Hatfield v. Carolyn W. Colvin

Filing 22

Order by Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Spero granting 15 Motion for Summary Judgment.(jcslc3S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/6/2015)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
MICHAEL ALLEN HATFIELD,

7

Case No. 14-cv-03262-JCS

Plaintiff,
8
v.
9
CAROLYN W. COLVIN,

10

Defendant.

Re: Dkt. Nos. 15, 20

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
AND DENYING DEFENDANT'S
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

I.

INTRODUCTION
Plaintiff Michael Hatfield challenges the Commissioner of Social Security’s denial of his

13
14

most recent application for disability benefits. He argues that the Administrative Law Judge

15

(“ALJ”) erred in rejecting the treating physician’s opinion and in applying res judicata to the

16

period subsequent to the previous denial of disability benefits. Hatfield filed a Motion for

17

Summary Judgment requesting the Court to reverse the Commissioner’s decision and remand for

18

award of benefits. The Commissioner filed a Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment requesting the

19

Court to affirm the Commissioner’s decision. For the reasons discussed below, Plaintiff’s Motion

20

for Summary Judgment is GRANTED, Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED,

21

and the case is REMANDED for award of benefits.1

22

II.

BACKGROUND

23

A.

24

Michael Hatfield is a 43-year old man with a record of physical and mental impairments

Procedural Overview

25

including degenerative disc disease in his cervical and lumbar spine, joint degeneration, and

26

mental health impairments relating to his mood. AR at 20. He first applied for supplemental

27
28

1

The parties consented to the undersigned magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).

1

security income (“SSI”) disability benefits in November 2007. AR at 17. His first application

2

was denied after an ALJ hearing on the basis that he could perform other jobs available in the

3

economy not including his past relevant work. AR at 144–45. In April 2011, Hatfield applied for

4

SSI disability benefits again, alleging changed circumstances since the previous ALJ’s decision.

5

AR at 231. After an ALJ hearing, Hatfield’s application was again denied. AR at 26. The second

6

ALJ found that there were no changed circumstances to rebut the presumption of continuing non-

7

disability and thus applied res judicata. AR at 20–25. The second ALJ’s denial is the subject of

8

Hatfield’s appeal.
Hatfield argues that the ALJ improperly applied res judicata in the face of changed

10

circumstances, including new evidence of degeneration in his right knee, new evidence of

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

9

fibromyalgia, increased severity of degeneration in his left knee, and increased severity in his

12

mental impairments including a diagnosis of bipolar disorder and hallucinations. Pl.’s Mot. at 4–

13

10. Hatfield also argues that the ALJ improperly rejected the treating physician’s opinion that he

14

could sit, stand, and walk for a total of less than four hours per work day, and given the ALJ’s

15

error and the vocational expert’s testimony on the lack of such jobs, the case should be remanded

16

for benefits. Pl.’s Mot. at 3.
First ALJ’s Findings

17

B.

18

The first ALJ held a hearing in October 2009 and found that Hatfield had severe

19

impairments including degenerative disc disease of the cervical and lumbar spine, mild

20

degenerative changes in the left knee, degenerative joint disease of the left shoulder, migraine

21

headaches, Wolff-Parkinson White syndrome, and depression, but ultimately denied Hatfield

22

disability benefits. AR at 133–145. The first ALJ concluded that Hatfield’s impairments did not

23

meet or equal a listed impairment and that Hatfield could perform and find other work based on

24

the Medical-Vocational Guidelines, a vocational expert’s testimony, and Hatfield’s residual

25

functional capacity (“RFC”) to perform sedentary work with specified limitations. Id. At the

26

hearing, Hatfield was represented by counsel. AR at 131. On February 2010, the first ALJ issued

27

the decision denying disability benefits. AR at 146. In March 2011, the Appeals Council denied

28

Hatfield’s request for a review of the decision, and the record does not indicate that Hatfield filed
2

1

any civil action in response. AR at 17.
Second ALJ’s Findings

2

C.

3

In April 2011, Hatfield filed another application for SSI disability benefits, alleging

4

disability beginning February 11, 2010. AR at 231. The application was denied–initially and

5

upon reconsideration. AR at 17. In August 2012, the second ALJ held a hearing, during which

6

Hatfield and a vocational expert testified. AR at 17. Hatfield was represented by a non-attorney

7

representative. Id.

