Katie Morrison v. Commissioner of Social Security

Filing 22

ORDER REMANDING CASE TO THE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE; granting 19 Motion for Summary Judgment by Judge Nathanael Cousins. (nclc3S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/22/2016)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
KATIE MORRISON,

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

Plaintiff,
v.

12
13
14

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL
SECURITY,

Case No. 15-cv-05794 NC
ORDER REMANDING CASE TO
THE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
JUDGE
Dkt. Nos. 19, 20

Defendant.
15
Claimant Katie Morrison appeals the ALJ’s finding that she is not disabled. The

16
17

Court finds that the ALJ erred in rejecting the opinion of Morrison’s treating physician

18

because his notes were illegible. Thus, the Court GRANTS Morrison’s motion for

19

summary judgment, DENIES the Commissioner’s motion, and ORDERS the case

20

remanded to the Social Security Administration for further fact finding.

21

I.

22

BACKGROUND
Claimant Katie Morrison applied for Social Security disability benefits on August 7,

23

2012, and Supplemental Security Income Disability benefits on February 7, 2012. A.R.

24

123-137. She alleges disability based on severe mental impairments of major depressive

25

disorder, panic disorder, and anxiety. After her application was denied, a hearing was held

26

before an Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) on January 16, 2014.

27
28

At Step 1, the ALJ found that Morrison was not engaging in substantial gainful
activity. A.R. 22. At Step 2, the ALJ found that Morrison did not have a severe
Case No. 15-cv-05794-NC

1

impairment. A.R. 23. The ALJ concluded that Morrison’s medically determinable

2

impairments could reasonably be expected to produce Morrison’s symptoms, but found

3

Morrison’s statements concerning the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects were not

4

entirely credible. A.R. 24.
The ALJ then concluded that Morrison has the residual function capacity to perform

6

medium work, except Morrison is limited to performing simple, routine tasks. A.R. 28. In

7

coming to this conclusion, the ALJ discounted the opinion of Morrison’s long time treating

8

physician, Dr. Dennis St. Peter. A.R. 32. Dr. St. Peter opined that Morrison had serious

9

limitations in social or occupational functioning and that she would miss more than four

10

days of work per month. A.R. 32. The ALJ gave little weight to this testimony “because

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

5

the record does not contain any legible treatment records to support it.” A.R. 32.
Morrison appealed the ALJ’s decision in the district court and moved for summary

12
13

judgment or remand. Dkt. No. 19. The Commissioner also moved for summary judgment.

14

Dkt. No. 20. All parties have consented to the jurisdiction of a magistrate judge. Dkt.

15

Nos. 7, 9.

16

II.

17

LEGAL STANDARD
A district court has the “power to enter, upon the pleadings and transcript of the

18

record, a judgment affirming, modifying, or reversing the decision of the Commissioner of

19

Social Security, with or without remanding the case for a rehearing.” 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).

20

The decision of the Commissioner should only be disturbed if it is not supported by

21

substantial evidence or if it is based on legal error. Burch v. Barnhart, 400 F.3d 676, 679

22

(9th Cir. 2005). Substantial evidence is evidence that a reasonable mind would accept as

23

adequate to support the conclusion. Bayliss v. Barnhart, 427 F.3d 1211, 1214 n.1 (9th Cir.

24

2005) (“[It] is more than a mere scintilla but less than a preponderance.”). Where evidence

25

is susceptible to more than one rational interpretation, the ALJ’s decision should be

26

upheld. Andrews v. Shalala, 53 F.3d 1035, 1039-40 (9th Cir.1995).

27
28
Case No.15-cv-05794-NC

2

1
2

III. DISCUSSION
Morrison argues that the ALJ failed to properly evaluate and credit Dr. St. Peter’s

3

testimony. Morrison argues that the ALJ had a duty to contact Dr. St. Peter for

4

clarification if his notes were illegible.

5

Dr. St. Peter is Morrison’s treating physician since 2005, and he provided notes and

6

opinions from 2008 to 2012. An ALJ must provide “specific and legitimate” reasons for

7

rejecting the opinion of a treating physician. Tommasetti v. Astrue, 533 F.3d 1035, 1041

8

(9th Cir. 2008). “The ALJ can meet this burden by setting out a detailed and thorough

9

summary of the facts and conflicting clinical evidence, stating his interpretation thereof,

10

and making findings.” Magallanes v. Bowen, 881 F.2d 747, 751 (9th Cir. 1989).

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

“In Social Security cases the ALJ has a special duty to fully and fairly develop the

12

record and to assure that the claimant’s interests are considered.” Brown v. Heckler, 713

13

F.2d 441, 443 (9th Cir. 1983). If the ALJ needed further information to evaluate the

14

opinion of a physician, “he had a duty to conduct an appropriate inquiry, for example, by

15

subpoenaing the physicians or submitting further questions to them.” Smolen v. Chater,

16

80 F.3d 1273, 1288 (9th Cir. 1996). “The duty is triggered by ambiguous or inadequate

17

evidence in the record; a specific finding of ambiguity or inadequacy by the ALJ is not

18

necessary.” Byrne v. Colvin, No. 13-cv-04720 JCS, 2015 WL 2062621, at *5 (N.D. Cal.

19

May 4, 2015) (citing McLeod v. Astrue, 640 F.3d 881, 885 (9th Cir. 2011)).

20

The Court finds that the ALJ did not provide specific and legitimate reasons for

21

rejecting Dr. St. Peter’s opinion. The ALJ gave little weight to Dr. St. Peter’s testimony

22

“because the record does not contain any legible treatment records to support it.” A.R. 32.

23

The Court concludes that this is not a legitimate reason for rejecting the testimony. If the

24

ALJ could not read Dr. St. Peter’s notes, the ALJ had a duty to conduct an appropriate

25

inquiry.

26

In addition, the ALJ’s reasoning for rejecting Dr. St. Peter’s opinion is not specific.

27

The ALJ has not identified which notes he found legible and considered in forming his

28

opinion, and which notes he disregarded because they were illegible. Thus, the Court
Case No.15-cv-05794-NC
3

1

cannot review the ALJ’s opinion because it is impossible to know how the ALJ came to his

2

assessment of Dr. St. Peter’s credibility.

3

Thus, the Court GRANTS Morrison’s motion for summary judgment and finds that

4

remand is appropriate.

5

IV. CONCLUSION

6

The Court finds that the ALJ committed an error in failing to fully consider Dr. St.

7

Peter’s testimony. Thus, the Court REMANDS the case to the Social Security

8

Administration for further consideration of Dr. St. Peter’s opinion. If the ALJ is unable to

9

read Dr. St. Peter’s notes, the ALJ should seek to obtain legible and useful testimony from

10

Morrison’s treating physician.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

IT IS SO ORDERED.

13
14

Dated: November 22, 2016

_____________________________________
NATHANAEL M. COUSINS
United States Magistrate Judge

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Case No.15-cv-05794-NC

4