidence or if it is based on legal
error. Flaten v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 44 F.3d 1453, 1457 (9th Cir. 1995). Substantial
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
evidence is “more than a mere scintilla but less than a preponderance; it is such relevant evidence
12
as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.” Sandgathe v. Chater, 108
13
F.3d 978, 979 (9th Cir. 1997). “In determining whether the Commissioner‟s findings are
14
supported by substantial evidence,” a district court must review the administrative record as a
15
whole, considering “both the evidence that supports and the evidence that detracts from the
16
Commissioner‟s conclusion.” Reddick v. Chater, 157 F.3d 715, 720 (9th Cir. 1998). The
17
Commissioner‟s conclusion is upheld where evidence is susceptible to more than one rational
18
interpretation. Burch v. Barnhart, 400 F.3d 676, 679 (9th Cir. 2005).
DISCUSSION
19
20
A.
The ALJ Erred In Failing To Provide The Entire Record To Dr. Gerber.
21
An administrative law judge always has a “special duty to fully and fairly develop the
22
record and to assure that the claimant‟s interests are considered . . . even when the claimant is
23
represented by counsel.” Brown v. Heckler, 713 F.2d 441, 443 (9th Cir. 1983). This “special
24
duty” is triggered only when “the record is inadequate to allow for proper evaluation of the
25
evidence.” McLeod v. Astrue, 640 F.3d 881, 885 (9th Cir. 2011). The ALJ here attempted to
26
discharge his duty by obtaining Ms. Ott‟s medical records from her numerous providers and by
27
arranging psychiatric and medical consultative examinations. In addition, he found it “necessary”
28
to obtain the assistance of a medical expert, and retained Dr. Gerber to analyze the medical records
6
and testify at the hearing. Unfortunately, Dr. Gerber did not receive all of Ms. Ott‟s medical
2
records and thus the opinion he rendered during the hearing was not based on a “full and fairly
3
developed” record. It was based on an admittedly incomplete record, which the ALJ had found
4
sufficiently ambiguous to require the interpretation of a medical expert. The ALJ did not explain
5
either during the hearing or in his decision why he did not need Dr. Gerber‟s assistance to interpret
6
exhibits 18-25. It was error for the ALJ to fail to provide the missing exhibits to Dr. Gerber, either
7
before or after the hearing, and fail to allow Dr. Gerber to revise his opinion based on the missing
8
medical records. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1526(c) (“When we determine if your impairment medically
9
equals a listing, we consider all evidence in your case record about your impairment(s) and its
10
effects on you that is relevant to this finding”) (emphasis added)); see also HALLEX1 I-2-5-39
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
1
(“Before the ME testifies, the ALJ must: ensure on the record that the ME has examined all
12
medical and other evidence of record”) (emphasis added).
B.
13
The Error Was Not Harmless.
The error was not harmless, as it may have affected Dr. Gerber‟s analysis of Ms. Ott‟s
14
15
impairments, the ALJ‟s analysis of Ms. Ott‟s credibility, and the vocational expert‟s opinion that
16
Ms. Ott could perform work found in significant numbers in the national economy.
Hayes v. Astrue, 270 Fed. Appx. 502 (9th Cir. 2008), is instructive. In Hayes, a claimant
17
18
independently obtained a nerve conduction study, which determined that she tested positive for an
19
indicator of carpal tunnel syndrome. The claimant also was evaluated by an SSA consultative
20
examiner (“CE”), who determined that she did not have carpal tunnel syndrome. The claimant
21
had informed the CE about the recent nerve conduction study, but the CE did not review the nerve
22
study results or include them in his report. The administrative law judge who reviewed the
23
claimant‟s disability application relied heavily on the CE‟s evaluation, and “he failed to mention
24
the existence of the nerve conduction study and its results or to explain why its results did not alter
25
his determination that [the claimant] was not disabled.” Id. at 504. On appeal, the Ninth Circuit
26
27
28
1
HALLEX is the SSA‟s Hearings, Appeals, and Litigation Manual. Although HALLEX is
purely an “internal guidance tool” and has no force of law, it is “entitled to respect.” See Clark v.
Astrue, 529 F.3d 1211, 1216 (9th Cir. 2008).