8
9

First, the ALJ found that Hatfield was not engaged in substantial gainful activity. AR at
20. Then, the ALJ adopted the previous ALJ’s findings with respect to Hatfield’s severe
impairments, finding a lack of new impairments or increased severity in previously considered

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

impairments. AR at 20–21. Given the finding of no new or exacerbated impairments since the

12

previous decision, the ALJ then adopted the previous ALJ’s conclusion in the next step–that

13

Hatfield’s impairments do not meet or equal a listed impairment. AR at 21. With respect to the

14

RFC analysis, the ALJ found no changed circumstances with respect to Hatfield’s prior RFC and

15

adopted the previous ALJ’s RFC assessment. AR at 22. In so doing, the ALJ rejected the treating

16

physician’s March 2012 opinion that Hatfield could sit for less than two hours total and could

17

stand or walk for less than two hours total in an eight-hour work day. AR at 21–24. Finally, the

18

ALJ adopted the previous ALJ’s finding that Hatfield could not perform past relevant work but

19

could perform other available work in the economy, even though the vocational expert at the

20

second hearing found no available jobs given Hatfield’s RFC. AR at 24, 62–63.

21
22
23

D.

The Record
1. Dr. Meckler’s Opinion

It is undisputed that Dr. Meckler is a treating physician for Hatfield. See Def.’s Mot. at 7–

24

9. In fact, the record indicates that Dr. Meckler is Hatfield’s primary care physician. AR at 795

25

(“Advised MA to make appointment for patient with permanent provider, i.e. Dr. Meckler, in 1-2

26

weeks to discuss pain medications”; October 7, 2011). In an RFC form completed by Dr. Meckler

27

on March 26, 2012, Dr. Meckler estimated that in an eight-hour work day, Hatfield could sit for a

28

total of less than two hours and could stand or walk for a total of less than two hours. AR at 749.
3

1

Dr. Meckler also deemed that Hatfield’s impairments would likely cause him to miss three or

2

more days of work per month. AR at 750.

3
4

2. Dr. Meckler’s Treatment Notes
The record shows that Dr. Meckler began to oversee Hatfield’s treatment in September
2011. AR at 793 (“Encounter reviewed and I agree with plan and treatment”; September 9, 2011).

6

On September 9, 2011, Hatfield sought treatment for his pain, where the primary encounter

7

diagnosis was fibromyalgia. AR at 797. The record shows that by the time Dr. Meckler filled out

8

Hatfield’s RFC assessment, Dr. Meckler had reviewed Hatfield’s medical history (see AR at 810)

9

and seen Hatfield for office visits on October 19, 2011, November 9, 2011, January 5, 2012,

10

February 2, 2012, and March 26, 2012. AR at 803–11. Also included in the record are Dr.

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

5

Meckler’s treatment notes from April 26, 2012. AR at 801–02. Dr. Meckler’s treatment notes

12

from these visits consistently identify back pain, joint pain, muscle pain, malaise, and mental

13

health symptoms: November 9, 2011 (positive for neck pain, back pain, neurological weakness,

14

malaise, fatigue, nervous, anxious, and needs medication for fibromyalgia); January 5, 2012

15

(shoulder pain persists, positive for neck pain, myalgias, back pain, joint pain, malaise, fatigue,

16

“tired appearing”; analgesic effectiveness was adequate, where treatment was improving daily

17

function; prescribed medication for bipolar, migraines, and degenerative disc disease); January 20,

18

2012 (prescribed medication for muscle spasms); February 2, 2012 (positive for back pain, joint

19

pain, malaise, and fatigue); March 26, 2012 (positive for neck pain, malaise, and fatigue;

20

prescribed medication for bipolar disorder; “unable to work” due to back pain, fatigue, and mental

21

health problems); April 26, 2012 (primary encounter diagnosis was back pain, “more back pain

22

than before,” “constant bilateral arm pain, N/T, weakness and is having difficulty holding

23

objects,” increased lower back pain, using a cane more regularly, exhibited decreased range of

24

motion and tenderness in cervical and lumbar back, positive for neck pain, joint pain, myalgias,

25

dizziness, malaise, fatigue, nervous, and anxious; prescribed medication for pain and bipolar

26

disorder). AR at 801–11.

