Farley v. Colvin

Filing 20

ORDER requesting supplemental briefing. Signed by Judge Chhabria on 10/28/2016. (vclc3S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/28/2016)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DENNIS FRANCIS FARLEY,

Case No. 16-cv-00656-VC

Plaintiff,
ORDER REQUESTING
SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING

v.
CAROLINE COLVIN,
Defendant.

Having reviewed the parties' cross-motions for summary judgment, the Court intends to
raise several issues sua sponte. See Sims v. Apfel, 530 U.S. 103, 112 (2000). The defendant is
therefore ordered to file a supplemental brief addressing the following by no later than
Wednesday, November 2, 2016, at 10:00 a.m.:
1. Whether the ALJ erred in failing to evaluate Farley under step three for a listed disability of
nonconvulsive epilepsy (11.03). See A.R. 78-79; A.R. Ex. 19F, 20F, 26F.
2. Whether the ALJ erred in describing Farley's seizures as occurring only once every two to
three weeks, despite Dr. Gansaeuer's conclusion that they occurred more frequently than
Farley had self-reported. See A.R. Ex. 19F, 20F.
3. Whether the ALJ erred in according "little weight" to Dr. Gansaeuer's conclusion that
Farley's epilepsy didn't allow him to work – a decision the ALJ appears to have made after
misquoting Dr. Gansaeuer's March 2012 notes. See A.R. Ex. 20F.
4. Whether the ALJ erred in interpreting Dr. Gansaeuer's December 2011 report as supporting
Farley's residual ability to work, despite the report's apparent consistency with Dr.
Gansaeuer's note in March 2012 that Farley was incapable of work of any kind. See A.R. Ex.

19F, 20F.
5. Whether the ALJ erred in according "little weight" to Dr. Adornato's medical report based on
its inconsistency with "the evidence of record," despite its apparent similarity to Dr.
Gansaeuer's reports. Compare A.R. Ex. 26F with A.R. Ex. 19F, 20F.
6. Whether the ALJ erred in according "little weight" to Dr. Forman's evaluation and
discounting the possibility of deterioration or decompensation, despite the evaluation's
apparent consistency with Farley's postictal symptoms. See A.R. Ex. 17F.
7. Whether the ALJ erred in treating Dr. Golon's testimony as inconsistent and therefore
entitled to "little weight," apparently based on Dr. Golon's conclusion that Farley met the
B criteria in August 2011 and not March 2011. See A.R. 37, 76-77; A.R. Ex. 8F, 17F.
8. Whether the ALJ erred in according "little weight" to Dr. Dixit's evaluation despite its
apparent consistency with other evaluations and medical notes. See A.R. Ex. 21F.
9. Whether the ALJ adequately supported his conclusion that Farley had exaggerated his
symptoms and that Farley's limited daily activities were a "lifestyle choice." A.R. 23.
The defendant's supplemental brief should also address whether an immediate award
would be appropriate, rather than a remand for reconsideration, if the Court concludes any of
these errors have occurred.
Additional briefing from Farley's counsel is not required.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: October 28, 2016
______________________________________
VINCE CHHABRIA
United States District Judge

2