7
1
reversed and remanded:
2
[I]t was error for the ALJ to fail to consider the nerve conduction
study results, as they were available and could have been produced
to the ALJ upon request, and the examining physician was aware of
their existence . . . [The] error was not harmless, as it may have
impacted the ALJ‟s determination, among other issues, of the
credibility of Hayes‟ testimony concerning the numbness and pain in
her left arm. The ALJ‟s finding that her testimony was not credible
may very well have changed in light of corroborating medical
evidence from a treating physician. Further, the ALJ relied heavily
on [the CE‟s] evaluation. However, that evaluation specifically
noted that [the CE] did not have the results of the nerve conduction
study to consider and therefore did not take the study‟s results into
account. If [the CE] had considered the nerve conduction study, his
evaluation may have reached a different conclusion. Given the
ALJ‟s substantial reliance on that evaluation, the omission of the
nerve conduction study both from that evaluation and from the
ALJ‟s own independent consideration of the evidence constituted
legal error.
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
12
270 Fed. Appx. at 504-505. Unlike the ALJ in Hayes, the ALJ here did review and rely upon all
13
Ms. Ott‟s medical records, including those records that were not forwarded to Dr. Gerber. See AR
14
34-35 (citing exhibits 18/F, 20/F, 23/F, and 24/F). However, the fact certain records were not
15
provided to Dr. Gerber may have influenced Dr. Gerber‟s medical opinion(s), and in turn may
16
have influenced the ALJ‟s decision to the extent it relied on Dr. Gerber‟s opinion(s).
17
The ALJ found that Ms. Ott was not credible with respect to her frequent nausea and
18
vomiting. AR 34. Citing Dr. Gerber‟s testimony in his decision, the ALJ found that the “slight
19
but steady increase in the claimant‟s weight is inconsistent with the reported inability to retain any
20
fluids or solids.” AR 34. Dr. Gerber testified that Ms. Ott‟s weight was 120 pounds in 2006 and
21
in 2009, and that “there was no confirmation” of Ms. Ott vomiting. AR 95-96. He also read into
22
the record one of her treater‟s observations that “it was „interesting that there were no metabolic or
23
laboratory abnormalities consistent with severe vomiting.‟” See AR 95-96; see also AR 98
24
(“there‟s a striking inconsistency between the complaint [of frequent emesis] and the lack of any
25
metabolic or laboratory abnormality, and a lack of any change in body weight for a three year
26
period”).
27
28
However, Dr. Gerber‟s testimony regarding Ms. Ott‟s “essentially unchanged weight” is
contradicted by the AR. See, e.g., AR 683-766. In March 2006, Dr. Basch recorded Ms. Ott‟s
8
weight as 115 pounds. AR 721; see also AR 292 (an infectious disease specialist recorded Ms.
2
Ott‟s weight as 116 pounds in April 2006). (In June 2006, Ms. Ott reported to her rheumatologist
3
that her recent 26-pound weight loss was the result of her inability to retain food or fluids. AR
4
737.) In January 2007, Dr. Zagone examined Ms. Ott and recorded her weight as 121 pounds. AR
5
681. Ms. Ott‟s treating physician, Dr. Clark, recorded her weight during his initial consultation in
6
February 2007 as 127.5 pounds; in May 2007, her weight had increased to 132 pounds; in June
7
2007 she weighed 137 pounds; in September 2007, 138 pounds; in April 2008, 125.5 pounds; in
8
September 2008, 122 pounds; in March 2009, 124.5 pounds; in April 2009, 127 pounds. AR 347-
9
371; see also AR 694, 704, 721, 759. Thus, various treaters recorded significant fluctuations in
10
Ms. Ott‟s weight between March 2006 and April 2009, including a twenty-three pound weight
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
1
gain between January 2006 and September 2007, and subsequent sixteen-pound weight loss
12
through September 2008.2
13
Equally significant, the exhibits that were not provided to Dr. Gerber also contradict his
14
testimony regarding the lack of objective evidence of nausea and vomiting. Dr. Basch observed
15
Ms. Ott vomit in her office in April 2007. AR 686-87. (Ms. Ott consulted with Dr. Basch from
16
March 2006 to May 2007 in an attempt to diagnose and manage her chronic nausea and vomiting.
17
AR 683-721.) Dr. Sheldon Meshulam noted that Ms. Ott vomited “some tan material” during her
18
February 2008 visit to his office (AR 724). In February 2006, Dr. Tuan noted that Ms. Ott
19
reported that,
22
[w]hile in-house, the patient did throw up several times, often after
eating solid food or swallowing a pill. The volume of this emesis
was rarely large, usually in the 50-100 cc realm, and many of the
episodes were not witnesses by the nursing staff and only reported
by the patient. [After being placed on a clear diet . . ] she had no
episodes of emesis whatsoever.