27
28

3. Hatfield’s Diagnoses
In addition, Dr. Meckler attached to his RFC assessment (a) a list of diagnoses under
4

1

“Patient Active Problem List” as of October 2011; (b) several MRI and x-ray results from May

2

2010 and earlier; and (c) treatment notes from a doctor at the same medical center who conducted

3

Hatfield’s initial evaluations in July 2011 and October 2011. AR at 999–1032. The list of

4

diagnoses includes degenerated disc disease of the cervical and lumbar spine, enthesopathy of

5

knee and shoulder, Wolff-Parkinson-White syndrome, dysthymic disorder, fibromyalgia, bipolar

6

disorder, and peripheral neuropathy. AR at 1007–08.
4. Hatfield’s MRIs and X-Rays

7
8

The MRI and x-ray results include MRIs of the left and right knees from May 2010 and

9

earlier MRIs and x-rays of the spine, shoulder, and left knee. AR at 1020–32. Specifically, the
left knee MRI in May 2010 revealed a partial tear of the ACL with subchondral cyst formation and

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

full-thickness chondromalacia in the patella, whereas the left knee MRI in April 2007 revealed no

12

meniscal tear and only intermediate grade chondromalacia in the patella. AR at 1020, 1032. The

13

right knee MRI in May 2010 depicted a large subchondral cyst formation with a 1.5 cm

14

osteochondral defect in the medial femoral condyle with underlying complete loss of cartilage,

15

full-thickness chondromalacia in the patella, subchondral 1 cm cyst formation in the lateral tibial

16

plateau, and a loose body in the posterior joint compartment–potentially causing “instability of the

17

knee.” AR at 1023. The record indicates no previous MRI of the right knee. AR at 133–146;

18

1020–32.

19
20

5. Other Treatment Notes Cited by Dr. Meckler
Finally, the treatment notes from the initial evaluations in July 2011 and October 2011

21

indicate “back pain” as the reason for visit, a pain score of 5 (worst) on the Wong Baker Pain

22

Scale, and that “the only areas that seem to be pain-free, or seldom affected by pain, are the

23

anterior chest/torso, groin [and] anterior thighs.” AR at 1007–08. During the examination,

24

Hatfield’s gait was “antalgic bilaterally.” AR at 1012. His symptoms were “remarkable for

25

bilateral knee tenderness [and] crepitance.” AR at 1011. In addition, Hatfield displayed 28 of 36

26

fibromyalgic symptoms–including 11 out of 18 tender points, fatigue, and aggravation with

27

activity and cold or wet weather–and was prescribed medication for fibromyalgia. AR at 1009,

28

1011–12. The notes indicate that Hatfield’s pain severity is “activity dependent” and that walking
5

1

more than 30 feet, standing more than five minutes, and sitting more than ten minutes are among

2

activities that worsen Hatfield’s pain. AR at 1009, 1013.

3

III.

LEGAL STANDARD
This Court has authority to review the Commissioner’s denial of benefits. 42 U.S.C. §

4
5

405(g). This Court will only disturb the denial of benefits if the decision “contains legal error or is

6

not supported by substantial evidence”; otherwise, the Court must affirm the decision. Orn v.

7

Astrue, 495 F.3d 625, 630 (9th Cir. 2007). Substantial evidence is “more than a mere scintilla but

8

not necessarily a preponderance”–it is “reasonable evidence that a reasonable mind might accept

9

as adequate to support the conclusion.” Connett v. Barnhart, 340 F.3d 871, 873 (9th Cir. 2003).
The ALJ can meet this burden by setting out a detailed and thorough summary of the facts and

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

conflicting clinical evidence, stating her interpretation thereof, and making findings. Magallanes,

12

881 F. 2d 747, 751 (9th Cir. 1989). Under this standard, the ALJ’s findings are upheld if

13

“supported by inferences reasonably drawn from the record.” See Batson v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec.

14

Admin., 359 F.3d 1190, 1193 (9th Cir. 2004). Where the record supports more than one rational

15

interpretation, the Court must defer to the ALJ’s decision. Magallanes, 881 F. 2d at 750.

16

IV.

17

ANALYSIS
A.

