Robleto v. Commissioner of Social Security

Filing 25

ORDER by Judge James Donato re 19 , 20 Motions for Summary Judgment. (jdlc1S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/20/2016) Modified on 7/20/2016 (hdjS, COURT STAFF).

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

MARIELA ELIZABETH ROBLETO,
Plaintiff,

8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

Case No. 15-cv-01019-JD
ORDER RE SUMMARY JUDGMENT

v.

Re: Dkt. Nos. 19, 20
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL
SECURITY,
Defendant.

12
13

Plaintiff Mariela Elizabeth Robleto challenges the decision of a Social Security

14

Administration Administrative Law Judge that denied her disability benefits under Title II and

15

Title XVI. Dkt. No. 19. The Commissioner of Social Security (“Commissioner”) filed a cross-

16

motion for summary judgment to uphold the ALJ’s determination. Dkt. No. 20. The Court held

17

oral argument on July 20, 2016, and grants Robleto’s motion for summary judgment and denies

18

the Commissioner’s cross motion. The case is remanded to the Social Security Administration for

19

further proceedings consistent with this order.

20

In a decision dated September 20, 2013, the ALJ found that Robleto established multiple

21

“severe physical and mental impairments,” including an “anxiety disorder; bipolar affective

22

disorder (BAD); borderline intellectual functioning; hypothyroidism; and back strain” that limit

23

“her capacity to perform basic work activities.” AR at 16. The ALJ determined that Robleto “is

24

unable to perform any past relevant work,” AR at 24, but denied benefits based on her

25

determination that Robleto had the residual functional capacity (“RFC”) to perform a subset of

26

unskilled light work, such as mail clerk or garment sorter. AR at 25.

27
28

In our Circuit, an ALJ’s decision to deny benefits “will only be disturbed if it is not
supported by substantial evidence or it is based on legal error” and the “decision of the ALJ will

1

not be reversed for errors that are harmless.” Burch v. Barnhart, 400 F.3d 676, 679 (9th Cir.

2

2005) (internal quotations omitted). The ALJ’s decision in this case suffers from two legal errors

3

that are not harmless.

4

As an initial matter, the ALJ did not explain with sufficient detail or evidence why she

5

decided to give “no weight” to the medical opinions stated in a mental impairment questionnaire

6

prepared in August 2013 by Robleto’s treating physician, Dr. Gilda Major, M.D., a psychiatrist,

7

and her therapist, Diana Gomez, MSW. AR at 22. An ALJ is not bound by the opinion of any

8

physician, including a treating physician, but at the same time, an ALJ may not reject the

9

uncontradicted opinion of a treating physician like Dr. Major without providing clear and
convincing reasons explaining why. See Turner v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 613 F.3d 1217, 1222 (9th

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

Cir. 2010). The ALJ failed to meet this standard when rejecting Dr. Major’s professional

12

opinions.

13

The ALJ chose to ignore Dr. Major’s opinions only because she found them to be

14

“internally inconsistent” with Robleto’s assessed Global Assessment of Functioning (GAF) score

15

of 55. AR at 22. The ALJ treated the score as indicating just “moderate” symptoms and

16

difficulties, and so rejected the treating psychiatrist’s determination that Robleto’s ability to work

17

would be seriously compromised by “markedly limited” social functioning, “frequent deficiencies

18

in concentration, persistence, and pace that would result in failure to complete tasks in a timely

19

manner,” “repeated episodes of decompensation in work environment,” and likely absenteeism

20

“more than three times per month.” Id.; see also AR at 516. This conclusory treatment of the

21

GAF score is not a “clear and convincing reason” for throwing out all of Dr. Major’s medical

22

judgments. The Ninth Circuit has clearly indicated that a GAF score should not be dispositive of a

23

claimant’s functional abilities, especially when assessed for a claimant with mental disorders at a

24

time when they are not working. See Graham v. Astrue, 385 F. App’x 704, 706 (9th Cir. 2010)

25

(quoting Social Security Ruling 85-15 (1985), in stating that “‘Individuals with mental disorders’

26

may adopt ‘a highly restricted ... lifestyle within which they appear to function well,’ but ‘may

27

cease to function effectively when facing such demands as getting to work regularly, having their

28

performance supervised, and remaining in the workplace for a full day.’”) Dr. Major’s opinions
2

1

reflect this concept, noting that Robleto’s baseline assessment was being made “without stress of

2

work.” AR at 514. Dr. Major cautioned that, although “Patient may present well on mental status

3

exam,” Robleto’s current functioning depended heavily on external and family support, and her

4

ability to work would likely be undermined by her mental health impairments and “[l]ow tolerance

5

for stress.” AR at 514-16.

6

Consequently, the Court finds that the ALJ was wrong to dismiss Dr. Major’s opinions in
their entirety without clear and convincing reasons. This finding applies even if some factual

8

contradictions might lower the reviewing standard to “specific and legitimate reasons that are

9

supported by substantial evidence.” Chaudhry v. Astrue, 688 F.3d 661, 671 (9th Cir. 2012)

10

(internal quotation omitted). This lighter standard might be satisfied if the ALJ “set[s] out a

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

7

detailed and thorough summary of the facts and conflicting clinical evidence, stating [her]

12

interpretation thereof, and making findings.” Thomas v. Barnhart, 278 F.3d 947, 957 (9th Cir.

13

2002) (internal quotation omitted). But the ALJ did not do even that.

14

The Court also finds error in the ALJ’s reliance on the opinion of independent psychiatric

15

expert Ashok Khushalani, M.D., who did not treat or examine Robleto. The ALJ inexplicably

16

gave “great weight” to Dr. Khushalani’s opinion even though he had failed to read significant and

17

highly material portions of the claimant’s medical records prior to the hearing, was initially

18

excused from the hearing by the ALJ for that lack of preparation, and then called back in to testify

19

after spending what appears to have been no more than several minutes purportedly reviewing and

20

digesting approximately 80 pages of medical records. AR at 22, 35-39. The ALJ relied heavily

21

on Dr. Khushalani’s opinion that Robleto’s condition had been stabilized by medication to a

22

degree that she could successfully perform work consisting of “simple repetitive tasks with

23

occasional public interaction.” See AR at 22, 40-43. That reliance is not justified by the hasty and

24

superficial record assessment performed by Dr. Khushalani, and the ALJ erred in crediting his

25

opinions over those of the treating professionals. See Garrison v. Colvin, 759 F.3d 995, 1012-13

26

(9th Cir. 2014).

27
28

These errors are not harmless. The ALJ’s determination that appropriate jobs for Robleto
existed in the national economy depended on the improper rejection of Dr. Major’s assessments of
3

1

Robleto’s “frequent deficiencies in concentration, persistence, and pace.” See AR at 22. The ALJ

2

acknowledged that if Robleto had even a “20% deficit in maintaining concentration, persistence

3

and pace,” she “would not be able to perform any jobs” at all. Id. at 25. Her finding that Robleto

4

would not manifest this deficiency was based entirely on her embrace of Dr. Khushalani’s

5

slapdash conclusions. See id. at 22, 25.

6

The Court remands the case to the Social Security Administration for further proceedings

7

to determine Robleto’s eligibility for benefits in a manner consistent with this order. Because the

8

Court has found two separate and independent bases for remand, the Court declines to reach

9

plaintiff’s other arguments of error in the ALJ’s decision.

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: July 20, 2016

12
13
JAMES DONATO
United States District Judge

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4