23
AR 762. When she was admitted to Mad River Community Hospital in June 2009, she presented
24
with poorly controlled nausea and was dehydrated. AR 740. Dr. Clark noted that her chronic
20
21
25
26
27
28
2
Defendant has selected records suggesting Ms. Ott‟s weight was “essentially unchanged” and
displayed a “slight but steady increase” (Doc. No. 13 at 5), but fails to acknowledge the significant
fluctuations between the selected points of reference. Moreover, it is pure speculation whether
Ms. Ott‟s weight would have continued this “slight but steady increase” if she had survived, or
whether it would have continued to fluctuate.
9
1
nausea and vomiting “remained an active medical problem throughout her hospital stay . . . There
2
was modest clinical improvement in symptoms and reinstitution of oral intake during hospital
3
stay.” AR 741. The missing documents therefore offer confirmation by four different treaters that
4
Ms. Ott was, indeed, vomiting despite the lack of positive diagnosis or test results suggesting she
5
would experience this symptom.
The missing records also include a June 2009 Consultation Report by a gastroenterologist
6
7
who opined that “a motility disorder seems very likely” to be the cause of her nausea and
8
vomiting. AR 745. The ME did not have the benefit of reviewing this report, which suggests a
9
physical cause for Ms. Ott‟s condition, before rendering his opinion that no physician had found a
10
physiological basis for her symptoms.
The exhibits that were not provided to Dr. Gerber therefore contain information that may
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
12
have affected his opinion. This, in turn, may have affected the ALJ‟s evaluation of Ms. Ott‟s
13
credibility and his analysis of her impairments and her RFC.3 Equally important, the
14
corroboration of Ms. Ott‟s nausea and vomiting symptoms may have caused the ALJ to reach a
15
different conclusion with respect to Ms. Ott‟s ability to perform work available in significant
16
numbers in the national economy, given that the vocational expert testified that an individual who
17
was required to take five to ten breaks a day to vomit could not perform any of the “light level” or
18
“sedentary level” unskilled work she identified during the hearing. AR 126-130. The court finds
19
that the failure to provide the entire record to Dr. Gerber was not harmless.4
20
3
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Claimant also argues that the nausea and vomiting could have been side effects of one or more
of Ms. Ott‟s medications. Doc. No. 12 at 10-11. Dr. Gerber testified it was “possible” that drug
interactions could be the cause of the nausea and vomiting. See AR 99-100; see also AR 727 (Dr.
Meshulam noted that “[c]ertainly, her narcotics could be playing a role in this”). Dr. Basch,
however, did “not think [her] nausea is caused by the medications.” AR 703. Nonetheless, the
ALJ on remand should ensure the nausea and vomiting -- to the extent he credits Ms. Ott‟s
statements regarding those symptoms -- are reflected in the RFC analysis.
4
The missing exhibits also included additional MRI results (AR 752-754), which provided
additional evidence of disc degeneration. Claimant argues that these results “support[] Ms. Ott‟s
complaints of right arm weakness.” Doc. No. 18 at 3. The court notes that Dr. Gerber
differentiated in his testimony between MRI results, which indicate disc degeneration, and
neurological exams, which indicate resulting weakness. AR 111. Dr. Gerber agreed that there
was evidence of disc degeneration in the AR, but found no evidence of resulting weakness. The
MRI results included in the missing exhibits (AR 752-754) thus would not necessarily cause Dr.
Gerber to revise his opinions. On remand, however, the ME will review the missing exhibits,
including the MRI results.
10
CONCLUSION
1
For the reasons stated above, the court grants Claimant‟s motion for summary judgment.
2
3
The case must be remanded to allow the medical expert to review exhibits 18/F through 25/F and
4
to revise his opinions and the testimony he offered during the hearing as appropriate. The ALJ
5
shall evaluate, with the ME‟s assistance, the entire record to determine whether Ms. Ott was
6
entitled to disability benefits.5 The ALJ shall issue a new decision incorporating the ME‟s revised
7
opinions.
The clerk of the court is directed to close the case.
8
9
IT IS SO ORDERED.
10
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
12
Dated: June 4, 2013
______________________________________
NANDOR J. VADAS
United States Magistrate Judge
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
5
27
28
In his reply brief, Claimant asks the SSA to grant his deceased wife‟s claim for “disability
benefits from May 9, 2007 through her date of death on July 22, 2009.” Doc. No. 18 at 5. This
appears to be a typographical error, as Ms. Ott protectively filed a Title II application on May 9,
2008, alleging an onset date of April 29, 2008. AR 30.
11
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?