Standard for Rejecting Dr. Meckler’s Opinion
To reject a treating physician’s uncontroverted opinion, an ALJ must provide “clear and

18
19

convincing reasons” supported by substantial evidence in the record. Bayliss v. Barnhart, 427

20

F.3d 1211, 1216 (9th Cir. 2005). Even if the treating doctor’s opinion is contradicted by another

21

doctor, the ALJ must provide “specific and legitimate reasons” supported by substantial evidence

22

in order to reject the treating physician’s opinion. Lester v. Chater, 81 F.3d 821, 830 (9th Cir.

23

1995).

24

Here, the ALJ rejected Dr. Meckler’s opinion that Hatfield could only sit, stand, and walk

25

for a total of less than four hours per work day and that Hatfield was likely to miss at least three

26

days of work per month. AR at 23. Instead, the ALJ adopted the previous ALJ’s RFC assessment

27

that Hatfield could perform sedentary work (which requires sitting and occasional standing and

28

walking for a total of eight hours a day for five days a week, or the equivalent), provided that
6

1

Hatfield has a moderate concentration deficit, cannot reach over the shoulders, and needs a sit-

2

stand option. AR at 21–22. The previous ALJ’s RFC assessment relied in part on an RFC form

3

completed by an examining physician in December 2009, which stated that Hatfield could sit for

4

seven hours in an eight-hour work day and could stand and walk one hour each in an eight-hour

5

work day. AR at 141. The evaluation was based on a single examination of Hatfield and MRIs of

6

Hatfield’s spine from July 2009 and Hatfield’s left knee from 2002, among other records. AR at

7

820. Because Dr. Meckler evaluated Hatfield more than two years later based on more recent

8

clinical and laboratory findings and the ALJ did not point to any conflicting opinions in rejecting

9

Dr. Meckler’s opinion, Dr. Meckler’s opinion is uncontroverted for the purposes of this review.
See Jacks v. Barnhart, No. C 03-0674 SI, 2004 WL 2200944, at *8 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 15, 2004)

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

(treating physician’s opinion from October 2001 was considered uncontroverted in the record

12

where the only source of conflicting evidence was based on records from 2000).
ALJ’s Reasons for Rejecting Dr. Meckler’s Opinion

13

B.

14

In reviewing the ALJ’s rejection of Dr. Meckler’s opinion, the Court is constrained to

15

review the reasons provided by the ALJ and may not affirm the ALJ on a ground upon which she

16

did not rely. See Garrison v. Colvin, 759 F.3d 995, 1010 (9th Cir. 2014).

17

Here, the ALJ determined that Dr. Meckler’s opinion was entitled to only partial weight

18

because it was “not well-supported by Dr. Meckler’s treatment notes.” AR at 23. First, the ALJ

19

noted that Dr. Meckler “has seen the claimant on only three occasions, for treatment of fatigue,

20

sexual dysfunction, and shoulder pain,” during which he “administered testosterone injections and

21

prescribed pain medications.” AR at 23. Second, the ALJ pointed out that “in January 2012, Dr.

22

Meckler noted that the claimant’s current treatment was improving his daily functioning, and in

23

February 2012, he noted normal psychiatric findings and no complaints of pain.” AR at 23. The

24

ALJ provided no other justification for discounting Dr. Meckler’s opinions.

25

Even though the ALJ did not explicitly say that she rejected Dr. Meckler’s opinion

26

regarding Hatfield’s limited ability to sit and stand, her decision not to incorporate the limitation

27

into her RFC finding amounts to a rejection of the opinion. See Magallanes, 881 F. 2d at 755.

28

Thus, the ALJ must justify her discrediting of Dr. Meckler’s opinion with clear and convincing
7

1

reasons supported by substantial evidence in the record. See Lester, 81 F.3d at 830.
The ALJ Erred in Rejecting Dr. Meckler’s Opinion

2

C.

3

When a treating physician’s opinion is “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical

4

and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with other substantial evidence in

5

[the] case record,” the opinion is entitled to controlling weight. Ghanim v. Colvin, 763 F.3d 1154,

6

1160 (9th Cir. 2014). If the treating physician’s opinion is not entitled to controlling weight, the

7

ALJ must then decide what weight to give the opinion by considering factors such as the length,

8

nature, and extent of the treatment relationship. Orn, 495 F.3d at 632. A physician’s limited

9

patient contact is not by itself a proper basis to reject the physician’s opinion. See Benton v.
Barnhart, 331 F.3d 1030, 1035–36 (9th Cir. 2003); Dervin v. Astrue, 407 F. App'x 154, 157 (9th

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

Cir. 2010) (ALJ erred in rejecting a physician’s opinion on the basis that the physician had seen

12

the claimant only twice).

