Simmons v. Colvin

Filing 27

Order by Judge James Donato re 21 Motion for Summary Judgment. (jdlc1S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/2/2018)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

SANDY ELISHA SIMMONS,
Plaintiff,

8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

Case No.16-cv-01531-JD
ORDER RE SUMMARY JUDGMENT

v.

Re: Dkt. No. 21
CAROLYN W. COLVIN,
Defendant.
Plaintiff Simmons challenges a decision by an administrative law judge (“ALJ”) at the

13

Social Security Administration (“SSA”) denying his application for supplemental security income

14

based on physical and mental disabilities. The parties have filed cross-motions for summary

15

judgment. Dkt. Nos. 21, 26. Plaintiff’s motion is granted in part to remand the case to the SSA

16

for further proceedings consistent with this order. Defendant’s motion is denied.

17

The administrative record in this case raises two serious concerns that require further

18

consideration by the SSA. One of the concerns involves Dr. Frank Chen, who conducted a

19

consultative examination of Simmons. The ALJ relied on and gave weight to Dr. Chen’s opinions

20

in finding against disability. See, e.g., AR 19, 21. But the California Department of Social

21

Services removed Dr. Chen from doing consultative exams due to poor quality of work,

22

unprofessional conduct with patients, and other serious faults. AR 292. Dr. Chen was disqualified

23

in December 2013, a fact that Simmons brought to the ALJ’s attention in an October 2014 letter

24

with a request that the ALJ should not give weight to Dr. Chen’s report. AR 290.

25

The ALJ filed his decision one month after Simmons’s letter. AR 24. Surprisingly, the

26

ALJ made no mention whatsoever of Dr. Chen’s disqualification. To the contrary, he largely

27

embraced Dr. Chen’s report along the way to denying Simmons’s application. That is an

28

inherently unsound approach to adjudicating disputed disability issues. While it may be that some

1

good reason exists for taking into account the opinions of a disqualified doctor, the ALJ at a

2

minimum should articulate those reasons and provide a clear indication of why they should be

3

deemed acceptable and given any weight at all. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(f). That did not happen

4

here. Because the ALJ’s decision expressly relied upon Dr. Chen’s work, the error is not harmless

5

and the evidence needs to be reconsidered in light of these concerns. Burch v. Barnhart, 400 F.3d

6

676, 679 (9th Cir. 2005).

7

The second problem involves the neglect of a prior SSA determination that was favorable

8

to Simmons. In 2010, another ALJ found that Simmons was disabled as of October 2008, and

9

entered a decision “fully favorable to the claimant.” AR 80. The 2014 decision at issue here
glosses over this potentially significant finding. It makes a single passing reference to the 2010

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

decision with no discussion whatsoever of its import or effect on Simmons’s current application.

12

AR 14. It is again possible that there are good reasons for ignoring the substance of the 2010

13

decision, but the ALJ should have stated them and not proceeded in 2014 as if the prior favorable

14

decision had never happened. At a minimum, the Court would expect the ALJ to say why the

15

2010 analysis of Simmons’s condition was not a relevant data point or persuasive. Even if the

16

periods of disability might be different in the 2010 and 2014 applications, Simmons’s physical and

17

mental-health claims appear to have been consistent over time, and the ALJ should have said why

18

he departed from the 2010 decision.

19

Consequently, the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this order.

20

IT IS SO ORDERED.

21

Dated: July 2, 2018

22
23
JAMES DONATO
United States District Judge

24
25
26
27
28
2