13

In addition, an ALJ may reject a treating physician’s opinion on the basis that the opinion

14

is contradicted by the physician’s own treatment notes, but identifying a few reports of

15

improvement without further explanation or reference to other treatment records is not substantial

16

evidence of a contradiction. See Garrison, 759 F.3d at 1014 (ALJ erred when she “manufactured

17

a conflict by identifying two or three reports of improvement in Garrison’s mental health and

18

asserting, without reference to any other treatment records or any other explanation, that

19

Anderson’s considered conclusions about Garrison’s overall prognosis merited little weight”);

20

Ghanim, 763 F.3d at 1161; Lester, 81 F.3d at 833.

21

First, with respect to the extent of Dr. Meckler’s involvement in Hatfield’s treatment, the

22

ALJ’s characterization was based on an inaccurate and incomplete reading of the record–it left out

23

appointments and skipped over notes. In the year leading up to the ALJ hearing in August 2012,

24

Dr. Meckler was more involved in Hatfield’s treatment than any other physician in the record. As

25

Hatfield’s primary care physician beginning September 2011, Dr. Meckler did not merely treat

26

Hatfield for “fatigue, sexual dysfunction, and shoulder pain.” AR at 23. The record shows that

27

Dr. Meckler also treated Hatfield for back pain, neck pain, bipolar disorder, fibromyalgia, muscle

28

spasms, esophageal reflux, and migraines. AR at 803–11. Dr. Meckler did not merely
8

“administer testosterone injections and prescribe pain medications.” AR at 23. He prescribed not

2

just medication for Hatfield’s back and joint pain but also for Hatfield’s bipolar disorder,

3

migraines, esophageal reflux, fibromyalgia, and muscle spasms, and ordered an MRI of the lumbar

4

spine in response to Hatfield’s exacerbating symptoms for lower back pain. AR at 803–11. The

5

assertion that “Dr. Meckler has seen the claimant on only three occasions” misstates the record.

6

AR at 23. Dr. Meckler began to oversee Hatfield’s treatment in September 2011. AR at 793.

7

Between October 2011 and March 2012, when Dr. Meckler completed his RFC assessment, Dr.

8

Meckler saw Hatfield about once a month for a total of five office visits. At the time of the ALJ

9

hearing, Dr. Meckler had seen Hatfield at least six times. AR at 803–11. The record is also clear

10

that in forming his RFC assessment, Dr. Meckler relied not only on his own clinical experiences

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

1

with Hatfield, but also on Hatfield’s medical history, MRIs and x-rays, and the treatment notes of

12

other clinicians at the medical center. AR at 793, 1001. Thus, the ALJ’s concern about Dr.

13

Meckler’s lack of basis to make an informed assessment is not supported by the record.

14

But even if Dr. Meckler had seen Hatfield “on only three occasions, for treatment of

15

fatigue, sexual dysfunction, and shoulder pain,” and merely “administered testosterone injections

16

and prescribed pain medications,” a physician’s limited treatment relationship with a patient is not

17

by itself a proper basis to reject the physician’s opinion. See Orn, 495 F.3d at 632 (in the event

18

that substantial evidence in the record contradicts the treating physician’s opinion such that the

19

treating physician is no longer entitled to controlling weight, the ALJ is instructed to consider

20

factors such as the length and extent of the treatment relationship); Benton, 331 F.3d at 1035–36

21

(where doctor who oversaw claimant’s care only saw claimant on one occasion, ALJ could not

22

reject the doctor’s opinion in favor of a non-examining doctor without any additional specific,

23

legitimate reason based on substantial evidence); Dervin v. Astrue, 407 F. App'x at 157 (where

24

physician who was part of a medical group saw claimant only twice, the ALJ erred in rejecting the

25

physician’s opinion on the basis that he saw the claimant only twice). In this case, unless Dr.

26

Meckler’s opinion is not “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory

27

diagnostic techniques” or is “inconsistent with other substantial evidence in [the] case record”

28

such that it is no longer entitled to controlling weight, the nature and extent of the treatment
9

1

relationship cannot be by itself a basis for rejecting Dr. Meckler’s opinion. See Orn, 495 F.3d at

2

632.

3

Here, although the ALJ claimed that Dr. Meckler’s opinion was not well-supported by his
treatment notes, the ALJ failed to state any reason, supported by substantial evidence in the record,

5

that explains how the treatment notes contradict or fail to support the opinion. See Garrison, 759

6

F.3d 995, 1012–13 (9th Cir. 2014) (“an ALJ errs when he rejects a medical opinion or assigns it

7

little weight while doing nothing more than ignoring it, asserting without explanation that another

8

medical opinion is more persuasive, or criticizing it with boilerplate language that fails to offer a

9

substantive basis for his conclusion”); Sprague v. Bowen, 812 F.2d 1226, 1230–31 (9th Cir. 1987)

10

(“We fail to see the significance of the purported inconsistencies, and mere reference to them does

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

4

not satisfy the requirement…that the ALJ set forth ‘specific, legitimate reasons’”). The only

12

reference that the ALJ made to an inconsistency between the treatment notes and the opinion was

13

noting a few reports of improvement. AR at 23 (“In January 2012, Dec. Meckler noted that the

14

claimant’s current treatment was improving his daily functioning, and in February 2012 he noted

15

normal psychiatric findings and no complaints of pain”).

16

First, the ALJ misread one of treatment notes that she pointed out. The treatment note

17

from February 2012 does not indicate a lack of pain, but rather positive symptoms for back pain

18

and joint pain as well as positive symptoms for malaise and fatigue. AR at 804. With respect to

19

the alleged “normal psychiatric findings,” the identical note appears under the psychiatric section

20

of Hatfield’s Physical Exam in every one of Dr. Meckler’s progress notes–even those where Dr.

21

Meckler prescribed medication for bipolar disorder and found that Hatfield was anxious and

22

nervous. See, e.g., AR at 804 (“He has normal mood and affect. His behavior is normal.

23

Judgment and thought content normal”). Thus, in the context of the treatment notes as a whole, it

24

is not reasonable to interpret these notes as a reflection of Hatfield’s lack of mental health needs.

25

See Jacks, 2004 WL 2200944, at *3 (“If Dr. Talcott indicated a finding of no pain on his

26

examination report, but then immediately ordered an x-ray due to pain, this suggests that a

27

typographical or transcription error may have been made on the examination report, since there

28

would be no apparent reason to order an x-ray for an otherwise unremarkable physical exam”).
10

Furthermore, this is a case where the treatment record is plagued with symptoms of

2

physical pain–back pain, joint pain, muscle pain–as well as malaise and mental health needs. Dr.

3

Meckler’s treatment notes consistently reflect positive symptoms for back pain, joint pain,

4

malaise, fibromyalgia and muscle spasms, and the need for bipolar medication, fibromyalgia

5

medication, and pain treatment. AR at 803–11. In particular, Dr. Meckler’s notes reveal that a

6

month after his RFC assessment, Hatfield’s pain intensified. AR at 801 (more back pain than

7

before, increased lower back pain and weakness in the bilateral lower extremities, using a cane

8

more regularly now, constant bilateral arm pain, having difficulty holding objects). Thus, against

9

the backdrop of this treatment record, the two instances identified by the ALJ do not amount to

10

substantial evidence that Dr. Meckler’s treatment notes contradict or fail to support his opinion,

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

1

especially where the ALJ merely points them out and provides no further explanation. See

12

Garrison, 759 F.3d at 1014; Ghanim, 763 F.3d at 1161 (physician’s opinion that claimant was

13

unlikely to be able to work was not contradicted by notes reflecting some bouts of improved mood

14

and energy amid otherwise consistently severe symptoms, and thus ALJ erred in rejecting

15

physician’s opinion on that basis); Lester, 81 F.3d at 833 (“Occasional symptom-free periods–and

16

even the sporadic ability to work–are not inconsistent with disability,” finding that a period of

17

positive response to treatment is not inconsistent with disability, especially where later notes

18

indicated difficulty walking and need for stronger treatment).

19

Unlike in Bayliss and Rollins, two cases that the Commissioner cites to, Dr. Meckler’s

20

opinion was not contradicted by his own treatment notes. In Bayliss, the ALJ rejected the treating

21

physician’s assessment that Bayliss could stand or walk for only fifteen minutes at a time, but the

22

physician’s clinical notes, taken on the same day, “contradict[ed]” the assessment. Bayliss, 427

23

F.3d at 1216 (affirming ALJ’s rejection of treating physician). In Rollins, the doctor deemed that

24

Rollins was disabled, but on the same day, the doctor noted that Rollins had improved since the

25

previous examination, and the findings at that previous examination indicated that Rollins was not

26

disabled. Rollins, 261 F.3d at 856 (affirming ALJ’s rejection of treating physician). Here, the fact

27

that Hatfield’s treatment was “improving daily function” in January 2012 does not contradict Dr.

28

Meckler’s opinion regarding Hatfield’s limited ability to sit, stand, and walk: Hatfield can
11

1

improve in daily functioning and still not be able to sit, stand, and walk for four hours per day,

2

especially given that on the same visit, he was prescribed hydrocodone-acetaminophen to be taken

3

every four to six hours for his intervertebral disc protrusion. AR at 807.

4
5

Given that none of the ALJ’s reasons for rejecting Dr. Meckler’s opinion was supported by
substantial evidence in the record, ALJ erred in rejecting Dr. Meckler’s opinion.
Remedy for Improper Rejection of Dr. Meckler’s Opinion

6

D.

7

The appropriate remedy for the improper rejection of Dr. Meckler’s opinion is to credit the

8

opinion as true and remand for award of benefits. See Ha Ngoc Nguyen v. Colvin, No. C-12-

9

01158 JCS, 2013 WL 4505253, at *16 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 13, 2013) (crediting doctor’s opinion as
true and remanding for award of benefits where the ALJ improperly rejected the doctor’s opinion

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

that claimant could not stand or walk for more than four hours in a work day and a vocational

12

expert testified that a person with claimant’s limitations who also could not stand or walk for more

13

than four hours per work day could not perform any job); Jacks, 2004 WL 2200944, at *9

14

(crediting physician’s opinion as true and remanding for payment of benefits where the ALJ

15

improperly rejected the physician’s opinion that claimant could stand, walk, and sit for less than

16

four hours a day total).

17

Here, finding that there was no “changed circumstances” with regard to the claimant’s

18

residual functional capacity, the ALJ adopted the previous ALJ’s RFC assessment. AR at 22; see

19

Lester, 81 F.3d at 827–28 (an ALJ may apply res judicata to a period subsequent to a prior

20

determination only if there are no “changed circumstances,” such as an increase in the severity of

21

the claimant’s impairments or a new impairment not considered in the previous application). But

22

the finding of no changed circumstances was premised on an error–discrediting Dr. Meckler’s

23

opinion. Had the ALJ credited Dr. Meckler’s opinion that Hatfield could only sit, stand, and walk

24

for a total of less than four hours in a work day, there would have been changed circumstances in

25

Hatfield’s RFC because with the capacity to sit, stand, and walk a total of less than four hours in a

26

work day, Hatfield would not be able to perform sedentary work. AR at 141 (previous ALJ found

27

that Hatfield could perform “sedentary work,” relying in part on an examining physician’s RFC

28

form indicating that Hatfield could sit for a total of seven hours in a perk day and could stand and
12

walk one hour each in a work day); Jacks, 2004 WL 2200944, at *8 (under SSR 96–8p, sedentary

2

work requires the ability to sit and occasionally stand and walk for a total of eight hours a day for

3

five days a week, or the equivalent). Had the ALJ credited Dr. Meckler’s opinion, Hatfield would

4

not have had the RFC to perform any work and would thus be disabled under 20 C.F.R. §

5

404.1520(a)(4)(v): Dr. Meckler’s opinion describes an individual who can work less than four

6

hours total in an eight-hour work day, and the vocational expert testified that there would be no

7

work available even for an individual who would only be off task 20 percent of the time in an

8

eight-hour work day. AR at 63 (vocational expert’s testimony that even being “off task 20 percent

9

of the time” is “too much time off from the work environment, that could not be performed”);

10

Jacks, 2004 WL 2200944, at *8; see also Cash v. Astrue, No. EDCV 09-1150 CW, 2010 WL

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

1

2888973, at *5 (C.D. Cal. July 20, 2010) (a claimant who is likely to miss three or more days of

12

work per month is unable to work and therefore disabled, even absent specific vocational expert

13

testimony).

14

Given that the ALJ failed to provide legally sufficient reasons for rejecting Dr. Meckler’s

15

opinion, that the record has been fully developed such that administrative proceedings would serve

16

no useful purpose, that the ALJ would be required to find Hatfield disabled upon crediting Dr.

17

Meckler’s opinion as true, and that the record discloses no reason to seriously doubt that Hatfield

18

is disabled, it is appropriate to remand for award of benefits. See Garrison, 759 F.3d at 1020.

19

Unlike in Treichler, where the record contained “significant factual conflicts” and “ambiguities,”

20

here there is no need to further develop the record, and the Court’s review of the record reveals no

21

significant factual conflicts or ambiguities. See Treichler v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 775 F.3d

22

1090, 1105 (9th Cir. 2014) (district court did not abuse its discretion in remanding for further

23

proceedings). Unlike Burrell, where the record created “serious doubt” regarding whether the

24

claimant was in fact disabled, the Court’s review of this record reveals no reasons to seriously

25

doubt that Hatfield is disabled. See Burrell v. Colvin, 775 F.3d 1133, 1141 (9th Cir. 2014)

26

(remanding for further proceedings after finding that the ALJ erred in finding claimant’s

27

statements not credible and rejecting treating physician’s opinion). The Commissioner also fails

28

to point to any specific evidence in the record that casts serious doubt onto Hatfield’s disability
13

1

claim. See Def.’s Mot. at 10; Garrison, 759 F.3d at 1022 (noting that the Commissioner did not

2

point to anything in the record that cast serious doubt onto claimant’s disability claim).

3

Accordingly, the Court credits Dr. Meckler’s opinion as true and remands the case for award of

4

benefits.

5

E.

6

It is not necessary to address Hatfield’s remaining arguments about the various changed

Remaining Arguments

7

circumstances that the ALJ failed to take into account. Dr. Meckler’s opinion, credited as true, is

8

by itself sufficient evidence of changed circumstances warranting remand for award of benefits.

9

The Court notes, however, that the ALJ’s decision contains no indication that she saw or took into
account the new evidence of degeneration in Hatfield’s right knee or the evidence of increased

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

degeneration in Hatfield’s left knee. See AR at 22 (ALJ finding “no evidence that the claimant

12

obtained an MRI as requested [by Dr. Henderson in April 2010] to evaluate allegedly worsening

13

knee pain); AR at 1020–24, 1032 (MRIs of (1) right and left knees, May 2010; and (2) left knee,

14

April 2007). The ALJ found that the various diagnoses of bipolar since the previous ALJ’s

15

decision did not establish changed circumstances given that the previous ALJ considered similar

16

symptoms. AR at 20. However, the ALJ did not discuss the new evidence of hallucinations (AR

17

at 527, 574) or new evidence of treatment for Hatfield’s bipolar diagnosis (AR 803–11). Finally,

18

the ALJ discounted the new evidence of fibromyalgia, determining that it only appeared in

19

Hatfield’s July 2011 and October 2011 treatment notes and that Hatfield’s “defensive” and

20

“childlike” toleration to the exam rendered the clinical findings of fibromyalgia invalid. AR at 21.

21

However, the ALJ did not seem to see the subsequent treatment notes in the record (incidentally

22

Dr. Meckler’s) showing that Hatfield continued to experience symptoms of fibromyalgia and even

23

required medication for it. AR at 801, 805, 807, 810. Furthermore, the ALJ’s conclusion that

24

Hatfield’s defensive or childlike toleration of an exam undermined the clinical findings of his

25

fibromyalgia finds no support in the record.

26

V.

27
28

CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED and

Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED. The Court REVERSES the
14

1

Commissioner’s decision and REMANDS the case for award of benefits. The clerk is instructed

2

to enter judgment in favor of Plaintiff Michael Hatfield.

3
4
5
6

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: July 6, 2015
______________________________________
JOSEPH C. SPERO
Chief Magistrate Judge

7
8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

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